United States Department of Agriculture

NORTHWEST

FOREST PLAN

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land 

Management Within the Northwest 

Forest Plan Area

Volume 3

Forest 

Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-966 Vol. 3

June

2018
Cover photos: Left: Inner City Youth Institute, High School Natural Resources Camp, 

Multnomah Falls, Oregon; photo by USDA Forest Service. Upper middle: roasting salmon 

over an open fire; photo by Jon Ivy, Coquille Indian Tribe. Lower middle: backcountry 

skiing on the Willamette National Forest; photo by Emily Jane Davis. Right: a field tour 

with the Lakeview Forest Landscape Collaborative in the Fremont-Winema National Forest; 

photo by Tom Spies, USDA Forest Service.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and 

institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating 

based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income 

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior 

civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases 

apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, 

program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination 

Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html 

and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the 

information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. 

Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Technical Coordinators

Thomas A. Spies is a senior scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Peter 

A. Stine is research program manager and biogeographer (retired), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, and is a research associate, John Muir Institute for the Environment, University of California–Davis, 1 Shields 

Avenue, Davis, CA 95616; Rebecca Gravenmier is a science coordinator, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, 

Portland, OR 97204; Jonathan W. Long is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Drive, Davis, CA 

95618; and Matthew J. Reilly is a postdoctoral researcher, Humboldt State University, 

Department of Biological Sciences, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521;
Synthesis of Science to Inform 

Land Management Within the 

Northwest Forest Plan Area

Volume 3

Thomas A. Spies, Peter A. Stine, Rebecca Gravenmier, 

Jonathan W. Long, and Matthew J. Reilly, Technical Coordinators

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-966 Vol. 3

June 2018
Abstract 

Spies, T.A.; Stine, P.A.; Gravenmier, R.; Long, J.W.; Reilly, M.J., tech. coords. 2018.

Synthesis of science to inform land management within the Northwest Forest Plan area. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-966. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 1020 p. 3 vol.

The 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) was developed to resolve debates over oldgrowth forests, endangered species, and timber production on federal forests in the range 

of the northern spotted owl. This three-volume science synthesis, which consists of 12 

chapters that address various ecological and social concerns, is intended to inform forest 

plan revision and forest management within the NWFP area. Land managers with the U.S. 

Forest Service provided questions that helped guide preparation of the synthesis, which 

builds on the 10-, 15-, and 20-year NWFP monitoring reports and synthesizes the vast 

body of relevant scientific literature that has accumulated in the 24 years since the NWFP 

was initiated. It identifies scientific findings, lessons learned, and uncertainties and also 

evaluates competing science and provides considerations for management. 

This synthesis finds that the NWFP has protected dense old-growth forests and 

maintained habitat for northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, aquatic organisms, and 

other species despite losses from wildfire and low levels of timber harvest on federal lands. 

Even with reductions in the loss of older forests, northern spotted owl populations continue 

to decline. Moreover, a number of other goals have not been met, including producing a 

sustainable supply of timber, decommissioning roads, biodiversity monitoring, significant 

levels of restoration of riparian and dry forests, and adaptation and learning through 

adaptive management. 

New conservation concerns have arisen, including a major threat to spotted owl 

populations from expanding populations of the nonnative barred owl, effects of fire 

suppression on forest succession, fire behavior in dry forests, and lack of development of 

diverse early-seral vegetation as a result of fire suppression in drier parts of moist forests. 

Climate change and invasive species have emerged as threats to native biodiversity, and 

expansion of the wildland-urban interface has limited the ability of managers to restore fire 

to fire-dependent ecosystems. 

The policy, social, and ecological contexts for the NWFP have changed since it was 

implemented. The contribution of federal lands continues to be essential to the conservation 

and recovery of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act and northern spotted owl 

and marbled murrelet populations. Conservation on federal lands alone, however, is likely 

insufficient to reach the goals of the NWFP or the newer goals of the 2012 planning rule, 

which emphasizes managing for ecosystem goals (e.g. ecological resilience) and a few 

species of concern, rather than the population viability of hundreds of individual species. 
The social and economic basis of many traditionally forest-dependent communities 

have changed in 24 years, and many are now focused on amenity values. The capacities 

of human communities and federal agencies, collaboration among stakeholders, the 

interdependence of restoration and the timber economy, and the role of amenity- or recreation-based communities and ecosystem services are important considerations in managing 

for ecological resilience, biodiversity conservation, and social and economic sustainability. 

A growing body of scientific evidence supports the importance of active management 

or restoration inside and outside reserves to promote biodiversity and ecological resilience. 

Active management to promote heterogeneity of vegetation conditions is important to 

sustaining tribal ecocultural resources. Declines in agency capacity, lack of markets for 

small-diameter wood, lack of wood processing infrastructure in some areas, and lack of 

social agreement have limited the amount of active management for restoration on federal 

lands. All management choices involve social and ecological tradeoffs related to the goals 

of the NWFP. Collaboration, risk management, adaptive management, and monitoring are 

considered the best ways to deal with complex social and ecological systems with futures 

that are difficult to predict and affect through policy and land management actions.

Keywords: Northwest Forest Plan, science, management, restoration, northern spotted 

owl, marbled murrelet, climate change, socioeconomic, environmental justice.
Preface

In 2015, regional foresters in the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest Regions of the 

USDA Forest Service requested that the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest Research 

Stations prepare a science synthesis to inform revision of existing forest plans under the 

2012 planning rule in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan). Managers 

provided an initial list of hundreds of questions to the science team, which reduced to them 

to 73 questions deemed most feasible for addressing through a study of current scientific literature. The stations assembled a team of 50 scientists with expertise in biological, ecological, and socioeconomic disciplines. At the suggestion of stakeholders, a literature reference 

database was placed online so the public could submit additional scientific literature for 

consideration. By spring 2016, writing was underway on 12 chapters that covered ecological and social sciences. 

The draft synthesis, which was ready for peer and public review by fall 2016, went 

through a special review process because it was classified as “highly influential science” in 

accordance with the Office of Management and Budget’s 2004 “Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review.” The synthesis was classified as such because it fit the category of 

a scientific assessment that is novel, controversial, or precedent-setting, or has significant 

interagency interest. Per the bulletin, the two research stations commissioned an independent entity, the Ecological Society of America (ESA), to manage the peer-review process, 

including the selection of peer reviewers. 

The bulletin also stipulates that such an assessment be made available to the public 

through a public meeting to enable the public to bring scientific issues to the attention of 

peer reviewers. Accordingly, a public forum was held in Portland, Oregon, in December 

2016. For those who could not travel to Portland, the forum was accessible via live Web 

stream, and multiple national forests within the NWFP area hosted remote viewing. Written 

comments on the draft synthesis were collected for 2 months. This generated 130 public 

comments, totaling 890 pages, which were given to the peer reviewers for consideration 

in their review, as they deemed appropriate. The OMB guidelines further direct that the 

peer-review process be transparent by making available to the public the ESA’s written 

guidance to the reviewers, the peer reviewer’s names, the peer review reports, and the 

responses of the authors to the peer reviewer comments—all of which are available at 

https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/science-synthesis/index.shtml. 

The peer reviewer comments, which were received in spring 2017 and informed by 

public input, resulted in substantive revisions to chapters of the synthesis. The result is this 

three-volume general technical report (an executive summary of the synthesis is available 

as a separate report). This document is intended to support upcoming management planning on all public lands in the Plan area, but is expected to serve primarily lands managed 

by the U.S. Forest Service. We hope it will be a valuable reference for managers and others 

who seek to understand the scientific basis and possible tradeoffs associated with forest 

plan revision and management decisions. The synthesis also provides an extensive list of 

published sources where readers can find further information.
We understand that the term “synthesis” can have many different meanings. For our 

purposes, it represents a compilation and interpretation of relevant scientific findings that 

pertain to key issues related to the NWFP that were identified by managers and by the 

authors of the document. Such a compilation not only summarizes science by topic areas 

but also interprets that science in light of management goals, characterizes competing 

science, and makes connections across scientific areas, addressing multilayered and interacting ecological and socioeconomic issues. In a few cases, simple analyses of existing data 

were conducted and methods were provided to reviewers. 

The synthesis builds upon the 10-, 15-, and 20-year NWFP monitoring reports, and 

authors considered well over 4,000 peer-reviewed publications based on their knowledge 

as well as publications submitted by the public and others suggested by peer reviewers. For 

some of the questions posed by land managers, there was ample scientific research from 

the Plan area. For many of the questions, however, little research existed that was specific 

to the area. In such cases, studies from other regions or current scientific theory were used 

to address the questions to the extent possible. In many cases, major scientific uncertainties 

were found; these are highlighted by the authors. 

The synthesis chapters characterize the state of the science but they do not develop 

management alternatives, analyze management tradeoffs, or offer recommendations as to 

what managers should do. The synthesis does identify ideas, facts, and relationships that 

managers may want to consider as they develop plans and make management decisions 

about particular issues. The final chapter attempts to integrate significant cross-cutting 

issues, e.g., ecological and socioeconomic interdependencies, compatibility of different 

management goals, and tradeoffs associated with different restoration actions. All the 

chapters identify where more research is needed to fill critical information gaps. 

We would like to acknowledge the peer reviewers who considered hundreds of public 

comments as part of the process of reviewing our lengthy draft manuscripts. We also thank 

the many contributors to the development of the synthesis in draft and final form, including 

those who provided editing, layout, database, and other support services.
Contents

Volume 1

1 Chapter 1: Introduction

Peter A. Stine and Thomas A. Spies 

29 Chapter 2: Climate, Disturbance, and Vulnerability to Vegetation Change in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Area

Matthew J. Reilly, Thomas A. Spies, Jeremy Littell, Ramona Butz, and John B. Kim 

95 Chapter 3: Old Growth, Disturbance, Forest Succession, and Management in the 

Area of the Northwest Forest Plan

Thomas A. Spies, Paul F. Hessburg, Carl N. Skinner, Klaus J. Puettmann, Matthew J. 

Reilly, Raymond J. Davis, Jane A. Kertis, Jonathan W. Long, and David C. Shaw 

245 Chapter 4: Northern Spotted Owl Habitat and Populations: Status and Threats 

Damon B. Lesmeister, Raymond J. Davis, Peter H. Singleton, and J. David Wiens 

301 Chapter 5: Marbled Murrelet

Martin G. Raphael, Gary A. Falxa, and Alan E. Burger 

Volume 2

371 Chapter 6: Other Species and Biodiversity of Older Forests

Bruce G. Marcot, Karen L. Pope, Keith Slauson, Hartwell H. Welsh, Clara A. Wheeler, 

Matthew J. Reilly, and William J. Zielinski 

461 Chapter 7: The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan—A 

Review of the Relevant Science After 23 Years

Gordon H. Reeves, Deanna H. Olson, Steven M. Wondzell, Peter A. Bisson, Sean Gordon, 

Stephanie A. Miller, Jonathan W. Long, and Michael J. Furniss 

Volume 3

625 Chapter 8: Socioeconomic Well-Being and Forest Management in Northwest Forest 

Plan-Area Communities

Susan Charnley, Jeffrey D. Kline, Eric M. White, Jesse Abrams, Rebecca J. McLain, 

Cassandra Moseley, and Heidi Huber-Stearns 

625 Introduction 

626 Guiding Questions

626 Key Findings

626 Statutory and Policy Foundation and Evolving Understandings of Socioeconomic Well-Being and Federal Forest Management 

632 The Impact of the Northwest Forest Plan on Rural Communities

648 Social and Economic Change in Rural Communities in the Northwest Forest Plan Area

661 How Goods, Services, and Opportunities from Federal Forests Contribute to Community 

Socioeconomic Well-Being 

679 How Rural Communities Contribute to Federal Forest Management

681 The Implications of Land Use and Ownership Changes for Forest Management

686 Research Needs, Uncertainties, Information Gaps, and Limitations 

686 The Wood Products Industry
687 Community Socioeconomic Well-Being

687 Forest Service Contracting

688 Biomass

688 Nontimber Forest Products

690 Recreation

690 Ecosystem Services

691 Land Use Change

691 Conclusions and Management Considerations

691 Management Considerations

694 Conclusions

695 References

717 Chapter 9: Understanding Our Changing Public Values, Resource Uses, and Engagement Processes and Practices

Lee K. Cerveny, Emily Jane Davis, Rebecca McLain, Clare M. Ryan, Debra R. Whitall, 

and Eric M. White 

717 Introduction

720 Guiding Questions

720 Key Findings

720 Public Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs 

735 Valuing Place

744 Cultural Ecosystem Services

748 Outdoor Recreation 

755 Trust 

758 Involving the Public 

766 Agency-Citizen Collaboration 

773 Research Needs, Uncertainties, Information Gaps, and Limitations

773 Public Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs

774 Valuing Place

774 Cultural Ecosystem Services

775 Outdoor Recreation

775 Trust

775 Public Involvement

776 Agency Collaboration

777 Conclusions and Management Considerations

779 Literature Cited

809 Chapter 10—Environmental Justice, Low-Income and Minority Populations, and 

Forest Management in the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Susan Charnley, Delilah Jaworski, Heidi Huber-Stearns, Eric M. White, Elisabeth 

Grinspoon, Rebecca J. McLain, and Lee Cerveny 

809 Introduction 

810 Defining Environmental Justice
810 Defining Minority Population

810 Defining Low-Income Population

811 Guiding Questions 

811 Key Findings

811 Trends in Low-Income and Minority Population Sizes and Current Distribution

823 How Low-Income and Minority Populations Interact With Federal Forests in the Plan 

Area

837 Research Needs, Uncertainties, Information Gaps, and Limitations

839 Conclusions and Management Considerations 

839 Management Considerations

841 Conclusions

842 References

849 Appendix: Counties in the Northwest Forest Plan area (2012 designation)

851 Chapter 11: Tribal Ecocultural Resources and Engagement

Jonathan Long, Frank K. Lake, Kathy Lynn, and Carson Viles 

851 Introduction

851 An Integrative Perspective on the Term “Ecocultural Resources”

851 Background on Tribes in the Northwest Forest Plan Area

853 Guiding Questions

858 Source Materials

859 Key Findings

859 What Is the Context for Promoting Tribal Well-Being Through Forest Management?

860 What Ecocultural Resources and Associated Ecosystems Have Special Value to Tribes 

in the NWFP Area?

870 What Factors Are Influencing the Quality and Availability of Tribal Ecocultural Resources?

877 How Has the Diminishment of Tribal Influence Affected Ecocultural Resources and 

Associated Ecosystems?

880 What Strategies Can Promote Tribal Ecocultural Resources and Effectively Engage 

Tribes in Forest Planning and Management?

895 Research Needs

896 Conclusions and Management Considerations

897 Literature Cited

919 Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science to Inform Land Management in the Area of the Northwest Forest Plan

Thomas A. Spies, Jonathan W. Long, Peter Stine, Susan Charnley, Lee Cerveny, Bruce 

G. Marcot, Gordon Reeves, Paul F. Hessburg, Damon Lesmeister, Matthew J. Reilly, 

Martin G. Raphael, and Raymond J. Davis 

919 Introduction

922 Guiding Questions

922 Key Findings

922 Perspectives on Conservation in an Era of Global Environmental Change

923 Conservation in the Anthropocene
933 Perspectives on Reserves in an Era of Global Environmental Change 

937 Key Social Components of the Social-Ecological Systems of the Northwest Forest 

Plan Area

946 What Have We Learned About the Components of the Northwest Forest Plan and 

Their Compatibilities?

959 Plan Goals and Strategies in Relation to New Concerns 

961 Regional-Scale Issues and Challenges 

963 Tradeoffs Associated With Restoration 

966 Uncertainty and Risk in Forest Planning and Management

968 Information Gaps, Research Needs, and Limitations

970 Conclusions and Management Considerations

976 Literature Cited

1004 Glossary

1020 Acknowledgments
dcxxxviii

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Log deck resulting from a mechanical forest thinning 

operation in a Washington Douglas-fir forest. 

Photo by Robert Keefe.
625

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Chapter 8: Socioeconomic Well-Being and 

Forest Management in Northwest Forest PlanArea Communities

Susan Charnley, Jeffrey D. Kline, Eric M. White, 

Jesse Abrams, Rebecca J. McLain, Cassandra 

Moseley, and Heidi Huber-Stearns1

Introduction 

Given the need to conserve forest biodiversity and produce 

forest products, President Clinton’s vision for the Northwest 

Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) was that it would provide “a 

balanced and comprehensive strategy for the conservation 

and management of forest ecosystems, while maximizing 

economic and social benefits from forests” (USDA and 

USDI 1994: E-1). The Plan was expected to support the 

production of a predictable, sustainable level of timber and 

nontimber resources from federal forests to contribute to the 

stability of local and regional economies over the long term 

(Charnley et al. 2006a). The Plan also aimed to help rural 

communities affected by cutbacks in federal timber production by providing economic assistance programs to promote 

long-term economic development and diversification and 

minimize the adverse effects of job loss from reductions in 

timber harvesting (Dillingham 2006). 

To monitor effectiveness in achieving these goals, the 

NWFP record of decision contained two socioeconomic 

monitoring questions: (1) Are predictable levels of timber 

and nontimber resources available and being produced? 

(2) Are local communities and economies experiencing 

positive or negative changes that may be associated with 

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

After the first 10 years of socioeconomic monitoring, the 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee identified a 

new monitoring question: what is the status and trend of 

social and economic well-being in the Northwest Forest 

Plan area (at the county level) (Grinspoon et al. 2016)? 

Socioeconomic well-being in relation to federal forest 

management continues to be an important concern among 

agency managers. 

Thus, the goal of this chapter is to synthesize findings from NWFP monitoring and scientific research 

on the relationship between federal forest management 

and socioeconomic well-being in forest communities in 

the NWFP area (which includes 72 counties in western 

Washington, western Oregon, and northwestern California), recognizing that there is a reciprocal relationship 

between them. We build on Breslow et al. (2016) and 

define socioeconomic well-being as a state of being with 

others and the environment that arises when human needs 

are met, when people can act meaningfully to pursue 

their individual and collective goals, and when people and 

communities enjoy a satisfactory quality of life.

“Community” has been defined in many ways in the 

literature, making it difficult to adopt one general definition 

here. However, our main focus is on communities of place 

having social and economic ties to nearby forests, which 

are typically located in rural areas, where the effects of the 

NWFP were greatest. Communities are not homogenous; 

they contain residents with diverse socioeconomic circumstances, values, interests, and relations to federal forests, 

and federal forest management affects different community 

residents differently. Although our focus is on the community as a unit of analysis, where possible we draw attention 

to the diversity that exists among subpopulations in the Plan 

area. Chapter 10 complements this chapter with a focus on 

low-income and minority populations and their relations to 

federal forests in the Plan area.

1 Susan Charnley is a research social scientist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

620 SW Main Street, Portland, OR 97205; Jeffrey D. Kline is a 

research forester, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3200 SW 

Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Eric M. White is a research 

social scientist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512; Rebecca J. McLain is an assistant 

research professor, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland 

State University, 1600 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 110, Portland, OR 

97201; Cassandra Moseley is a research professor and director 

of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, Heidi Huber-Stearns 

is an assistant research professor and associate director of the 

Ecosystem Workforce Program, and Jesse Abrams is a research 

associate, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of 

Oregon, 130 Hendricks Hall, Eugene, OR 97403.
626

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Guiding Questions

This chapter focuses on six key questions pertaining to 

socioeconomic well-being in NWFP-area communities 

and federal forest management:

1. What is the statutory and policy foundation for 

considering socioeconomic well-being in federal 

forest management, and how does it reflect changing 

understandings of the relation between community 

well-being and federal forest management over time?

2. What has been the impact of the NWFP on rural 

communities in the Plan area?

3. How have social and economic conditions in rural 

communities in the Plan area changed over the past 

two decades?

4. How do goods, services, and opportunities from 

federal forests contribute to socioeconomic 

well-being in rural communities?

5. How do rural communities contribute to federal 

forest management?

6. What implications do changes in land use and land 

ownership over the past two decades have for federal forest management?

We summarize key findings pertaining to these questions at the beginning of the sections, below, which address 

each one in depth.

Key Findings

Statutory and Policy Foundation and Evolving 

Understandings of Socioeconomic Well-Being 

and Federal Forest Management 

The relationship between federal forest management and 

community well-being has been understood from different 

perspectives over time, with both the Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) being concerned with 

community well-being historically. The National Forest 

System was inspired in part by concerns about the predominant timber harvesting practices of the late 19th century, 

in which mobile logging camps exploited forests and then 

moved on without considering reforestation needs. Not 

only was this pattern of timber exploitation detrimental to 

U.S. forest stocks, it also raised concerns about the unstable 

Summary—

Laws that direct the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) to create social and economic benefits for communities and the public date 

back to the inception of the agencies. Legislation in 

the first half of the 20th century emphasized provision 

of a continuous flow of timber from federal forests to 

promote economic stability in the forestry industry 

and forest communities. Legislation passed in the 

second half of the 20th century strengthened environmental goals and planning requirements associated 

with federal forest management, but also reaffirmed 

the economic goals of the Forest Service, and added 

or expanded social goals. Law and policy have also 

often given special consideration to people living 

near national forests and BLM-managed Oregon and 

California (O&C) Railroad Revested Lands in the 

form of payments to counties, for example. 

With adoption of the NWFP, the goal of providing social and economic benefits to communities continued alongside an increased focus on environmental 

protection and restoration. At the same time, community benefit began to be conceptualized as coming 

from activities beyond traditional timber harvest and 

milling activities, such as ecosystem management, 

forest and watershed restoration, outdoor recreation, 

and the harvest of nontimber forest products. This 

shift reflected a change in thinking about well-being 

in forest communities from being a product of nondeclining, even flows of timber, to being influenced by a 

host of commodity and noncommodity benefits from 

federal forest lands. 

Subsequent to the adoption of the NWFP and the 

occurrence of several large, high-visibility wildfires, 

wildfire became the central focus of national forest 

management-related law and policy. In parallel to the 

adoption of the NWFP, wildfire policy has shifted 

from a 20th-century focus on using fire suppression to 

protect natural resources (i.e., timber), to a focus on 

protecting firefighters and communities—especially 
627

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

livelihoods and lifestyles of forest workers, and communities 

experiencing boom and bust economic cycles associated 

with unsustainable logging practices (Hibbard 1999, Quirke 

et al. 2017). Given many rural communities’ high degree 

of economic dependency on lands that were designated as 

national forests, there has been a longstanding public policy 

concern with the effects of national forest management on 

community “stability” (Dana 1918, Kaufman and Kaufman 

1946). Although the BLM came to manage forest lands 

within the NWFP area under a different set of historical 

circumstances, the policy framework for managing these 

Oregon and California (O&C) Railroad Revested Lands has 

likewise shown a long-standing concern with providing local 

community benefits (Richardson 1980). Thus, the NWFP 

focus on the impacts of reduced federal timber harvesting on 

rural community well-being has continuity with broader policy goals reflected throughout the histories of these agencies. 

Conceptually, the social and economic dimensions 

of laws and policies associated with the Forest Service 

and BLM can be broken into two categories: (1) those that 

require or authorize the agencies to create social and economic benefits for the nation or particular populations, and 

(2) those that authorize or require the agencies to provide 

opportunities for input into the planning and management 

process by the public as a whole, or particular subpopulations. The former is the focus of this section.

Social and economic goals in federal forest 

management law and policy—

Laws that direct the Forest Service and BLM to create social 

and economic benefits for communities and the public date 

back to their inception. In the Forest Service’s Organic Act 

of 1897, for example, forest reserves (later national forests) 

were to provide for water flow and a continuous supply of 

timber (Wilkinson and Anderson 1987). Under the Organic 

Act, a central goal of creating forest reserves was to ensure 

that western timber did not end up in the hands of private 

industry monopolies and was continually accessible for 

the “greatest good.” Throughout the second half of the 20th

century, the focus on timber as the primary public benefit of 

national forest and BLM O&C land management increasingly 

came into conflict with other uses and benefits of federal 

forest lands. Although the National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA), the BLM’s Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act, the Wilderness Act, and other laws passed in the 1960s 

and 1970s strengthened environmental goals and planning 

requirements, Congress also reaffirmed the economic goals 

of the Forest Service, and added or expanded social goals in 

these same laws. For example, NFMA expanded the authority of the agencies to harvest timber by legalizing clearcutting, and the Wilderness Act was as much about protecting 

special places for recreation and scenic beauty as it was about 

environmental protection in its own right.

In parallel to the “greatest good” concept embedded 

in much of federal land management legislation, law and 

policy have also often given special consideration to people 

living near national forests and BLM O&C lands. The most 

well known of these laws is the 1908 Twenty-Five Percent 

Fund Act (Public Law 60-136), which requires the Forest 

Service to pay 25 percent of its revenue generated from 

timber sales and other goods and services from national 

forests to counties to help fund roads and schools. On 

the BLM side, although the revesting of O&C lands in 

western Oregon to BLM management was an effort to get 

timberlands out of the hands of a corrupt railroad company, decisions about what to do with those lands revolved 

around the likely local economic impacts on communities, 

specifically the local timber industry and local taxation 

(Richardson 1980). Ultimately, sustained-yield timber 

production, and paying counties a portion of agency 

timber revenues, also became an obligation of O&C forest 

management (Richardson 1980). Fifty percent of timber 

revenues from BLM O&C and Coos Bay Wagon Road 

lands were returned to counties to use for any general 

county purpose (Phillips 2006b). 

homes and other structures, community preparedness 

and forest restoration to create wildfire-resilient landscapes. In turn, the concept of community resilience 

has emerged, which focuses on the ability of a community to successfully cope with and adapt to natural disturbances and change. Wildfire is now a critical issue 

to address in the context of federal forest management 

and community socioeconomic well-being.
628

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The Sustained-Yield Forest Management Act of 1944 

(16 U.S.C. Section 583), which authorized the secretaries of 

the Department of Agriculture and Interior to create sustained-yield units (or “cutting circles”) on federal, or combined federal and private lands, is another example of local 

community consideration in forest policy. The act provided 

local lumber mills with exclusive access to federal timber 

and encouraged a continuous supply of timber that would 

stabilize forest industries, employment, and communities 

near federal forests. As reflected in the act, from the 1940s 

through the 1980s, national forest management was thought 

to be important in contributing to “community stability,” 

defined in terms of stable timber industry employment and 

income in forest communities (Le Master and Beuter 1989). 

Contributing to community stability through a policy of 

sustained-yield timber harvesting to provide a nondeclining, 

even flow of forest products and associated jobs and income 

was a central goal of national forest management between 

the 1940s and 1980s (Le Master and Beuter 1989, chapters 

in Lee et al. 1990) (fig. 8-1).

The belief that national forest management can ensure 

community stability was questioned in the 1980s as it 

was recognized that many variables influence social and 

economic well-being in rural communities (Charnley et al. 

2008b, Cook 1995, Force et al. 1993, Nadeau et al. 2003, 

Power 2006, Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). Federal forest 

managers cannot ensure community economic stability 

through their management actions alone, particularly if 

such stability is assumed to arise from a consistent flow of 

timber. However, management of federal forests and investments in federal forest management (including the presence 

of a federal workforce) can contribute to community 

stability and business vitality. The positive economic and 

social outcomes in the Blue Mountains of Oregon from the 

Pacific Northwest Region’s “eastside strategy” and the state 

of Oregon’s Federal Forest Restoration Program (previously 

the Federal Forest Health Program) illustrate how investment in federal forest management can promote community 

well-being (Bennett et al. 2015, White et al. 2015). 

Under the NWFP, the goal of providing social and 

economic benefits to communities continued even as 

an increased focus on environmental protection and 

restoration challenged the provisioning of traditional 

timber-based benefits from federal forest lands. At the 

same time, community benefit began to be conceptualized 

as resulting from activities beyond traditional timber 

harvesting and milling, such as ecosystem management, 

forest and watershed restoration, outdoor recreation, and 

the harvest of nontimber forest products (Hibbard and Lurie 

2013, Kruger et al. 2008). As the Forest Service adopted 

Figure 8-1—Coos Bay, Oregon, historically supported a diversity of logging and milling operations.

Susan Charnley
629

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

ecosystem management as its new management paradigm 

(Thomas 1996), it actively invested in job training and 

management projects with the goal of creating a new class 

of quality jobs in ecosystem management and restoration 

for displaced timber workers and communities affected by 

this transition in forest management (Spencer 1999). One 

effort to do so was the Jobs in the Woods Program, which 

began as part of the NWFP and included waivers of federal 

procurement law that allowed the Forest Service and BLM 

to set aside service contracts for ecosystem management to 

benefit contractors located in counties affected by the plan 

(Moseley 2005). Although this program was too small to 

offset the number of jobs lost in the timber industry, it did 

provide short-term employment for some displaced timber 

workers (Dillingham 2006). Moreover, its intent—to create 

jobs in local communities associated with restoration and 

ecosystem management—carried forward into subsequent 

agency programs (e.g., Secure Rural Schools Act projects, 

stewardship contracting, and community-focused National 

Fire Plan projects, described below). 

Along with this shift toward ecosystem management, 

the 1990s gave rise to new understandings of community-forest relations that acknowledged the diverse contributions federal forests make to “community well-being.” 

Studies recognized that well-being in forest communities 

included quality of life attributes beyond jobs and income, 

such as health, safety, educational attainment, political 

participation, social equity, empowerment, community 

cohesiveness, and access to social services (Beckley 

1998, Doak and Kusel 1996, Harris et al. 2000). Studies 

also recognized that federal forests can contribute to 

community well-being in multiple ways, including both 

commodity (e.g., timber, grazing, minerals, nontimber 

forest products) and amenity (e.g., outdoor recreation, 

scenic beauty, clean air and water, open space, landscape) 

values they provide (Beckley 1998, Kusel 2001, Nadeau 

et al. 2003, Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008). Community 

capacity—defined as the ability of community residents to 

respond to internal and external stresses, create and take 

advantage of opportunities, and meet the needs of residents (Kusel 2001)—was found to be critical to well-being 

in forest communities.

In the past two decades, little congressional lawmaking 

has related to federal forest management. That which has 

occurred has tended to include some attention to local 

community social and economic needs. Laws that were 

designed to shore up payments to counties as timber harvest 

declined, first in the Plan area and then nationwide, are 

good examples. Timber-sale receipts comprised the vast 

majority of payments to county governments and dropped 

dramatically with the spotted-owl-related injunctions on 

timber harvesting in the early 1990s and subsequent 

implementation of the NWFP. Consequently, Congress 

passed a series of measures starting in 1991 to mitigate the 

lost revenues to counties using new formulas to calculate 

payments, the most recent of which was the Secure Rural 

Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 

(Phillips 2006b). Although the Secure Rural Schools Act 

was initially set to expire in 2006, it has been reauthorized 

and extended several times, most recently on April 16, 2015, 

for 2 more years.2 The Act was allowed to expire in 2017, 

prompting agencies to revert to making payments to 

counties from revenues generated by timber sales (25 

percent for the Forest Service, 50 percent for the BLM) 

under the 1908 Payments to States Act. Congress continues 

to debate reauthorization; this is a subject of ongoing 

political debate and economic uncertainty in NWFP-area 

counties that relied heavily on these payments (Hoover 

2015). In addition to payments to counties to backstop 

declining timber revenues, the Secure Rural Schools Act 

created local resource advisory committees to advise the 

Forest Service on priority ecosystem management and 

restoration projects that could be funded through Title II of 

the act. In addition, stewardship contracting, permanently 

authorized through legislation in 2014, has meeting local 

community needs as one of its central goals (P.L. 106-393; 

P.L. 106-291, Sec 323) (Kitzhaber 1998; Moseley and 

Charnley 2014). Similarly, for much of the 2000s, Congress 

provided appropriations language authorizing the Forest 

Service and BLM to consider local economic benefit when 

awarding restoration-related service contracts (e.g., PL 

108-7, Sec 333). Although the exact language varies from 

2

 http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts/.
630

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

law to law, typical beneficiaries include workers and 

businesses in forest communities, local communities, or 

isolated communities.

An area of significant rulemaking in the decades 

following NWFP adoption were efforts to revise the Forest 

Service planning rule, which elaborates how national forests 

should create long-term plans as required under the 

NFMA.3 The planning rule had last been modified in 1982 

under the Reagan Administration. Several subsequent 

revisions were attempted but never completed, so forest 

planning (either full plan revisions or plan amendments) 

continued to follow the 1982 planning rule (Schultz et al. 

2013). From the beginning, the Obama Administration 

placed a strong emphasis on creating a new planning rule 

that could become successfully institutionalized, including 

provisions for significant public involvement and collaboration. The planning rule, as finalized in 2012,4

 requires 

assessment of numerous social values including social, 

cultural, and economic conditions and benefits that people 

obtain from forest plan areas and of recreation opportunities 

(FR 88 no 68. Sec. 219.6 (6)-Sec 291.6(13)); it directs plans 

to provide for social and economic sustainability (Sec. 

219.8(b)). The planning rule also calls for multiple uses of 

national forests, including not only timber harvest but also 

aesthetic values; access to fishing, hunting, and gathering; 

and access to recreation and water supplies. Among many 

shifts in the planning rule from prior versions is the 

introduction of the concept of “ecosystem services,” which 

is framed as the range of social, economic, and ecological 

benefits from national forests to be provided presently and 

into the future (Subpart A. Sec. 219.1).

Wildfire policy—

During the early years of the NWFP, the focus of forest 

management was centered around reconciling competing 

demands for timber production and threatened and endangered species conservation. However, subsequent to the 

adoption of the NWFP and the occurrence of several large, 

3

 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5362536.pdf.

4

 http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5362538.pdf.

high-visibility wildfires in the region (Reilly et al. 2017), 

wildfire became the central focus of national forest management, eventually consuming over half of the agency budget 

by the mid-2010s (see chapter 3 for discussion of the wildfire issue). Wildfire policy and practice have also undergone 

dramatic transformation, although with only relatively little 

congressional involvement. With wildfire costs increasing 

from 16 percent of the Forest Service budget in the 1980s to 

more than 50 percent in 2015,5 wildfire management now 

affects every corner of the agency by dramatically reducing 

funds available for other management activities. 

Prior to the NWFP era, wildfire was rarely mentioned 

in law and policy (Nelson 1979), perhaps because wildfire 

occurrence nationwide was relatively low from the 1940s 

through the 1980s (Agee 1993). Nevertheless, wildfire 

management has deep roots in the founding and early 

management of the Forest Service (Pyne 1981), and there 

were decades of wildfire suppression capacity-building prior 

to the NWFP (Davis 2001). As noted above, the focus of 

wildfire policy has largely shifted from fire suppression to 

protect timber, to ensuring firefighter safety and protecting 

homes and other structures. Restoration for ecological 

objectives, including increasing the resilience of forests to 

fire and drought, has also become a forest management goal 

(chapter 3). The 2001 National Fire Plan increased the focus 

on community preparedness for wildfire, hazardous fuels 

reduction, ecosystem restoration, reintroduction of prescribed fire, and other management changes (Steelman and 

Burke 2007) (fig. 8-2). The Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

of 2003, among other things, created a community wildfire 

protection planning process that allowed national forests that 

had participated in community planning to use expedited 

planning processes for hazardous fuels reduction projects 

in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)-designated wildland-urban interface (WUI) (Vaughn and Cortner 

2005). Increasingly, there are calls for managing wildfire 

more to meet the goals of reducing forest fuels and wildfire 

risk to communities and ecosystems (e.g., North et al. 2015), 

though it has been difficult to manage wildfire for resource 

benefits in practice in many landscapes (Calkin et al. 2015). 

5

 http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Fire-Budget-Report.pdf.
631

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

The Federal Land Assistance, Management, and 

Enhancement Act of 2009 (FLAME Act) sought to reduce 

the growing impacts of wildfire expenditures on the rest of 

the Forest Service budget. It also required the creation of 

the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, 

which increases the focus on creating resilient landscapes, 

fire-adapted communities, and safe and effective wildland 

fire response. From the National Fire Plan of 2001 to the 

Cohesive Strategy adopted a decade later, there have been 

significant policy efforts to change wildfire management, 

many of which have increased focus on community preparedness and protection in wildfire. Both the use of fire 

(prescribed or naturally ignited) and the use of silvicultural 

treatments to alter fuels conditions are complicated by ecological, economic, and social challenges that reflect decades 

of past land use patterns and policies (Carroll et al. 2007). 

Although much change has occurred, there has been a significant pattern of stasis as well, making clear that wildfire 

management is an increasingly complex social-ecological 

problem with few easy solutions (Carroll et al. 2007, Fischer 

et al. 2016). Nevertheless, it is a critical issue to address in 

the context of federal forest management and community 

socioeconomic well-being.

As wildfire law and policy have shifted to emphasize 

community preparedness, hazardous fuels reduction, and 

reintroduction of prescribed fire to create wildfire-resilient 

landscapes, a parallel paradigm shift has occurred in 

thinking about community-forest relations. Much of this 

thinking now revolves around the concept of “community 

resilience” (e.g., Daniel et al. 2007, Lynn et al. 2011, McGee 

2011, Paveglio et al. 2009), which focuses on a community’s 

ability to cope with and adapt to natural disturbances and 

change. Building on Folke (2006), Magis (2010), and Walker 

and Salt (2006), community resilience is defined here as the 

Figure 8-2—In the 2000s, wildfire policy has shifted to focus on community wildfire protection and preparedness.

Susan Charnley
632

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

ability of a community to successfully cope with, adapt to, 

and shape change, while still retaining its basic function and 

structure. Federal land management policies that help promote community capacity to adapt to change may contribute 

to socioeconomic well-being (Anderson and Kerkvliet 2011). 

The Impact of the Northwest Forest Plan on 

Rural Communities

From a social standpoint, the primary concern relating to 

socioeconomic well-being and federal forest management 

in Plan-area communities historically has been the impacts 

of reduced timber harvesting from federal lands on forest 

products workers, businesses, and timber-dependent 

communities in particular. In the Plan area, a steep harvest 

decline followed the 1990 listing of the northern spotted 

owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (Charnley et al. 2008b) (fig. 8-3). In 

the 1980s, timber sales from Forest Service and BLM lands 

in the Plan area averaged 5.5 billion board feet annually 

(Charnley et al. 2008b). Intensive timber management on 

federal lands ended in the early 1990s owing to a series 

of lawsuits over the protection of the owl and associated 

species under the Endangered Species and National Forest 

Management Acts (Thomas et al. 2006), and related injunctions on federal timber sales within the range of the owl 

(Charnley 2006b). The social controversy engendered by 

the “owl wars,” in which the interests of environmentalists 

concerned with the impacts of timber harvesting on oldgrowth forests and associated species were pitted against 

the interests of forest products workers and forest communities, is well documented (e.g., Carroll 1995, FEMAT 1993, 

Satterfield 2007). The NWFP was an attempt to balance 

these interests, and offer a solution that would provide “a 

sustainable level of human use of the forest resource while 

still meeting the need to maintain and restore the late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem” (USDA and 

USDI 1994: 26–27).

Over the past two decades, a body of literature has 

emerged that assesses the impacts of the owl listing and 

NWFP on communities. This literature is composed of 

the results of NWFP socioeconomic monitoring (Charnley 

2006a, Charnley et al. 2008a, 2008b; Grinspoon and 

Phillips 2011, Grinspoon et al. 2016) and a number of 

additional studies by economists and other social scientists. 

It is important to note that changes in the forest products 

industry in Plan-area communities and economies were not 

solely a result of declines in timber harvesting on federal 

forest lands. The most significant factors influencing the 

Summary— 

Numerous factors have influenced socioeconomic 

well-being in rural communities in the NWFP area; 

here we focus on the impacts of the NWFP. We begin 

by describing regional and national trends in the wood 

products industry to provide context for understanding 

Plan impacts. Regarding wood products production, 

market conditions facing the forest products industry 

are driven by overall consumer demand for wood products (e.g., lumber, paper, and engineered wood products), global competition, and technological change. 

Construction and remodeling account for the greatest 

demand for lumber and engineered wood products; 

therefore, changes in the housing market over the past 

20 years have affected the forest products industry 

in the Plan area. Over and above changes in demand, 

industry restructuring and technological improvements 

have generally led to contractions in wood products 

manufacturing and a reduction in the number of 

workers required in the milling process. Nevertheless, 

demand fluctuations do influence employment levels in 

wood products manufacturing over short time periods, 

such as the increase in employment in wood products 

manufacturing that occurred when the overall economy 

improved post-2010, as the economic recession that 

began in December 2007 subsided. 

Private forests currently contribute the vast majority 

of logs processed by mills in the Plan area. Greater timber harvest on federal forests would increase the number 

of logs available to mills and create additional work 

opportunities for logging contractors in the short term. If 

long-term mill output within the Plan area increased as 
633

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

a result of higher federal harvest levels, these short-term 

changes in timber supply and harvesting contracts could 

extend for longer periods and could include additional 

work in processing facilities. However, log supply is not 

the sole determinant of the level of output from mills. 

Rather, demand for wood products in the United States 

and globally, mill production technology, currency 

exchange rates, and competition from other domestic 

and international wood product producers combine 

with other factors to influence levels of wood products 

production. As elsewhere in the West (and Nation as a 

whole), the wood products manufacturing sector in the 

Plan area has experienced mill closures and employee 

reductions. However, mills remaining in operation and 

those coming into production have greater production 

capacity and lower labor demands than those that closed. 

This trend results in the seemingly contradictory pattern 

of falling mill numbers and reductions in mill workers, 

but smaller declines (or even increases) in aggregate 

milling capacity, and increasing average mill capacity. 

Further, within the Plan area, mills are using more of that 

available capacity relative to mills elsewhere in the West, 

generally a sign of mill strength and demand for workers. 

Within the Plan area, and especially in Oregon, 

much of the federal timber log supply comes from 

thinning harvests in plantations that are less than 80 

years of age. Recent discussions about future federal 

forest management within the Plan area have proposed 

variable-retention harvests and ecological forestry 

within matrix lands to create more early seral vegetation 

through regeneration harvests, conserve older forests, 

and provide a more reliable flow of ecosystem services, 

including timber. 

NWFP-related impacts on communities are associated primarily with cutbacks in federal timber harvesting, loss of federal agency jobs, reductions in federal 

contract spending, and the setting aside of reserve lands 

that exclude intensive timber production. Research 

examining the nature and extent of these impacts on 

communities has produced different findings. These differences may be attributed to the unit of analysis used 

to assess impacts (i.e., region, county, community); the 

period considered (first vs. second decade of the Plan); 

and the different datasets and indicators used to assess 

impacts. Most studies evaluate NWFP socioeconomic 

impacts using secondary indicator data pertaining to 

population change and economic variables such as 

employment, income, poverty levels, and property 

values, rather than primary data (data gathered at the 

community scale directly from community residents). 

The findings of these studies can be generalized 

as follows: 

1. Impacts attributed to the NWFP include 

population growth and decline, increases and 

decreases in socioeconomic well-being, and 

increases and decreases in economic indicators. 

Some studies found no NWFP impact on population and economic indicators. 

2. NWFP impacts on communities differed at the 

community and county scales, and depended on 

local social, cultural, economic, and environmental contexts. 

3. Impacts (both positive and negative) were 

greater during the first decade of the NWFP 

than they were during the second decade.

4. Impacts (both positive and negative) were 

greater in communities located close to national 

forests, or to reserved lands set aside by the 

NWFP, and in communities that had experienced a mill closure (not necessarily a result of 

the Plan). 

5. Impacts were greater at the community scale 

than at the county and regional scales, and were 

greater in nonmetropolitan counties than they 

were in metropolitan counties. 

6. Given the growing incidence of large and severe 

wildfires in the NWFP area, one important way 

in which federal forest management will affect 

rural communities moving forward relates to 

management for forest restoration and wildfire.
634

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Timber harvested and sold (million board feet)

Fiscal year

Cut

Sold

1978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002

Fiscal year

19701972

19741976197819801982

1984

1986

19881990199219941996

199820002002

1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Timber offered (million board feet)

A

B

Figure 8-3—Volume of timber offered for sale, sold, or harvested from (A) Forest Service and (B) Bureau of Land 

Management units in the Northwest Forest Plan area, 1970s–2002. Source: Charnley 2006c.
635

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

industry are market conditions (e.g., demands for lumber 

and paper products), technological advances in wood 

processing, foreign and domestic competition, the cost of 

labor and manufacturing equipment, currency exchange 

rates, and timber availability (Keegan et al. 2006, Ince 

et al. 2011, Skog et al. 2012). Thus we begin this section 

by providing a broader picture of changes taking place in 

the wood products industry in the NWFP area and more 

broadly during the past three decades. We then focus on the 

role of federal forest management by discussing the impacts 

of the owl listing and the NWFP. We also briefly discuss 

the effects of wildfire management on local communities 

because wildfire on federal forests has become a salient 

factor affecting socioeconomic well-being there.

The wood products production market—

The primary wood products manufactured in Oregon, 

Washington, and northern California are dimensional 

lumber and plywood used in housing construction and 

remodeling. For the most part, the wood products produced within the NWFP area are commodity products, 

meaning they compete, in many cases, with products 

of the same quality produced from forests in different 

regions of the United States and around the world (Skog 

et al. 2012). Consumption of wood and paper products 

in the United States has risen in recent decades, but that 

consumption has been increasingly met through imports 

from other countries with lower costs of production (Skog 

et al. 2012). Further, wood products produced in the 

NWFP area must compete with nonwood products, such 

as concrete, steel, and composites that can be used in the 

same construction applications. These substitutes have 

been slowly taking market share from wood products over 

the past few decades because of consumer preferences, 

technological advances in materials, and cost (Ince et al. 

2007). Although both heavy competition from other countries and substitute materials are anticipated, U.S. lumber 

production is still projected to increase through 2040, 

from a low point in 2010, under a variety of alternative 

future scenarios because of expanding domestic demand 

for wood products (Ince et al. 2011). The magnitude of 

the projected increase depends, however, on assumptions 

about the magnitude of increases in housing starts, gross 

domestic product (GDP) growth, and global demand 

for wood to use in energy production (Ince et al. 2011). 

Smaller increases in housing starts and GDP, and lower 

demand for wood for energy in foreign markets, yield 

lower levels of projected future U.S. lumber production. 

Lumber production— 

In the last decades of the 20th century, the Western United 

States was the Nation’s “wood basket” and supplied the 

majority of softwood lumber produced nationally. That 

changed in the first decade of the 2000s, when the South 

became the predominant lumber-producing region. In 2010, 

lumber production in the Pacific Northwest states—the largest lumber producers in the Western United States—was 

at its lowest level since the 1950s (Keegan et al. 2011). The 

case of Oregon is illustrative. Since the mid-1950s, lumber 

production in Oregon has gone through cyclical ups and 

downs, but has generally declined over the long term (fig. 

8-4) (Gale et al. 2012). The period since the early 1990s has 

been especially volatile, with dramatic swings influenced by 

changing timber availability and surges and collapses in the 

housing market. 

The changing role of the Pacific Northwest in the 

nation’s wood products industry reflects the combined 

effects of broad-scale changes that affect the industry 

across the United States and globally (i.e., changing demand 

for wood products, improved milling technology, foreign 

competition), and regional steep reductions in federal timber 

supply within the NWFP area. Despite this downturn, the 

wood products industry remains an important contributor 

to the economies of Oregon, Washington, and California, 

although not to the degree that it was in the past. For 

example, although wood products manufacturing in Oregon 

slipped from about 8 percent of the state’s gross domestic 

product in the late 1980s to about 1 percent in 2009 (Lehner 

2012), in many rural communities it remains an important 

source of jobs and income. Overall, the economies of 

the three states have diversified and expanded into other 

sectors, but this diversification has not necessarily occurred 

in some local communities.
636

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The role of timber supply—

In California, Oregon, and Washington, since the early 

1990s, private (especially private industry lands) and 

state-owned forests have provided the majority of timber 

to wood processing facilities (Oswalt et al. 2014). Similarly, in the NWFP area, the majority of timber harvested 

has come from nonfederal lands (fig. 8-5). Increases in 

log supply from public or private lands can increase the 

employment at mills when there is unutilized mill capacity, 

a healthy market for wood products, and sufficient volume 

of new logs to warrant adding an additional shift at the 

mill, or opening another processing line. For example, a 

sawmill with unutilized capacity in John Day, Oregon, 

recently increased mill employment over the short term 

when Forest Service harvest volumes were increased 

(Bennett et al. 2015). Aside from the amount of federal 

timber supplied, mill employment remains influenced 

by market conditions for lumber and other wood products, and changes in milling technology that reduce the 

amount of necessary labor. Cyclical ups and downs in mill 

employment (e.g., Lehner 2012) for lumber production 

follow changing conditions in the economy and markets for 

housing construction, regardless of federal timber supply 

conditions (Keegan et al. 2011). Even when timber supply 

changes are happening, mill employment remains influenced by technological improvements to mill operations. 

For instance, Helvoigt and Adams (2009) found that 38 

percent of the decline in employment at sawmills between 

1988 and 1994 (when federal timber harvests declined 

precipitously) can be attributed to technological change 

that reduced labor requirements. 

Increases in federal timber supply may lead to expansion in lumber production and hiring of mill employees if 

timber supply is constrained, demand for lumber products 

is strong, and mill capacity is underutilized. Within the 

Pacific Northwest, these mill conditions are thought to 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Lumber production (million board feet, lumber tally)

195419561958

1960

196219641966

1968

1970197219741976

1978

19801982

1984

1986

19881990

19921994

19961998

200020022004200620082010

Year

Figure 8-4—Oregon lumber production, 1954 to 2009. Source: Gale et al. 2012.
637

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

be more commonly found east of the Cascade Range, 

where productive forests are usually owned by the federal 

government, and severe losses in milling capacity (Swan 

2012) have led to very limited processing infrastructure. 

In general, economic models have found that significant 

increases in federal harvest levels benefit wood products 

manufacturers because more timber is available at lower 

prices, but pose a disadvantage to private forest owners 

because the price of stumpage falls, forcing them to sell for 

less (e.g., Abt and Prestemon 2006, Adams and Latta 2005, 

Adams et al. 1996, Ince et al. 2011). Stumpage prices may 

rebound over time if private landowners reduce harvest 

levels in response to lower stumpage prices. Increased federal timber harvest might improve the well-being of local 

wood products producers and private forest landowners in 

situations in which all local milling capacity is in danger 

of closing, and the addition of federal timber supply helps 

to keep mills above the tipping point of having to close 

operations (e.g., Adams and Latta 2005); or where supply 

increases last for a long time (e.g., Abt and Prestemon. 

2006). The potential increased timber supply from “ecological forestry,” including variable-retention harvesting6

(e.g., Franklin and Johnson 2012) in plantations, may well 

promote improved community well-being if the early seral 

vegetation created supported long-term timber production, 

especially in areas with a higher share of dry forest, and in 

communities that have, or can recreate, a forest products 

workforce. However, the wood products sector within the 

NWFP area would remain subject to market conditions 

and competition from other wood products manufacturers 

nationally and globally.

Because of the relatively high transport cost, species 

preference of mills, and supply from private forests, the 

majority of the wood processed in the NWFP area comes 

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Timber harvest (million board feet)

Year

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Forest Service and BLM

Nonfederal ownership

Figure 8-5—Since the 1990s, the majority of timber harvested in the Northwest Forest Plan area has come from nonfederal lands. Source: Grinspoon et al. 2016. 

6

 Franklin and Johnson (2012) identified the key elements of 

ecological forestry as (1) retaining structural and compositional 

elements of the preharvest stand during regeneration harvests, (2) 

using natural stand development principles and processes in manipulating established stands to restore or maintain desired structure 

and compositions, (3) using return intervals for silvicultural 

activities consistent with recovery of desired structures and processes, and (4) planning management activities at landscape scales. 

Variable-retention harvesting is clearcut harvesting that retains a 

portion (e.g., 10 to 15 percent) of the original forest in undisturbed 

patches or aggregates distributed across the harvest unit. 
638

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

from within the region. Historically, there has been relatively 

little procurement of federal timber from outside the NWFP 

area by local mills. Under the Forest Resources Conservation 

and Shortage Relief Act of 1990 (as amended), federal timber 

in the NWFP area is barred from international export, and, 

in most cases, purchase by an entity that sells timber into the 

export market. With that export restriction, federal timber 

can be a source of wood supply for businesses that have difficulty purchasing logs when there are high prices in the log 

export market. Additionally, providing a consistent flow of 

federal timber could offer some certainty to wood processors 

that some wood volume would be accessible to domestic 

purchasers in the face of a strong log export market. 

Following adoption of the NWFP, the limited social 

acceptability of harvesting large-diameter and old-growth 

trees from matrix land allocations on federal lands and of 

clearcutting (Charnley and Donoghue 2006a), has largely 

confined harvests west of the Cascades to existing plantations within matrix lands that have younger, smaller trees. 

Timber harvest prescriptions in these cases often apply 

commercial variable-density thinning (see chapter 3) to 

stands younger than 80 years. The focus on harvesting trees 

under 80 years old in the matrix is counter to the calculation of probable sale quantity (PSQ)7

 in the NWFP (Charnley 2006b), which relied substantially on volume produced 

from stands over 80 years of age within the timber-suitable 

base of matrix lands (Johnson 1994, Johnson et al. 1993). 

One modeling study undertaken in a large landscape in the 

Coast Range of Oregon estimated that continuing current 

federal forest management practices that were focused 

on thinning smaller, young trees in plantations under 80 

years of age would ultimately result in a 71-percent decline 

in federal harvest levels by 2050 (Johnson et al. 2007). 

The reason for the decline was reduced availability of 

small- and medium-diameter stands on federal forest lands 

because thinning did not establish new young stands, and 

the existing plantations aged beyond 80 years. 

Potential future declines in harvest volumes from federal forests would further reduce the contribution of federal 

timber supply to the traditional forest and wood products 

sectors of local economies within the NWFP area. As a 

consequence, the forest and wood products sectors would 

become more reliant on the supply of timber from private 

and state-owned forests. Increased use of ecological forestry 

(Franklin and Johnson 2012) to create early seral vegetation 

(Swanson et al. 2011) that has been reduced by fire exclusion 

(chapter 3) and other practices in moist and dry forests could 

be a way to maintain some level of timber harvest from 

plantations and other younger forests over the longer run. 

Challenges to expanded use of ecological forestry and regeneration harvests in the NWFP area include (1) lack of public 

trust of federal agencies, (2) the scale of restoration needed 

in dry forests, and (3) the legal and social obstacles to implementing regeneration harvests in moist forests (Franklin 

and Johnson 2012). In addition, it could be difficult to plan 

and schedule timber production from early-seral vegetation 

projects when landscape goals for these conditions can also 

be met by wildfire, which is unpredictable. 

Trends in the number of wood-processing facilities—

Reductions in demand for wood products, technology, 

and reduced log supply from federal forests during the 

1980s and 1990s have led to declines in wood-processing 

infrastructure throughout the United States. Consistent 

with national trends, over the long term and under varying 

levels of federal timber supply, the number of operating 

timber mills and employees in the wood products sector 

has declined in Oregon, Washington, and California (Gale 

et al. 2012, Keegan et al. 2011, McIver et al. 2015); the case 

of Oregon is illustrative (figure 8-6). For example, Oregon 

had 405 lumber mills in 1980, 282 of which closed over the 

next three decades for a reduction of two-thirds (Chen and 

Weber 2012). Similarly, in 1980, 113 rural communities in 

Oregon had mills (roughly half of them), and by 2007 only 

58 communities had mills. Direct job loss per mill closure 

averaged 100 jobs, a large impact on rural communities 

whose median population was 2,000 people or fewer (Chen 

and Weber 2012). It is unknown how many mills in the 

Pacific Northwest closed specifically because of the NWFP. 

A variety of factors (e.g., technological change, industry 

7

 Probable sale quantity is an estimate of average annual timber 

sale levels likely to be achieved over a decade; it is a decadal average. The NWFP identified matrix lands and adaptive management 

areas as being suitable for producing a predictable and sustainable 

timber supply, thus only timber produced from these locations 

counts toward PSQ volume (Charnley 2006c).
639

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

restructuring, and competition) have combined to precipitate mill closures in the region. For example, Helvoigt and 

Adams (2009) found that 38 percent of jobs lost in sawmills 

in Oregon and Washington between 1988 and 1994 were 

related to technology improvements in log processing. 

The remaining jobs losses were due to a variety of factors, 

including changes in log supply. 

More recently, between 2000 and 2003, an estimated 

142 wood products plants closed in the United States 

(Quesada and Gazo 2006). During that time, 20 plants 

closed in Oregon (the second most in the nation), 13 closed 

in Washington, and 5 closed in California (Quesada and 

Gazo 2006). Plant closures (when a cause could be determined) were most commonly attributed to general financial 

difficulty and reorganization; only 5 of 94 cases cited 

material shortages as a reason for plant closure (Quesada 

and Gazo 2006). Between 2005 and 2009, an additional 

300 mills temporarily or permanently closed in the Western 

United States in response to the steep decline in demand 

for lumber in the housing sector, and competition from 

other mills (Keegan et al. 2011). The national pattern of mill 

closures in the 2000s was mirrored in Oregon, Washington, 

and California (McIver et al. 2015, WDNR 2014). 

Mill capacity—

The capacity of operating mills (mill capacity) can be a 

better indicator of the size of the wood products industry 

and the potential use of, and demand for, timber harvested 

from public and private forest lands than the number 

of mills (Keegan et al. 2011). Because of technological 

improvements and loss of small mills, the number of mills 

and mill employees may decline while total aggregate mill 

capacity across states or regions declines more slowly, 

remains steady, or even increases. For example, although 

the number of sawmills in Washington declined from more 

than 200 in 1968 to 75 in 2002, aggregate mill capacity in 

the state increased during the period as mills adopted new 

technology and became larger (Helvoigt and Adams 2009). 

The average capacity of the mills in operation in 2002 in 

Washington was three times what it was in 1968 (Helvoigt 

and Adams 2009). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1968 1972 1976 1982 1985 1988 1992 1994 1998 2003 2008

Veneer only

Veneer and plywood

Plywood only

Total facilities

Number of Oregon veneer and plywood mills

Year

Figure 8-6—Number of veneer and plywood mills in Oregon, 1968–2008. Note that, for 1994, veneer and plywood mills were not 

counted separately. Adapted from Gale et al. 2012.
640

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Historically and currently, the Pacific Coast states 

(Washington, Oregon, California, and Alaska) have 

accounted for the majority of the West’s milling capacity 

(Keegan et al. 2006). The change in mill capacity across 

the West sets the context for considering changes in mill 

capacity within the NWFP area. Between the late 1980s and 

2010, mill capacity in the Western United States declined 

from about 25 billion board feet to 13 billion board feet—a 

nearly 50-percent decline (Keegan et al. 2011). Mill capacity 

losses in the NWFP area during that time reflected, in 

part, conditions facing the industry elsewhere in the West. 

Between 1986 and 2003, the Pacific Coast states lost 35 percent of their mill capacity, but this decline was the smallest 

percentage decline in the West during that period. Post2005, and influenced in large part by the Great Recession, 

milling capacity in the Pacific Coast states dropped another 

10 percent to a little under 11 billion board feet by 2010. 

Although that loss was significant, the Pacific Coast region 

again had smaller percentage declines in mill capacity than 

elsewhere in the West during that period (Keegan et al. 

2011). Within the Pacific Coast states, Oregon and Washington have typically fared better than California and Alaska in 

rates of change in the industry. For example, in Oregon, mill 

capacity in 2010 was roughly the same as it was in 1996 

(Gale et al. 2012); and in Washington, aggregate milling 

capacity in 2002 was slightly greater than it was in 1968 

(Helvoigt and Adams 2009).

The percentage of mill capacity in use gives an indication of how much additional timber could be processed 

in the short term with minimal infrastructure investment. 

Capacity utilization in the Western United States from 

the 1980s through 2005 (just prior to the Great Recession) 

remained steady at about 70 to 80 percent (Keegan et al. 

2011). In the early 2000s, with high demand for lumber 

during the housing peak, capacity utilization in the Western United States peaked at a little over 80 percent before 

subsequently falling to about 56 percent at the height of 

the recession of the late 2000s (Keegan et al. 2011). After 

the Great Recession, in 2012, Oregon was utilizing 57 

percent of its overall timber processing capacity and 61 

percent of its sawmill capacity (Gale et al. 2012); California was using 72 percent of its sawmill capacity (McIver 

et al. 2015). 

Employment in the wood products industry—

The U.S. wood products manufacturing sectors have experienced consistent, long-term contraction in employment 

since the early to mid-1990s (Keegan et al. 2011, Quesada 

and Gazo 2006, Woodall et al. 2012). Employment in wood 

products manufacturing in the Pacific Northwest mirrors 

that pattern. For example, in Oregon, employment in wood 

products manufacturing has been in a general decline 

since the late 1970s (Lehner 2012). At various times during 

that period, contraction in employment has resulted from 

changes in the demand for lumber and paper products, plant 

closures, technological advances in manufacturing that led 

to lower labor requirements, closing of product lines, and 

consolidation of companies. Demand for softwood lumber 

closely tracks conditions in the U.S. housing market. Steep 

declines in demand for new housing and housing remodels 

in the late 2000s that occurred in association with the Great 

Recession led to sharp reductions in lumber production, to 

levels not seen since World War II (Woodall et al. 2012). 

As result of that decline, the U.S. wood products sector lost 

nearly 209,000 jobs between 2005 and 2009. This pattern 

mirrored that seen in other manufacturing sectors, such 

as the automotive industry, during the same time frame 

(Woodall et al. 2012). 

In the Western United States specifically, employment 

in the wood products industries dropped by about 50,000, 

to about 250,000, between 2000 and 2010 (Keegan et al. 

2011). Oregon and Washington each experienced wood 

products manufacturing employment in the 2000s that was 

below employment levels of the late 1990s (Eastin et al. 

2007, Lehner 2012). Subsequent to 2010, there has been a 

recovery in this sector in Oregon, in line with an overall 

economic recovery (Rooney 2015). In California, employment remained flat through 2012. Comparable reporting 

is not available for Washington. Employment in the wood 

products sector in Oregon is cyclical over the long term, and 

often tracks in a pattern similar to overall nonfarm employment (although the swings in wood products employment 

are generally of higher magnitude) (Lehner 2012). Regardless, wood products manufacturing now requires fewer 

employees than in earlier decades (see Grinspoon et al. 

2016), but recovery in recent years has been good relative to 

employment levels in the 1990s and early 2000s. 
641

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

It is challenging to predict the complex interactive 

outcomes of changes in timber production, wood products 

markets, technologies, and other factors relevant to future 

timber economies as they interact with global climate trends. 

However, various climate change scenarios anticipate steady 

or increasing flows of forest products production worldwide 

(Alig 2010, Irland et al. 2001, Kirilenko and Sedjo 2007, 

Latta et al. 2010). Such outcomes could benefit those communities that contain infrastructure for harvesting and processing timber, though effects on wood products prices will 

influence the distribution of benefits (Alig 2010, Joyce 2007). 

Within the NWFP area specifically, gains in productivity 

may be offset by increased incidence of fire, disease, and 

insect outbreaks, especially in drier forest types within the 

region (Klopfenstein et al. 2009) and in areas that become 

more susceptible to other pathogens (Kliejunas et al. 2009). 

Effects of the Northwest Forest Plan on timber 

production and timber industry jobs—

As noted at the start of this section, economic concerns 

over the impacts of the NWFP on forest communities in the 

Plan area stemmed mainly from cutbacks in federal timber 

harvesting. During the 1980s, the allowable sale quantity 

(ASQ) of timber from federal forests in the Plan area 

averaged 4.5 billion board feet (BBF) annually (Charnley 

2006c). Under the Plan, the PSQ varied during the first 

decade but averaged 776 million board feet (MMBF) 

annually between 1995 and 2003. The total volume of 

timber offered for sale from Forest Service and BLM lands 

in the Plan area averaged 526 MMBF annually between 

1995 and 2003. Of this volume, an estimated 80 percent was 

from adaptive management areas and matrix lands, and 20 

percent from reserve lands. Under the NWFP, only timber 

offered for sale from adaptive management areas and 

matrix lands counts toward PSQ, meaning that an annual 

average of 421 MMBF of PSQ volume was offered for sale 

between 1995 and 2003 (Charnley 2006c). Reflecting this 

shift, the total contribution of federal timber to the regional 

supply dropped from roughly 25 percent in 1990 to under 

5 percent in 2000 (Phillips 2006a). By 2003, the expected 

PSQ volume from federal forests in the Plan area was 805 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

Timber volume (million board feet)

Year

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Total harvest

Figure 8-7—Timber offered for sale and harvested from federal forests in the NWFP area, in relation to the probable sale 

quantity (PSQ), 1995-2012. Source: Grinspoon et al. 2016.
642

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

MMBF. During the second decade of the Plan, the volume 

of timber offered for sale from Plan-area federal forests 

increased gradually and became more stable and predictable, but remained below the PSQ (fig. 8-7) (Grinspoon et 

al. 2016). By 2012, federal timber accounted for about 10 

percent of the regional timber supply from all land ownerships (Grinspoon et al. 2016).

Regarding employment, jobs in primary wood products 

manufacturing declined in the NWFP area by 30,000, or 

26 percent, between 1990 and 2000, and stood at roughly 

85,000 in 2000 (Phillips 2006a). The bulk of the 30,000 

job losses (all but 400 of them) occurred between 1990 

and 1994, after injunctions on federal timber harvesting 

were put into place following the owl listing in 1990. An 

estimated 39 percent of these jobs were lost as a result 

of cutbacks in federal timber harvesting; the majority of 

the job loss (the remaining 61 percent) is attributable to 

technological changes in the industry (Phillips 2006a). In 

2001, there were over 100,000 jobs in the NWFP area in the 

timber sector/forest products industries (logging, primary 

and secondary wood processing) associated with production 

from all forest ownerships; by 2012, there were 65,000, a 

drop of about 40 percent (Grinspoon et al. 2016). In 2001, 

12 percent of the jobs in nonmetropolitan counties in the 

NWFP area were in the timber sector, and by 2012 only 3 

percent were in the timber sector (Grinspoon et al. 2016). 

During this same period, the volume of federal timber sales 

within the NWFP area increased from about 150 MMBF in 

2000, to about 650 MMBF in 2012, meaning that despite the 

overall job decline the number of industry jobs associated 

with timber harvesting from Forest Service and BLM lands 

increased (Grinspoon et al. 2016). In 2012, timber harvested 

from federal forests in the Plan area supported an estimated 

2,300 direct jobs, and 2,500 indirect and induced jobs in 

the 72 NWFP-area counties (Grinspoon et al. 2016). Total 

employment in nonmetropolitan counties of the Plan area 

increased between 2001 and 2012, more than offsetting 

job losses in the wood products industries. Nevertheless, if 

people do not have the skills to take advantage of new job 

opportunities, they may still suffer unemployment. 

Adding to the economic effects of changing timber 

harvest levels on employment in the private sector, additional economic losses resulted from the contraction of 

public sector agency jobs: the five BLM units in the NWFP 

area lost 13 percent of their full-time-equivalent positions 

between 1993 and 2002 (166 jobs), and 15 of the 17 national 

forests in the NWFP area (excluding the Lassen and 

Modoc) together lost 36 percent of their full-time-equivalent positions (3,066 jobs). These trends continued during 

the second decade of the NWFP, especially on Plan-area 

national forests in Oregon and Washington, which had about 

5,700 full-time-equivalent employees in 1993, and 2,300 in 

2012 (Grinspoon et al. 2016). Forest Service job loss during 

the first decade of the plan was associated with declining 

budgets. Despite growth in Forest Service and BLM budgets 

at the national scale during the decade (owing largely to 

increased appropriations for fire and fuel management), 

national forest budgets for the Plan area as a whole dropped 

35 percent, even with increased allocations for fire and fuel 

management (Stuart 2006). Budget declines were tied to 

reduced timber harvest levels (Charnley et al. 2008b). BLM 

job loss was associated with reduced timber sales, but not 

with reduced budgets; BLM unit budgets rose overall during 

the first decade of the NWFP, mainly because of stable O&C 

funding appropriations and additional budget allocations 

for NWFP-related programs such as Jobs in the Woods and 

Survey and Manage (Charnley et al. 2008b, Stuart 2006).

Another way in which federal agencies create local 

community benefit is through procurement contracting, 

which can provide jobs for local businesses. Although BLM 

procurement contract spending remained constant during 

the first decade following NWFP implementation, Forest 

Service procurement contract spending declined from $103 

million in 1991 to $33 million in 2002, meaning that the 

agency supported substantially fewer external jobs through 

contracts for services such as road maintenance, forest management, and professional services (Charnley et al. 2008b). 

Trends in Plan-area procurement contract spending were not 

analyzed during the second decade of the Plan.

Mitigation measures designed to offset the negative 

economic impacts of the NWFP included the Jobs in the 

Woods Program, the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI), and changes in federal payments-to-counties formulas so that these payments were not tied to 

subsequent annual timber revenues from federal forest 

lands. Community economic assistance provided through 
643

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

the NEAI was generally viewed as having some successes, 

but as being “too little, too late” overall (Dillingham 2006). 

Although changes in legislation related to payments to 

counties have been successful in mitigating the effects of 

declining timber receipts (Graham 2008, Phillips 2006b), 

ongoing uncertainty associated with Secure Rural Schools 

Act reauthorization makes the future uncertain.

Impacts of job loss on wood products workers—

Job loss can have severe impacts on affected workers. 

Employees who lose their jobs in wood products manufacturing face the challenge of finding work in other sectors of 

the economy, either where they currently live or elsewhere, 

including perhaps in other states. Helvoigt et al. (2003) 

examined Oregon employment records to study employment transitions of those displaced from the wood products 

market in the early 1990s. In Oregon, about 51 percent of 

wood products sector employees who lost their jobs during 

industry downturns in the early 1990s found employment 

by 1998 in other industries within the state, primarily in the 

service sector, retail trade, manufacturing, and construction 

(Helvoigt et al. 2003). The remainder of those who lost their 

jobs either stayed unemployed, left the state, or became 

self-employed. Those who were able to find employment 

in another sector within Oregon had median annual wages 

that were about 1 percent lower than their former wages. 

However, that small change in median wage was buoyed by 

the high incomes of those former wood products manufacturing employees who found new jobs in the technology 

sectors. Many workers who lost their jobs were working in 

relatively low-paying service-sector jobs by 1998. Aside 

from changes in wages, there may have been additional 

losses in benefits coverage not reported in these figures. In 

southern and eastern Oregon, about one-third of those who 

lost their mill jobs moved elsewhere in the state for work 

(Helvoigt et al. 2003). 

The impacts of job loss on wood products workers 

were not purely economic; they were also social. Existing 

literature finds that mill workers were concerned about economic stability, and have a strong attachment to their home 

communities (Lee et al. 1991). This finding implies that 

moving for a new job elsewhere would have strong social 

impacts. Loggers’ sense of identity was closely tied to their 

occupation, which fostered independence, pride in their 

work, and the feeling of having a unique job (Carroll et al. 

2005). They were also part of an “occupational community” 

that included other loggers, social interactions with whom 

strengthened their sense of identity (Carroll et al. 2005). 

This attachment to a logging way of life meant that many 

loggers were willing to move or migrate seasonally in order 

to pursue it (Carroll et al. 2000b). Thus, not only did job 

loss represent a loss of jobs and income; it also undermined 

loggers’ sense of identity and personal empowerment, 

which were tied to working in the woods, making finding 

a substitute occupation difficult. Moreover, loggers and the 

timber industry were often vilified during the years of the 

so-called “owl wars,” leading to occupational stigmatization, which had a negative social and psychological impact 

on loggers and their families (Carroll 1995, Carroll et al. 

1999). A study of job loss among company loggers in Idaho 

(Carroll et al. 2000a) found that many loggers chose to stay 

in logging if they could, even if it meant lower wages and 

fewer benefits than they had previously enjoyed. Reasons 

included the relatively high income from logging, attachment to their local community and region, desire to maintain a rural way of life, and sense of identity tied to logging. 

Northwest Forest Plan impacts on communities 

and counties—

The impacts of reduced federal timber harvesting following the spotted owl listing and the NWFP on jobs, wood 

products workers, and communities in the NWFP area 

have been debated since the 1990s (e.g., Carroll et al. 1999, 

Freudenburg et al. 1998). Often, different findings emerge 

depending on the unit of analysis used to assess impacts 

(region, county, census tract, definition of community, 

individual or household), time considered, and datasets 

and indicators used to assess impacts. Thus, studies on the 

socioeconomic impacts of the NWFP on communities and 

counties find mixed results. Most studies evaluate NWFP 

socioeconomic impacts using secondary indicator data, 

rather than primary data gathered at the community scale 

from community residents. 

The NWFP caused some 11.5 million ac (4.65 million ha) 

of federal land to be reallocated from commodity production 

to ecosystem management and conservation status (Chen 

et al. 2016, Eichman et al. 2010). A number of studies have 

looked at the effects of federal lands conservation policies and 
644

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

protected areas generally on local counties and communities 

in the Western United States. Some have found these policies 

to undermine the local economic base associated with natural 

resource production, causing job loss, lower wages, and 

outmigration (e.g., Duffy-Deno 1998). Others have found 

that they can be good for communities because they may 

increase amenity migration and associated amenity-driven 

economic development (Holmes and Hecox 2004, Lorah and 

Southwick 2003, Power 2006, Rasker et al. 2013). And some 

analyses find no significant impacts on employment or wages 

from proximity to public lands that are protected from, or 

experience reduced levels of, resource extraction (DuffyDeno 1997; Lewis et al. 2002, 2003; Pugliese et al. 2015; 

Rasker 2006). Eichman et al. (2010) pointed out that because 

the impacts of conservation policies can be both negative and 

positive, one must analyze their aggregate effects, including 

how the positive impacts mitigate the negative ones, to fully 

understand their effects. 

Community-scale research conducted as part of NWFP 

socioeconomic monitoring during the first decade of the 

NWFP used a community socioeconomic well-being index 

derived from six U.S. Census variables8 to evaluate change 

in 1,314 nonmetropolitan communities in the Plan area 

(Donoghue and Sutton 2006). Socioeconomic well-being 

was evaluated based on index scores that ranged from 0 to 

100. The index was used to examine change in well-being 

for a number of parameters; those reported here are (a) 

number of communities regionwide whose socioeconomic 

well-being scores increased, decreased, or remained the 

same between 1990 and 2000; (b) change in socioeconomic 

well-being scores between 1990 and 2000 in communities 

based on their proximity to federal forest lands (<5 miles 

versus ≥5 miles away); and (c) number of communities 

having very low (0 to 48.72), low (48.73 to 61.07), medium 

(61.08 to 73.36), high (73.37 to 85.58), or very high (85.59 

to 100) socioeconomic well-being scores in relation to 

proximity to federal forests. Donoghue and Sutton (2006) 

also looked at variation in the individual indicators comprising the socioeconomic well-being index between 1990 

and 2000, and between communities within and greater 

than 5 miles of a federal forest, also reported here. The 

authors compared change in socioeconomic well-being in 

NWFP-area communities within 5 miles of a federal forest, 

with those 5 miles or more away, because they inferred that 

communities near federal forests have distinct connections 

to those forests that differ from those farther away. 

The study found that, regionwide, 27 percent of 

NWFP-area communities experienced little change in 

socioeconomic well-being between 1990 and 2000 (scores 

in 2000 were within +3 to -3 points of the 1990 scores); 37 

percent experienced a decrease in well-being (ranging from 

-51 to < -3 points), and 36 percent experienced an increase 

in well-being (ranging from >3 to 44 points) (Donoghue and 

Sutton 2006). When comparing means between 1990 and 

2000 for each of the six indicators comprising the socioeconomic well-being index, they found that change in the means 

of five of these indicators were statistically significant at a 

regional scale (p < 0.001). At a regional scale, the percentage 

of the population in communities with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher went up, the percentage of the population in poverty 

went down, employment diversity increased slightly, income 

inequality increased, and average commute time to work 

also increased during the decade. Change in unemployment 

between 1990 and 2000 at the regional scale was not statistically significant (Donoghue and Sutton 2006). 

Among communities within 5 miles of a federal forest, 

40 percent had socioeconomic well-being scores that 

decreased during the decade, compared with a 33 percent 

decrease in scores among communities 5 miles or farther 

from a federal forest. Moreover, most of the communities 

with very low or low socioeconomic well-being scores in 

2000 (71 percent) were within 5 miles of a federal forest. 

However, 43 percent of the communities with high or 

very high socioeconomic well-being scores in 2000 were 

also within 5 miles. Thus, although some communities 

close to federal forest lands were doing well in 2000, in 

general, communities farther away had higher socioeconomic well-being scores. When disaggregating the index 

indicators and comparing their means for 1990 and 2000, 

8

 The variables were diversity of employment by industry, percentage of population 25 years and older having a bachelor’s degree 

or higher, percentage of the population unemployed, percentage 

of persons living below the poverty level, household income 

inequality, and average travel time to work.
645

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Donoghue and Sutton (2006) found that, on average, 

communities farther from federal forests had a greater 

percentage of the population with a bachelor’s degrees or 

higher, less poverty, less unemployment, and less income 

inequality during both time periods, and a higher diversity 

of employment by industry in 1990 (but not 2000). Communities farther away also had higher commute times, but 

there was a positive correlation between average travel 

time to work and median household income. There were 

no statistically significant correlations between community 

socioeconomic well-being scores and community population size or population change (Donoghue and Sutton 2006).

Another study examined how 2000 poverty and unemployment rates (indicators of community well-being) traced 

to prior high rates of timber industry employment, the share 

of minority populations, and other characteristics of communities on the Olympic Peninsula in the context of the establishment of the NWFP (Kirschner 2010). The study used 

panel regression with U.S. Census data from 1990 and 2000, 

and the census tract as the unit of analysis (which is larger 

than a community but smaller than a county). In the study 

region, the poverty rate in 1990, a high minority population 

in 2000 (primarily American Indians and Latinos), and the 

share of the population with college degrees were significant 

predictors of the poverty rate in 2000. The poverty rate in 

1990 was believed to reflect the lingering impacts of timber 

industry restructuring that occurred in the 1980s. The 

presence of minorities was the only variable tested that was 

a statistically significant predictor of the unemployment rate 

in 2000. These findings likely reflect a history of prejudice 

and discrimination toward, and disadvantage among, 

these populations, influencing community socioeconomic 

well-being (Kirschner 2010). The level of reliance on the 

timber industry as a local employer (used as a proxy for the 

potential magnitude of the effect of the NWFP) was not 

found to be a statistically significant predictor of poverty or 

unemployment in 2000 on the Olympic Peninsula. 

Eichman et al. (2010) studied the effects of the NWFP 

on employment growth rates and net migration rates during 

the first decade of the NWFP at the county scale for 73 

counties that either contain NWFP reserved land (late-successional reserves, riparian reserves), or are adjacent to such 

counties. They were interested in how the economic effects 

of net migration might offset those associated with reduced 

timber production from the reserved lands. They found 

that in counties having land reserved by the NWFP, there 

was a negative effect on annual employment growth rates, 

reducing them by 0.2 percent for every 1 percent of land in 

a county that was reserved. Thus the presence of reserved 

lands (12 percent on average across the 73 counties studied) 

decreased the average annual employment growth rate from 

1.75 to 1.52 percent The percentage of decline in annual 

employment growth was higher in nonmetropolitan counties 

than in metropolitan counties. This study also found that 

the NWFP had a slightly positive effect on net migration to 

the 73 counties, which the authors attribute to the natural 

features associated with reserved land that attract amenity 

migrants (e.g., retirees, telecommuters) or help retain residents. However, the positive economic effects of migration 

only slightly offset the negative impacts of reduced timber 

harvesting on employment growth rates (-0.019 [total effect] 

versus -0.021 [without net migration offset]). 

Chen and Weber (2012) examined the impact of the 

NWFP on 234 rural communities (incorporated cities having less than 50,000 people) in Oregon whose economies 

were based in the wood products industry before NWFP 

implementation. The authors found complex relationships 

between community population change and wealth growth 

(measured by residential and commercial real estate value), 

mill closures, and proximity to NWFP-reserved land in the 

decades around establishment of the NWFP. They found 

that, during the 1990s, proximity to NWFP reserved land 

(i.e., within 10 miles of reserved land) had a statistically 

significant positive effect on community population 

growth and wealth growth compared to communities 

located farther away. They attributed this finding to 

positive amenity-related growth effects of the Plan on 

communities. This positive effect of proximity to reserved 

lands on population and wealth disappeared by the early 

2000s; it was also not evident in the 1980s. In that decade, 

mill closures caused by the general downturn in the wood 

products sector and early reductions in federal timber 

harvest had a direct negative effect on community population, but no statistically significant effect on wealth change 
646

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in communities. In the 1990s, with the NWFP in place, 

mill closures had a direct negative effect on wealth and an 

indirect (through wealth loss) negative effect on population. That is, the mill closures did not directly influence 

population change, but the effect of mill closures reduced 

community wealth, which in turn led to population loss. 

Oftentimes these negative effects were not limited to 

communities close to NWFP reserved land because mills 

are often located away from the log source. By the early 

2000s, the relationship between mill closures and wealth 

creation disappeared, and there was a direct positive 

relationship between communities with mill closures and 

communities with population growth. The authors postulated that relationships between mills closures and population and wealth found for the early 2000s may reflect the 

arrival of amenity migrants in mill towns (after they had 

already arrived in communities closest to reserved land), 

and the corresponding increase in residential housing 

value that offset (in real estate values community-wide) 

any continued loss in commercial property values. 

Chen et al. (2016) extended this analysis by testing for 

any effect of proximity to NWFP reserved areas on population, income, and wealth through the late 2000s. The authors 

found that small communities (100 to 2,500 people) within 5 

miles of protected NWFP land experienced positive increases 

in all three attributes relative to those that were farther away. 

They attribute the correlation between proximity to protected 

NWFP lands and income, population, and property value 

growth to the amenity values associated with conservation 

lands set aside by the NWFP, where land uses were restricted. 

Because a share of amenity migrants are often individuals 

with strong purchasing power who can purchase existing 

homes or build new ones, amenity migration can lead to 

increases in property values within a community without an 

associated increase in income in the community. In this study, 

the authors did find that property values in NWFP-proximate 

small communities grew more than median income, resulting 

in a decrease in real income in those communities. The 

authors found no effect of NWFP proximity for medium-size 

communities (2,500 to 20,000 residents). 

It is difficult to generalize about the effects of the 

NWFP on rural communities and counties, and its role as a 

driver of change there, from quantitative studies based on 

secondary data because the body of research encompasses 

different periods, different geographic scales and locations, 

and different indicators. Moreover, although several studies 

find correlations between different social and economic 

indicators and lands protected by the NWFP, these correlations do not necessarily imply causation. For example, some 

studies attribute their findings to the NWFP when they may 

be the result of proximity to federal lands generally, instead 

of a specific forest management policy such as the NWFP 

(Charnley et al. 2008c). Nevertheless, to summarize the 

results of these studies: impacts attributed to the NWFP 

include population growth and population decline, both 

increases and decreases in socioeconomic well-being, and 

both increases and decreases in economic indicators. Some 

studies found no NWFP impact on population and economic indicators. Studies also found that NWFP impacts on 

communities differed at the community and county scales, 

and depended on local social, cultural, economic, and 

environmental contexts. In general, impacts (both positive 

and negative) were greater during the first decade of the 

NWFP than they were during the second decade. Impacts 

(both positive and negative) were also greater in communities located closer to national forests, or to reserved 

lands set aside by the NWFP; and in communities that had 

experienced a mill closure (not necessarily as a result of the 

Plan). Finally, impacts were greater at the community scale 

than at the county and regional scales; and were greater in 

nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties.

Qualitative accounts providing insight into causal relationships between the NWFP and socioeconomic conditions 

in rural communities are less common. Seventeen community case studies that included primary qualitative data 

collection were undertaken in communities surrounding 

federal forests in the NWFP area to evaluate its impacts on 

community well-being during the first decade (Buttolph et 

al. 2006, Charnley et al. 2008a, Dillingham et al. 2008, Kay 

et al. 2007, McLain et al. 2006). Charnley et al. (2008c) and 

Charnley and Donoghue (2006b) summarize the findings of 

these case studies. 

They found that not all communities were affected in 

the same way, or to the same extent. The NWFP’s impacts 

depended on the relative strength of the wood products 

industry as an economic sector around 1990; the extent to 
647

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

which federal timber supported that sector; and the degree 

to which local residents depended on federal jobs (as agency 

employees or contractors). Communities that participated 

heavily in the wood products industry in the late 1980s 

and early 1990s, where loggers worked mainly on federal 

forest lands and local mills obtained most of their wood 

from federal forests, were heavily affected. Communities 

having a large number of Forest Service or BLM employees 

were also heavily affected. In communities where tribal or 

private forest lands were the main source of supply for the 

industry, the NWFP had a minor impact. Although timber 

workers and agency employees experienced impacts, at the 

community level, the effects of the NWFP also depended 

on economic activity in other sectors. In places where other 

industries were also in decline (e.g., the fishing industry in 

coastal communities), the NWFP added to these impacts. 

In places with more diversified local economies, its impacts 

were somewhat mitigated, although jobs in other sectors 

did not necessarily provide opportunities for those who 

experienced NWFP-related job loss. In communities where 

the timber industry had declined prior to the late 1980s, or 

was never prominent—as in some agriculturally oriented 

communities—the NWFP had little impact.

Effects of wildfire management on communities—

Several of the studies reviewed here suggest that rural communities near federal forests are more affected by federal 

forest management policy than communities located farther 

away. Communities near federal forests—no matter what 

their economic orientation—are also likely to face greater 

risks from the heightened incidence of wildfires that occur 

there, and that are predicted to increase under a warming 

climate (see chapter 2). These risks will likely be greatest 

in areas of WUI expansion (Wimberly and Liu 2014) (fig. 

8-8). Socially vulnerable WUI populations may be at 

Figure 8-8—Home expansion into the wildland-urban interface increases the risk of losses from high-severity wildfire on federal forest lands.

Susan Charnley
648

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

even greater risk (Ojerio et al. 2011). Beyond the strictly 

economic impacts of wildfire, there are multiple social and 

health concerns associated with wildfires generally, and 

large wildfires specifically (Finlay et al. 2012). Recent large 

wildfires have resulted in injuries, property loss, and death 

among WUI residents. Wildfire smoke has been associated 

with increased risk of respiratory disease, and may also 

be associated with increased cardiovascular disease and 

mortality (Kochi et al. 2010, Liu et al. 2015, Moeltner et al. 

2013, Mott et al. 2002). 

Displacement of residents, stress, psychological trauma, 

and conflict have also been documented in communities 

affected by wildfires (Carroll et al. 2006, Finlay et al. 2012). 

The activities of federal fire managers during fires that 

threaten or damage the built environment can influence 

trust and relationships between community members and 

agency managers in the future (Carroll et al. 2006, 2011; 

Paveglio et al. 2015a). Management activities intended to 

alter fire behavior, restore forest conditions so they are 

more resilient to wildfire, or protect human values from fire 

are often warranted in various forest types throughout the 

NWFP area (see chapter 3 of this volume). Thus, eliminating fire from these systems is not possible, nor is it possible 

to eliminate smoke impacts, especially where prescribed 

fire is a needed forest restoration tool to increase forest 

resilience to wildfire.

Social and Economic Change in Rural 

Communities in the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Social science research from the Plan area that examines 

how communities have changed in the two decades since 

the NWFP was implemented forms part of a broader 

literature on rural restructuring in the American West that 

followed the decline in natural resource extraction as a 

prominent economic activity in rural communities. Following a brief overview of demographic change in the region, 

we discuss key findings of this body of research.

Demographic change—

Published accounts of demographic change in the 72 

counties of the NWFP area as a whole since the Plan was 

implemented come from the Plan’s socioeconomic monitoring reports. These are inconsistent in their data sources and 

Summary—

The population of the NWFP area has been increasing at a faster rate than for the United States as 

a whole, with the majority of population growth 

occurring in metropolitan areas. Population trends 

in nonmetropolitan communities have been variable. Over the past two to three decades, many 

rural communities in the Plan area have undergone 

changes in demographic and economic conditions 

following declines in commodity production. One 

general trajectory is the “amenity” trajectory, in 

which communities that are relatively accessible and 

situated near natural amenities such as mountains 

and water bodies experience population growth 

owing to in-migration by people who are seeking an 

improved quality of life or are fleeing cities, telecommuting, becoming creative entrepreneurs, and living 

off of retirement or investment incomes. Amenity 

migration may drive local community development. 

A second trajectory is for communities to continue 

with traditional modes of production, albeit at lower 

levels, or to attract new forms of commodity production or service-oriented economic activity to bolster 

the local economy. These new businesses may be 

less desirable but provide jobs, at least in the short 

term; illegal (e.g., marijuana production on federal 

lands); or may seek to use natural resources in new 

and diverse ways through investments in sustainable 

agriculture and natural resource management. Many 

communities pursue a range of strategies, with 

diverse development pathways increasing their resilience. A third trajectory, however, is one in which 

communities find it difficult to recover from declines 

in commodity production, and therefore experience 

population and employment declines. Nevertheless, 

these communities have latent potential for development associated with the availability of labor, land, 

natural resources, or infrastructure that may become 

valuable in the future. 
649

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

scale of analysis, making simple reporting of trends difficult. Socioeconomic monitoring of the NWFP area during 

the first decade (1994 to 2003) occurred at the community 

scale and used decennial U.S. Census data from 1990 and 

2000 (Donoghue and Sutton 2006). Socioeconomic monitoring during the second decade (2004 to 2013) occurred 

at the county scale and used annual mid-year population 

estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau (reported by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis) for the years 1999 through 2012 (Grinspoon and Phillips 

2011, Grinspoon et al. 2016). All of these reports distinguish 

between trends in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. 

A metropolitan area is a core urban area with a population 

of 50,000 or more people, and can be composed of several 

counties.9 The 10-year socioeconomic monitoring report 

identifies 10 metropolitan areas and 1,314 nonmetropolitan 

communities in the NWFP area (Donoghue and Sutton 

2006), and identifies trends for these communities. The 15- 

and 20-year monitoring reports distinguish 32 metropolitan 

counties and 40 nonmetropolitan counties (Grinspoon and 

Phillips 2011, Grinspoon et al. 2016), and show population 

trends for these two groups of counties. General findings 

from the two reports are as follows:

1. Between 1990 and 2000, the total population of 

the NWFP area went from 8.57 million in 1990 

to 10.26 million in 2000, a population increase of 

19.8 percent (Donoghue and Sutton 2006). The 

population of the United States as a whole grew by 

13.2 percent during this decade.10 Population in the 

1,314 nonmetropolitan communities went from 4.13 

million in 1990 to 4.98 million in 2000, increasing 

by 20.6 percent. However, 21 percent of communities lost population during this period; these tended 

to be small (under 2,000 people). About 40 percent 

of communities grew at a slower rate than for the 

region as a whole, and about 40 percent grew more 

quickly. The fast-growing communities were typically bigger than the slow-growing communities 

(Donoghue and Sutton 2006).

2. Between 2000 and 2012, the total population of the 

NWFP area grew to 11.87 million, an increase of 

15 percent since 2000 (Grinspoon et al. 2016). In 

comparison, the U.S. population grew by 11.6 percent during this period (based on 2012 population 

projections from the 2010 Census).11

3. The population of NWFP-area counties grew by 

10 percent in California, 16 percent in Oregon, 

and 19 percent in Washington between 1999 and 

2012. Population growth between 1999 and 2012 

in metropolitan counties overall was twice what it 

was in nonmetropolitan counties, and accounted 

for nearly all of the population growth in the Plan 

area during this period. And, NWFP-area counties (both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan) grew 

faster than non-NWFP-area counties in the three 

states (Grinspoon et al. 2016), perhaps because 

they contain the largest metropolitan areas. These 

trends obscure changes occurring in individual 

counties and at the community scale.

4. Overall, people residing in nonmetropolitan communities and counties in the NWFP area are aging. 

Changing socioeconomic conditions—

Over the past two to three decades, many rural communities in the NWFP area and elsewhere in the Western United 

States have undergone “rural restructuring”—changes 

in their demographic and economic conditions (Nelson 

1997)—owing to declines in natural resource production 

and agriculture, which previously were the economic 

mainstays of these communities. Researchers investigating 

this phenomenon in rural forest communities in the United 

States and in the West have identified general trajectories 

of change in response, leading to different community/

county types that have emerged today. This does not mean 

that communities were static prior to the 1980s, nor that 

they can be neatly categorized into one ideal type today. 

Nevertheless, researchers have distinguished several rural 

community development pathways, typically integrating 

9

 http://www.census.gov/population/metro/.

10 https://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf.

11 http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmkPl.
650

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

considerations of economic activities, “connectedness” to 

urban areas, population, and stocks of financial, social, or 

other forms of capital in doing so. These different development pathways can be used to characterize change in the 

NWFP area as well. 

The degree of community economic dependence 

upon “traditional” resource use (e.g., logging, ranching, 

and mining) is one common variable used to differentiate 

rural Western communities. For example, so-called “old 

West” economic activities are typically contrasted with 

“new West” economic activities associated with the service 

industries, particularly tourism and real estate (Winkler et 

al. 2007). We apply three general trajectories of socioeconomic change documented in rural forest communities in 

the United States (based on Morzillo et al. 2015) to the Plan 

area because they are consistent with the literature from the 

region: (1) amenity-driven development, (2) development 

driven by new production strategies, and (3) economic 

decline. These are archetypes; communities following 

different trajectories can occur in the same county, and 

individual communities may pursue a combination of 

development strategies (fig. 8-9). 

Gaps in the published literature prevent us from 

quantifying the number of communities in the NWFP 

area that have followed these different trajectories, and 

from identifying their geographic distribution. However, 

other researchers have developed typologies that classify 

counties according to variables that help to characterize 

socioeconomic conditions there. For example, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service 

(ERS) developed nine different rural-to-urban continuum 

codes, which classify metropolitan counties based on the 

size of the population in their metropolitan area (three 

categories), and nonmetropolitan counties based on their 

Figure 8-9—Weaverville in Trinity County, California, retains a sawmill and has also experienced amenity-driven development.

Susan Charnley
651

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

12 http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/.aspx.

13 http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-typology-codes.aspx.

degree of urbanization and adjacency to a metropolitan 

area (six categories).12 Rasker et al. (2009) developed a similar typology of urban connectivity for counties in the U.S. 

West that further differentiate nonmetropolitan counties. 

In that typology, counties are classified as metropolitan, 

connected, and isolated based on location within a metropolitan area or location within one hour of an airport with 

daily commercial passenger service. About 50 percent of 

the counties in the U.S. West were classified as “isolated;” 

18 counties within the NWFP area (25 percent) were 

classified as “isolated.” 

The ERS has also typed counties based on several social 

and economic characteristics (not necessarily mutually exclusive).13 Examples include economic dependence on recreation 

(fig. 8-10); economic dependence on manufacturing (fig. 8-11); 

retirement-destination counties (fig. 8-12); and low-employment counties (fig. 8-13). In the NWFP area, the majority of 

recreation-dependent counties are located along the Pacific 

Coast or on the east side of the Cascade Range, in areas commonly perceived as being rich in natural amenities. Manufacturing-dependent counties are rare, and are all metropolitan. 

Two of the manufacturing-dependent counties are focused on 

advanced manufacturing: Snohomish County, Washington, 

is a key manufacturing center for the aerospace industry, and 

Washington County, Oregon, is home to semiconductor and 

bioscience manufacturers. Retirement counties are sprinkled 

throughout the Plan area and are in a mix of metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan locations. In general, the retirement counties tend to be associated with areas that are rich in natural 

amenities (e.g., Deschutes County, Oregon; Skagit County, 

Washington; and Shasta County, California) or that have a 

relatively low cost of land and housing (e.g., Douglas County, 

Oregon, and Lewis County, Washington). Low-employment 

counties are predominantly nonmetropolitan, and within the 

NWFP area are concentrated in northern California, southern 

Oregon, and the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. It is 

important to bear in mind that county-scale typologies do not 

necessarily reflect conditions at the community scale.

Amenity communities—

The most studied form of rural restructuring in forest 

communities nationwide, and in the Western United 

States, is the one that follows the commodity production 

→ decline → amenity trajectory (Morzillo et al. 2015), in 

which rural communities or counties become places that 

attract people who wish to enjoy the natural amenities they 

offer, rather than because they are pursuing employment 

in natural resource production (Lawson et al. 2010, Morzillo et al. 2015). Natural amenities include water bodies, 

mountains, and public lands, and communities following 

this trajectory of change are typically located in or near 

places that offer nearby natural amenities and are relatively 

accessible from urban areas (McGranahan 1999, Rasker et 

al. 2009). Amenity communities are characterized by high 

population growth rates owing to in-migration by amenity 

migrants—people who seek an improved quality of life 

outside of cities, telecommute, are entrepreneurs, or who 

live on retirement or investment income (McGranahan and 

Wojan 2007, Winkler et al. 2007). For overviews of the 

phenomenon of amenity migration see Gosnell and Abrams 

(2011) and Waltert and Schläpfer (2010).

High-amenity communities and counties draw people 

and businesses, which in turn can drive economic development (Rasker et al. 2013). Waltert and Schläpfer (2010) 

identified five ways that natural amenities have been found 

to affect rural development: (1) new residents with flexible 

income sources move to the area to be closer to natural 

amenities; (2) new residents accept lower pay or higher costs 

of living in rural areas to be close to natural amenities; (3) 

entrepreneurs willing to accept lower profits move to rural 

areas to be closer to natural amenities; (4) natural amenities 

provide a basis for tourism, recreation and outdoor industries; 

and (5) amenities provide benefits from nature that improve 

the well-being of individual people or make businesses more 

profitable. In some cases, population change that provides 

a potential labor force with desirable skills may attract new 

businesses looking for workers (Waltert and Schläpfer 2010). 

Research on amenity migration and amenity 

communities in the Northwest is relatively sparse compared 

to research on this topic from other parts of the American 

West. In the Northwest, amenity counties have been found 
652

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Napa

Curry

Deschutes

Hood River

Skamania

Kittitas

Chelan

Okanagan

Whatcom

San Juan

Jefferson

Mason

Pacific

Clatsop

Tillamook

Lincoln

Trinity

Mendocino

Sonoma

Marin

County typology

Recreation-dependent; nonmetropolitan

Recreation-dependent; metropolitan

Other nonmetropolitan

Other metropolitan

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

WASHINGTON

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Classification method for recreationdependent county economy:

Recreation-dependent status is determined

by a weighted index comprised of three variables

from different data sources:

1. Percentage of wage employment in 

entertainment, accommodations, eating 

and drinking establishments, recreation, and 

real estate. Data source: USDC Bureau of 

Economic Analysis (BEA).

2. Percentage of personal income from these

same categories. Data source: USDC BEA. 

3. Percentage of vacant housing units classified

for seasonal or occasional use. Data source: 

USDC Census Bureau. 

BEA data are from November 2014; 

U.S. Census data are from 2010.

Data were converted to Z-scores and combined

into a weighted index; index values >0.67 (with

1.0 highest) were classified as recreationdependent.

Calculations are by the USDA Economic Research

Service, April 2016.

0 50 100 150 o Miles

Figure 8-10—Recreation-dependent counties in the Northwest Forest Plan area. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service.
653

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

0 50 100 150 o Miles

Linn

Washington

Snohomish County typology

Manufacturing-dependent; metropolitan

Other nonmetropolitan

Other metropolitan

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

WASHINGTON

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Classification method for manufacturingdependent county economy:

Manufacturing-dependent status is determined

by two thresholds:

1. Greater than 23 percent of annual average

 total county earnings are from manufacturing

 sector sources.

2. Manufacturing employment accounts for 

 greater than 16 percent of total county 

 employment.

BEA data are from November 2014; U.S. 

Census data are from 2010.

Data source: U.S Department of Commerce, 

Bureau of Economic Analysis, November 2014.

Calculations are by the USDA Economic 

Research Service, April 2016.

Figure 8-11—Manufacturing-dependent counties in the Northwest Forest Plan area. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service.
654

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Curry

Deschutes

Whatcom

Jefferson

Mason

County typology

Retirement destination; nonmetropolitan

Retirement destination; metropolitan

Other nonmetropolitan

Other metropolitan

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

Classification method for retirementdestination counties:

Retirement destination is determined by:

• Population aged 60 and over increased by

 15 percent or more because of net migration

 between 2000 and 2010.

Data source: U.S Department of Commerce, 

Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 decennial

censuses.

Net migration and age classifications 

prepared by applied Population Laboratory, 

University of Wisconsin-Madison

County calculations are by the USDA 

Economic Research Service, April 2016.

0 50 100 150 o Miles

Crook

Jefferson

Clark

Cowlitz

Lewis

Thurston

Clallam

Skagit

Franklin

Yamhill

Wahkiakum

Josephine

Jackson

Shasta

Douglas

Figure 8-12—Retirement-destination counties in the Northwest Forest Plan area. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 
655

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Curry

Jefferson

Mason

County typology

Low employment; nonmetropolitan

Low employment; metropolitan

Other nonmetropolitan

Other metropolitan

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

Classification method for low-employment 

counties:

Low employment status is determined by a 

single threshold:

• Fewer than 65 percent of adults age 

 25 to 64 were employed, measured as 

 a rolling annual average between 2000 

 and 2010.

Data source: American Community 

Survey 2008–2012 5-Year Release, 

U.S Department of Commerce, Census 

Bureau, December 2014.

County calculations are by the USDA 

Economic Research Service, April 2016.

0 50 100 150 o Miles

Crook

Jefferson

Cowlitz

Lewis

Clallam

Wahkiakum

Josephine

Shasta

Douglas

Okanogan

Klickitat

Pacific

Grays Harbor

Coos

Klamath

Del Norte

Siskiyou Modoc

Lassen

Tehama

Glenn

Lake

Trinity

WASHINGTON

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

Figure 8-13—Low-employment counties in the Northwest Forest Plan area. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service. 
656

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

to attract investments in recreation and tourism, to draw 

middle- and high-income residents, and to be economically 

diversified relative to other rural counties (Lawson et al. 

2010). Amenity counties also often have a high proportion 

of second homes; nonmetropolitan Washington counties had 

an average of 17 percent of their housing stock in second 

homes in 2010, with the number increasing rapidly (Kondo 

et al. 2012). Employment in the retail and services sectors in 

these areas is typically more important economically than 

employment in agriculture or natural resource extraction 

(Lawson et al. 2010) (fig. 8-14). Although poverty has been 

found to be relatively low in high-amenity counties in the 

Northwest compared to other nonmetropolitan counties 

(Lawson et al. 2010), these places are often characterized by 

high social and economic inequality, and by sociocultural 

divisions between long-time residents and newcomers 

(Kondo et al. 2012, Morzillo et al. 2015, Nelson 1997, 

Ohman 1999). In Oregon and Washington, high-amenity 

rural counties are concentrated along the Pacific Coast and 

the Cascade Range (Lawson et al. 2010). One example is 

Hood River County, Oregon (Pierce 2007).

The presence of public lands can be an important 

driver in attracting amenity migration; new arrivers 

often wish to live near public land boundaries. A study of 

housing growth within 50 km of designated wilderness 

areas, national parks, and national forests in the coterminous United States between 1940 and 2000 found that 

national forests experienced the highest absolute growth in 

number of housing units in their vicinity (from 484,000 to 

1.8 million within 1 km of a national forest; and from 9.0 to 

Figure 8-14—Services and retail are important economic sectors in amenity-based communities. 

Susan Charnley
657

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

34.8 million within 50 km) (Radeloff et al. 2010). Population growth and associated housing and road development 

can lead to habitat fragmentation and threats to water 

quality and biodiversity on federal lands (Radeloff et al. 

2010), and other patterns of ecological degradation (Abrams 

et al. 2012). For example, Radeloff et al. (2010) found that, 

between 1940 and 2000, 940,000 housing units were built 

on private inholdings within national forests nationwide. 

Housing growth and associated road development near 

these protected areas can make them ecologically isolated 

by causing habitat fragmentation around their boundaries, 

disrupting habitat corridors between them, increasing the 

spread of invasive species, and increasing predation by pets 

(Radeloff et al. 2010). The study does not provide comparable statistics for the Pacific Northwest.

The expansion of the WUI also poses challenges for 

fire managers (Hammer et al. 2007). During the 1990s, 61 

percent of the new housing units built in Oregon, Washington, and California (combined) were built in the WUI, 

causing 18 percent growth in the number of WUI housing 

units in these states during the decade (Hammer et al. 

2007). Most of this growth occurred in the intermix, where 

homes and forests intermingle, making fire management 

especially difficult. In 2000, about two-thirds of the WUI 

in these states occurred in places with a 35 to 100+-year 

fire-return interval, the vast majority of which had departed 

from its historical range of variability (Hammer et al. 2007). 

These past patterns may portend future trends in WUI 

development in the NWFP area.

Communities pursuing new production strategies—

A second trajectory of change in rural forest communities 

in the United States has been characterized as commodity 

production → decline → (new) production (Morzillo et 

al. 2015). Places that follow this trajectory find ways to 

continue traditional forms of commodity production, 

albeit often reduced or altered, or they find new forms 

of commodity production or service-oriented economic 

activity to bolster the local economy (Morzillo et al. 2015). 

Research indicates that change along this trajectory has 

various outcomes. 

On the one hand, it can lead to industrial recruitment (Lawson et al. 2010). Research from the Northwest 

characterizes such communities as being as remote or less 

attractive then amenity communities, and as having weak 

farming and natural resource production sectors. Thus, 

community leaders try to lure in new businesses such as 

hog farms, food processing plants, corporate dairies, or 

prisons in the hope that they will lead to job creation. To 

be competitive, they may loosen environmental, labor, 

and zoning standards, and provide economic incentives 

and cheap land. Although such industries may be deemed 

undesirable—providing low-wage jobs, paying low 

property taxes, having undesirable environmental consequences, or departing after a few years—they are pursued 

as a means to create large numbers of jobs in the short term 

to keep the local economy afloat (Crowe 2006, Lawson et 

al. 2010). In Washington state, local control over land and 

resources, physical space for expansion, and accessibility 

to markets were found to be important community characteristics associated with industrial recruitment. Well-developed social infrastructure (e.g., schools, health care 

services, active community organizations, and links to 

agencies or organizations in nearby communities or at the 

state or national levels) also positively influenced industrial 

recruitment (Crowe 2006). 

An alternative to industrial recruitment is the emergence 

of new but illegal production economies, exemplified by 

the marijuana economy that has developed in the California 

portion of the NWFP area since the 1980s (Polson 2013). An 

estimated 60 to 70 percent of the marijuana consumed in the 

United States is produced in California (Carah et al. 2015). 

The collapse of the mining and timber industries in northern 

California, economic stagnation, and the rise of service-oriented industries—in which many jobs are low paying, temporary or seasonal, and lack benefits—created conditions of 

economic vulnerability (Keene 2015). This lack of economic 

opportunity led many people to experiment with marijuana 

production. Initially illegal, marijuana production increased 

substantially in the 1990s and 2000s as a result of local 

economic restructuring and legislative changes in California 

legalizing the use, cultivation, and possession of marijuana 

for medicinal purposes (although some illegal modes of production continued, e.g., growing on federal lands). Marijuana 

production now plays a significant role in sustaining rural 
658

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

livelihoods in the region and in shaping land values there 

(Keene 2015, Polson 2013). This role may increase because 

California legalized marijuana for recreational use by adults 

in 2016. Large-scale production (hundreds to thousands of 

plants) on private lands funded by nonlocal residents for 

investment purposes can create conflict by driving up land 

prices, taking land out of food production, affecting water 

use, and failing to consider or contribute to local community 

interests (fig. 8-15). Washington and Oregon have also 

legalized marijuana for medicinal and recreational use, but 

we are not aware of any published literature on marijuana 

production in Oregon and Washington and its effects on 

local communities, economies, and the environment.

The environmental impacts of commercial-scale, outdoor marijuana cultivation in northern California’s forested 

landscapes are beginning to be documented (Bauer et al. 

2015, Carah et al. 2015, Gabriel et al. 2012). They include 

forest clearing, land terracing, and road construction; and 

diversion of large quantities of surface water for irrigation 

during summer when water flows are low, posing a threat 

to fish, amphibians, and other wildlife in watersheds 

important for their aquatic biodiversity. These impacts can 

occur on both public and private lands. Chemical pollution 

from heavy use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers 

is another threat that has been documented on public 

lands, with these pollutants contaminating watersheds and 

Figure 8-15—Large-scale marijuana production funded by nonlocal community members and its impacts on Karuk and Yurok ancestral 

lands in northern California is controversial. 

Susan Charnley
659

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

entering local food chains, poisoning wildlife, including 

fishers (Pekania pennanti), recently considered for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act (Bauer et al. 2015, 

Carah et al. 2015, Gabriel et al. 2012). Whether these kinds 

of environmental impacts will decrease in response to 

recent legislation legalizing marijuana cultivation remains 

to be seen.

Another distinct development pathway for communities 

pursuing new production strategies is what Hibbard and 

Lurie (2013) refer to as the “new natural resources economy.” This strategy entails using natural resources in new 

and diverse ways to help drive local economic development 

through investments in sustainable agriculture and natural 

resource management (fig. 8-16), including restoration. 

Such activities draw on the natural resource base of rural 

communities in ways that both diversify the local economy 

and promote socioeconomic well-being by producing new 

goods and services for export, generating new jobs and 

income-earning opportunities, and producing goods and 

services for local use rather than importing them, thereby 

increasing self-sufficiency. Examples of such activities 

in Oregon communities include (1) sustainable farming/

ranching, forest products production, and alternative 

energy production (production related); (2) ecotourism 

and agritourism (consumption related); and (3) watershed 

restoration, wildlife habitat protection and restoration, 

forest restoration, and environmental education (protection 

related) (Hibbard and Lurie 2013). 

Figure 8-16—Mount Adams Resource Stewards’ small business incubator and log yard in Glenwood, Washington.

Emily Jane Davis
660

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Examples of NWFP-area communities that are developing new natural resource economies are Hayfork, California, (Abrams et al. 2015) and Vernonia, Oregon (Hibbard 

and Lurie 2013). In Hayfork, a local community-based 

organization—the Watershed Research and Training 

Center—helped the community transition by developing 

workforce training and job opportunities associated with 

ecosystem management work and hazardous fuels reduction 

on national forests. It also invested in a small-log processing 

facility and a business incubator to encourage development 

and marketing of value-added forest products (Abrams et 

al. 2015). In Vernonia, some family forest owners engage 

in commercial nontimber forest products production from 

their lands, and there is a tourism economy developing in 

association with a recent rails-to-trails project. In addition, 

the community is reinventing itself as a “green” community, 

with rural development projects revolving around rebuilding 

schools according to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified standards and heat from locally 

produced biomass energy, and a new rural sustainability 

center promoting forest sustainability and clean energy 

(Hibbard and Lurie 2013). Hibbard and Lurie (2013) discussed barriers to the development of new natural resource 

economies, and suggested policies and programs that might 

help; none pertain directly to federal forest management. 

Communities in decline—

A third general trajectory of change identified for rural 

forest communities in the United States experiencing 

dwindling commodity production is decline (Morzillo et 

al. 2015). Such communities are unable to recover from 

significant job losses associated with traditional modes 

of production, and therefore experience population and 

employment declines. They are often remote, may have 

undesirable environmental legacies from former extractive 

industries such as forestry or mining, and often have high 

and growing poverty rates (Lawson et al. 2010, Morzillo et 

al. 2015). These communities have not attracted investors 

or wealthy, educated immigrants; have limited development 

options; and are economically and politically marginalized. 

Not only have they failed to attract new investments; the 

viability of traditional economic activities such as forestry, 

ranching, farming, and mining continues to dwindle 

(Lawson et al. 2010, Nelson 1997). An example is Happy 

Camp, California, which was heavily affected by cutbacks 

in timber harvesting associated with the NWFP (Charnley 

et al. 2008a). Nevertheless, these communities have latent 

potential for development associated with the availability 

of labor, land, natural resources, or infrastructure that may 

become valuable in the future (Morzillo et al. 2015). 

Adaptation to change—

A common theme that crosscuts the discussion above is 

community adaptation to change. Community capacity and 

community resilience are important to well-being in forest 

communities, making them more resilient to change and disturbances (such as wildfire, climate variability, and declines 

in the wood products industry) (Berkes and Ross 2013, Folke 

et al. 2010). The elements, mechanisms, and determinants 

of community resilience are not necessarily the same across 

community contexts, implying a need to consider the various development pathways of rural communities over time 

and their particular relationships with nearby public forest 

lands (Donoghue and Sturtevant 2008). 

As noted, our discussion of rural community development pathways above identifies archetypes. Rural communities that have strongly “multifunctional” characteristics are 

more likely to be resilient to social, economic, and ecological 

changes associated with federal forest management, and to 

mitigate their negative impacts, making them more resilient 

(Wilson 2010). Multifunctional rural landscapes are those 

that have a mix of uses, including commodity production 

(e.g., forest products, agriculture); amenity-driven development (e.g., recreation, tourism, services); and natural resource 

protection (e.g., forest restoration, jobs with land management 

agencies). Multifunctionality helps communities diversify 

their rural economies and contributes to both environmental 

and economic health (Hibbard and Lurie 2013). Not all communities are able to develop multifunctional characteristics, 

and doing so depends on their natural and social assets. 

Research on NWFP impacts conducted in 17 communities around federal forests in the NWFP area following 

the first decade of the Plan’s implementation (Charnley et 

al. 2006b, 2008b) found that different communities experienced the different trajectories of change described above 

in pursuing (or not pursuing) new opportunities. Owing to 
661

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

their proximity to natural amenities, several communities 

experienced an influx of retirees, commuters, mobile 

or self-employed workers, or second-home owners, and 

benefitted from being popular recreation or tourism destinations, although not all community residents viewed this as a 

positive change (Charnley et al. 2008c). Other communities 

reoriented around new forms of production such as agriculture; new industries or service sectors associated with 

proximity to a major transportation corridor in or near a 

regional center; or the growth of tribal businesses, administration, and services. And some were in decline—especially those that were remote, surrounded by federal lands, 

and previously highly dependent on the wood products 

industry. Regardless, all communities were making efforts 

to develop and diversify, which was easier for some than 

others, depending on community characteristics.

One study (Harrison et al. 2016) examined the role 

of social capital (defined as behavioral norms and social 

networks that facilitate collective action) in influencing the 

capacity of three Pacific Northwest communities affected by 

the decline of the wood products industry to adapt to change 

and take advantage of new opportunities. The study found 

that a community’s ability to develop along new trajectories 

aligned with local goals was influenced by interactions 

between different forms of social capital (bonding, linking, 

bridging).14 In particular, a combination of strong bridging 

and linking social capital was found to facilitate desirable 

community outcomes. This finding builds on earlier work 

from the 1990s that found social cohesion to be an important characteristic influencing rural community well-being 

(Beckley 1998, Doak and Kusel 1996, Harris et al. 2000). 

Local cultural context also plays an important role in 

influencing how communities respond and adapt to changes 

like mill closures (Lyon and Parkins 2013). 

These observations suggest that there is no one 

pathway, or set of variables, that will make communities 

resilient in the face of change, ensure successful adaptation, 

or promote socioeconomic well-being. Individual communities draw on the assets and opportunities available to them, 

which differ depending on social, cultural, economic, and 

environmental conditions. Moreover, community well-being 

is based on a host of quality-of-life attributes, including 

health, safety, political participation, social equity, and 

access to social services as well as jobs and income. Federal 

forest management can contribute to socioeconomic 

well-being in multiple ways (Kusel 2001, Nadeau et al. 

2003, Sturtevant and Donoghue 2008), but it is only one of 

many factors influencing community well-being. 

How Goods, Services, and Opportunities from 

Federal Forests Contribute to Community 

Socioeconomic Well-Being 

Federal forest management contributes to socioeconomic 

well-being in rural communities by providing timber and 

nontimber forest products, recreation opportunities, jobs, 

other ecosystem services, and backdrops for where people 

want to live and work. Charnley (2006c) and Grinspoon 

et al. (2016) detailed and quantified many of these contributions for NWFP-area national forests and BLM districts 

over the first 20 years of the Plan. Here we focus on jobs in 

forest restoration and firefighting, nontimber forest products 

(NTFPs), the economic effects of recreation on federal 

forests, and ecosystem services from federal forests. NTFPs 

are also addressed in chapters 10 and 11, and recreation is 

also addressed in chapter 9. 

14 Bonding social capital refers to relations between individuals 

within a community who have similar social and economic 

backgrounds. Bridging social capital refers to relations between 

individuals having different backgrounds. Linking social capital 

refers to relations between community members and people 

outside the community who have the ability to affect community 

outcomes (Harrison et al. 2016).

Summary—

Federal forest management contributes to socioeconomic well-being in rural communities in ways that 

go beyond providing timber and associated jobs in 

the wood products industries. This section discusses 

jobs in forest restoration and firefighting, biomass 

use, nontimber forest products (NTFP) gathering, the 

economic effects of recreation on federal forests, and 

other ecosystem services from federal forests.

Restoration of federal forest lands may benefit 

forest communities through associated economic 
662

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

activities (e.g., in-woods work and processing of 

restoration byproducts) as well as by providing the ecosystem services associated with restored ecosystems. In 

the Pacific Northwest, the ability of local communities 

to compete for and obtain contracts for work on nearby 

federal forests, and to retain local dollars, is an important factor in the adaptive capacity of communities. The 

Pacific Northwest has a high concentration of both hand 

crew and equipment-based fire suppression contracting, many of which also engage in forest restoration 

contracting. In some regions of the Pacific Northwest, 

the restoration contracting industry has transitioned to 

lower skill jobs, and Forest Service contracting practices for such activities tend to favor mobile businesses 

that employ a high proportion of temporary and migrant 

laborers. Although in some places the type of forest-related contracting has changed, many nongovernmental 

organizations and private businesses still depend on 

these forest-based activities for economic and social 

benefits, and continue to build their business around 

meeting federal agency needs for forest activities. 

Biomass energy production presents one possible 

pathway for adding value to restoration byproducts; 

examples from across the West demonstrate its potential 

economic benefits and suggest its role in reconciling 

diverse interests in forest management.

Federal forests in the NWFP region are important 

sources of a wide variety of commercial and noncommercial nontimber forest products, such as moss, 

mushrooms, cones, grasses, and firewood. These 

products provide important safety net, buffering, and 

provisioning functions for rural and urban households, 

and activities surrounding their harvest, processing, 

and use often help build social capital and cultural identities, as well as strengthening human-nature connections. The retail value of NTFPs in the United States is 

estimated to be at least $1.4 billion, with much of that 

coming from the NWFP region. Studies that have measured NTFP employment in the Pacific Northwest have 

estimated that roughly 10,000 individuals work as harvesters, buyers, or processors in the floral greens/bough 

sector, and an equal number of people who earn income 

in the wild mushroom sector. State recreation surveys 

for Oregon and Washington suggest that the rate of participation in NTFP gathering and collecting activities 

(excluding hunting and fishing) exceeds that of many 

other outdoor activities. The 10- and 20-year socioeconomic assessments for the NWFP indicate that the Plan 

likely reduced physical access to NTFPs through road 

closures and restricted legal access to NTFPs owing 

to harvesting prohibitions in some late-successional 

and riparian reserves, and restrictions on the harvest 

of special-status plants. However, the most important 

impact of the NWFP on NTFP resources is likely to 

be the landscape-level changes in forest structure and 

composition brought about by the Plan’s management 

provisions. Likely, these changes will bode well for 

NTFPs such as matsutake mushrooms and moss that 

do well in late-successional forests, but will lead to 

reduced supplies of NTFPs found in early-seral-stage 

forests, such as salal and boughs.

Recreation on federal forests supports economic 

activity in local forest communities as visitors spend 

money while on recreation trips, and federal agencies 

spend money maintaining recreation resources. In this 

synthesis we focus on the former. Recreation visitors to 

NWFP-area national forests spend about $612.6 million 

in the communities around those forests each year. That 

spending supports employees and proprietors of businesses 

that sell goods and services to recreationists, and generates 

additional economic activity through the multiplier effect. 

In general, the economic activity generated around federal 

forests from recreation visitor spending depends on (1) the 

amount of recreation use, (2) the types of trips (i.e., day 

or overnight, local or nonlocal) taken by recreationists, 

and (3) the size of the local economy. The activity of 

recreationists can influence some patterns in spending, but 

is less important than trip type. All else being equal, those 

visitors on overnight trips spend 5 to 8 times more in local 

federal forest communities than those on day trips.
663

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Forest restoration and wildfire-suppression contracting— 

Despite the overall reduction in traditional timber management activity on national forest lands, in both the 

Forest Service and many rural communities there has 

been interest in and support for restoration and stewardship activities that generate both direct employment and 

byproducts of potential economic value (Nechodom et 

al. 2008). This opens the possibility for development of 

a “restoration economy” (Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 

2013) based on various activities, including “ecological 

forestry” (Franklin and Johnson 2012), associated with the 

restoration of structure or function to forest ecosystems. 

Such activities include stream rehabilitation, fish passage 

improvement, road decommissioning, riparian planting, 

forest fuel reduction treatments (designed to decrease fuel 

loads, break up fuel continuity, and reduce the risk of crown 

fire), and thinning projects designed to introduce structural 

heterogeneity to second-growth stands (fig. 8-16). All these 

activities entail employment in planning, implementation, 

oversight, monitoring, or other duties, and some of them 

produce byproducts that can be used for bioenergy, with 

associated economic benefits. Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 

(2013) found that an average of 16.3 jobs, $589,000 in 

total wages, and $2.3 million in overall economic activity 

were associated with every $1 million of restoration grant 

spending in Oregon; and economic impacts were greater 

in rural counties than in metropolitan counties. Baker 

and Quinn-Davidson (2011) calculated that the restoration 

sector brought nearly $135 million into Humboldt County, 

California, between 1995 and 2007. Thus, restoration 

contracting now represents a potentially significant source 

of forest-based jobs in rural communities.

In the Pacific Northwest, restoration contracting 

includes a variety of forest-related management actions, 

such as reforestation, thinning, mastication and chipping, 

and other practices aimed at improving or restoring the 

health of the forest (see chapter 3). Forestry support work 

involves seasonal and labor-intensive activities including 

planting and maintaining tree seedlings, piling and burning brush, thinning trees, harvesting cones, and applying 

herbicides (Moseley 2006b) (fig. 8-17). These activities 

contribute to a variety of forest management goals, from 

forest and watershed restoration to timber management 

and wildfire mitigation (Moseley et al. 2014). Related 

wildland fire suppression work can include heavy-equipment operation and more manual tasks such as digging 

fire lines. 

Relatively little scholarly research has focused on the 

forest management-related service-contracting sector. Past 

research suggests that these contractors operate in regional 

markets that involve working close to home as well as 

traveling relatively long distances, sometimes across state 

lines, to perform forest management services on federal 

lands (Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 2013). Contractors 

are more likely to travel long distances if the work is 

manual and labor intensive, such as tree planting and hand 

thinning. Contractors that work on equipment-intensive 

activities such as stream restoration, road construction, 

and mechanical thinning tend to work closer to home 

(Moseley and Reyes 2008, Moseley and Shankle 2001, 

Moseley and Toth 2004). 

Understanding where contractors are located has been 

an important component of the research on restoration contracting because it sheds light on where and how contracting 

In addition to providing the socioeconomic 

benefits identified above, federal forests also provide 

important ecosystem services both to local communities and more distant urban populations. These include 

fresh water, food and fiber, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation opportunities, among others. Federal 

agencies are beginning to develop methods and protocols for evaluating ecosystem services and how they 

are influenced by various federal actions. Within the 

NWFP area, efforts largely have focused on identifying and quantifying key ecosystem services produced 

on the region’s national forests. Although these efforts 

have made significant progress in raising awareness 

and concern for these important forest benefits, formal 

methods for routinely including ecosystem services 

values into national forest management largely are still 

in development by the Forest Service.
664

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

businesses create local community benefit. An intended 

outcome of the NWFP was for the Forest Service and BLM 

to offset job loss in the timber production, harvesting, and 

processing markets through public land restoration, including the use of contracting (Moseley 2006b). Both the Forest 

Service and BLM have transitioned away from intensive 

forest management for timber (e.g., replanting clearcuts) to 

more restoration-focused work (Moseley 2006b). Moseley 

(2006b) found that significant declines in Forest Service 

contract spending subsequently decreased the amount of 

contracting money flowing to rural communities. These 

trends have continued, as an increasing amount of the Forest 

Service budget is allocated to wildfire suppression (Calkin 

et al. 2011, Gebert and Black 2012, North et al. 2015). 

In some regions of the Pacific Northwest, the restoration contracting industry has transitioned to lower skill 

jobs. Changes in federal policy and practice, and a refocus 

on reducing wildfire risk in drier, fire-prone forests in the 

early 2000s, led to a need for low-skill, labor-intensive 

fuels reduction work in federal forests (e.g., thinning trees 

and clearing brush). Forest Service contracting practices 

for these kinds of activities tend to favor mobile businesses 

that employ a high proportion of temporary and migrant 

laborers (Moseley et al. 2014; Sarathy 2008, 2012). The 

implications of these transitions and of contracting for 

lowest bid Forest Service work are further detailed in 

chapter 10. In northern California, for example, the availability and structuring of restoration contracts have put 

many smaller businesses based in rural communities at a 

disadvantage relative to larger, more mobile urban-based 

contractors (Baker and Quinn-Davidson 2011), which led 

a local, community-based nonprofit organization to begin 

Figure 8-17—Thinning to restore forest resilience to wildland fire can be equipment-intensive.

Susan Charnley
665

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

training and hiring local residents to be able to contract 

with the Forest Service to perform this fuels-reduction work 

(Abrams et al. 2015). This example illustrates a shift by 

community organizations from other work into contracting, 

which is part of a growing trend in which organizations 

(nongovernmental and private businesses alike) are changing and adapting their roles to fit new or amplified needs 

emanating from changes in Forest Service forest restoration 

and fire-suppression contracting. 

In the Pacific Northwest, the ability of local communities to compete for and obtain work contracts on federal 

forests, and retain local dollars, is an important factor in the 

adaptive capacity of communities. State or federal contracts 

for restoration or wildfire suppression services that are 

captured by local businesses can benefit local economies. In 

contrast, hiring contractors from outside local communities 

can reduce the amount of forest restoration dollars that 

circulate in the local economy. 

Contracting for fire suppression purposes began in 

the 1970s, when loggers and other forest workers would 

fight fires as needed to protect their livelihoods—which 

were based on work in the forest. Fire suppression was 

conducted in the shoulder seasons for other forest work, 

or when forests were closed to forestry work in the hottest 

fire-prone months of the summer. Recent research exploring 

connections between restoration contracting capacity and 

fire suppression capacity found that the amount of money 

captured during a fire by community businesses located 

near the fire increases with the number of vendors involved 

in forest and watershed restoration prior to a fire, suggesting 

that local business restoration capacity might influence local 

fire suppression response (Moseley et al., n.d.). Similar to 

evidence about wildfire hazard mitigation (Moseley and 

Toth 2004), findings by Moseley et al. (n.d.) also suggest 

that counties containing more diversified urban economic 

centers may be more likely and prepared to capture wildfire 

suppression contracting work than smaller, less diversified, 

and moderately isolated counties. 

Research on the effects of large wildfires in the Western United States by Nielsen-Pincus et al. (2013) found that 

wildfires generally improved county-level employment and 

wage growth while suppression efforts were active. However, following a wildfire, counties experienced increased 

economic volatility, though these effects differed by the 

type of county in which the wildfire occurred. Employment 

growth associated with fire-suppression spending suggests 

that developing community capacity could change how 

local economies experience wildfire, potentially facilitating 

more local community capacity to participate directly (fire 

crews or equipment), or indirectly (e.g., support services) in 

fire suppression, keeping wildfire suppression funds in the 

community longer (Nielsen-Pincus et al. 2013). Although 

these studies provide evidence of links between a community being engaged in forest management and restoration 

and local participation in fire suppression efforts, the lack 

of historical analysis of restoration and fire suppression 

contracting markets means that little is known about how 

these relationships have changed over time. However, recent 

related research on the location and diversity of fire suppression contractors and their equipment suggests that the 

two markets have become more complex as private wildfire 

contracting has become more nationalized and mobile 

(Huber-Stearns et al., n.d). 

Changes in federal wildfire contracting policy, such 

as creating more nationalized dispatch systems, or the 

contracting award system, may unintentionally limit local 

contractors’ ability to participate in local fire suppression 

efforts (Davis et al. 2014). In a time of increased focus on 

collaborative fire management and local workforce capacity 

development (e.g., the National Cohesive Wildland Fire 

Management Strategy), the finding that participation in federal contracting prior to a fire shapes suppression capacity 

can help focus policy and practice on these linkages. 

The Pacific Northwest still has one of the highest 

concentrations in the United States of both hand crew and 

equipment-based fire suppression contracting (HuberStearns et al., n.d). In the past decade, fire-suppression 

contracting in the region has been experiencing a transition, as contracting processes have become more standardized, and more businesses have joined the industry. All the 

48 regional and national hand crew businesses, and more 

than 600 of the 2,016 total equipment contractors active in 
666

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

2015, were located in Oregon, Washington, and northern 

California (Moseley et al., n.d.). 

Although many restoration businesses are still engaged in 

fire suppression contracting, there has been a shift in the past 

decade toward contracting companies entering the market 

primarily for fire contracting purposes (e.g., businesses purchasing equipment specialized for fire suppression, and hiring 

crews for fire suppression). This shift is in contrast to 20 years 

ago, when restoration contractors took on fire suppression 

work as needed and with the forestry equipment they had on 

hand (Moseley et al., n.d.). Recent research has also found that 

in several cases, these contracting companies come from other 

sectors, such as construction, heavy equipment, and services 

(e.g., portable showers, food, and housing units), and have now 

expanded their work into fire contracting. In many instances, 

restoration contracting is not the primary source of income 

for these businesses. Rather, it is fire suppression work, or the 

other sectors in which they operate during the rest of the year 

(e.g., construction) (Moseley et al., n.d.). As fire suppression 

needs differ year to year, some of the businesses that hire 

fire hand crews have faced critical challenges with employee 

retention, and looked to find other sources of income 

to extend the employment period for their seasonal hand crew 

employees. One option has been to enter the forest restoration 

contracting realm, using their fire suppression equipment and 

resources to conduct forest restoration work outside of fire 

season (Huber-Stearns et al., n.d).

As both Forest Service and BLM budgets and workforces decline, and are constricted further by a larger 

proportion of the budget going to wildfire suppression, 

agencies are contracting out an increasing amount of their 

land management work, which includes forest restoration 

and wildfire suppression (Moseley 2005). This suggests 

a continued (yet unpredictable) demand for forest-based 

restoration and fire contracting activities across the NWFP 

area. Although in some places the type of forest-related contracting has changed, many nongovernmental organizations 

and private businesses still depend on these forest-based 

activities for economic and social benefits, and continue to 

build their business around meeting federal agency needs 

for forest management and restoration work. 

Biomass use—

In addition to the “in-woods” work associated with removing trees and other forest fuels, fuel reduction and thinning 

projects result in the production of restoration byproducts 

with potential economic benefit to forest communities. 

These include biomass materials such as tops, branches, 

and small-diameter trees as well as larger materials suitable 

for traditional commercial processing. The development 

of biomass-use infrastructure capable of adding value to 

otherwise unmarketable byproducts has been specifically 

supported through grant programs, targeted policies, and 

research efforts (Becker et al. 2009, 2011b). In particular, biomass energy production has been identified as a 

potential means of integrating forest restoration and rural 

community development while producing energy from 

renewable sources (Becker and Viers 2007, Hjerpe et al. 

2009) (fig. 8-18).

It is extremely difficult for forest biomass energy 

production to be profitable as a stand-alone activity, 

owing to issues such as the dispersed nature of the raw 

material, long haul distances, the low energy density of 

wood, and low prices of other energy sources (Aguilar 

and Garrett 2009, Sundstrom et al. 2012). Development 

of forest biomass energy in areas with a large federal 

forest presence has been challenged by additional factors 

such as a lack of predictability in access to raw materials 

(Becker et al. 2011a, Stidham and Simon-Brown 2011). 

The cost of forest biomass harvesting is often greater than 

the value of resources removed (Evans and Finkral 2009); 

biomass treatments therefore tend to rely upon supportive 

public policies (e.g., direct subsidies, renewable energy 

mandates) to remain feasible. Biomass energy installations 

themselves can generate controversy regarding issues such 

as the possible effects of raw material demand on nearby 

forests (Stidham and Simon-Brown 2011). However, given 

appropriate public consultation and collaboration, the use 

of biomass can also represent an approach to reconciling 

diverse social, economic, and environmental restoration 

interests (Hjerpe et al. 2009).

The collection, transportation, and processing of biomass materials represents a potential economic opportunity 
667

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

for forest communities. An analysis of 43 timber-producing 

counties in east Texas suggests that residue procurement 

and biomass energy production could collectively generate 

direct, indirect, and induced jobs equal to nearly one-third of 

current logging sector employment (Gan and Smith 2007). 

Using fiscal year 2005 data from five national forests in the 

Southwest, Hjerpe and Kim (2008) determined that fuel 

reduction expenditures (including prescribed fire) resulted 

in 337 direct full-time equivalent jobs and 151 indirect and 

induced jobs. Communities with installed biomass-use 

capacity may also benefit forests, as the presence of smalldiameter processing facilities results in a greater ability to 

perform treatments on nearby forest land (Nielsen-Pincus 

et al. 2013). There is some evidence that development of 

local processing infrastructure can lower the per-acre cost of 

forest restoration activities, therefore allowing more area to 

be treated with a given level of funding (Becker et al. 2011a). 

Stakeholders in a number of communities have collaborated 

with one another and with Forest Service managers to design 

long-term, large-scale restoration projects capable of catalyzing this beneficial relationship between biomass-use capacity, forest restoration treatments, and associated economic 

benefits (Abrams 2011, Schultz et al. 2012). A key challenge 

in this context is aligning biomass-use infrastructure, state or 

federal policies regarding biomass utilization, and contracting mechanisms to stimulate investments that simultaneously 

support community economic development and forest 

restoration activities. An additional challenge is providing a 

long-term, reliable supply of biomass material from federal 

lands to incentivize infrastructure investments. Stewardship 

contracting is one mechanism the Forest Service and BLM 

can use to address this barrier (Nielsen-Pincus et al. 2013). 

Figure 8-18—Forest restoration byproducts provide fuel for biomass energy production.

Susan Charnley
668

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Nontimber forest products—

Nontimber forest products, or special forest products 

as they are known by the Forest Service and the BLM, 

include “bark, berries, boughs, bryophytes, bulbs, burls, 

Christmas trees, cones, epiphytes, fence material, ferns, 

firewood, forbs, fungi (including mushrooms), grasses, 

mine props,15 mosses, nuts, pine straw, posts and poles, 

roots, sedge, seeds, shingles and shake bolts,16 transplants, tree sap, rails, and wildflowers” (USDA FS 2001). 

These NTFPs are often grouped into broad functional 

categories, with common categories consisting of edibles, 

medicinals, arts and crafts, ornamental and decorative 

materials, fuel, transplants and other landscaping products, and construction materials (Alexander et al. 2011b). 

NTFP management and research are complicated by the 

extremely large number of species from which this broad 

array of products is derived. Vance et al.’s (2001) guide 

to commercial NTFPs in the Pacific Northwest describes 

products from 59 native species in detail, lists 60 additional native species that are commercially harvested, and 

emphasizes that many other species are bought and sold in 

markets. NTFP species harvested in the Pacific Northwest 

likely number in the hundreds (Jones and Lynch 2007). 

Table 8-1 lists some of the most common commercial 

NTFPs harvested in the Plan area. This chapter provides 

a broad overview of NTFP harvesting in the Plan area, 

whereas chapter 10 describes commercial NTFP harvesting by low-income and minority populations; and chapter 

11 addresses the importance of specific NTFPs to American Indians.

It is difficult to characterize the contribution that 

NTFPs from federal forest lands in the Plan area make to 

community socioeconomic well-being because of the large 

number of products, variety of organism parts, and diversity 

of species that make up this category of forest products. No 

studies have systematically evaluated the relative importance of federal lands as a source of supply for NTFPs in the 

Plan area. Charnley (2006c) and Grinspoon et al. (2016) documented the quantities of special forest products sold from 

Plan-area Forest Service and BLM lands during the first two 

decades of the NWFP based on permits and contracts the 

agencies issue to members of the public. However, systems 

for tracking the quantities of NTFPs harvested on national 

forests and BLM lands are not structured in ways that would 

allow one to determine whether permittees have harvested 

more or less than the quantities indicated on their permits 

(Alexander et al. 2011b). And, no studies document the 

extent to which unauthorized NTFP harvesting takes place 

on federal lands in the NWFP region, although it is probable 

that a significant portion of NTFPs are harvested without 

authorization (Dobkins et al. 2016, McLain and Lynch 2010, 

Muir et al. 2006, NFWC 2015). Nevertheless, research suggests that federal forests are important sources of supply for 

a number of products, including wild mushrooms (McLain 

2008, Pilz et al. 2007, Richards and Creasy 1996); beargrass 

(Charnley and Hummel 2011, Hummel et al. 2012); huckleberries (Kerns et al. 2004); firewood, Christmas trees, floral 

greens, limbs and boughs, moss, cones, and posts and poles 

15 (Charnley 2006c, Grinspoon et al. 2016) (fig. 8-19). Mine props are lengths of wood used to hold up a mine roof. 

16 Shake bolts are blocks of wood used for making shingles.

Table 8-1—Commonly harvested commercial 

nontimber forest product species in the Northwest 

Forest Plan area

Species Scientific name

Floral greens:

Salal Gaultheria shallon

Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum

Beargrass Xerophyllum tenax

Tall Oregon grape Berberis aquifolium

Western redcedar Thuja plicata

Noble fir boughs Abies procera

Deer fern Blechnum spicant

Western swordfern Polystichum munitum

Mushrooms:

Morel Morchella spp.

Chanterelle Cantharellus cibarius

Matsutake Tricholoma magnivelare

Bolete Boletus spp.

Sources: Blatner and Alexander 1998, Lynch and McLain 2003, Schlosser 

and Blatner 1995, Weigand 2002.
669

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Market context—Market demand for many NTFPs has 

increased over the past 20 years in response to growing consumer interest in wild-harvested and organically produced 

foods and medicines (Pilz et al. 2007, Smith et al. 2010) as 

well as shortages in supply in other parts of the world for 

products such as wild mushrooms that are traded primarily in international markets (McLain et al. 1998, Pilz et al. 

2007). No reliable data exist for the amounts and values of 

NTFPs harvested in the United States or from the NWFP 

area. However, extrapolating from Forest Service and BLM 

permit and contract data, Alexander et al. (2011b) estimated that the retail value for NTFPs harvested from BLM and 

Forest Service lands in the United States in 2007 was at least 

$1.4 billion, with the majority attributable to NTFPs harvested in the Pacific Coast region. A similar analysis covering 

the years 2004 to 2013 found that the estimated retail value 

of NTFPs trended upward and was roughly $1.9 billion in 

2013 (Chamberlain 2015). Nationwide, firewood, crafts and 

floral products, and Christmas trees—in that order—consistently had the highest total retail values (Alexander et al. 

2011b, Chamberlain 2015). In both studies, the Pacific Coast 

region dominated in permitted harvest quantities (and therefore retail value) for arts, crafts, and floral products; edibles; 

grasses; nursery and landscape products; and regeneration 

and silviculture products. The region was second after the 

Rocky Mountain region in permitted harvest quantities of 

fuelwood and posts and poles. However, Alexander et al. 

(2011b) cautioned that it is unclear whether regional differences in permitted harvest quantities reflect differences in 

actual quantities harvested, or cross-regional differences 

Figure 8-19—Mushroom picking is an important commercial and recreational gathering activity on federal forest lands. 

Rebecca McLain
670

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in agency permitting and enforcement capacity. A 2014 

survey of Forest Service employees in the agency’s Pacific 

Northwest Region (Oregon and Washington) found that respondents most commonly labeled the following products as 

being among the “five most important” products gathered on 

the national forest where they worked: firewood (53 percent 

of respondents); boughs (14 percent); mushrooms (10 percent); beargrass (10 percent); Christmas trees (10 percent); 

and floral greens (5 percent) (Crandall 2016). 

The only NTFP industries in the Pacific Northwest for 

which annual wholesale values have been calculated are floral 

greens and wild mushrooms. Schlosser et al. (1991) estimated 

the wholesale value of floral greens and boughs harvested 

in western Washington, western Oregon, and southwestern British Columbia during 1989 at $128.5 million. The 

wholesale value of wild edible mushrooms harvested in 

Oregon, Washington, and Idaho during 1992 was estimated 

at $41.1 million. Unfortunately, more recent valuations of 

NTFP industries in the Pacific Northwest (or elsewhere in 

the United States) do not exist. Many NTFPs harvested in 

the Pacific Northwest are sold in global markets (Alexander 

et al. 2002, 2011b), making them susceptible to demand and 

price fluctuations linked to economic and environmental 

conditions elsewhere. Although floral greens (including 

holiday greens for wreaths and swags), wild mushrooms, and 

huckleberries are commonly identified as the most economically important NTFPs in the Plan area (Schlosser and 

Blatner 1997), the values extrapolated from NTFP permit and 

contract data suggest that firewood and posts and poles are 

equally important economically, if not more so. No studies of 

the socioeconomic dimensions of either firewood or post and 

poles harvesting for the region exist. 

The number of persons who currently earn a full or 

partial livelihood from NTFPs is unknown. However, 

Schlosser et al. (1991) estimated that, in 1989, processors 

in western Washington, western Oregon, and southwestern 

British Columbia bought floral greens and boughs from 

roughly 10,000 harvesters. In a later study, Schlosser and 

Blatner (1995) estimated that the wild mushroom industry 

provided income-earning opportunities for roughly 10,400 

harvesters in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Whether 

and how much overlap there is between the two industries 

is unknown. Most of the processing facilities for NTFPs 

harvested in the Pacific Northwest were located west of the 

Cascade Range (Schlosser and Blatner 1997), but the number 

employed in those facilities is unknown. The NTFP sector 

offers income-earning opportunities that are easily accessible 

with little capital investment, but as described in chapter 10, 

working conditions for harvesters are sometimes poor, and it 

is likely that the more lucrative opportunities are in processing and marketing (Schlosser and Blatner 1997). As currently 

structured, the NTFP sector is “one piece of a larger mosaic 

of rural development options” (Schlosser and Blatner 1997: 2) 

rather than an economic driver. The NTFP sector contributes 

to the well-being of individuals, households, and firms located 

in both rural and urban areas. More than half of the harvesters 

interviewed during a study of beargrass harvesting on the 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest lived in the cities of Tacoma 

and Aberdeen, Washington (NFWC 2015). Many wild mushroom harvesters on the Deschutes National Forest in central 

Oregon also live in cities located west of the Cascades or in 

northern California (McLain 2008, Tsing 2015). However, the 

extent to which urban residents rely on NTFP-related work 

and the impacts that the NWFP has had on urban residents 

have not been the subjects of scientific studies.

Nonmarket contributions of NTFPs to socioeconomic 

well-being—The NTFP sector differs from most other natural resource sectors (i.e., mining, wood products, livestock 

production), in that much economic activity linked to the 

harvesting, processing, and exchange of NTFPs remains 

strongly rooted in the informal sector. Informal economic 

activity is defined as “economic activity that takes place 

outside of governmental regulatory and reporting systems” (McLain et al. 2008: 1), and as numerous studies 

attest (Brown et al. 1998, Carroll et al. 2003, Emery 1998, 

Hinrichs 1998, Levitan and Feldman 1991, Love et al. 1998, 

Nelson 1999, Richards and Alexander 2006), such activities 

are both ubiquitous and important contributors to community and household well-being. Assessments of the contribution of NTFPs to community well-being must therefore 

account for contributions from activities taking place at 

the edges and outside of the formal sector, as well as those 

tracked within the formal sector. Practically, this means that 

one cannot rely solely on standard economic measures, such 

as number of jobs created or the value of products sold in 

formal markets, to assess the contribution that NTFPs make 
671

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

to community well-being. In part this is because the number of jobs and market values associated with NTFPs are 

often not well captured in many of the standard economic 

activity accounting systems, such as the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule that the U.S. government uses to track exports 

and imports (Alexander et al. 2011b), or the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s County Business Patterns database, which tracks 

the number of businesses operating in each county, as well 

as how many people each business employs and the size of 

its payroll (Smith et al. 2010). 

Ethnographic studies of NTFP harvesters and buyers 

indicate that NTFPs perform safety net, buffering, and 

provisioning functions for both rural and urban households 

(Emery 1998, Emery and Pierce 2005, Hinrichs 1998, Love 

et al. 1998, McLain et al. 2014, Poe et al. 2014). NTFP activities taking place outside of formal markets function as a type 

of “intergenerational and cultural glue,” helping community 

members and families build and strengthen social ties and 

maintain cultural identities (Brown et al. 1998, Carroll et al. 

2003, Love et al. 1998, McLain 2008, Richards and Alexander 2006, Poe et al. 2014). Unlike timber harvesting, which 

few people would categorize as a leisure activity, some 

commercial NTFP harvesting falls “somewhere in between” 

(Carroll et al. 2003, McLain 2008), with participants viewing 

harvesting as simultaneously work and leisure. A common 

theme among commercial and noncommercial harvesters 

alike is that NTFP harvesting is important to them in part 

because it provides an opportunity to strengthen their connections with the natural world and improve their physical 

and mental health (Emery and Ginger 2014, Love et al. 1998, 

McLain 2008, Poe et al. 2014, Tsing 2013). 

Recent surveys of outdoor recreationists in Oregon 

and Washington show that “gathering/collecting things in 

a nature setting” is an activity practiced by a significant 

percentage of the population in the NWFP region. We are 

not aware of any comparable data for California. Washington state’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) survey results for 2012 analyzed the 

participation by residents from across Washington in four 

types of gathering/collecting activities (Responsive Management 2012). As indicated in table 8-2, slightly more 

than one-quarter of adult residents had participated in 

Table 8-2—Percentage of Washington and Oregon SCORP survey respondents participating in specified 

outdoor activities during the 12 months preceding the survey

Outdoor activity Washington respondents Oregon respondents

Percent

Gathering/collecting things in nature setting: 27.2 21.9

Berries or mushrooms 14.9 —

Shells, rocks, vegetation 18.4 —

Firewood 6.7 —

Christmas trees 4.2 —

Selected outdoor activities:

Bicycle riding (trails) 24.4 12.2

Camping (car/motorcyle with tent) 26.5 34.6a

Cross-country skiing 4.5 5

Downhill skiing 10.4 16.3

Hiking 53.9 48

Hunting (big game) 8.4 8.3

Off-roading (four-wheel drive) 9.5 9.8

Snowshoeing 6.7 8.5

SCORP = Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan; — = No data.

a

 Car camping only.

Source: Responsive Management 2012 and Rosenberger and Lindberg 2012. 
672

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

gathering or collecting in a nature setting in the previous 

12 months, with participation rates in mushroom/berry 

picking and shell/rock/plant collecting being more than 

double the participation rates in harvesting firewood or 

Christmas trees. Table 8-2 shows that participation rates 

for gathering/collecting were greater than for many other 

outdoor activities, including downhill and cross-country 

skiing, hunting, off-road vehicle riding, and bicycling 

on forest or mountain trails. Residents of rural areas or 

small towns were somewhat more likely to participate in 

gathering or collecting than urban or suburban residents 

(29 percent and 24 percent of respondents, respectively). 

Table 8-3 shows that respondents gathered on diverse 

landownership types, with 18 percent gathering on 

national forests and only 1 percent on BLM lands. This 

difference is likely because very little BLM-managed 

land is located in Washington. Overall, the percentage 

of persons gathering or collecting on national forests or 

BLM-managed lands in Washington is relatively small 

compared with those who gather or collect on private or 

other types of public lands. However, these figures represent recreational gathering only; the bulk of commercial 

harvest likely takes place on federal and state forests and 

large private timber holdings.

The Oregon SCORP survey, which was also administered to residents statewide, collected data about gathering/

collecting participation rates by Oregon residents during 

2011, but did not break down the data by type of gathering 

activity (Rosenberger and Lindberg 2012). The percentage 

of Oregon residents who participated in gathering/collecting 

ranged from a low of 16.3 percent in the area around Portland to a high of 47 percent in northeastern Oregon, with an 

average of 22 percent for the entire state. Unfortunately, the 

authors lumped rock collecting in with plant, mushroom, 

and berry collecting, making it difficult to ascertain the 

percentage associated with NTFP gathering. The Oregon 

survey did not gather data about landownerships on which 

collecting took place. Table 8-2 shows how participation 

rates for gathering/collecting in Oregon compared with a 

selection of other activities. 

A study by Starbuck et al. (2004) is the only example of research that has looked at the economic value of 

recreational NTFP harvesting in the Plan area. By using 

travel cost methods with 1996 permit data from the Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest, they estimated that one visitor day 

of berry and mushroom harvesting was worth $30.02 (in 

1996 U.S. dollars). This compared with roughly $87/day for 

camping and $53/day for picnicking (Alexander et al. 2011a). 

More studies using the travel cost method or other forms of 

non-market valuation are needed to understand how much 

different types of recreational NTFP harvesting contribute 

to local economies. 

How the NWFP affects NTFP supplies from federal 

lands—Permitted harvest quantities are currently the 

best data available for analyzing trends in the demand for 

NTFPs on federal lands. However, two important caveats 

limit the utility of permit data as an indicator of NTFP demand. Both the Forest Service and BLM lack the capacity 

to track with any accuracy the quantities of NTFPs actually 

being harvested, and permit data merely reflect the maximum amount that the permit holder hopes to be able to 

harvest. Additionally, other factors, such as price shifts, 

weather conditions, and changes in consumer preferences can and do affect how many permits are issued in any 

given year (Charnley 2006c). The NWFP 10-year socioeconomic monitoring report described trends in permitted 

Table 8-3—Percentage of Washington SCORP survey 

respondents who gather or collect things in nature 

settings on specified land ownerships

Land ownership category Respondents

Percent

National park or monument 8

State park 18

County/city/municipal park 8

National forest 18

State forest 8

National wildlife refuge 1

Bureau of Land Management land 1

Other public land 19

Own property 14

Someone else’s private property 27

SCORP = Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

Source: Responsive Management 2012.
673

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

quantities for BLM districts and national forests for the 

period 1994–2002 (Charnley 2006c); the NWFP 20-year 

socioeconomic monitoring report described these trends 

from 2004 through 2012 (Grinspoon et al. 2016). Table 8-4 

shows the permit trends for NTFP products during these 

two periods. Unfortunately, the NTFP data in the 20-year 

report are presented in a format that does not permit a determination of the trends for a number of product categories. Nevertheless, the products for which a comparison 

across land ownerships and time is possible, some patterns 

do emerge. For both BLM lands and national forests, permitted harvest quantities of firewood initially declined and 

then increased, whereas greenery and foliage showed an 

upward trend for the entire period. Permitted harvest quantities for wild mushrooms increased on BLM lands through 

both periods, but on national forests they declined before 

trending upward between 2004 and 2012. 

Based on interviews with specialists on three national 

forests and one BLM district, Charnley (2006c) identified 

several ways in which the Plan affected opportunities 

for the commercial harvest of NTFPs on national forests 

and BLM-managed lands between 1994 and 2006. Some 

provisions, such as road closures linked to the Plan’s 

management guidelines, reduced the ability of harvesters 

to physically access resources. Other provisions, such as 

guidelines related to the management of late-successional 

reserves (LSRs) and riparian reserves, resulted in the 

closure of some areas to legally sanctioned commercial 

harvesting. Additionally, provisions prohibiting the 

harvest of special-status plants affected some commercially harvested species. The extent to which the standards 

and guidelines for LSRs and riparian reserves affected 

NTFP harvesting depended on how local Forest Service 

and BLM units interpreted them, and whether they were 

strictly applied. For example, some forests prohibited 

commercial harvesting of wild mushrooms in LSRs, 

while others did not (McLain 2000). Charnley (2006c) 

concluded that, during the first 10 years of implementation 

the Plan had the greatest negative impact on the harvesting of firewood and Christmas trees, both of which were 

previously closely linked to timber harvesting activities. 

Comparable interview data were not collected for the 

20-year report, and consequently it is unclear what factors 

might account for the observed increases in permitted 

harvest quantities for firewood and stabilization in Christmas tree permits. Charnley (2006c) pointed out that, over 

the long term, the most important impact of the NWFP 

on NTFP resources is likely to be the landscape-scale 

Table 8-4—Trends in permitted harvest quantities of nontimber forest products in the Northwest Forest Plan 

area (1994–2002 and 2004–2012)

Bureau of Land Management districts National forests

Product 1994–2002 2004–2012 1994–2002 2004–2012

Fuelwood - + - +

Christmas trees - No data - Stable

Cones - No data + -

Moss - No data Stable -

Posts and poles + + - No data

Greenery and foliage + + + +

Boughs + - Unclear -

Mushrooms + + - +

Transplants + No data - No data

- = negative; + = positive.

Source: Charnley 2006c and Grinspoon et al. 2016.
674

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

changes it causes in forest structure and composition, 

changes that will affect the types, quantities, and qualities 

of NTFPs present in an area. Whether those impacts are 

negative or positive, however, depends on what changes in 

forest conditions have occurred in NTFP harvesting sites, 

as well as the types of products that are harvested there 

(Pilz and Molina 2002). The NWFP provisions and fire 

suppression are expected to encourage the development of 

older forest structure and processes, with a concomitant 

decrease in early-seral vegetation. Such conditions favor 

NTFPs such as matsutake mushrooms and moss, but will 

likely lead to reductions in the supply of products found in 

early-seral-stage forests, such as huckleberries, salal, and 

boughs (Charnley 2006c).

A promising avenue for enhancing the contribution of 

the NTFP sector to socioeconomic well-being is a forest 

management approach known as “compatible management” or “joint production.” In this approach, forest stands 

are managed simultaneously for timber and one or more 

NTFPs (Alexander et al. 2002, 2011a). For example, in a 

study comparing three scenarios of timber management, 

one using a timber management strategy that increased 

matsutake production, another using a timber management 

approach with a neutral effect on matsutake productivity, 

and the third with no timber harvest, Pilz et al. (1999) found 

that the most lucrative approach was to manage the forest 

for both timber and matsutake. A joint production approach 

to federal forest management would have the additional 

advantage of supporting other goals of the NWFP, including 

enhancing structural and biological diversity.

Recreation—

The Forest Service and BLM provide opportunities for 

urban and rural residents to recreate in a wide variety of settings and to participate in a wide variety of recreation activities. Current annual estimates are that 20 million visits take 

place each year to federal forests in the NWFP area—with 

5.3 million to BLM lands and 14.6 (± 5.3 percent) million 

to Forest Service lands (Grinspoon et al. 2016, USDA FS 

2016). Other federal agencies, state and local governments, 

and private businesses and organizations also provide 

places to recreate for many of the same individuals. Relative 

to other providers, the recreation opportunities provided 

by the Forest Service and BLM are typically farther from 

population centers and less intensively developed. Chapter 

9 includes a detailed description of the amount of recreation 

use on NWFP-area national forests and common activities 

of those recreating. This chapter focuses on the economic 

contributions of recreation activity on federal forests in the 

NWFP area to local communities.

Recreation on federal forests drives economic activity 

in local communities, states, and across the NWFP region 

when recreation visitors spend money on recreation trips, 

and the agencies and their partners spend money to manage 

recreation sites. Recreation visitors also support economic 

activity when they purchase equipment and other durable 

goods (e.g., boots, binoculars, off-highway vehicles, skis) 

that they need for particular recreation activities. This 

spending is not attributable solely to a single recreation 

opportunity provider (e.g., a single NWFP-area federal 

forest or all of them combined), and is not discussed 

here. This section focuses instead on the effects of visitor 

spending during recreation trips. 

The amount of recreation use, the types of trips visitors 

take, their activities (to a lesser extent), and the size of 

the local economy all combine to influence how and to 

what degree recreation visitation leads to private sector 

employment and business activity (Stynes and White 2006, 

White and Stynes 2008). The amount of recreation use 

determines the potential number of visitors who can spend 

money in an area. All else being equal, a national forest 

with more recreation use supports more visitor spending 

in local communities. The type of recreation trip (day trip, 

overnight trip, near or far from the visitor’s residence) is 

the key factor in determining recreation visitor spending 

(White and Stynes 2008). On average, spending by national 

forest recreation visitors nationwide ranges from $36 per 

party per trip for visitors on local day trips (trips within 50 

miles of their residence), to $580 per party per trip for those 

on nonlocal (more than 50 miles between residence and 

destination) overnight trips where lodging is off the national 

forest (table 8-5). Average spending figures represent both 

those who spend money and those who do not spend money 

during the recreation trip. About 12 percent of visits to 

national forests involve no visitor spending; about 30 percent 
675

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

of visits involve spending of $20 or less. Because the spending averages include nonspenders and low spenders, some 

average values may appear low relative to typical costs. 

Recreation activity has a secondary influence on 

visitor spending once trip type has been accounted for. For 

example, the spending of visitors who are downhill skiing 

or snowmobiling is systematically higher than average; and 

spending by visitors engaged in backcountry or primitive 

camping is lower than average (White and Stynes 2008). On 

average, spending by downhill skiers ranges from $60 per 

party per trip for local day trips (e.g., a couple who live in 

Bend, Oregon, and visit Mount Bachelor for morning skiing), to nearly $750 per party per trip for nonlocal overnight 

trips (table 8-6). 

Following the processes outlined in White (2017), we 

calculate that, in total, recreation visitors to all the NWFParea national forests combined spend roughly $612.6 

million each year in the communities within about 50 miles 

of those national forests. About one quarter of that spending is generated by visitors engaged in downhill skiing and 

snowboarding ($156.8 million). Visitors who are hunting, 

fishing, or viewing wildlife on a national forest spend 

about $82.1 million in local communities; visitors engaged 

in other activities (excluding downhill skiing and snowboarding) spend about $374.8 million in local communities 

each year. Employees and proprietors of businesses that 

provide goods and services to recreationists receive direct 

benefits, in the form of income, from recreation visitor 

expenditures. The majority of expenditures by recreation 

visitors to NWFP-area forests are made for purchases of 

lodging and camping, food and beverages in grocery stores 

and restaurants, and fuel. The Mount Hood National Forest 

($95 million), the Deschutes National Forest ($84 million), 

and the Siuslaw National Forest ($58 million) account 

for the greatest levels of spending at individual national 

forests. The presence of ski areas on the Mount Hood and 

Table 8-5—National forest visitor spending profiles for the United States by trip-type segment and spending 

category, dollars per party per tripa

Spending categories

Nonlocal Local Non 

primary All visitsb Day OVN-NF OVN Day OVN-NF OVN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Motel 0 44.77 203.85 0 6.39 51.62 139.67 53.96

Camping 0 27.79 13.68 0 28.25 23.01 12.23 7.43

Restaurant 14.77 27.47 116.41 5.66 7.65 32.43 93.23 37.63

Groceries 10.67 55.09 72.52 6.62 71.54 59.62 49.85 29.68

Gas and oil 30.20 62.27 82.47 15.43 46.59 58.05 62.71 38.74

Other transportation 0.58 1.34 4.98 0.16 0.04 1.19 3.35 1.45

Entry fees 4.12 7.13 12.85 2.70 4.51 5.12 7.58 5.38

Recreation and entertainment 2.96 7.36 33.31 1.01 2.01 3.61 21.84 9.38

Sporting goods 3.15 10.77 13.75 3.83 11.78 9.48 7.91 6.62

Souvenirs and other expenses 1.93 7.73 25.87 0.60 1.10 11.48 23.74 8.62

Total 68.39 251.74 579.70 36.00 179.86 255.60 422.12 198.87

Sample size (unweighted) 2,112 3,600 2,289 9,225 1,388 295 3,955 22,864

Standard deviation of total 72 399 714 53 199 325 653 n/a

OVN = overnight, NF = national forest, n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures are expressed in 2014 dollars. These averages 

exclude visitors who reported that their primary activity was downhill skiing/snowboarding. When completing analyses involving skiers/snowboarders, 

refer to subsequent tables. Local visitors are those who live within 50 miles of their recreation destination. Nonprimary visitors are those who were away 

from home to visit family, work, or recreate somewhere else. Their visit to the national forest was secondary to that other purpose.

b

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national trip segment shares for nondownhill skiing/

nonsnowboarding as weights. Source: White 2017. 
676

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Deschutes National Forests helps explain the high levels of 

recreation expenditures there.

When a recreation visitor buys a good or service, economic activity that starts with the initial purchase spreads 

out to the broader economy in what is commonly referred to 

as the “multiplier effect” (e.g., Hjerpe et al. 2017). The size 

and diversity of other area businesses influence how that 

additional economic activity spreads within the local region, 

or leaves the area. Those areas with larger economies, such 

as Multnomah County near the Mount Hood National Forest 

or King County near the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National 

Forest, will have greater multiplier effects from purchases 

by recreationists than places with smaller economies, such 

as Douglas County near the Umpqua National Forest or 

Skamania County near the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. 

Recreation-related economic activity may be affected 

by climate change as wildfire and forest insect (e.g., bark 

beetle) activity are expected to increase with a warming 

climate, potentially leading to impacts on popular hiking and 

mountain biking areas (Hesseln et al. 2003, 2004; Loomis et 

al. 2001). Economic activity associated with forest recreation 

can be expected to decline when forests are closed because 

of high fire danger or active fire events (Starbuck et al. 2006), 

or trails or recreation sites are closed following fire events 

(Sánchez et al. 2016). Negative impacts on recreational 

quality can last for many years after a wildfire (Englin et al. 

2001). However, research from southern California suggests 

that there can be positive economic effects when a fire creates opportunities for viewing postfire landscape processes 

(e.g., viewing flowers or new growth) (Sánchez et al. 2016).

Table 8-6—Spending profiles of downhill skiers and snowboarders recreating on U.S. national forests, dollars 

per party per tripa

Nonlocal segments Local segments

Spending category Day Overnight Day Overnightb Nonprimary All visitsc

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Motel 0 193.53 0 88.83 146.10 95.76

Camping 0 0.43 0 0.20 4.23 0.37

Restaurant 20.53 158.80 9.83 72.89 129.36 85.48

Groceries 4.57 76.78 3.21 35.24 68.60 40.21

Gas and oil 24.43 64.96 13.44 29.82 55.28 40.73

Other transportation 0.28 1.89 0.24 0.87 9.78 1.39

Entry fees 37.68 90.73 17.93 41.65 107.20 58.39

Recreation and entertainment 18.62 107.74 11.13 49.45 52.21 58.79

Sporting goods 5.02 26.08 2.81 11.97 22.14 14.73

Souvenirs and other expenses 2.01 22.88 0.68 10.50 12.84 11.69

Total 113.15 743.81 59.26 341.41 607.74 407.54

Sample size (unweighted) 371 431 784 n/a 71 n/a

Standard deviation of total 96 825 81 772 n/a

n/a = not applicable.

a

 Outliers are excluded and exposure weights are applied in estimating spending averages. All figures are expressed in 2014 dollars. These averages are 

based on visitors who reported that their primary activity was downhill skiing or snowboarding. Analyses involving nonskier/nonsnowboarder visits 

should refer to previous tables on national forest visitor average spending. For downhill skiers and snowboarders, we have combined the overnight 

(OVN) national forest and OVN segments into a single OVN segment. Local visitors are those who live within 50 miles of their recreation destination. 

Nonprimary visitors were away from home to visit family, work, or recreate somewhere else. Their visit to the national forest was secondary to that other 

purpose.

b

 The sample size for local overnight visitors sampled at ski areas was insufficient, and here we calculate average spending as 46 percent of the nonlocal 

overnight average. 

c

 The all-visit averages are computed as a weighted average of the columns using the national skier/snowboarder segment shares as weights.

Source: White 2017.
677

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Across mountainous regions of the world, alarm has 

also been expressed regarding possible climate change 

impacts on the ski industry and associated economic activity (Scott and McBoyle 2007). Potential concerns include a 

shortened ski season (Lal et al. 2011) as well as changes to 

avalanche conditions (Lazar and Williams 2008). Other recreational impacts may stem from heavy rainfall events that 

wash out access roads or otherwise result in flood-related 

damage (Sample et al. 2014). Climate change will affect 

multiple recreation-related variables, creating differential 

impacts depending on region, elevation, and other factors, 

with some areas potentially benefiting, for example, from 

longer snow-free seasons or fewer days of extreme cold 

(Irland et al. 2001, Richardson and Loomis 2004). 

Ecosystem services—

In addition to providing the socioeconomic benefits previously discussed, federal forests also provide important 

ecosystem services both to local communities and more 

distant urban populations. These include contributions like 

fresh water, food and fiber, wildlife habitat, and outdoor 

recreation opportunities, to name a few (fig. 8-20). DellaSala et al. (2011), for example, noted substantial economic 

and ecological benefits associated with clean water that 

originates from national forests of the Western United 

States, and in particular from roadless areas, where timber 

harvest is prohibited. The importance of national forests 

for supplying surface drinking water in the NWFP area has 

been mapped,17 but the economic value of this contribution 

17 https://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml.

Figure 8-20—Federal forests provide many ecosystem services, including clean water and fish and wildlife habitat.

Susan Charnley
678

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

has not been calculated. Brandt et al. (2014) identified several ecosystem services associated with Pacific Northwest 

forests, including timber harvesting, salmon populations, 

carbon storage in vegetation, soil organic matter, and 

landscape aesthetics. Many ecosystem services considered 

to be amenities (e.g., scenic views, recreation opportunities) 

contribute to rural residents’ quality of life (e.g., Deller 

et al. 2001, Rudzitis and Johnson 2000), as well as attract 

inmigration of new residents (e.g., Gosnell and Abrams 

2011, McGranahan 1999).

The past decade has seen significant and increasing 

effort among state and federal agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and others to identify and evaluate ecosystem 

services associated with various landscapes, including 

forests (e.g., Kline and Mazzotta 2012, Kline et al. 2013, 

Smith et al. 2011). There also has been increasing interest 

in developing and implementing policy instruments that 

provide monetary compensation to private forest landowners who produce particular ecosystem services, including 

direct payment programs, tax incentives, and ecosystem 

services markets, among others (e.g., Kline et al. 2000a, 

2000b, 2009). 

Within the Forest Service, the 2012 planning rule formally incorporated the concept of ecosystem services into 

national forest management and requires forest personnel to 

address ecosystem services as they prepare national forest 

plan revisions (USDA FS 2012). More recently, the Obama 

administration directed all federal agencies to consider 

ecosystem services values in federal planning and decisionmaking (Donovan et al. 2015), inducing agencies to develop 

methods and protocols for evaluating ecosystem services 

as outcomes of federal policies, programs, and agency 

performance. There also have been efforts to examine 

the potential for developing partnerships with nonfederal 

entities that may be willing to provide funding to assist in 

federal land management when it produces mutual benefits, 

such as restoration on federal lands that improve municipal 

watersheds (e.g., McCarthy 2014).

Within the NWFP area, federal efforts largely have 

focused on identifying and quantifying key ecosystem 

services produced from the region’s national forests (e.g., 

Smith et al. 2011). In addition to characterizing biophysical ecosystem services such as water, habitat, food, and 

fiber, efforts also have included improving understanding 

of cultural ecosystem services associated with national 

forests and their importance to Pacific Northwest residents 

(e.g., Asah et al. 2012). Landscape modeling efforts have 

attempted to characterize tradeoffs among ecosystem 

services associated with alternative forest management 

regimes. For example, Kline et al. (2016) examined the 

potential for Pacific Northwest forests to store and sequester additional carbon, harvest timber, and retain/enhance 

habitat for seven focal wildlife species across an exhaustive array of management regimes for western Cascade 

Range forest landscapes. Results showed the levels of 

each ecosystem service produced under each management regime, as well as the tradeoffs among them from 

choosing one management regime over another. Northern 

spotted owl habitat was found to be complementary with 

stored carbon, with both generally increasing in older 

forests. Northern spotted owl habitat and timber harvest 

were found to range from largely competitive to neutral 

depending on the characteristics of the management 

regime examined. Joint production relationships involving 

northern spotted owl habitat and other wildlife species 

ranged from competitive for western bluebird to mostly 

neutral for Pacific marten, and complementary for the 

olive-sided flycatcher and red tree vole, depending on the 

differences or similarities in the forest conditions preferred 

by individual species (Kline et al. 2016). 

Last, within the NWFP area there has been analysis 

of the willingness of nonindustrial private forest landowners to accept direct payments in return for agreeing 

to lengthen timber rotations to improve habitat for spotted 

owls (Kline et al. 2000b) and coho salmon (Kline et al. 

2000a). Kline et al. (2000b), for example, suggested that 

many forest land owners would require little or no payment 

to forego harvest to improve habitat, while others would 

require a significant incentive. 

Increasing recognition of ecosystem services by 

federal land management agencies can be viewed as an 

extension of the multiple-use approach toward more earnest 
679

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

consideration of the diversity of uses and values derived 

from national forests, and to a broader coalition of public 

parties interested in federal land management (Kline et al. 

2013). Although efforts to identify and quantify key ecosystem services have made significant progress in raising 

awareness and concern for these important forest benefits, 

formal methods for routinely including ecosystem services 

values into federal forest management are being developed 

by the Forest Service and BLM. Formally incorporating 

ecosystem services concepts into federal land management 

processes generally requires information about: (1) current 

landscape conditions and how they are changing; (2) how 

management activities likely will affect ecosystem services; and (3) what people value about the landscape, how 

much they value those things, and how their values might 

be changing (Kline and Mazzotta 2012). Meeting these 

informational requirements depends on addressing various 

methodological challenges involving the availability of 

ecological data and analytical models for describing the 

responses of ecosystem services to management, as well as 

adequate staffing for conducting such analysis (Kline et al. 

2013). Federal directives (e.g., Donovan et al. 2015, USDA 

FS 2012) suggest that efforts to develop and improve methods for evaluating ecosystem services and including them 

in federal land management will continue as policymakers 

and the public increasingly recognize the importance of 

addressing these benefits in federal decisionmaking.

How Rural Communities Contribute to Federal 

Forest Management

The community forestry literature from the United States 

emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between healthy forests and healthy communities (Baker and Kusel 2003, Kelly 

and Bliss 2009, Kusel and Adler 2003). Just as federal forest 

management can contribute to community well-being, so 

can communities contribute to federal forest management. 

For example, many communities and national forest units 

have begun to plan over large spatial scales and long time 

frames to create the consistency of work needed to attract 

investments in processing and contracting capacity (Schultz 

et al. 2012). Doing so provides both a more predictable 

employment base in local communities and the business 

capacity required to accomplish forest restoration. 

Agency budgets, and the number of agency employees 

and field offices, have dropped substantially since the NWFP 

was implemented, particularly for the Forest Service and 

especially in its Pacific Northwest Region (Grinspoon et 

al. 2016, Stuart 2006). These declines have reduced agency 

capacity to undertake forest restoration and other forest 

management work. One way in which the Forest Service 

has dealt with declines in budget and personnel is through 

outsourcing work to contractors, partners, or volunteers. For 

example, Seekamp et al. (2011) identified 35 different types 

of recreation partnerships that the Forest Service engages 

in to help accomplish recreation-related work on national 

forests nationwide. Partners range from individual volunteers 

to service organizations, commercial outfitters, and other 

government agencies (fig. 8-21). Community-based organizations, local business partners, environmental and recreation 

organizations, and other groups have helped raise money 

and provide labor to accomplish forest management goals 

Summary—

Just as forest management can contribute to socioeconomic well-being in rural communities, so can rural 

communities contribute to federal forest management. 

Agency budgets have been reduced substantially 

since the NWFP was implemented, reducing agency 

capacity to accomplish forest management goals. 

In response, community-based groups and partner 

organizations have raised money and provided labor 

to help undertake forest work on federal lands. Wood 

processing infrastructure in communities has also 

declined throughout the Plan area since the 1980s, 

making timber sales less economical and creating a 

financial barrier to restoration. By working together, 

communities and federal land management agencies 

in the Plan area can develop strategies to support 

and maintain the business infrastructure needed for 

forest restoration while creating more local economic 

opportunities.
680

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

on federal lands in the face of declining agency capacity to 

do so, filling critical gaps. But communities must have an 

interest in and capacity to provide support, which is linked to 

their assets and overall community health and well-being.

There are several such examples from the NWFP area. 

On the Siuslaw National Forest in Oregon, local partner 

organizations formed the Siuslaw Stewardship Group in the 

early 2000s (Sundstrom and Sundstrum 2014). The group 

has worked with the Forest Service to facilitate forest restoration on private and public lands in the Siuslaw watershed 

by pooling resources, assisting with monitoring activities, 

and cooperating in work activities by using stewardship 

contracts and the Wyden Amendment Authority (which 

allows federal dollars to pay for work on private lands 

in shared watersheds to protect and restore resources or 

reduce natural disaster risk), while contributing to community economic health and avoiding legal conflict over 

treatments (Sundstrom and Sundstrom 2014). In California, 

the Trinity County Resource Conservation District has 

been managing a stewardship agreement on the “Weaverville Community Forest,” comprised of 12,000 ac (4856.2 

ha) of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and 1,000 ac 

(404.7 ha) of the BLM’s Redding Field Office lands (Frost 

2014). Their objective is to develop and implement forest 

management activities that meet local objectives while 

addressing forest health concerns. The community plays a 

central management role, recruits skilled local workers to 

accomplish restoration activities, and contributes financial 

support by leveraging money from other federal and state 

partners to help fund new projects in the community forest 

(Frost 2014). 

In another example on the Shasta-Trinity National 

Forest, the Watershed Resource and Training Center has 

filled a number of institutional voids to help accomplish 

Figure 8-21—A partnership between the Six Rivers National Forest and the California Conservation Corps makes it possible to accomplish trail work on the national forest.

Susan Charnley
681

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

forest management activities while creating local jobs 

(Abrams et al. 2015). These include job training to create 

a skilled local workforce to engage in ecosystem management and forest restoration activities, running a work 

crew to accomplish fuels reduction on federal and private 

lands, monitoring of projects, developing new local wood 

processing infrastructure, helping the Shasta-Trinity to 

develop stewardship projects, developing a community 

wildfire protection plan, and leading interdisciplinary 

project planning teams. Despite the fact that some community-based organizations such as these have innovated 

to fill in the gaps left by declining federal agency capacity, 

there are legal and economic limits to what these organizations can accomplish, and they may also be limited by their 

own internal organizational capacity (Abrams et al. 2015). 

In all these examples, external organizations help provide 

funding and labor to accomplish work on federal forests 

that the agencies do not have sufficient budgets or staffing 

to undertake.

An important way in which economically healthy 

communities contribute to ecologically healthy forests is by 

having a skilled workforce and the business infrastructure 

needed to help federal agencies accomplish their management goals. As noted previously, declines in local wood 

processing infrastructure accompanied declines in timber 

production from federal lands in the NWFP area. Not only 

did this decline adversely affect some Plan-area communities, lack of local infrastructure for processing timber 

and small-diameter wood make timber sales and removal 

of small-diameter material that constitutes hazardous fuels 

less economical, creating a financial barrier to forest restoration. For example, Nielsen-Pincus et al. (2013) found that 

national forest ranger districts in Oregon and Washington 

that were within a 40-minute drive to a sawmill or biomass 

facility treated more overall hectares, and more hectares 

in the WUI, for hazardous fuels reduction than did ranger 

districts that were farther away. Ranger districts that were 

close to these facilities also incorporated more biomass 

into their treatments. These findings underscore some of 

the interdependencies between healthy forests and healthy 

communities in the NWFP area.

The Implications of Land Use and Ownership 

Changes for Forest Management

In addition to its significant area of federal and other public 

lands, the NWFP area includes a notable private land base. 

Nonfederal lands totaled more than 11 million ac (4.45 

million ha) in 2009 in western Oregon, or about 57 percent 

of all land in the region (Lettman 2011). Sixty-five percent 

of nonfederal land in western Oregon was forest, with the 

remainder divided between mixed forest and agriculture, 

agriculture, and low-density and urban development (fig. 

8-22). In western Washington, nonfederal lands totaled 

more than 10 million ac (4.05 million ha) in 2006, or about 

65 percent of all land (Gray et al. 2013). Seventy percent 

was forest, with the remainder in mixed forest and agriculture, agriculture, and low-density and urban development 

(fig. 8-23). Significant private forest lands also exist in 

northern California (Waddell and Bassett 1996, 1997), with 

nonfederal lands comprising 48 percent of all forest land in 

NWFP-area counties in California (Christensen et al. 2015). 

Private forest lands, including both industry- and nonindustry-owned, often augment federal and other public lands in 

providing ecosystem services (Kline et al. 2004a), including 

habitat for at-risk wildlife species (Stein et al. 2010; see also 

chapters 5 and 7). However, private lands also often differ 

from federal and other public lands in their forest structural 

Summary—

Changes in land use and ownership, particularly those 

that involve conversions of forest land to low-density and urban development, are likely to remain a 

significant factor affecting the NWFP area owing to 

population growth in the region. Loss of forest land to 

development, associated fragmentation of the remaining forest land base, and accompanying changes in 

how remaining private forest lands are managed 

suggest that policymakers and managers cannot 

assume that the forest land surrounding federal lands 

will be the same in coming decades and available to 

contribute to NWFP objectives. 
682

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

attributes, with potential implications for habitat and other 

resource issues (Azuma et al. 2014). Although the public 

land area generally will remain constant for the foreseeable 

future, private forest lands are subject to possible conversions to other nonforest land uses, including agricultural, 

residential, commercial, and industrial development 

associated with population growth in the region. Federal 

and other public lands also can attract development on 

adjacent private lands, potentially leading to increased 

road densities, more human-caused wildfire ignitions, 

and greater demands for recreation, among other changes 

affecting federal lands (e.g., Azuma et al. 2013). The uneven 

distributions of ecosystems, ownerships and management 

activities across the NWFP area is one reason why it may be 

difficult to meet diverse biodiversity objectives on federal 

lands alone (Spies et al. 2007 )

Forest land/agriculture conversions—

Within the NWFP area, actual conversions of private forest 

land to agriculture (and vice versa) are limited. Forest land 

conversions to agriculture totaled 9,000 ac (3642 ha) from 

1974 to 2009 in the entire state of Oregon, relative to a nonfederal land base of nearly 29 million ac (11.74 million ha), 

while conversions from agriculture to forest land totaled 

3,000 ac (1214 ha) (Lettman 2011). Similarly, net conversions from forest land to agriculture totaled just 1,761 ac 

(713 ha) in western Washington between 1976 and 2006, out 

of a nonfederal land base of more than 10 million ac (4.05 

million ha) (Gray et al. 2013). This stability between forest 

and agricultural land uses stems largely from the unsuitability of existing forest land for agriculture because of soils 

and topography, and the high income-earning capacity of 

lands currently in agricultural uses relative to forestry. 

Conversion of private forest land to more developed uses—

More prevalent are conversions of private forest land to residential, commercial, industrial, and other developed uses 

(fig. 8-24). Private forest land conversions to development in 

Oregon totaled 172,000 ac (69 606 ha) from 1974 to 2009, 

or about 2 percent of the nonfederal forest land statewide 

during this period, with 163,000 ac (65 964 ha) (95 percent 

of this total) involving conversions to low-density residential development, and the remaining 5 percent (9,000 ac) 

(3642 ha) involving urban development (Lettman 2011). 

These changes have been most prevalent in urbanizing 

regions along Oregon’s Interstate 5 corridor (Lettman 2011). 

Similarly, forest land development totaled 479,324 

ac (193 976 ha) in western Washington between 1976 and 

2006, or about 6 percent of the nonfederal forest land in 

western Washington. Of this total, 419,678 ac (169 838 

ha) (88 percent) were converted to low-density residential 

development, and 59,646 ac (24 137 ha) (12 percent) to 

urban development (Gray et al. 2013). Population densities 

Forest

Agriculture

Mixed forest-agriculture

Low-density urban development

65%

17%

7%

11%

Figure 8-22—Land use of nonfederal lands in western Oregon 

(11 million ac [4.45 million ha]). Source: Lettman 2011.

Forest

Agriculture

Mixed forest-agriculture

Low-density urban development

70% 7%

3%

20%

Figure 8-23—Land use of nonfederal lands in western Washington 

(more than 10 million ac [4.05 million ha]). Source: Gray et al. 2013.
683

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

have more than doubled in the Puget Sound region in recent 

decades, contributing to significant urban expansion onto 

forest land (Alig and White 2007). In some northwestern 

Washington counties, population increase owing to net 

domestic migration was more than double the natural 

increase in population during the 1990s, with associated 

increases in forest land development (White and Mazza 

2008). Land use data suggest that development has been 

increasing on private lands adjacent to federal and other 

public lands, particularly in selected counties of western 

Washington and on the eastern slope of the Cascade Range 

in Deschutes County, Oregon (Azuma et al. 2013).

National-level projections based on expected population 

growth suggest continued loss of forest land to development 

through 2030 in northern California and the Pacific Northwest, largely following national patterns of development 

near existing urban areas (Stein et al. 2005, 2009). Regional 

projections of future low-density residential and urban 

development on forest land in western Oregon through 

2024 are fairly modest largely owing to Oregon’s land use 

planning program, with most conversions involving the 

transition of low-density developed forest land to urban uses 

(Kline 2005b). In eastern Oregon, forest land development 

also is projected to be fairly modest through 2025, with 

most conversions involving low-density to largely urban 

transitions (Kline et al. 2007). In western Washington, 

forest land was projected to decline by 8 percent from 1997 

to 2027, with most converting to urban development (Alig 

and White 2007). However, projections in western Washington do not consider the potential conservation influence of 

Washington’s land use planning program (implemented in 

1990), which early analysis is suggesting may be beginning 

to have some effect on slowing development on both forest 

and agricultural lands (Kline et al. 2014). Development is 

expected to be most prevalent in valleys near urban areas, 

based on analyses conducted for western Oregon (Kline at 

al. 2003) and western Washington (Kline et al. 2009). Similar patterns also are reflected in analysis of western Oregon 

and western Washington combined, with greater loss of 

forest land expected through 2040 in the Puget lowlands and 

Figure 8-24—Conversion of private forest land to residential development, Oregon.

Jeff Kline
684

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Willamette Valley relative to the Coast Range and Cascades 

regions (Lewis and Alig 2014). We are unaware of regional-level land use projections for northern California.

Forest land development largely results from market 

forces. Population growth and inmigration, rising incomes, 

and economic growth over time combine to increase demands 

for land in developed uses (Kline et al. 2004a). Demands also 

increase with people’s lifestyle choices when, for example, 

people relocate to rural areas or desire second homes in 

scenic forest settings. When demands for developed land uses 

increase, forest landowners may be able to earn more by selling their land than they can by maintaining it as forest (Kline 

et al. 2004a). When these market forces are at play, some loss 

of forest land to development is inevitable. Research also 

suggests that these trends can influence the degree to which 

forest landowners continue to perceive forestry and forest 

ownership as a worthwhile endeavor (Creighton et al. 2016). 

The combined influence of various socioeconomic factors 

on land use change largely has been confirmed in the Pacific 

Northwest from econometric land use modeling and analysis 

conducted at the county level (e.g., Parks and Murray 1994) 

and at finer spatial scales (Kline 2003; Kline and Alig 2001; 

Kline et al. 2001, 2003, 2007, 2009). Additionally, fine-scaled 

models, based on geocoded point data (e.g., Gray et al. 2013, 

Lettman 2011), suggest that location and natural amenity factors also play a role. Land use modeling for western Oregon, 

for example, found a positive correlation between development and the proximity of land to the Interstate 5 corridor 

and the Pacific Coast (Kline and Alig 2001, Kline et al. 2001). 

Analysis for the eastern slope of the Oregon Cascades found a 

positive correlation between development and the presence of 

scenic mountain views (Kline et al. 2007). 

In general, conversions of forest land to development 

in both Oregon and Washington have been more common 

on private nonindustrial lands than on industry-owned 

lands (Lettman 2013). The area of timber industry-owned 

forest land has remained fairly constant in both Oregon 

and Washington since the mid-1970s, while the area of 

forest land in each state owned by nonindustrial owners has 

declined by 6 percent and 10 percent, respectively (Lettman 

2013). We are unaware of studies addressing forest land 

development in northern California. Analysis and projection of future changes in forest land ownership has been 

hampered by a lack of data describing land ownership over 

time that spatially and temporally aligns with land use data 

sets developed for the region (e.g., Gray et al. 2013). Thus, 

knowledge of anticipated changes in land ownership tends 

to derive from predictions about which land ownerships 

are most likely to be involved in projected future land 

use changes (e.g., development), rather than predictions 

about potential future changes in ownership. For example, 

landscape-level modeling and projections for the Coast 

Range physiographic province of Oregon has suggested that 

forest land development could reduce industry-owned forest 

land by 6 percent, and nonindustry-owned forest land by 35 

percent by 2096, with the greatest reductions near urbanizing Portland, Oregon (Johnson et al. 2007). Such reductions 

generally are not as likely to involve the most commercially 

productive industry-owned timber lands in the region, 

largely because of their relative geographic isolation from 

urbanizing locations where development will be prevalent 

owing to greater proximity to urban areas and transportation corridors (Kline and Alig 2005). 

In addition to concern about the loss of forest land to 

development and its potential ecological impact, are concerns about how development often brings greater numbers 

of homes into dry, fire-prone forest types, expanding the 

WUI. In addition to the various land-use projection efforts 

previously mentioned (e.g., Kline et al. 2003, 2007, 2009), 

which can be used to anticipate future expansion of the 

WUI within the Plan area, are other regional and national 

efforts to define the current WUI and anticipate its future 

growth (e.g., Hammer et al. 2007). Such expansion likely 

will present future challenges to public land managers who 

will need to consider how to expend limited wildfire management funds to meet potentially competing objectives, 

including managing for ecological integrity and resilience to 

climate change, and habitat for species such as the northern 

spotted owl versus mitigating wildfire risk to homes.

Timber investment management organizations and real 

estate investment management trusts—

A growing interest nationally in recent years involves the 

seeming rise in forest land ownership of timber investment management organizations (TIMOs) and real estate 
685

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

investment trusts (REITs), as they purchase forest parcels 

previously held by more traditional timber industry owners. 

Forest policymakers, for example, question whether TIMOs 

will continue to manage their holdings for long-term timber 

production versus eventual development (Lettman 2013). 

Whereas timber industry owners are perceived by policymakers as focused solely on securing an expected flow of 

timber revenue over the long term via active forest management, TIMOs and REITs are perceived as less committed 

to solely managing forests over the long term, and more 

amenable to other ways of generating income, including 

development (Lettman 2013). The NWFP area, however, 

has seen little research regarding how prevalent these forest 

land owners have become in recent years, their potential 

future trends, and whether and how their management of 

forest land holdings might change. Although TIMOs and 

REITs have been involved in several large acquisitions 

of previous industrial forest land in both Oregon and 

Washington (Lettman 2013), what this means for future 

management of such holdings as well as longer-term forest 

land ownership trends within the Plan area remains uncertain. Additionally, given that TIMOs and REITs typically 

do not own and operate wood processing facilities, it is 

conceivable that their increased forest land ownership in the 

Pacific Northwest could be accompanied by increases in log 

exports. Such changes potentially could increase the importance of federal timber harvests in supporting timber-related 

economic activity within the region.

Land use planning—

An additional and potentially significant influencing factor 

in both the pace and pattern of forest land development 

within the Plan area is land use planning, which restricts 

developed uses on private lands to promote efficient land 

use and secure various conservation benefits. Oregon’s land 

use planning program—often cited as a national model for 

statewide planning (Kline and Alig 1999)—has provided a 

measurable degree of protection of forest and agricultural 

lands since its inception in 1973 (Gosnell et al. 2011), with 

an estimated 1.4 percent of the private forest land base 

saved from development by 1994 that otherwise would have 

been developed without land use planning in effect (Cathcart et al. 2007, Kline 2005a). Land use projections suggest 

that the Oregon land use planning program will continue to 

conserve forest land in the future, totaling 315,000 ac (127 

476 ha) (4.4 percent) between 2004 and 2024 (Kline 2005b). 

Although less studied than Oregon’s land use planning law, 

research suggests that Washington’s land use planning program also has had some effect at reducing development of 

private forest land since its implementation in 1990 (Kline 

et al. 2014). To our knowledge, land-use planning effects on 

conserving forest land in California have not been examined. Additional public land use policies, including most 

notably preferential property tax assessment, also likely 

influence land use changes within the Plan area, but we are 

unaware of any studies addressing these.

Land use change and fragmented forests—

Secondary to the direct impact that development can have 

on reducing the total area of forest land is the role it plays 

in fragmenting remaining forest land. For example, as the 

area of forest land in western Washington has declined, it 

has become more fragmented, with greater edge to interior portions and smaller patch sizes (Gray 2013). Forest 

fragmentation can have implications for wildlife habitat 

and other ecosystem services, as well as influence how 

remaining forest lands are managed. For example, forest 

land development has been linked to loss of forest cover and 

associated declines in coho salmon populations in rivers 

feeding the northern Puget Sound (Bilby and Mollot 2008), 

as well as degradation of stream conditions and fisheries 

generally owing to declines in vegetation and increased area 

of impervious surfaces (Morley and Karr 2002). Azuma et 

al. (2014) suggested that even small amounts of development 

can lead to meaningful changes in forest conditions on both 

private lands and lands adjacent to federal and other public 

lands, including increases in invasive species.

Increased use of fine-scale spatial land use modeling 

(e.g., Kline et al. 2003) versus county-level models (e.g., 

Parks and Murray 1994) in recent years has enabled greater 

consideration of how future development is likely to affect 

specific ecosystems and habitats. For example, development 

in western Washington is expected to be more prevalent 

on level or moderately sloped lands and nearer to existing urban areas (Kline et al. 2009). Similar patterns are 

projected in western Oregon, with development expected 
686

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

to have a greater impact on oak woodland habitat along the 

Willamette Valley perimeter than on the coniferous forests 

of the western Cascades and Coast Ranges (Kline and Alig 

2005). In the Coast Range physiographic province of Oregon, development is expected to occur more frequently on 

gently sloping valley bottoms (Spies et al. 2007), including 

high intrinsic-potential coho salmon streams (Burnett et al. 

2007). On the eastern slope of the Oregon Cascades, projected development is expected to adversely affect habitat 

connectivity for mule deer, potentially impeding animal 

movement for winter foraging (Kline et al. 2010). National-level analysis has identified significant numbers of at-risk 

species on corporate-owned lands in select watersheds in 

coastal areas of northern California, southern Oregon, and 

Washington (Stein et al. 2010).

Forest fragmentation resulting from development also 

has been found to be accompanied by changes in how 

remaining private forest lands are managed. Research from 

western Oregon found that increasing building densities 

on private forest land were associated with lower forest 

stocking rates as well as reduced precommercial thinning 

and tree planting following harvest (Kline et al. 2004b). 

This contrasts with similar research conducted for eastern Oregon, which suggested that development had not 

significantly influenced private forest management owing 

largely to the relatively lower rates of development, among 

other factors (Kline and Azuma 2007). Modest rates of 

forest land development throughout western Oregon are 

projected to lead to additional reductions in active forest 

management for commercial purposes at least through 

2054 (Kline and Alig 2005). Such changes are thought to 

arise, in part, from forest fragmentation (or parcelization), 

which breaks up large forest parcels into smaller parcels 

for development, thereby increasing the cost of active 

forest management. Additional research suggests that 

private landowners of smaller forest land parcels tend to 

manage less for commercial timber production and more 

for recreation, aesthetics, and other passive-use values 

(Kline et al. 2000a, 2000b). There also is emerging evidence suggesting that private forest landowners may have 

different perspectives and approaches to managing wildfire 

risk than do federal land managers (e.g., Charnley et al. 

2017). Such changes in private landowner objectives and 

perspectives potentially offer opportunities for enlisting 

private landowners in landscape-level conservation and 

wildfire management efforts, possibly through financial 

incentives, education, and technical assistance (Fischer et 

al. 2014; Kline et al. 2000a, 2000b).

Research Needs, Uncertainties, 

Information Gaps, and Limitations 

The science synthesis presented in this chapter is necessarily limited by information gaps stemming from lack of 

available science to adequately answer the guiding questions. Here we identify research needs that could help fill 

some of these gaps.

The Wood Products Industry

There is increasing recognition that federal forest management, especially forest and watershed restoration, should 

be done at the landscape scale and across land ownerships 

to ensure better outcomes. Concurrently, there is recognition that forest management and the production of ecosystem services take place within complex social-ecological 

systems (chapter 12) in which management outcomes are 

influenced by both social and ecological conditions, which 

are linked and which interact to influence one another. 

Further, these social-ecological systems are characterized 

by complexities such as time-lagged effects, tipping points 

that yield dramatic changes over short periods of time, and 

spatial connectivity. Much of the landscape-level modeling 

conducted within the Plan area is now decades old or has 

not fully accounted for the linked social-ecological system 

dynamics that influence forest management. New research 

that recognizes and quantifies these dynamics, and that 

simulates landscape-level management over long time 

frames, is needed to better understand potential futures 

and tradeoffs in the production of ecosystem services 

under alternative management regimes within the Plan 

area. Such research could provide insight into whether 

the availability of federal timber for harvest will continue 

to change in coming decades, and how federal timber 

production might affect other values associated with 

federal forests. 
687

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Global competition, technological change, consumer 

demand, and other factors unrelated to federal timber 

supply all influence wood products manufacturers in the 

Plan area. In Oregon, there has been recent interest among 

policymakers and the business community in mass-timber 

buildings as a potential new market for wood products 

manufacturers. Mass-timber buildings (which are often 

multistory and use large panels and columns constructed 

from wood rather than concrete or steel) are proposed, or 

under construction, in Portland, Oregon, and an Oregon 

manufacturer has begun producing mass-timber panels. 

Additional research is needed to identify products for which 

wood products manufacturers in the Plan area may have a 

competitive advantage, given the realities of global markets 

for commodity wood products such as dimension lumber 

and structural panels. 

Community Socioeconomic Well-Being

Land managers have expressed interest in how socioeconomic well-being in the Plan area has changed since the 

NWFP was implemented. In this chapter, we have described 

general trajectories of change in forest communities, characterizing these trajectories according to certain archetypes. 

We do not know how many communities in the Plan area 

fall into each type, the geographical distribution of different 

community types, or the extent and nature of hybrid types 

(“multifunctional”) communities, although typologies 

have been developed and mapped at the county scale. 

Existing studies that rely on a small handful of indicators 

from secondary data sources, such as the U.S. Census, are 

insufficient for fully understanding change in the region, 

and how it may be linked to federal forest management as 

one driver of change. An assessment of community types 

in the Plan area could help managers better understand how 

communities have been changing, and how management 

actions could be tailored in different places to provide 

different types of local community benefits. Adding to this, 

NWFP socioeconomic monitoring during the first decade 

provided a rich characterization of the impacts of the Plan 

on rural communities, and how they were adapting to 

changes in federal forest management. NWFP socioeconomic monitoring during the second decade focused on 

change at the county scale, and relied solely on secondary 

data from existing sources. Community studies that include 

primary data gathering directly from community residents 

would provide a much richer understanding of how socioeconomic well-being in the Plan area has changed over 

time, and its links to federal forest management. Currently, 

there is a paucity of community-level studies from NWFParea communities. 

Forest Service Contracting

Climate change promises to further complicate the relationships among wildfire, federal spending, and community benefits. On the one hand, communities with higher 

levels of fire suppression contracting infrastructure may 

benefit economically from increases in fire frequency and 

extent, owing to increased economic activity associated 

with more fire suppression. On the other hand, increasingly 

nationalized and mobile fire suppression response means 

that local fire suppression capacity (e.g. trained crews 

and equipment) may be elsewhere when a fire strikes, and 

therefore unable to support local suppression efforts (thus 

requiring dispatch to call upon crews from outside the local 

area). Additionally, communities may experience economic 

challenges in the months following a wildfire despite 

an initial increase in economic activity associated with 

firefighting (Davis et al. 2014, Nielsen-Pincus et al. 2014). 

Forest-specific climate adaptation strategies for the region 

identify the need for active management to make forests 

more resilient to wildfire and climate-change effects, and 

undertake other stewardship activities (chapter 2) (Spies 

et al. 2010, Whitely Binder et al. 2010), all of which imply 

potential contracting opportunities for local communities. 

The lack of historical analysis of forest restoration and fire 

suppression contracting leads to many uncertainties in 

understanding the future of such contracting work, or the 

linkages between restoration and fire suppression contracting. Much of the research to date has focused either 

on very specific geographies and case studies, or on more 

regional data and trends. In addition, the challenges facing 

restoration contractors and fire suppression contractors 

differ, not only in the contracting and dispatching protocols, but also in the scale at which the work is conducted. 
688

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Additional research focused specifically on understanding 

the businesses that engage with federal agency contracting 

(restoration service, timber sales, and fire suppression) 

would provide a more comprehensive understanding of 

the overlap and linkages between these businesses, as well 

as the communities to which they are connected and their 

local impacts.

Within the confines of timber sale and contracting 

requirements, the Forest Service has a number of innovative 

tools available to enter into partnerships, agreements, and 

stewardship contracts with private businesses and nongovernmental organizations. These innovative tools can be 

used to accomplish a variety of natural resource projects, 

produce a range of ecosystem goods and services, and bolster the performance of both the agency and the cooperating 

entity. Much of the recent research on the use of innovative 

tools in the Pacific Northwest has taken place in dry forests, 

east of the Cascades. Additional research is needed within 

the NWFP area on how the connections between the Forest 

Service and local communities can be strengthened through 

the use of such tools. In addition, the Plan area has been 

a source for experimentation with new models of natural 

resource governance (Montgomery 2013), including models 

in which community-based organizations fill in for gaps in 

federal capacity (Abrams et al. 2015). It remains to be seen 

how the evolution of these new institutional arrangements 

will affect contracting activities and the spatial distribution 

of benefits from Forest Service contracting. 

Biomass

Much is still unknown regarding the potential for biomass 

energy production and related ecosystem service work to 

support rural communities in the future. Doing so will 

depend on the details of renewable energy, climate change, 

and ecosystem service-oriented policies and markets. 

Various climate change mitigation or adaptation initiatives 

may provide incentives and support for forest biomass 

production and use. For example, programs to increase the 

production of energy from non-fossil-fuel sources could 

increase demand for forest-based biomass materials and 

outputs. However, uncertainties remain regarding the 

carbon benefits of forest biomass energy (Hudiburg et al. 

2011, Nechodom et al. 2008, Ter-Mikaelian et al. 2015), 

raising the possibility that biomass may not continue to be 

favored as part of a low-carbon energy portfolio. Further, 

the feasibility of biomass as a complement to forest stewardship and as a contributor to rural development is challenged 

by current harvest, transportation, and processing costs and 

the low demand for biomass materials; this scenario could 

change with new markets, subsidies, or biomass-based 

products (Crandall et al. 2017). Research is needed to better 

understand the full suite of costs and benefits associated 

with biomass energy development under different market 

and public policy scenarios, and to understand where and 

under what conditions biomass harvesting may help to complement other forest management activities or contribute to 

a low-carbon energy matrix. Additional research could also 

help to clarify how the interactions of various energy and 

non-energy policies influence the development of biomass 

businesses (Abrams et al. 2017, Becker et al. 2011b). 

Nontimber Forest Products

Nontimber forest products on federal forests support 

community and household well-being by providing 

income-earning opportunities in the formal and informal 

economic sectors, strengthening individual and community 

social capital, facilitating intergenerational ecological 

knowledge transfer, and enabling NTFP practitioners to 

develop stronger connections with nature and improve 

their mental and physical health. Research conducted in 

the previous two decades has begun to reveal some of the 

diverse and complex ways in which NTFPs contribute to 

human well-being, but there is much more to be learned (fig. 

8-25). Specifically, we know very little about even some of 

the most basic social, economic, and ecological aspects of 

NTFPs, such as:

1. Who is harvesting NTFPs and what are their 

motivations for harvesting these products? To what 

extent do urban, as well as rural, residents participate in NTFP-related activities?

2. Where are harvesters getting NTFPs from and how 

much are they actually harvesting?

3. How does the spatial and temporal distribution of 

NTFP activities vary within and across seasons? 
689

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

4. What are the cumulative impacts of agency regulations such as large-scale area closures, permit 

requirements, seasonal restrictions, etc. on NTFP 

livelihoods?

5. What are the ecological impacts (positive and 

negative) of NTFP harvesting? And what are the 

impacts of different vegetation management and 

restoration practices on NTFP species and livelihoods? What active management approaches can 

be adopted to enhance the productivity of different 

NTFPs, while also producing timber?

6. How is climate change likely to affect the location, 

quantities, and qualities of NTFP species? What 

adaptive measures can be taken to ensure the viability of NTFP livelihoods in the face of changing 

climatic conditions?

7. What do informal and formal NTFP value chains 

look like, and how are benefits distributed along 

those value chains? How do permit prices align 

with the costs incurred by harvesters?

8. What methods exist or could be developed for measuring the contribution to community well-being 

of NTFP activities taking place outside the market 

place, and how can these be adapted for research 

on NTFP activities in the Plan region? How can the 

recreational, cultural, and provisioning values of 

NTFPs best be assessed?

Additionally, most of the research on NTFPs in the 

Plan region has focused on the “big three”—floral and 

holiday greens, wild edible fungi, and huckleberries. 

No studies have been done of firewood, which provides 

the bulk of NTFP revenues on many national forests 

and serves as a heating source for many rural residents. 

Little is known about the native seed and transplant 

industries, which play a major role in restoration on 

both federal and private lands. Likewise, little is known 

about the social and economic aspects of medicinal plant 

gathering on federal forests in the NWFP region, yet the 

medicinal plant industry is one of the largest and fastest 

growing NTFP sectors. 

The biggest gains in knowledge about NTFPs in the 

NWFP region and the people who rely upon them for their 

livelihoods, enjoyment, and cultural traditions were made 

between 1990 and 2010, thanks in large part to the Pacific 

Northwest Research Station’s interdisciplinary applied 

research program focused on improving understanding of 

the social, economic, and ecological aspects of NTFPs. A 

key take-home message from that experience is that building and strengthening partnerships, both across academic 

disciplines and among scientists, managers, and NTFP 

harvesters/buyers, is likely the key to the development of a 

program of NTFP research that can enhance socioecological 

resiliency and community well-being in the NWFP region. 

Figure 8-25—Much remains to be learned about the harvesting of even the most important nontimber forest products in the Northwest 

Forest Plan area, such as wild mushrooms and firewood. 

Rebecca McLain
690

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Recreation

Recreation opportunities on federal forests support the 

well-being of local communities by providing leisure 

opportunities for local residents and by attracting visitors 

who spend money in local communities during their recreational trips. Research is generally clear on what communities can do to promote greater visitor spending, such as 

providing lodging opportunities, restaurants, and recreation 

services. There is limited research within the Plan area on 

how federal forest resource conditions and management 

influence recreation use and recreation behavior of local 

residents and visitors. More research is needed to understand how management actions across the landscape, and at 

important resource destinations, influence how people use 

forests for recreation. 

Ecosystem Services

Given the degree of contentious debate that motivated the 

NWFP and that has been inspired by it over the years, it is 

surprising that little analysis has addressed the potential net 

co-benefits associated with the Plan. Specifically, what has 

the NWFP meant in terms of water quality, outdoor recreation, and habitat for species other than the spotted owl? 

Quantifying these possible net co-benefits, even approximately, might offer additional information with which to 

more fully evaluate the long-term effects of the Plan. Future 

research could be directed toward characterizing how the 

NWFP has influenced various ecosystem services, building 

on case studies and approaches in development (e.g., Kline 

and Mazzotta 2012, Smith et al. 2011).

Additional research could be directed toward further 

evaluating the degree to which various policy instruments, 

including direct payments, tax incentives, and ecosystem 

services markets, could be used to provide incentives to 

private landowners to conduct actions that pursue NWFP 

goals on private lands, augmenting current efforts on 

federal lands. In the early 2000s, for example, there was 

significant excitement about the expected development 

of markets for nontimber ecosystem goods and services 

that are produced from forests (e.g., carbon storage, water 

quality improvements) (e.g., Kline et al. 2009). However, 

achieving these expectations has been spotty within the 

NWFP area, in part because to effectively implement 

them, such markets require new or tighter environmental 

regulations restricting actions that damage ecosystem 

goods and services, making such markets difficult to 

establish (Kline et al. 2009). Despite limited success thus 

far, the presence of a carbon market in California and other 

cases in Oregon and Washington provide some promise 

that such markets can provide additional revenue streams 

from private forests. But how, and if, public forests can 

contribute to carbon markets and other ecosystem service 

markets remains largely unknown. Use of other landowner 

compensation mechanisms, such as direct payments and 

tax incentives, to advance NWFP goals on private lands 

arguably have received less attention by environmental 

advocates, but offer similar promise. Key research needs 

regarding compensation mechanisms of any type include 

evaluating the degree of difficulty in their implementation, 

and evaluating the potential returns in terms of the net 

ecosystem services benefits gained.

There also are opportunities for improving knowledge 

concerning the use of nonfederal funding to finance forest 

restoration on federal lands. Existing research demonstrates 

examples of supporting forest restoration projects that lead 

to watershed improvements (e.g., McCarthy 2014). The 

Pacific Northwest accounts for the majority of high-biomass 

forests nationwide, and federal lands account for nearly 

half of the regional total (Krankina et al. 2014), suggesting 

possible opportunities related to protection and stewardship 

of sequestered carbon should carbon markets be developed 

in the region and be open to participation by federal lands. 

The development of these potential financing opportunities 

will depend upon, among other factors, supportive public 

policies and organizational capacity at multiple scales 

(Davis et al. 2015, Kline et al. 2013). Exactly how such 

financing approaches can operate on public forest lands, 

how much additional revenue such approaches could 

provide toward forest restoration on federal lands, and 

how the revenue derived from these approaches should be 

distributed to benefit both people and forests are areas in 

need of further research. 
691

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Land Use Change

Given the impact that housing and other development 

could have on the amount and condition of remaining 

private forest land, analysis of the implications that such 

development could have for whether NWFP goals can be 

met in the future would seem warranted. In many cases, 

private lands likely augment public lands in providing 

various types of habitat, depending in part on the degree 

of development present. Most analyses have treated land 

use as an “either-or” proposition—land is considered 

either forest or developed. Increasingly, however, we are 

likely to see growing fragmentation of privately owned 

forest lands, with housing and other development interspersed “among the trees.” Such development can have 

a variety of effects on habitat and ecosystem services, 

including effects on spotted owls, depending on how private landowners choose to manage their lands—whether 

for timber or largely for environmental amenities such 

as aesthetics, recreation, and habitat. For these reasons, 

development and its influence on landowner decisions 

could be a significant social process influencing the Plan 

area in the future. We see value in maintaining a research 

program that examines land use change and its effects 

on habitat and other NWFP goals, and that analyzes the 

effects of various policies that can be used to influence 

land use change.

Conclusions and Management 

Considerations

This chapter discusses how the NWFP, among other social 

and economic factors operating at multiple scales, has 

affected rural communities in the Plan area, and how they 

have changed since the Plan was implemented. It also highlights many of the ways in which federal forest management 

contributes to community socioeconomic well-being, and 

vice versa. The chapter is based on a set of guiding questions, several of which federal forest managers in the Plan 

area identified as being of interest. Given the statutory and 

policy foundation for considering socioeconomic well-being 

in federal forest management, a number of relevant management considerations based on the literature synthesized in 

the chapter are identified here.

Management Considerations

Wood products production remains important. 

Increased use of alternative silvicultural methods and 

expanded restoration treatments could increase federal 

timber production to maintain local wood processing 

infrastructure and the forestry workforce and support 

investments in new wood products markets. Historically, 

timber production was the central way in which federal 

forests in the NWFP area contributed to community socioeconomic well-being. The supply of timber from federal 

forests has dramatically declined post-NWFP. That decline, 

coupled with broadscale changes in the wood products 

industry, has altered this important connection between 

federal forests and communities. How to meet the NWFP 

goal of producing a predictable and sustainable supply of 

timber in the future to contribute to community socioeconomic well-being remains an important and continuing 

management challenge. Federal forests contribute roughly 

10 percent of the regional timber supply today, reflecting 

current social acceptability and management approaches. 

Efforts and plans to pursue alternate management strategies 

focused on increased use of alternative silvicultural methods, and expanded restoration treatments could increase 

the volume of federal timber produced compared to recent 

outputs. How any increased federal forest harvest volume 

would influence the wood products industry and private 

forest land in the region is complex, however, and also is 

heavily affected by market and industry conditions outside 

of local control. Increased federal timber supply may be 

especially important in locations in which it provides the 

means to maintain local wood processing infrastructure 

and a forestry workforce, where federal agencies are the 

primary owner of local timberlands, or where the local 

forest products industry is attempting to expand into new 

wood products markets or to produce niche products. 

Most timber harvested in the Plan area comes from 

private lands. Understanding how social, economic, and 

environmental variables influence timber production 

from private forests is important because it supports 

the business infrastructure needed for timber sales and 

restoration treatments on federal lands. In many places 
692

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

within the Plan area, the capacity to undertake forest restoration on federal lands depends on the presence of mills to 

buy timber products generated through restoration projects 

(which can help pay for restoration work through stewardship contracting), and the presence of a contract forestry 

workforce to do the work. The lack of mills to buy material 

is currently more of a challenge east of the Cascade Range, 

and the need to retain existing infrastructure west of the 

Cascades is critical for supporting forest restoration. With 

federal timber harvests declining in recent decades, forest 

managers and policymakers may want to consider the capacity of private forest lands to continue to supply the bulk 

of timber to mills within the NWFP area. Production from 

private forest lands is important because management of 

federal forests, in many cases, depends on having a market 

for logs to fund other restoration activities and on supporting the workforce to do that restoration. Challenges facing 

the productivity of private forest lands in some locations 

include reduced private investment in forestry, the potential for wildfire, insects, and disease, and the management 

goals and decisions of private forest owners. To what extent 

will private forest lands continue to be available for economically viable harvest in the future? Can private forest 

lands sustain current or increased timber harvest levels in 

a manner that is ecologically sustainable? Will the increasing number of more-urban-minded forest owners have any 

interest in harvesting? Answers to these questions will have 

implications for the ability of federal forests in the Plan area 

to meet their timber production and forest restoration goals.

Local communities could benefit more from jobs associated with forest restoration if the predictability and 

accessibility of restoration contracting opportunities 

improve and if stakeholders build social agreement on 

biomass harvesting and processing projects. Finding 

ways to create forest restoration jobs that local residents 

can capture will help build skills, capacity, and infrastructure needed to support management activities on federal 

forests, including fire suppression response, and will promote both healthy forests and healthy communities. The 

opportunities for local communities to benefit from forest 

management are strongly conditioned by factors such as the 

existing workforce, the processing capacity in the community, and the structure of work contracts. To promote more 

beneficial linkages between rural communities and their 

nearby public lands, agencies could consider structuring 

contracts in ways that make them more accessible to local 

communities. For example, they could consider the effect 

of restoration contract size and scope on local contracting 

capacity, and provide restoration contracts in a variety of 

sizes to support business diversity. Community capacity to 

participate in the restoration economy is not only a function of the structure of individual contracts but also of the 

consistency and predictability of contracts over time. Using 

a variety of tools may help build a predictable, sustainable 

program of restoration and biomass use work that will help 

support investments in contracting and processing capacity. 

The harvesting and processing of biomass materials may 

also help deliver economic benefits from restoration work, 

but biomass production has often been controversial and 

economically challenging in the NWFP area. To improve the 

opportunities for positive outcomes, working closely with 

community members and other key stakeholders to build 

agreement on biomass harvesting and processing projects is 

important. Consideration of local benefits as a contributing 

factor to such projects may help build social agreement.

Forest management decisions affect access to and use 

of NTFPs and people’s ability to benefit from harvesting them. Thus it is important to consider the social and 

ecological tradeoffs involved when making decisions that 

affect NTFP management. The key to supporting a robust 

and resilient NTFP sector in the Plan region is to recognize that 

many of the informal aspects of that sector enhance community and household well-being. By providing low-cost income-earning and provisioning opportunities, the NTFP sector 

can provide the flexibility that some individuals and households 

might need to survive times of crisis or improve their quality of 

life during better times. NTFP activities that take place outside 

the market also function as social-ecological glue, linking people to each other and strengthening human-nature connections. 

When developing forest management policies and regulatory 

frameworks, agencies may wish to consider how they will 

affect the informal economic activities associated with NTFPs, 

and weigh carefully how the ecological benefits of large-scale 

area closures for commercial NTFP harvesting and increased 

formalization stack up against the costs of decreased economic 

resiliency and a weakening of social connections.
693

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Community economic benefits from federal forest-based recreation are greatest when visitors take 

overnight trips. Developing recreation opportunities 

that encourage overnight stays and align with visitors’ 

desires will help local communities benefit from recreation spending. Recreation visitor spending is a significant driver of economic activity in many forest communities within the NWFP area. The key factor in explaining 

how much recreation visitors spend in local communities 

during their trip is whether the visitor spends the night (either in a public campground or private lodging). Visitors 

who spend the night away from home spend an average 

of 5 to 8 times as much as visitors who are in the area for 

the day only. Communities seeking to generate the greatest amounts of visitor spending locally would do well to 

focus on efforts that (1) increase the likelihood visitors 

will spend the night there, and (2) support businesses that 

supply the types of services, goods, and experiences that 

recreation visitors desire.

Policies and programs are needed to incentivize private 

forest landowners to produce desired ecosystem services 

and to help them benefit from doing so. Local communities, including private landowners, may stand to benefit 

from emerging markets in ecosystem services. Similarly 

to forestry and restoration work, however, the nature of 

these benefits will depend upon how market access is 

structured. To promote these benefits, managers and policymakers could consider local community needs in the 

development of ecosystem service markets, and provide 

opportunities for local businesses and landowners to 

benefit from restoration, carbon sequestration, and other 

stewardship activities. For example, habitat improvements 

on private forest lands likely could be enhanced by targeting incentive programs or technical assistance toward 

forest landowners whose own objectives include habitat 

protection.

Development of private forest land raises questions about 

society’s ability to benefit from forests, and will affect 

ecological conditions and processes across land ownerships. Anticipating its implications is important for 

federal forest management decisionmaking. Private forest 

land development and accompanying changes in forest management are an inevitable outcome of social and economic 

forces. Forest land development raises three main concerns: 

(1) how does it affect our ability as a nation to produce sufficient forest commodities, (2) how does it affect the many 

ecological values (e.g., biodiversity) and ecosystem services 

we desire from forests as open space, and (3) how does it 

affect our capability to reduce wildfire risk in the WUI? 

Potential ecosystem services impacts from development are 

less certain. Low-density and urban development of forest 

lands undoubtedly have some adverse ecological consequences as forest lands are converted to residential and 

other developed uses. However, less intensive management 

of remaining private forest lands also could alter ecological 

characteristics in unanticipated ways, adversely affecting 

habitat for some species while improving habitat for others. 

Evaluating net ecosystem services impacts resulting from 

increasing development of forest landscapes will require 

anticipating how resulting changes in private forestry are 

likely to affect ecological conditions and processes, and 

their associated ecosystem services. Such studies have been 

fairly limited in the Pacific Northwest. 

When developing communication and outreach strategies 

to help communities adapt to fire-prone landscapes, tailor 

them to community type; different community types will 

have different opportunities and challenges associated 

with wildfire adaptation. Timber harvesting is no longer the 

only focal federal forest management concern from a socioeconomic standpoint, as it was when the NWFP was developed. Two decades later, wildfire management has risen to 

become another important management concern for communities located near federal forests. A number of social scientists have conducted research about what factors drive community adaptation to fire-prone landscapes, and how to build 

community capacity to address wildfire risk (see McCaffrey 

et al. 2013). Paveglio et al. (2015b) suggested that strategies 

to build community capacity to address wildfire risk will 

depend on community type. They develop a four-part typology of WUI communities that includes formalized suburban 

communities, high-amenity/high-resource communities, rural 

lifestyle communities (these last two are consistent with the 

amenity trajectory), and working landscape/resource-dependent communities (consistent with the production trajectory). 

They suggest that communities sharing similar characteristics 
694

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

are likely to encounter similar challenges and opportunities in 

adapting to wildfire risk. Thus, agencies and others seeking 

to assist WUI communities become more resilient to wildfire 

could develop communication and outreach strategies tailored 

to each community type. Paveglio et al. (2015b) detailed what 

some of these might be.

When possible, drawing on local community resources to help fight wildfires (e.g., equipment, labor) could 

improve fire suppression response and help communities 

capture fire suppression dollars. Regarding fire-related 

jobs, given the erratic nature and small windows of demand 

for wildfire contracting, most businesses and workers need 

to perform other activities when they are not working on 

fire crews. As a consequence, local contracting capacity for 

fire suppression may be concentrated in particular regions, 

at least in part because there is other work for businesses to 

do when they are not fighting fires. This means that local 

capacity for fire suppression may be unequally distributed across the region, and concentrated in pockets where 

restoration work has historically existed. Related to this, 

the mobile and national nature of fire suppression means 

that local businesses trained in fire suppression will often be dispatched to fires outside their local community. 

Consequently, the ability of communities to capture fire 

suppression dollars locally may be reduced because firefighters (and fire camp support services) spend money on 

lodging, food, gas, and other supplies in the locale where 

they are fighting the fire. No matter where a fire occurs, 

firefighters will bring some of the income they earn back 

to their home areas. But, with such a necessarily mobile 

workforce, some firefighter earnings will be spent while on 

deployment to fires. This finding suggests that when fire 

resource needs and dispatch procedures allow for it, linking local fire suppression response capacity to less mobile 

resources (e.g., local fire districts, other fire suppression 

resources not signed up for national or regional deployment) 

might improve both local response and economic capture. 

Working with communities to help mitigate negative 

climate change impacts will contribute to community 

well-being. Adaptation to climate change is another key 

concern for community socioeconomic well-being. This 

is not a purely technical exercise; it entails consideration 

of a multitude of social values and economic activities. 

Working with local community members to identify forest 

resources and economic activities potentially at risk from 

a changing climate, and considering management approaches that address these impacts, are ways that agency 

managers may help mitigate the impacts of climate change 

on communities.

Conclusions

Rural communities are not all alike, forest management policies and practices affect different communities differently, 

and the social and economic bases of many traditionally 

forest-dependent communities have changed in the years 

since the start of the NWFP. Better understanding and 

consideration of the economic development trajectories of 

different communities will help identify forest management 

activities that best contribute to their well-being. Providing 

a diverse set of benefits from federal forests may support 

communities in their efforts to diversify economically, and 

help build community resilience to future change. 

Additionally, local relationships are important. Building constructive relationships with place-based nongovernmental organizations and other entities that are working 

to help communities become more resilient to external 

stressors can contribute to community resilience, for example by helping communities capture the economic benefits 

from forest management activities. The stressors affecting 

communities include changes in federal forest management 

policy, markets for forest products, development, wildland 

fire, and climate change. These same organizations may 

also be able to contribute resources and capacity to help 

address unmet needs on National Forest System lands, 

including (but not limited to) maintaining trails and other 

recreational infrastructure, filling gaps in planning capacity, building local business capacity to undertake forest 

restoration, raising funds to pay for forest management 

work, and leading collaborative forest planning efforts. 

Healthy forests and healthy communities are linked; thus it 

is in the interest of federal forest management agencies to 

contribute to community socioeconomic well-being, and it 

is in the interest of local communities to contribute to the 

capacity of agency managers to accomplish forest management work. 
695

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

References

Abrams, J. 2011. The policy context of the White Mountain 

stewardship contract. In: Egan, D.; Hjerpe, E.; Abrams, 

J., eds. Human dimensions of ecological restoration. 

Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource 

Economics: 163–176.

Abrams, J.; Becker, D.; Kudrna, J.; Moseley, C. 

2017. Does policy matter? The role of policy systems in 

forest bioenergy development in the United States. Forest 

Policy and Economics. 75: 41–48.

Abrams, J.; Davis, E.J.; Moseley, C. 2015. Communitybased organizations and institutional work in the remote 

rural west. Review of Policy Research. 32(6): 675–698.

Abrams, J.; Gill, N.; Gosnell, H.; Klepeis, P. 2012. Recreating the rural, reconstructing nature: an international 

literature review of the environmental implications of 

amenity migration. Conservation and Society. 10(3): 270.

Abt, K.L.; Prestemon, J.P. 2006. Timber markets and 

fuel treatments in the western U.S. Natural Resource 

Modeling. 19(1): 15–43.

Adams, D.M.; Alig, R.J.; McCarl, B.A.; Callaway, 

J.M.; Winnett, S.M. 1996. An analysis of the impacts 

of public timber harvest policies on private forest 

management in the United States. Forest Science. 

42(3): 343–358.

Adams, D.M.; Latta, G.S. 2005. Costs and regional 

impacts of restoration thinning programs on the national 

forests in eastern Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 35(6): 1319–1330.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 505 p.

Aguilar, F.; Garrett, H.E. 2009. Perspectives of woody 

biomass for energy: survey of state foresters, state 

energy biomass contacts, and National Council of 

Forestry Association executives. Journal of Forestry. 

107(6): 297–306.

Alexander, S.J.; Fight, R.D. 2003. Managing access 

to nontimber forest products. In: Monserud, R.A.; 

Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible forest 

management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic 

Publishers: 383–400. 

Alexander, S.J.; McLain, R.J.; Jones, E.T.; Oswalt, 

S.N. 2011a. Challenges and approaches to assessing the 

market value of wild fungi. In: Cunningham, A.B.; Yang, 

X., eds. Mushrooms in forests and woodlands: resource 

management, values and local livelihoods. London: 

Earthscan Ltd.: 87–106.

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 

2011b. Nontimber forest products in the United States: 

Montreal Process indicators as measures of current 

conditions and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-851. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.

Alexander, S.J.; Weigand, J.F.; Blatner, B.A. 

2002. Nontimber forest product commerce. In: Jones, 

E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J.F., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas: 115–150.

Alig, R.; White, E. 2007. Projections of forest land and 

developed land areas in western Washington. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 22(1): 29–35.

Alig, R.J. 2010. Economic modeling of effects of climate 

change on the forest sector and mitigation options: a 

compendium of briefing papers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-833. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 169 p.

Anderson, M.; Kerkvliet, J. 2011. The Northwest Forest 

Plan has been good for the region’s environment and 

economy. Northwest Science. 85(3): 506–508.

Asah, S.T.; Blahna, D.J.; Ryan, C.M. 2012. Involving 

forest communities in identifying and constructing 

ecosystem services: Millennium Assessment and place 

specificity. Journal of Forestry. 110(3): 149–156.
696

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Azuma, D.; Thompson, J.; Weyermann, D. 2013. Changes 

in development near public forest lands in Oregon and 

Washington, 1974–2005: implications for management. 

Res. Pap. PNW-RP-596. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 21 p.

Azuma, D.L.; Eskelson, B.N.I.; Thompson, J.L. 

2014. Effects of rural residential development on forest 

communities in Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 330: 183–191.

Baker, J.M.; Quinn-Davidson, L.N. 2011. Jobs and 

community in Humboldt County, California. In: Egan, 

D.; Hjerpe, E.E.; Abrams, J., eds. Human dimensions 

of ecological restoration: integrating science, nature, 

and culture. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for 

Resource Economics: 221–237.

Baker, M.; Kusel, J. 2003. Community forestry in the 

United States: learning from the past, crafting the future. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 247 p.

Bauer, S.; Olson, J.; Cockrill, A.; Van Hattem, M.; 

Miller, L.; Tauzer, M.; Leppig, G. 2015. Impacts 

of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation 

on aquatic habitat in four northwestern California 

watersheds. PLoS ONE. 10(3): e0120016.

Becker, D.R.; McCaffrey, S.M.; Abbas, D.; Halvorsen, 

K.E.; Jakes, P.; Moseley, C. 2011a. Conventional 

wisdoms of woody biomass utilization on federal public 

lands. Journal of Forestry. 109(4): 208–218.

Becker, D.R.; Moseley, C.; Lee, C. 2011b. A supply chain 

analysis framework for assessing state-level forest 

biomass utilization policies in the United States. Biomass 

and Bioenergy. 35(4): 1429–1439.

Becker, D.R.; Nechodom, M.; Barnett, A.; Mason, T.; 

Lowell, E.C.; Shelly, J.; Graham, D. 2009. Assessing 

the role of federal community assistance programs to 

develop biomass utilization capacity in the western United 

States. Forest Policy and Economics. 11(2): 141–148.

Becker, D.R.; Viers, J. 2007. Matching the utilization 

of forest fuel reduction by-products to community 

development opportunities. In: Daniel, T.C.; Carroll, 

M.S.; Moseley, C.; Raish, C., eds. People, fire, and 

forests: a synthesis of wildfire social science. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University Press: 157–175.

Beckley, T.M. 1998. The nestedness of forest dependence: a 

conceptual framework and empirical exploration. Society 

& Natural Resources. 11(2): 101–120.

Bennett, D.; Davis, E.J.; White, E.M.; Ellison, A. 2015.

Economic impacts from the Malheur 10-year stewardship 

contract. Fact sheet 5. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, 

Ecosystem Workforce Program. 2 p.

Berkes, F.; Ross, H. 2013. Community resilience: toward 

an integrated approach. Society & Natural Resources. 

26(1): 5–20.

Bilby, R.E.; Mollot, L.A. 2008. Effect of changing 

land use patterns on the distribution of coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Puget Sound region. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

65(10): 2138–2148.

Blatner, K.A.; Alexander, S. 1998. Recent price trends 

for nontimber forest products in the Pacific Northwest. 

Forest Products Journal. 48: 28–34.

Brandt, P.; Abson, D.J.; Dellasala, D.A.; Feller, R.; Von 

Wehrden, H. 2014. Multifunctionality and biodiversity: 

ecosystem services in temperate rainforests of the Pacific 

Northwest, USA. Biological Conservation. 169: 362–371.

Breslow, S.J.; Sojka, B.; Barnea, R.; Basurto, X.; 

Carothers, C.; Charnley, S.; Coulthard, S.; Dolšak, 

N.; Donatuto, J.; García-Quijano, C.; Hicks, 

C.C.; Levine, A.; Mascia, M.B.; Norman, K.; 

Poe, M.; Satterfield, T.; Martin, K.S.; Levin, P.S. 

2016. Conceptualizing and operationalizing human 

wellbeing for ecosystem assessment and management. 

Environmental Science & Policy. 66: 250–259.

Brown, R.B.; Xu, X.; Toth Jr, J.F. 1998. Lifestyle options 

and economic strategies: subsistence activities in the 

Mississippi Delta. Rural Sociology. 63(4): 599–623.
697

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Burnett, K.M.; Reeves, G.H.; Miller, D.J.; Clarke, 

S.; Vance-Borland, K.; Christiansen, K. 

2007. Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative 

to landscape characteristics and implications for 

conservation. Ecological Applications. 17(1): 66–80.

Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; Charnley, S.; Moseley, C.; 

Donoghue, E.M. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the 

first 10 years: socioeconomic monitoring of the Olympic 

National Forest and three local communities. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-679. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 84 p.

Calkin, D.C.; Finney, M.A.; Ager, A.A.; Thompson, 

M.P.; Gebert, K.M. 2011. Progress towards and barriers 

to implementation of a risk framework for US federal 

wildland fire policy and decision making. Forest Policy 

and Economics. 13(5): 378–389.

Calkin, D.E.; Thompson, M.P.; Finney, M.A. 

2015. Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in 

US wildfire management. Forest Ecosystems. 2: 9.

Carah, J.K.; Howard, J.K.; Thompson, S.E.; Short 

Gianotti, A.G.; Bauer, S.D.; Carlson, S.M.; Dralle, 

D.N.; Gabriel, M.W.; Hulette, L.L.; Johnson, B.J.; 

Knight, C.A.; Kupferberg, S.J.; Martin, S.L.; Naylor, 

R.L.; Power, M.E. 2015. High time for conservation: 

adding the environment to the debate on marijuana 

liberalization. BioScience. 65(8): 822–829.

Carroll, M.S. 1995. Community and the northwestern 

logger: continuities and changes in the era of the spotted 

owl. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 192 p.

Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; Alt, F.J.; Schuster, E.G.; 

Findley, A.J. 2000a. Adaptation strategies of displaced 

Idaho woods workers: results of a longitudinal panel 

study. Society & Natural Resources. 13(2): 95–113.

Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; Cohn, P.J. 2003.

Somewhere between: social embeddedness and the 

spectrum of wild edible huckleberry harvest and use. 

Rural Sociology. 68(3): 319–342.

Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; Cohn, P.J.; Morgan, T. 

2007. Managing fire danger in the forests of the US 

Inland Northwest: a classic “wicked problem” in public 

land policy. Journal of Forestry. 105(5): 239–244.

Carroll, M.S.; Daniels, S.E.; Kusel, J. 2000b.

Employment and displacement among northwestern 

forest products workers. Society & Natural Resources. 

13(2): 151–156.

Carroll, M.S.; Higgins, L.L.; Cohn, P.J.; Burchfield, J. 

2006. Community wildfire events as a source of social 

conflict. Rural Sociology. 71(2): 261–280.

Carroll, M.S.; Lee, R.G.; McLain, R.J. 2005.

Occupational community and forest work: three cases 

from the Pacific Northwest. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R., eds. 

Communities and forests: where people meet the land. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 159–175.

Carroll, M.S.; McKetta, C.W.; Blatner, K.A.; Schallau, 

C. 1999. A response to “forty years of spotted owls? A 

longitudinal analysis of logging industry job losses”. 

Sociological Perspectives. 42(2): 325–333.

Carroll, M.S.; Paveglio, T.; Jakes, P.J.; Higgins, L.L. 

2011. Nontribal community recovery from wildfire five 

years later: the case of the Rodeo-Chediski fire. Society 

& Natural Resources. 24(7): 672–687.

Cathcart, J.F.; Kline, J.D.; Delaney, M.; Tilton, M. 2007.

Carbon storage and Oregon’s land-use planning program. 

Journal of Forestry. 105(4): 167–172.

Chamberlain, J. 2015. The volumes and value of nontimber forest products harvested in the United States. 

In: Stanton, S.M.; Christensen, G.A., eds. Pushing 

boundaries: new directions in inventory techniques 

and applications: forest inventory and analysis. Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) symposium. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-931. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 323–327.
698

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Charnley, S., ed. 2006a. 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.

Charnley, S. 2006b. The Northwest Forest Plan as a 

model for broad-scale ecosystem management: a social 

perspective. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 330–340.

Charnley, S. 2006c. Volume II: timber and nontimber 

resources. In: Charnley, S., ed. 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. 74 p.

Charnley, S.; Dillingham, C.; Stuart, C.; Moseley, C.; 

Donoghue, E. 2008a. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 

10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring of the 

Klamath National Forest and three local communities. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-764. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 111 p.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M. 2006a. Volume V: Public 

values and forest management. In: Charnley, S., ed. 

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. 23 p.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M. 2006b. The effects of the 

Northwest Forest Plan on forest-based communities. 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., eds. Northwest Forest Plan—the 

first 10 years (1994–2003): 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: 105–153. Chapter 8.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Moseley, C. 2008b. Forest 

management policy and community well-being in the 

Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 106(8): 440–447.

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, 

C.; Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, 

C.; Phillips, R.H.; Tobe, L. 2006a. Volume 1: Key 

findings. In: Charnley, S., ed. 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. 26 p.

Charnley, S.; Hummel, S. 2011. People, plants, and 

pollinators: the conservation of beargrass ecosystem 

diversity in the western United States. In: Pujol, J.L., ed. 

The importance of biological interactions in the study of 

biodiversity. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech: 127–154.

Charnley, S.; McLain, R.J.; Donoghue, E.M. 2008c. Forest 

management policy, amenity migration, and community 

well-being in the American west: reflections from the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Human Ecology. 36(5): 743–761.

Charnley, S.; Spies, T.A.; Barros, A.M.G.; White, E.M.; 

Olsen, K.A. 2017b. Diversity in forest management 

to reduce wildfire losses: implications for resilience. 

Ecology and Society. 22(1): 22.

Chen, Y.; Lewis, D.J.; Weber, B. 2016. Conservation 

land amenities and regional economies: a postmatching 

difference-in-differences analysis of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Journal of Regional Science. 56(3): 373–394.

Chen, Y.; Weber, B. 2012. Federal policy, rural community 

growth, and wealth creation: the impact of the federal 

forest policy and rural development spending in the 

Pacific Northwest. American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics. 94(2): 542–548.

Christensen, G.A.; Waddell, K.L.; Stanton, S.M.; 

Kuegler, O., eds. 2015. California’s forest resources: 

forest inventory and analysis, 2001–2010. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-913. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 293 p.
699

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Cook, A.K. 1995. Increasing poverty in timber-dependent 

areas in western Washington. Society & Natural 

Resources. 8(2): 97–109.

Crandall, M.S.; Adams, D.M.; Montgomery, C.A.; 

Smith, D. 2017. The potential rural development impacts 

of utilizing non-merchantable forest biomass. Forest 

Policy and Economics. 74: 20–29.

Crandall, S.G. 2016. Fungal ecology and ecosystem-based 

management of special forest products. Santa Cruz, CA: 

University of California at Santa Cruz. 136 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Creighton, J.; Blatner, K.A.; Carroll, M.S. 2016. For the 

love of the land: generational land transfer and the future 

of family forests in western Washington State, USA. 

Small-Scale Forestry. 15(1): 1–15.

Crowe, J.A. 2006. Community economic development 

strategies in rural Washington: toward a synthesis 

of natural and social capital. Rural Sociology. 71(4): 

573–596.

Dana, S.T. 1918. Forestry and community development. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 35 p.

Daniel, T.C.; Carroll, M.S.; Moseley, C.; Raish, C. 

2007. People, fire and forests: a synthesis of wildfire 

social science. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University 

Press. 240 p.

Davis, C. 2001. The west in flames: the intergovernmental 

politics of wildfire suppression and prevention. Publius: 

The Journal of Federalism. 31(3): 97–110.

Davis, E.J.; Gwin, L.; Moseley, C.; Gosnell, H.; Burright, 

H. 2015. Beer, beef, and boards: the role of intermediaries 

in payment for ecosystem services arrangements in 

northwestern Montana. Journal of Environmental 

Planning and Management. 58(9): 1562–1576.

Davis, E.J.; Moseley, C.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Jakes, 

P.J. 2014. The community economic impacts of large 

wildfires: a case study from Trinity County, California. 

Society & Natural Resources. 27(9): 983–993.

DellaSala, D.A.; Karr, J.R.; Olson, D.M. 2011. Roadless 

areas and clean water. Journal of Soil and Water 

Conservation. 66(3): 78A–84A.

Deller, S.C.; Tsung-Hsiu, T.; Marcouiller, D.W.; 

English, D.B. 2001. The role of amenities and quality 

of life in rural economic growth. American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics. 83(2): 352–365.

Dillingham, C. 2006. Community economic assistance 

programs. In: Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; 

Dillingham, C.; Buttolph, L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; 

Moseley, C.; Phillips, R.H.; Tobe, L. Northwest Forest 

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

monitoring results. Volume III: rural communities and 

economies. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 89–100. Chapter 6.

Dillingham, C.; Poe, M.R.; Grinspoon, E.; Stuart, C.; 

Moseley, C.; Mazza, R.; Charnley, S.; Meierotto, L.; 

Donoghue, E.; Toth, N. 2008. Northwest Forest Plan—

the first 10 years (1994-2003): socioeconomic monitoring 

of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest and five local 

communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-761. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 109 p.

Doak, S.C.; Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent 

communities, part II: a social assessment focus. In: 

Millar, C.I., ed. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project final 

report to Congress, volume II: assessments and scientific 

basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center 

Report. No. 37. Davis, CA: University of California, 

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources: 375–402.

Dobkins, R.; Lewis, C.; Hummel, S.; Dickey, E. 2016.

Cultural plant harvests on federal lands: perspectives 

from members of the Northwest Native American 

Basketweavers Association. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-608. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p.
700

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2008. Taking stock of 

community and forest connections. In: Forest community 

connections: implications for research, management, and 

governance. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future 

Press: 263–274.

Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006. Socioeconomic 

conditions and trends for communities in the Northwest 

Forest Plan region, 1990 to 2000. In: Charnley, S.; 

Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.; Buttolph, 

L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.; Phillips, R.H.; 

Tobe, L., eds. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years 

(1994–2003): 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: 7–36. Chapter 2.

Donovan, S.; Goldfuss, C.; Holdren, J. 

2015. Incorporating ecosystem services into federal 

decision making. Memorandum for Executive 

Departments and Agencies. M-16-01. Washington, DC: 

Executive Office of the President of the United States.

Duffy-Deno, K.T. 1997. Economic effect of endangered 

species preservation in the non-metropolitan west. 

Growth and Change. 28(3): 263–288.

Duffy-Deno, K.T. 1998. The effect of federal wilderness 

on county growth in the intermountain western United 

States. Journal of Regional Science. 38(1): 109–136.

Eastin, I.; Ganguly, I.; Sasatani, D.; Lippke, B. 

2007. Study 3: economic contribution. In: Edmonds, 

R.; Boyle, B., eds. The future of Washington’s forests 

and forestry industries. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington, College of Forest Resources: 154–237.

Eichman, H.; Hunt, G.L.; Kerkvliet, J.; Plantinga, 

A.J. 2010. Local employment growth, migration, and 

public land policy: evidence from the Northwest Forest 

Plan. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics. 

316–333.

Emery, M.R. 1998. Invisible livelihoods: non-timber 

forest products in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. New 

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. Ph.D. dissertation.

Emery, M.R.; Ginger, C. 2014. Special forest products 

on the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National 

Forests: a research-based approach to management. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-131. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 51 p.

Emery, M.R.; Pierce, A.R. 2005. Interrupting the telos: 

locating subsistence in contemporary US forests. 

Environment and Planning A. 37(6): 981–993.

Englin, J.; Loomis, J.; González-Cabán, A. 2001. The 

dynamic path of recreational values following a forest 

fire: a comparative analysis of states in the intermountain 

west. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 31(10): 

1837–1844.

Evans, A.M.; Finkral, A.J. 2009. From renewable energy 

to fire risk reduction: a synthesis of biomass harvesting 

and utilization case studies in US forests. GCB 

Bioenergy. 1(3): 211–219.

Finlay, S.E.; Moffat, A.; Gazzard, R.; Baker, D.; 

Murray, V. 2012. Health impacts of wildfires. PLoS 

Currents Disasters. Nov 2. http://currents.plos.org/

disasters/article/health-impacts-of-wildfires/. (22 

December 2017).

Fischer, A.P.; Kline, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Charnley, S.; 

Olsen, K.A. 2014. Objective and perceived wildfire 

risk and its influence on private forest landowners’ fuel 

reduction activities in Oregon’s (USA) ponderosa pine 

ecoregion. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 23(1): 

143–153.

Fischer, A.P.; Spies, T.A.; Steelman, T.A.; Moseley, C.; 

Johnson, B.R.; Bailey, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Bourgeron, 

P.; Charnley, S.; Collins, B.M. 2016. Wildfire risk as a 

socioecological pathology. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. 14(5): 276–284.
701

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective 

for social-ecological systems analyses. Global 

Environmental Change. 16(3): 253–267.

Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; 

Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. 2010. Resilience thinking: 

integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. 

Ecology and Society. 15(4): 20.

Force, J.E.; Machlis, G.E.; Zhang, L.; Kearney, A. 

1993. The relationship between timber production, 

local historical events, and community social change: a 

quantitative case study. Forest Science. 39(4): 722–742.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of 

the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N. 2012. A restoration 

framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Forestry. 110(8): 429–439.

Freudenburg, W.R.; Wilson, L.J.; O’Leary, D.J. 

1998. Forty years of spotted owls? A longitudinal 

analysis of logging industry job losses. Sociological 

Perspectives. 41(1): 1–26.

Frost, P. 2014. Stewardship agreements: the Weaverville 

Community Forest, California. In: Stitching the west 

back together: conservation of working landscapes. 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press: 177–180.

Gabriel, M.W.; Woods, L.W.; Poppenga, R.; Sweitzer, 

R.A.; Thompson, C.; Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; 

Keller, S.M.; Purcell, K.; Barrett, R.H.; Wengert, 

G.M.; Sacks, B.N.; Clifford, D.L. 2012. Anticoagulant 

rodenticides on our public and community lands: spatial 

distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest 

carnivore. PLoS ONE. 7(7): e40163.

Gale, C.B.; Keegan, C.E.; Berg, E.C.; Daniels, J.; 

Christensen, G.A.; Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; 

Polzin, P. 2012. Oregon’s forest products industry and 

timber harvest, 2008: industry trends and impacts of the 

great recession through 2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-868. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.

Gan, J.; Smith, C.T. 2007. Co-benefits of utilizing logging 

residues for bioenergy production: the case for east 

Texas, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy. 31(9): 623–630.

Gebert, K.M.; Black, A.E. 2012. Effect of suppression 

strategies on federal wildland fire expenditures. Journal 

of Forestry. 110(2): 65–73.

Gosnell, H.; Abrams, J. 2011. Amenity migration: 

diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic 

dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal. 

76(4): 303–322.

Gosnell, H.; Kline, J.D.; Chrostek, G.; Duncan, J. 

2011. Is Oregon’s land use planning program conserving 

forest and farm land? A review of the evidence. Land 

Use Policy. 28(1): 185–192.

Graham, N.D. 2008. Advocacy groups plead with Congress 

to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act. Public Interest Law Reporter. 

13(2): 194–199.

Gray, A. 2013. Changes in fragmentation of western 

Washington forest land (Project WC-EM-08-01). 

In: Potter, K.M.; Conkling, B.L., eds. Forest Health 

Monitoring: national status, trends, and analysis 

2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-176. Asheville, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station: 111–115.

Gray, A.N.; Azuma, D.L.; Lettman, G.J.; Thompson, 

J.L.; McKay, N. 2013. Changes in land use and 

housing on resource lands in Washington state, 1976–

2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-881. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 51 p.
702

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Grinspoon, E.; Jaworski, D.; Phillips, R. 2016. Northwest 

Forest Plan—the first 20 years (1994–2013): social and 

economic status and trends. Report FS/R6/PNW/2015/0006. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 80 p.

Grinspoon, E.; Phillips, R. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan—

the first 15 years (1994–2008): socioeconomic status and 

trends. Tech. Paper R6-RPM-TP-02-2011. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 68 p.

Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Fried, J.S.; Stewart, 

S.I. 2007. Wildland-urban interface housing growth 

during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and Washington. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(3): 255.

Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Becker, D.R. 

2000. Rural communities in the Inland Northwest: an 

assessment of small rural communities in the interior and 

upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-477. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 120 p.

Harrison, J.L.; Montgomery, C.A.; Bliss, J.C. 

2016. Beyond the monolith: the role of bonding, 

bridging, and linking social capital in the cycle of 

adaptive capacity. Society & Natural Resources. 

29(5): 525–539.

Helvoigt, T.L.; Adams, D.M. 2009. A stochastic frontier 

analysis of technical progress, efficiency change and 

productivity growth in the Pacific Northwest sawmill 

industry. Forest Policy and Economics. 11(4): 280–287.

Helvoigt, T.L.; Adams, D.M.; Ayre, A.L. 2003.

Employment transitions in Oregon’s wood products 

sector during the 1990s. Journal of Forestry. 101(4): 

42–46.

Hesseln, H.; Loomis, J.B.; González-Cabán, A. 2004.

Comparing the economic effects of fire on hiking 

demand in Montana and Colorado. Journal of Forest 

Economics. 10(1): 21–35.

Hesseln, H.; Loomis, J.B.; González-Cabán, A.; 

Alexander, S. 2003. Wildfire effects on hiking and 

biking demand in New Mexico: a travel cost study. 

Journal of Environmental Management. 69(4): 359–368.

Hibbard, M. 1999. Organic regionalism, corporate 

liberalism, and federal land management: creating 

Pacific Northwest timber towns. Journal of Planning 

Education and Research. 19(2): 144–150.

Hibbard, M.; Lurie, S. 2013. The new natural resource 

economy: environment and economy in transitional 

rural communities. Society & Natural Resources. 26(7): 

827–844.

Hinrichs, C.C. 1998. Sideline and lifeline: the cultural 

economy of maple syrup production. Rural Sociology. 

63(4): 507–532.

Hjerpe, E.; Abrams, J.; Becker, D.R. 2009.

Socioeconomic barriers and the role of biomass 

utilization in southwestern ponderosa pine restoration. 

Ecological Restoration. 27(2): 169–177.

Hjerpe, E.; Holmes, T.; White, E. 2017. National and 

community market contributions of wilderness. Society 

& Natural Resources. 30(3): 265–280.

Hjerpe, E.E.; Kim, Y.-S. 2008. Economic impacts of 

southwestern national forest fuels reductions. Journal 

of Forestry. 106(6): 311–316.

Holmes, F.P.; Hecox, W.E. 2004. Does wilderness 

impoverish rural regions? International Journal of 

Wilderness. 10(3): 34–39.

Hoover, K. 2015. Reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. Report 

R41303. Washington, DC: Congressional Research 

Service. 25 p. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/

uploads/assets/crs/R41303.pdf. (22 December 2017).
703

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Huber-Stearns, H.; Moseley, C.; Bone, C.; Mosurinjohn, 

N. [N.d.] Contracted wildfire response capacity in the 

American West. Manuscript in review. On file with: 

Heidi Huber-Stearns, Ecosystem Workforce Program, 

Institute for a Sustainable Environment, University of 

Oregon, hhuber@uoregon.edu.

Hudiburg, T.W.; Law, B.E.; Wirth, C.; Luyssaert, S. 

2011. Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest 

bioenergy production. Nature Climate Change. 1(8): 

419–423.

Hummel, S.; Foltz-Jordan, S.; Polasky, S. 2012. Natural 

and cultural history of beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-864. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

Ince, P.; Schuler, A.; Spelter, H.; Luppold, W. 2007.

Globalization and structural change in the U.S. forest 

sector: an evolving context for sustainable forest 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-170. Madison, 

WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Forest Products Laboratory. 62 p.

Ince, P.J.; Kramp, A.D.; Skog, K.E.; Spelter, H.N.; 

Wear, D.N. 2011. U.S. forest products module: a 

technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 

RPA assessment. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-662. Madison, WI: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest 

Products Laboratory. 61 p.

Irland, L.C.; Adams, D.; Alig, R.; Betz, C.J.; Chen, C.-

C.; Hutchins, M.; McCarl, B.A.; Skog, K.; Sohngen, 

B.L. 2001. Assessing socioeconomic impacts of climate 

change on US forests, wood-product markets, and forest 

recreation. BioScience. 51(9): 753–764.

Johnson, K.N. 1994. Sustainable harvest levels and shortterm sales. Journal of Forestry. 92(4): 41–43.

Johnson, K.N.; Bettinger, P.; Kline, J.D.; Spies, T.A.; 

Lennette, M.; Lettman, G.; Garber-Yonts, B.; Larsen, 

T. 2007. Simulating forest structure, timber production, 

and socioeconomic effects in a multi-owner province. 

Ecological Applications. 17(1): 34–47.

Johnson, K.N.; Crim, S.; Barber, K.; Howell, M.; 

Cadwell, C. 1993. Sustainable harvest levels and shortterm timber sales for options considered in the report of 

the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Teams: 

methods, results, and interpretations. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University. 96 p.

Jones, E.T.; Lynch, K.A. 2007. Nontimber forest products 

and biodiversity management in the Pacific Northwest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 29–37.

Joyce, L.A. 2007. The impacts of climate change on 

forestry. In: Adams, D.M.; Haynes, R.W., eds. Resource 

and market projections for forest policy development: 

twenty-five years of experience with the US RPA 

timber assessment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer 

Netherlands: 449–488.

Kaufman, H.F.; Kaufman, L.C. 1946. Toward the 

stabilization and enrichment of a forest community. In: 

Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R., eds. Communities and forests: 

where people meet the land. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press: 96–112.

Kay, W.M.; Donoghue, E.M.; Charnley, S.; Moseley, C. 

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.

Keegan, C.E.; Morgan, T.A.; Gebert, K.M.; Brandt, 

J.P.; Blatner, K.A.; Spoelma, T.P. 2006. Timberprocessing capacity and capabilities in the western 

United States. Journal of Forestry. 104(5): 262–268.

Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, C.B.; Morgan, T.A.; Hayes, 

S.W.; Daniels, J.M. 2011. Impact of the great recession 

and housing collapse on the forest products industry in 

the western United States. Forest Products Journal. 61(8): 

625–634.

Keene, S. 2015. Marijuana and the limits of knowledge: 

implications for economic vulnerability and resilience in 

northern California. Resilience. 4(1): 44–58.
704

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Kelly, E.C.; Bliss, J.C. 2009. Healthy forests, healthy 

communities: an emerging paradigm for natural 

resource-dependent communities? Society & Natural 

Resources. 22(6): 519–537.

Kerns, B.K.; Alexander, S.J.; Bailey, J.D. 2004.

Huckleberry abundance, stand conditions, and use 

in western Oregon: evaluating the role of forest 

management. Economic Botany. 58(4): 668–678.

Kirilenko, A.P.; Sedjo, R.A. 2007. Climate change impacts 

on forestry. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America. 104(50): 

19697–19702.

Kirschner, A.R. 2010. Understanding poverty and 

unemployment on the Olympic Peninsula after the 

spotted owl. The Social Science Journal. 47(2): 344–358.

Kitzhaber, J. 1998. Governor’s letter to U.S. Forest 

Service Regional Forester Bob Williams and BLM State 

Director Elaine Zielinski. Salem, OR: State of Oregon, 

Governor’s Office.

Kliejunas, J.T.; Geils, B.W.; Glaeser, J.M.; Goheen, 

E.M.; Hennon, P.; Kim, M.-S.; Kope, H.; Stone, J.; 

Sturrock, R.; Frankel, S.J. 2009. Review of literature 

on climate change and forest diseases of Western North 

America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-225. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 54 p.

Kline, J.D. 2003. Characterizing land use change in 

multidisciplinary landscape-level analyses. Agricultural 

and Resource Economics Review. 32(01): 103–115.

Kline, J.D. 2005a. Forest and farmland conservation 

effects of Oregon’s (USA) land-use planning program. 

Environmental Management. 35(4): 368–380.

Kline, J.D. 2005b. Predicted future forest- and farmland 

development in western Oregon with and without land 

use zoning in effect. Res. Note PNW-RN-548. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16 p.

Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J. 1999. Does land use planning slow 

the conversion of forest and farmlands? Growth and 

Change. 30(1): 3–22.

Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J. 2001. A spatial model of land use 

change for western Oregon and western Washington. 

Res. Pap. PNW-RP-528. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 24 p.

Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J. 2005. Forestland development and 

private forestry with examples from Oregon (USA). 

Forest Policy and Economics. 7(5): 709–720.

Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J.; Garber-Yonts, B. 2004a. Forest 

land social values and open space preservation. Journal 

of Forestry. 102(8): 39–45.

Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J.; Johnson, R.L. 2000a. Forest 

owner incentives to protect riparian habitat. Ecological 

Economics. 33(1): 29–43.

Kline, J.D.; Alig, R.J.; Johnson, R.L. 2000b. Fostering 

the production of nontimber services among forest 

owners with heterogeneous objectives. Forest Science. 

46(2): 302–311.

Kline, J.D.; Azuma, D.L. 2007. Evaluating forest land 

development effects on private forestry in eastern 

Oregon. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-572. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Kline, J.D.; Azuma, D.L.; Alig, R.J. 2004b. Population 

growth, urban expansion, and private forestry in western 

Oregon. Forest Science. 50(1): 33–43.

Kline, J.D.; Azuma, D.L.; Moses, A. 2003. Modeling the 

spatially dynamic distribution of humans in the Oregon 

(USA) Coast Range. Landscape Ecology. 18(4): 347–361.

Kline, J.D.; Harmon, M.E.; Spies, T.A.; Morzillo, A.T.; 

Pabst, R.J.; McComb, B.C.; Schnekenburger, F.; 

Olsen, K.A.; Csuti, B.; Vogeler, J.C. 2016. Evaluating 

carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat possibilities 

for a western Cascades (USA) forest landscape. 

Ecological Applications. 26(7): 2044–2059.
705

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J. 2012. Evaluating tradeoffs 

among ecosystem services in the management of public 

lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-865. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 48 p.

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Patterson, T.M. 2009a.

Toward a rational exuberance for ecosystem services 

markets. Journal of Forestry. 107(4): 204–212.

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Spies, T.A.; Harmon, M.E. 

2013. Applying the ecosystem services concept to public 

land management. Agricultural and Resource Economics 

Review. 42(1): 139–158.

Kline, J.D.; Moses, A.; Alig, R.J. 2001. Integrating 

urbanization into landscape-level ecological assessments. 

Ecosystems. 4(1): 3–18.

Kline, J.D.; Moses, A.; Azuma, D.; Gray, A. 2009b.

Evaluating satellite imagery-based land use data for describing forest land development in western Washington. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(4): 214–222.

Kline, J.D.; Moses, A.; Burcsu, T. 2010. Anticipating 

forest and range land development in central Oregon 

(USA) for landscape analysis, with an example 

application involving mule deer. Environmental 

Management. 45(5): 974–984.

Kline, J.D.; Moses, A.; Lettman, G.J.; Azuma, D.L. 

2007. Modeling forest and range land development in 

rural locations, with examples from eastern Oregon. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 80(3): 320–332.

Kline, J.D.; Thiers, P.; Ozawa, C.P.; Yeakley, A.J.; 

Gordon, S.N. 2014. How well has land-use planning 

worked under different governance regimes? A case 

study in the Portland, OR-Vancouver, WA metropolitan 

area, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning. 131: 51–63.

Klopfenstein, N.B.; Kim, M.-S.; Hanna, J.W.; 

Richardson, B.A.; Lundquist, J.E. 2009. Approaches 

to predicting potential impacts of climate change 

on forest disease: an example with Armillaria root 

disease. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-76. Fort Collins, CO: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 10 p.

Kochi, I.; Donovan, G.H.; Champ, P.A.; Loomis, J.B. 

2010. The economic cost of adverse health effects from 

wildfire-smoke exposure: a review. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 19(7): 803–817.

Kondo, M.C.; Rivera, R.; Rullman, S. 2012. Protecting 

the idyll but not the environment: second homes, amenity 

migration and rural exclusion in Washington state. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 106(2): 174–182.

Krankina, O.N.; Dellasala, D.A.; Leonard, J.; Yatskov, 

M. 2014. High-biomass forests of the Pacific Northwest: 

who manages them and how much is protected? 

Environmental Management. 54(1): 112–121.

Kruger, L.E.; Mazza, R.; Stiefel, M. 2008. Amenity 

migration, rural communities, and public land. 

In: Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E., eds. Forest 

community connections: implications for research, 

management, and governance. Washington, DC: 

Resources for the Future: 127–142.

Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest dependent 

communities. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(1–2): 

359–384.

Kusel, J.; Adler, E., eds. 2003. Forest communities, 

community forests Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield 

Publishers, Inc. 301 p.

Lal, P.; Alavalapati, J.; Mercer, D.E.; Alig, R.J.; Mercer, 

E. 2011. Socioeconomic impacts of climate change on 

rural communities in the United States. In: Alig, R.J.; 

Mercer, D.E., eds. Effects of climate change on natural 

resources and communities: a compendium of briefing 

papers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-837. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 73–118.
706

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Latta, G.; Temesgen, H.; Adams, D.; Barrett, T. 

2010. Analysis of potential impacts of climate change 

on forests of the United States Pacific Northwest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 259(4): 720–729.

Lawson, V.; Jarosz, L.; Bonds, A. 2010. Articulations of 

place, poverty, and race: dumping grounds and unseen 

grounds in the rural American Northwest. Annals of the 

Association of American Geographers. 100(3): 655–677.

Lazar, B.; Williams, M. 2008. Climate change in 

western ski areas: potential changes in the timing of 

wet avalanches and snow quality for the Aspen ski area 

in the years 2030 and 2100. Cold Regions Science and 

Technology. 51(2–3): 219–228.

Le Master, D.C.; Beuter, J.H. 1989. Community stability 

in forest-based economies: proceedings of a conference 

in Portland, Oregon. Portland, OR: Timber Press. 191 p.

Lee, R.G.; Carroll, M.S.; Warren, K.K. 1991. The social 

impact of timber harvest reductions in Washington 

State. In: Sommers, P.; Birss, H., eds. Revitalizing 

the timber dependent regions of Washington, eds. 

Seattle, WA: Northwest Policy Center, University of 

Washington: 3–19.

Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, W.R. 1990. Community 

and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural 

resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 301 p.

Lehner, J. 2012. Historical look at Oregon’s wood 

product industry. Salem, OR: Oregon Office of 

Economic Analysis. https://oregoneconomicanalysis.

com/2012/01/23/historical-look-at-oregons-woodproduct-industry/. (15 December 2017).

Lettman, G.J. 2011. Land use change on non-federal land 

in Oregon, 1974–2009. Salem, OR: Oregon Department 

of Forestry. 69 p.

Lettman, G.J. 2013. Land use change on non-federal 

land in Oregon and Washington. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Department of Forestry. 17 p.

Levitan, L.; Feldman, S. 1991. For love or money: 

nonmonetary economic arrangements among rural 

households in central New York. Research in Rural 

Sociology and Development (USA). 5: 149–172.

Lewis, D.J.; Alig, R.J. 2014. A spatial econometric 

analysis of land-use change with land cover trends data: 

an application to the Pacific Northwest. Res. Pap. PNWRP-600. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 44 p.

Lewis, D.J.; Hunt, G.L.; Plantinga, A.J. 2002. Public 

conservation land and employment growth in the 

northern forest region. Land Economics. 78(2): 245–259.

Liu, J.C.; Pereira, G.; Uhl, S.A.; Bravo, M.A.; Bell, M.L. 

2015. A systematic review of the physical health impacts 

from non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke. 

Environmental Research. 136: 120–132.

Loomis, J.; González-Cabán, A.; Englin, J. 2001. Testing 

for differential effects of forest fires on hiking and 

mountain biking demand and benefits. Journal of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics. 26(2): 508–522.

Lorah, P.; Southwick, R. 2003. Environmental protection, 

population change, and economic development in 

the rural western United States. Population and 

Environment. 24(3): 255–272.

Love, T.; Jones, E.; Liegel, L. 1998. Valuing the temperate 

rainforest: wild mushrooming on the Olympic Peninsula 

Biosphere Reserve. Ambio. (Special Report No. 9): 16–25.

Lynch, K.A.; McLain, R. 2003. Access, labor, and wild 

floral greens management in western Washington’s 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-585. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 61 p.

Lynn, K.; Mackendrick, K.; Donoghue, E.M. 2011.

Social vulnerability and climate change: synthesis of 

literature. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-838. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 p.
707

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Lyon, C.; Parkins, J.R. 2013. Toward a social theory 

of resilience: social systems, cultural systems, 

and collective action in transitioning forest-based 

communities. Rural Sociology. 78(4): 528–549.

Magis, K. 2010. Community resilience: an indicator of 

social sustainability. Society & Natural Resources. 

23(5): 401–416.

McCaffrey, S.; Toman, E.; Stidham, M.; Shindler, B. 2013.

Social science research related to wildfire management: 

an overview of recent findings and future research needs. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22(1): 15.

McCarthy, L.F. 2014. Water source protection funds as 

a tool to address climate adaptation and resiliency in 

southwestern forests. In: Sample, V.A.; Bixler, R.P., eds. 

Forest conservation in the Anthropocene: conference 

proceedings. RMRS-P-71. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 329–343. https://www.fs.fed.

us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p071/rmrs_p071_329_343.pdf. (22 

December 2017).

McGee, T.K. 2011. Public engagement in neighbourhood 

level wildfire mitigation and preparedness: case 

studies from Canada, the US and Australia. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 92(10): 2524–2532.

McGranahan, D.; Wojan, T. 2007. Recasting the creative 

class to examine growth processes in rural and urban 

counties. Regional Studies. 41(2): 197–216.

McGranahan, D.A. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural 

population change. No. 33955. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service. 24 p. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/

publications/41047/13201_aer781.pdf?v=42061. (22 

December 2017).

McIver, C.P.; Meek, J.P.; Scudder, M.G.; Sorenson, C.B.; 

Morgan, T.A.; Christensen, G.A. 2015. California’s 

forest products industry and timber harvest, 2012. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-908. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 49 p.

McLain, R.J. 2000. Controlling the forest understory: 

wild mushroom politics in central Oregon. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 331 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

McLain, R.J. 2008. Constructing a wild mushroom 

panopticon: the extension of nation-state control over the 

forest understory in Oregon, USA. Economic Botany. 

62(3): 343–355.

McLain, R.J.; Alexander, S.J.; Jones, E.T. 2008.

Incorporating understanding of informal economic 

activity in natural resource and economic development 

policy. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-755. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

McLain, R.J.; Christensen, H.H.; Shannon, M.A. 1998.

When amateurs are the experts: amateur mycologists 

and wild mushroom politics in the Pacific Northwest, 

USA. Society & Natural Resources. 11(6): 615–626. 

doi:10.1080/08941929809381106. 

McLain, R.J.; Hurley, P.T.; Emery, M.R.; Poe, M.R. 

2014. Gathering “wild” food in the city: rethinking 

the role of foraging in urban ecosystem planning and 

management. Local Environment. 19(2): 220–240.

McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K. 2010. Managing floral greens in 

a globalized economy: resource tenure, labour relations, 

and immigration policy in the Pacific Northwest, USA. 

In: Laird, S.A.; McLain, R.J.; Wynberg, R.P., eds. Wild 

product governance: finding policies that work for nontimber forest products. London: Earthscan: 265–286.

McLain, R.J.; Tobe, L.; Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M.; 

Moseley, C. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 

years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring of Coos 

Bay district and three local communities. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-675. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 144 p.
708

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Moeltner, K.; Kim, M.K.; Zhu, E.; Yang, W. 2013.

Wildfire smoke and health impacts: a closer look at 

fire attributes and their marginal effects. Journal of 

Environmental Economics and Management. 66(3): 

476–496.

Montgomery, C.A. 2013. Institutional environments 

and arrangements for managing complex aquatic 

ecosystems in forested landscapes. Forest Policy and 

Economics. 35: 50–56.

Morley, S.A.; Karr, J.R. 2002. Assessing and restoring 

the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin. 

Conservation Biology. 16(6): 1498–1509.

Morzillo, A.T.; Colocousis, C.R.; Munroe, D.K.; Bell, 

K.P.; Martinuzzi, S.; Van Berkel, D.B.; Lechowicz, 

M.J.; Rayfield, B.; McGill, B. 2015. “Communities 

in the middle”: interactions between drivers of change 

and place-based characteristics in rural forest-based 

communities. Journal of Rural Studies. 42: 79–90.

Moseley, C. 2006a. Ethnic differences in job quality among 

contract forest workers on six national forests. Policy 

Sciences. 39(2): 113–133.

Moseley, C. 2006b. 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.

Moseley, C. [N.d.]. Business strategies in a managed market: 

fire suppression equipment contracting in the Northwest. 

Document in preparation. On file with: Cassandra 

Moseley, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, 

University of Oregon, cmoseley@uoregon.edu.

Moseley, C.; Charnley, S. 2014. Understanding microprocesses of institutionalization: stewardship contracting 

and national forest management. Policy Sciences. 47(1): 

69–98.

Moseley, C.; Reyes, Y.E. 2008. Forest restoration and 

forest communities: have local communities benefited 

from Forest Service contracting of ecosystem 

management? Environmental Management. 42(2): 

327–343.

Moseley, C.; Sandoval, G.; Davis, E.J. 2014. Comparing 

conditions of labor-intensive forestry and fire suppression 

workers. Society & Natural Resources. 27(5): 540–556.

Moseley, C.; Shankle, S. 2001. Who gets the work? 

National forest contracting in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Forestry. 99(9): 32–37.

Moseley, C.; Toth, N.A. 2004. Fire hazard reduction 

and economic opportunity: how are the benefits of 

the national fire plan distributed? Society & Natural 

Resources. 17(8): 701–716.

Mott, J.A. 2002. Wildland forest fire smoke: health 

effects and intervention evaluation, Hoopa, California, 

1999. Western Journal of Medicine. 176(3): 157–162.

Muir, P.S.; Norman, K.N.; Sikes, K.G. 2006. Quantity 

and value of commercial moss harvest from forests of the 

Pacific Northwest and Appalachian regions of the U.S. 

The Bryologist. 109(2): 197–214.

Nadeau, S.; Shindler, B.A.; Kakoyannis, C. 2003. Beyond 

the economic model: assessing sustainability in forest 

communities. In: Shindler, B.A.; Beckley, T.M.; Finley, 

M.C., eds. Two paths toward sustainable forests: public 

values in Canada and the United States. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press: 60–74.

Nechodom, M.; Becker, D.R.; Haynes, R.W. 2008.

Evolving interdependencies of community and forest 

health. In: Donoghue, E.M.; Sturtevant, V.E., eds. Forest 

community connections: implications for research, 

management, and governance. Washington, DC: 

Resources for the Future: 91–108.

Nelson, M.K. 1999. Economic restructuring, gender, and 

informal work: a case study of a rural county. Rural 

Sociology. 64(1): 18–43.
709

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Nelson, P.B. 1997. Migration, sources of income, and 

community change in the nonmetropolitan Northwest. 

The Professional Geographer. 49(4): 418–430.

Nelson, T.C. 1979. Fire management policy in the national 

forests—a new era. Journal of Forestry. 77(11): 723–725.

Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Charnley, S.; Moseley, C. 2013. The 

influence of market proximity on national forest hazardous 

fuels treatments. Forest Science. 59(5): 566–577.

Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Moseley, C. 2013. The economic and 

employment impacts of forest and watershed restoration. 

Restoration Ecology. 21(2): 207–214.

Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Moseley, C.; Gebert, K. 2014. Job 

growth and loss across sectors and time in the western 

US: the impact of large wildfires. Forest Policy and 

Economics. 38: 199–206.

North, M.P.; Stephens, S.L.; Collins, B.M.; Agee, J.K.; 

Aplet, G.; Franklin, J.F.; Fule, P.Z. 2015. Reform 

forest fire management: agency incentives undermine 

policy effectiveness. Science. 349(6254): 1280–1281.

Northwest Forest Worker Center [NFWC]. 2015. Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest beargrass harvest program 

monitoring final report. Albany, CA: Northwest Forest 

Worker Center. 18 p.

Ohman, D. 1999. Restructuring and well-being in the nonmetropolitan Pacific Northwest. Growth and Change. 

30(2): 161–183.

Ojerio, R.; Moseley, C.; Lynn, K.; Bania, N. 2011.

Limited involvement of socially vulnerable populations 

in federal programs to mitigate wildfire risk in Arizona. 

Natural Hazards Review. 12(1): 28–36.

Oswalt, S.N.; Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Pugh, S.A. 

2014. Forest resources of the United States, 2012: a 

technical document supporting the Forest Service 

2010 update of the RPA assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

WO-GTR-91. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 218 p.

Parks, P.J.; Murray, B.C. 1994. Land attributes and 

land allocation: nonindustrial forest use in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Science. 40(3): 558–575.

Paveglio, T.B.; Carroll, M.S.; Hall, T.E.; BrenkertSmith, H. 2015a. ‘Put the wet stuff on the hot stuff’: 

the legacy and drivers of conflict surrounding wildfire 

suppression. Journal of Rural Studies. 41: 72–81.

Paveglio, T.B.; Jakes, P.J.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, 

D.R. 2009. Understanding social complexity within 

the wildland-urban interface: a new species of human 

habitation? Environmental Management. 43(6): 1085–1095.

Paveglio, T.B.; Moseley, C.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, 

D.R.; Davis, E.J.; Fischer, A.P. 2015b. Categorizing the 

social context of the wildland urban interface: adaptive 

capacity for wildfire and community “archetypes.” 

Forest Science. 61(2): 298–310.

Phillips, R. 2006a. Jobs and income associated with 

resource and recreation outputs. In: Charnley, S.; 

Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.; Buttolph, 

L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.; Phillips, R.H.; 

Tobe, L. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years 

(1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Volume 

III: rural communities and economies. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 37–51. Chapter 3.

Phillips, R. 2006b. 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. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 

10 years (1994–2003): 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: 101–104. Chapter 7.

Pierce, J. 2007. The winds of change: the decline of 

extractive industries and the rise of tourism in Hood 

River County, OR. Oregon Historical Quarterly. 

108(3): 410–431.
710

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Pilz, D.; McLain, R.; Alexander, S.; Villarreal-Ruiz, 

L.; Berch, S.; Wurtz, T.L.; Parks, C.G.; McFarlane, 

E.; Baker, B.; Molina, R.; Smith, J.E. 2007. Ecology 

and management of morels harvested from the forests 

of western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-710. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 161 p.

Pilz, D.; Molina, R. 2002. Commercial harvests of edible 

mushrooms from the forests of the Pacific Northwest 

United States: issues, management, and monitoring 

for sustainability. Forest Ecology and Management. 

155(1–3): 3–16.

Pilz, D.; Smith, J.; Amaranthus, M.P.; Alexander, 

S.; Molina, R.; Luoma, D. 1999. Mushrooms and 

timber: managing commercial harvesting in the Oregon 

Cascades. Journal of Forestry. 97(3): 4–11.

Poe, M.R.; Lecompte, J.; McLain, R.; Hurley, P. 2014.

Urban foraging and the relational ecologies of belonging. 

Social & Cultural Geography. 15(8): 901–919.

Polson, M. 2013. Land and law in marijuana country: clean 

capital, dirty money, and the drug war’s rentier nexus. 

PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. 36(2): 

215–230.

Power, T.M. 2006. Public timber supply, market adjustments, 

and local economies: economic assumptions of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 

341–350.

Pugliese, A.; McCann, L.; Artz, G. 2015. Impacts of 

national forests in the west on county population and 

employment. Forest Policy and Economics. 50: 62–69.

Pyne, S.J. 1981. Fire policy and fire research in the U.S. 

Forest Service. Forest & Conservation History. 25(2): 

64–77.

Quesada, H.J.; Gazo, R. 2006. Mass layoffs and plant 

closures in the US wood products and furniture 

manufacturing industries. Forest Products Journal. 

56(10): 101–106.

Quirke, J.D.; Moseley, C.; Abrams, J. 2017. Between 

community stability and the ‘greatest good:’ legal 

obligations of the U.S. Forest Service toward rural 

communities, 1891–2016. Journal of Environmental 

Law and Litigation. 32(2): 169–187.

Radeloff, V.C.; Stewart, S.I.; Hawbaker, T.J.; Gimmi, 

U.; Pidgeon, A.M.; Flather, C.H.; Hammer, R.B.; 

Helmers, D.P. 2010. Housing growth in and near United 

States protected areas limits their conservation value. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America. 107(2): 940–945.

Rasker, R. 2006. An exploration into the economic 

impact of industrial development versus conservation 

on western public lands. Society & Natural Resources. 

19(3): 191–207.

Rasker, R.; Gude, P.H.; Delorey, M. 2013. The effect of 

protected federal lands on economic prosperity in the 

non-metropolitan west. Journal of Regional Analysis & 

Policy. 43(2): 110–122.

Rasker, R.; Gude, P.H.; Gude, J.A.; Van Den Noort, J. 

2009. The economic importance of air travel in highamenity rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies. 25(3): 

343–353.

Reilly, M.J.; Dunn, C.J.; Meigs, G.W.; Spies, T.A.; 

Kennedy, R.E.; Bailey, J.D.; Briggs, K. 2017.

Contemporary patterns of fire extent and severity in 

forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA (1985–2010). 

Ecosphere. 8(3): e01695.

Responsive Management. 2012. Results of general 

population survey in support of the development of the 

Washington State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 

Plan. Harrisonburg, VA: Responsive Management 

National Office. 324 p. https://www.rco.wa.gov/

documents/rec_trends/WA_SCORP_ResidentSurvey.pdf. 

(22 December 2017).
711

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Richards, R.T.; Alexander, S.J. 2006. A social history of 

wild huckleberry harvesting in the Pacific Northwest. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-657. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 113 p.

Richards, R.T.; Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, 

resource values, and ecosystem management: matsutake 

mushroom harvesting in the Klamath bioregion. Society 

& Natural Resources. 9(4): 359–374.

Richardson, E. 1980. BLM’s billion-dollar checkerboard: 

managing the O&C lands. Santa Cruz, CA: Forest 

History Society. 200 p.

Richardson, R.B.; Loomis, J.B. 2004. Adaptive recreation 

planning and climate change: a contingent visitation 

approach. Ecological Economics. 50(1–2): 83–99.

Rooney, B. 2015. A comprehensive estimate of Oregon’s 

forest sector employment. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Employment Department, Workforce and Economic 

Research Division.

Rosenberger, R.; Lindberg, K. 2012. Oregon Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan supporting 

documentation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.

Rudzitis, G; Johnson, R. 2000. The impact of wilderness 

and other wildlands on local economies and regional 

development trends. In: McCool, S.F.; Cole, D.N.; Borrie, 

W.T.; O’Loughlin, J., comps. 2000. Wilderness science 

in a time of change conference—Volume 2: Wilderness 

within the context of larger systems. Proceedings 

RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 14–26.

Sample, V.A.; Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L. 2014. US 

strategy for forest management adaptation to climate 

change: building a framework for decision making. 

Annals of Forest Science. 71(2): 125–130.

Sánchez, J.J.; Baerenklau, K.; González-Cabán, A. 

2016. Valuing hypothetical wildfire impacts with a 

Kuhn-Tucker model of recreation demand. Forest Policy 

and Economics. 71: 63–70.

Sarathy, B. 2008. The marginalization of pineros in the 

Pacific Northwest. Society and Natural Resources. 

21(8): 671–686.

Sarathy, B. 2012. Pineros: Latino labour and the changing 

face of forestry in the Pacific Northwest. Vancouver, BC: 

UBC Press. 208 p.

Satterfield, T. 2007. Anatomy of a conflict: identity, 

knowledge, and emotion in old-growth forests. 

Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. 198 p.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible 

mushroom industry of Washington, Oregon and Idaho: a 

1992 survey. Journal of Forestry. 93: 31–36.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1997. Special forest 

products: an east-side perspective. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-380. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 35 p.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A.; Chapman, R.C. 1991.

Economic and marketing implications of special forest 

products harvest in the coastal Pacific Northwest. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 67–72.

Schultz, C.A.; Jedd, T.; Beam, R.D. 2012. The 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program: 

a history and overview of the first projects. Journal of 

Forestry. 110(7): 381–391.

Schultz, C.A.; Sisk, T.D.; Noon, B.R.; Nie, M.A. 2013.

Wildlife conservation planning under the United States 

Forest Service’s 2012 planning rule. The Journal of 

Wildlife Management. 77: 428–444.

Scott, D.; McBoyle, G. 2007. Climate change adaptation in 

the ski industry. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for 

Global Change. 12(8): 1411–1431.

Seekamp, E.; Cerveny, L.K.; McCreary, A. 2011.

Institutional, individual, and socio-cultural domains 

of partnerships: a typology of USDA Forest Service 

recreation partners. Environmental Management. 48(3): 

615–630.
712

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Skog, K.E.; McKeever, D.B.; Ince, P.J.; Howard, J.L.; 

Spelter, H.N.; Schuler, A.T. 2012. Status and trends 

for the U.S. forest products sector: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA assessment. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-207. Madison, WI: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest 

Products Laboratory. 35 p.

Smith, J.; Crone, L.K.; Alexander, S.J. 2010. A U.S. 

Forest Service special forest products appraisal system: 

background, methods, and assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-822. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 22 p.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.; Blahna, D.; Patterson, 

T.; Spies, T.A.; Bennett, K. 2011. Ecosystem services 

as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes 

National Forest overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

Spencer, C. 1999. Linking forest employment and 

forest ecosystem objectives in the Pacific Northwest. 

Community Development Journal. 34(1): 47–57.

Spies, T.A.; Giesen, T.W.; Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, 

J.F.; Lach, D.; Johnson, K.N. 2010. Climate change 

adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific 

Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic 

perspectives. Landscape Ecology. 25(8): 1185–1199.

Spies, T.A.; Johnson, K.N.; Burnett, K.M.; Ohmann, 

J.L.; McComb, B.C.; Reeves, G.H.; Bettinger, P.; 

Kline, J.D.; Garber-Yonts, B. 2007. Cumulative 

ecological and socioeconomic effects of forest policies in 

coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications. 17(1): 5–17.

Starbuck, C.; Alexander, S.; Berrens, R.; Bohara, A. 

2004. Valuing special forest products harvesting: a twostep travel cost recreation demand analysis. Journal of 

Forest Economics. 10(1): 37–53.

Starbuck, C.M.; Berrens, R.P.; McKee, M. 2006.

Simulating changes in forest recreation demand and 

associated economic impacts due to fire and fuels 

management activities. Forest Policy and Economics. 

8(1): 52–66.

Steelman, T.A.; Burke, C.A. 2007. Is wildfire policy in the 

United States sustainable? Journal of Forestry. 105(2): 

67–72.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Alig, R.J.; Nelson, 

M.D.; Theobald, D.M.; Eley, M.; Dechter, M.; Carr, 

M. 2005. Forests on the edge: housing development 

on America’s private forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-636. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 16 p.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Mahal, L.G.; Carr, M.A.; 

Alig, R.J.; Comas, S.J.; Theobald, D.M.; Cundiff, 

A. 2009. Private forests, public benefits: increased 

housing density and other pressures on private forest 

contributions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-795. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 74 p.

Stein, S.M.; McRoberts, R.E.; Nelson, M.D.; Mahal, 

L.; Flather, C.H.; Alig, R.J.; Comas, S. 2010. Private 

forest habitat for at-risk species: where is it and where 

might it be changing? Journal of Forestry. 108(2): 61–70.

Stidham, M.; Simon-Brown, V. 2011. Stakeholder 

perspectives on converting forest biomass to energy in 

Oregon, USA. Biomass and Bioenergy. 35(1): 203–213.

Stuart, C. 2006. Agency jobs, unit reorganizations, 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. Northwest Forest 

Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): 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: 53–75. Chapter 4.
713

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Stynes, D.J.; White, E.M. 2006. Reflections on measuring 

recreation and travel spending. Journal of Travel 

Research. 45(1): 8–16.

Sundstrom, S.; Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Moseley, C.; 

McCaffery, S. 2012. Woody biomass use trends, 

barriers, and strategies: perspectives of US Forest 

Service managers. Journal of Forestry. 110(1): 16–24.

Sundstrom, S.; Sundstrom, J. 2014. Stewardship 

contracting in the Siuslaw National Forest. In: Charnley, 

S.; Sheridan, T.E.; Nabhan, G.P., eds. Stitching the West 

back together: conservation of working landscapes. 

University of Chicago Press: 159–176.

Swan, L. 2012. Eastern Oregon primary wood products 

processing facilities and operations (final working draft). 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Region 6, State and Private Forestry. 19 p.

Swanson, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Beschta, R.L.; Crisafulli, 

C.M.; Dellasala, D.A.; Hutto, R.L.; Lindenmayer, 

D.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest 

succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2): 117–125.

Ter-Mikaelian, M.T.; Colombo, S.J.; Chen, J. 2015. The 

burning question: does forest bioenergy reduce carbon 

emissions? A review of common misconceptions about 

forest carbon accounting. Journal of Forestry. 113(1): 

57–68.

Thomas, J.W. 1996. Forest Service perspective on 

ecosystem management. Ecological Applications. 6(3): 

703–705.

Thomas, J.W.; Franklin, J.F.; Gordon, J.; Johnson, K.N. 

2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: origins, components, 

implementation experience, and suggestions for change. 

Conservation Biology. 20(2): 277–287.

Tsing, A. 2013. Dancing the mushroom forest. PAN: 

Philosophy, Activism, Nature. 10: 1–6.

Tsing, A.L. 2015. The mushroom at the end of the world: 

on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press. 352 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2001. National strategy for special forest products. 

Publication. FS-713. Washington, DC. 15 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2012. National forest system land management 

planning. 36 C.F.R. Part 219. Federal Register. 77: 

21260–21276.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2016. National visitor use monitoring results. 

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of 

decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau 

of Land Management planning documents within the 

range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication 

unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and 

guidelines].

Vance, N.C.; Borsting, M.; Pilz, D.; Freed, J. 2001.

Special forest products: species information guide for 

the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-513.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 169 p.

Vaughn, J.S.; Cortner, H. 2005. George W. Bush’s healthy 

forests: reframing the environmental debate. Boulder, 

CO: University of Colorado Press. 231 p.

Waddell, K.L.; Bassett, P.M. 1996. Timber resource 

statistics for the North Coast resource area of California 

1994. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-214. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 50 p.

Waddell, K.L.; Bassett, P.M. 1997. Timber resource 

statistics for the North Interior resource area of 

California. Res. Bull. PNW-RB-222. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 49 p.

Walker, B.; Salt, D. 2006. Resilience thinking. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 192 p.
714

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Waltert, F.; Schläpfer, F. 2010. Landscape amenities and 

local development: A review of migration, regional 

economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecological 

Economics. 70(2): 141–152.

Washington Department of Natural Resources [WDNR]. 

2014. Washington mill survey, 2012. Olympia, WA. 43 p.

Weigand, J. 2002. Overview of cultural traditions, 

economic trends, and key species in nontimber forest 

products of the Pacific Northwest. In: Jones, E.T.; 

McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest 

products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: University 

of Kansas Press: 57–64.

White, E.; Mazza, R. 2008. A closer look at forests on 

the edge: future development on private forests in three 

states. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-758. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 20 p.

White, E.M. 2017. Spending patterns of outdoor recreation 

visitors to national forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-961. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 70 p.

White, E.M.; Davis, E.J.; Bennett, D.E.; Moseley, C. 

2015. Monitoring of outcomes from Oregon’s Federal 

Forest Health Program. Working Paper 57. Eugene, OR: 

University of Oregon, Ecosystem Workforce Program. 

40 p. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/Board/Documents/

BOF/20160309/BOFATTCH_20160309_04_01.pdf. (22 

December 2017).

White, E.M.; Stynes, D.J. 2008. National forest visitor 

spending averages and the influence of trip-type and 

recreation activity. Journal of Forestry. 106(1): 17–24.

Whitely Binder, L.C.; Krencicki Barcelos, J.; Booth, 

D.B.; Darzen, M.; McGuire Elsner, M.; Fenske, R.; 

Graham, T.F.; Hamlet, A.F.; Hodges-Howell, J.; 

Jackson, J.E.; Karr, C.; Keys, P.W.; Littell, J.S.; 

Mantua, N.; Marlow, J.; McKenzie, D.; RobinsonDorn, M.; Rosenberg, E.A.; Stöckle, C.O.; Vano, J.A. 

2010. Preparing for climate change in Washington state. 

Climatic Change. 102(1–2): 351–376.

Wilkinson, C.F.; Anderson, H.M. 1987. Land and 

resource planning in the national forests. Covelo, CA: 

Island Press. 400 p.

Wilson, G. 2010. Multifunctional ‘quality’ and rural 

community resilience. Transactions of the Institute of 

British Geographers. 35(3): 364–381.

Wimberly, M.C.; Liu, Z. 2014. Interactions of climate, 

fire, and management in future forests of the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 327: 

270–279.

Winkler, R.; Field, D.R.; Luloff, A.E.; Krannich, R.S.; 

Williams, T. 2007. Social landscapes of the intermountain West: a comparison of “Old West” and “New 

West” communities. Rural Sociology. 72(3): 478–501.

Woodall, C.W.; Ince, P.J.; Skog, K.E.; Aguilar, F.X.; 

Keegan, C.E.; Sorenson, C.B.; Hodges, D.G.; Smith, 

W.B. 2012. An overview of the forest products sector 

downturn in the United States. Forest Products Journal. 

61(8): 595–603.
715
716

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Participants map their favorite destinations in the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National 

Forest, Washington, during a human ecological mapping workshop.

Photo by Lee Cerveny.
717

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Chapter 9: Understanding Our Changing Public 

Values, Resource Uses, and Engagement Processes 

and Practices

Lee K. Cerveny, Emily Jane Davis, Rebecca McLain, 

Clare M. Ryan, Debra R. Whitall, and Eric M. White1

Introduction

The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) signified a 

movement away from intensive focus on timber management that was common through the 1980s and toward an 

ecosystem management approach, which aims to conserve 

ecological conditions and restore natural resources while 

meeting the social, cultural, and economic needs of present 

and future generations (Brussard et al. 1998). The NWFP 

emerged in response to expanded scientific knowledge 

about forests and shifting public values about resources and 

their management. An important goal of the NWFP was 

to protect forest values of late-successional, old-growth, 

and aquatic ecosystems. These may include amenity values 

(scenery, quality of life), environmental quality (clean air, 

soil, and water), ecological values (biodiversity), public-use 

values (outdoor recreation, education, subsistence use), and 

spiritual values (cultural ties, tribal histories) (Donoghue 

and Sutton 2006). This synthesis looks at the latest research 

on many of these forest values and adds to our thinking 

about how the NWFP has contributed to their protection. 

Since the NWFP was instituted, the social context 

of the Plan area has changed. The social dimension of 

natural resource management in the NWFP is dynamic and 

inherently complex, resembling what some have referred to 

as “wicked problems” (Head 2008, Weber and Khademian 

2008) or resource challenges that are unstructured (where 

it is difficult to identify causes and effects), crosscutting 

(multiple stakeholders, across jurisdictions, social complexity), and relentless (with no final solution). These wicked 

problems are often characterized by a high degree of 

uncertainty and potential for conflict, with little agreement 

on the solution (Weber and Kahdemian 2008). Effective 

management of wicked problems in the NWFP area 

requires significant resources, strong social networks, and 

collective engagement of actors (agencies, institutions, and 

individuals) in diverse policy arenas within the planning 

area (Weber and Kahdemian 2008). 

At the same time, U.S. society has become polarized 

by both ideology and vocal partisanship, which have been 

linked to economic insecurity in the postindustrial era, and 

the potential for shifting power relations among sociocultural groups, including gender, ethnicity, and religion, 

referred to as “cultural backlash” (Inglehart and Norris 

2006). Collaborative management and expanded emphasis 

on public processes that engage diverse stakeholders where 

objectives are transparent and sideboards are visible can 

help navigate the terrain of wicked problems. However, 

there is no guarantee that these efforts will result in an 

outcome that is widely embraced. Still, a process that generates mutual understanding, leads to informed decisions, 

incorporates new knowledge, and recognizes diverse uses 

and values would be a step forward. 

Also since the NWFP was developed, scientists have 

explored and embraced new conceptualizations of ecosystems and ways to understand their benefits to people. 

Resource governance increasingly has adopted a framework of ecosystem services—the conditions, processes 

and components of the natural environment that provide 

tangible and intangible benefits to sustain and enhance 

human life (Daily 1997). Scientists and forest managers are 

updating their thinking about the variety of forest benefits 

1 Lee K. Cerveny is a research social scientist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

400 N 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; Emily Jane Davis

is an assistant professor and extension specialist, Oregon State 

University, College of Forestry, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, 

OR 97331; Rebecca McLain is an assistant research professor, 

Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, 1600 

SW 4th Avenue, Suite 110, Portland, OR 97201; Clare M. Ryan is 

a professor, University of Washington, School of Environmental 

and Forest Sciences, Box 352100, Seattle, WA 98195; Debra R. 

Whitall is assistant director of resource, planning and monitoring, 

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

Region, 1222 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204; Eric M. White

is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd

Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512. 
718

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

that serve society and developing ways of measuring 

and comparing a diverse array of tangible and intangible 

benefits. As managers seek strategies for more integrated 

and holistic resource management using an ecosystem 

services approach, the importance of considering an array 

of public values (including aesthetic, recreational, spiritual, 

and heritage) becomes paramount. 

Scientists increasingly recognize that conservation 

initiatives are more likely to lead to better informed 

decisions when ecological and social elements are integrated (Charnley 2006) (see chapter 12). Socioecological 

systems (SES) science recognizes the inextricable linkages 

between human societies and ecological systems (Berkes 

et al. 2000), and that ecosystems are embedded in levels 

of social organization (Brondizio et al. 2009). Halliday 

and Glaser (2011) considered an SES to be “a system 

composed of organized assemblages of humans and 

non-human life forms in a spatially determined geophysical setting” (2011: 2). Changes to social systems, such as 

population dynamics, market shifts, or changes in structural relations among natural resource institutions, can 

affect the natural environment. Conversely, changes to the 

ecological system, such as fire, flood, or diminished forest 

health, can affect human-nature interactions and settlement patterns (Gunderson and Holling 2002, Machlis et 

al. 1997). The social component of the SES refers broadly 

to property and access rights; land and resource tenure 

systems; resource knowledge systems, including local 

and traditional ecological knowledge; subsistence uses; 

worldviews; values; and perceptions about the environment (Berkes et al. 2000). An SES encompasses a variety 

of agencies and actors as they interact with the natural 

environment at multiple scales in ways that are dynamic, 

complex, and continuously adaptive (Folke et al. 2005, 

McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). An understanding of public 

values is essential to understand the complex influences of 

social values and choices on ecosystem uses and condition 

(Ives and Kendal 2014). 

By thinking of the NWFP area as an integrated SES, 

with a complex web of interactions, forces, dynamics, and 

elements, we can begin to recognize and address major shifts 

in that system and understand their corresponding effects 

on the natural and social environment. This system includes 

public and private lands, governing agencies (federal, state, 

tribal), communities of place (municipalities, counties), and 

communities of interest (stakeholders, user groups). We recognize that the social dimensions of the Plan area influence 

how ecological goals are established, pursued, and met or not 

met (Lange 2016, Spies and Duncan 2012). 

A science synthesis of the Plan area is not complete 

without a comprehensive understanding of the region’s complex social ecology, particularly with regard to public values, 

citizen engagement, and governance of federally managed 

lands. Governance is a term widely used in political science 

and public administration to describe formal and informal 

processes, decisionmaking norms, and interactions among 

institutions involved in a collective problem (Hufty 2011). 

Governance may be undertaken by governments, tribes, 

legal corporations, multilateral commissions, collaborative 

groups, boards of directors, or social organizations. Governance explains how rules, norms, and decisions are structured, maintained, regulated, and monitored. Governance 

can be accomplished using a variety of tools, including laws, 

rules, markets, social norms, contracts, collaborative agreements, and public-private partnerships, as well as through 

symbols, maps, and language (Bevir 2013). In this chapter, 

we discuss governance as a formal process managed by government institutions like the U.S. Forest Service, primarily 

through laws and regulations. We also refer to “collaborative 

governance,” which describes the contribution of collaborative groups, which engage federal, tribal, state, and 

municipal governments, citizen groups, and corporations in 

deliberation over common resource problems. 

Public values, attitudes, and beliefs about forests and 

the management of forest resources are not fixed, but can 

shift over time, owing to a multitude of complex factors 

(e.g., economic, political, social, cultural) (Manfredo et al. 

2003, Vaske et al. 2001). Changing demographics related 

to urbanization, amenity migration, or regional population 

shifts in response to economic opportunities all can alter 

the makeup of a population and result in a potential shift in 

environmental values, beliefs, and behaviors, as well as in 

the kinds of connections people have to place (Gosnell and 

Abrams 2011, Jones et al. 2003). Public uses and outdoor 
719

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

experiences in national forests and other federal lands also 

evolve in response to emerging consumer trends, economic 

factors, new technologies, or changes to geophysical or 

climate conditions (Cordell et al. 2002, Tuan 2013). In 

addition, the ways that citizens engage in natural resource 

management and share their views with land management 

agencies have changed, as people express a desire to be 

involved in decisionmaking about public lands (Stern and 

Dietz 2008). American politics since the 2000s has been 

characterized by increasing partisanship, identity politics, 

and ideological divides that have pulled people apart and 

presented mounting challenges to public lands management 

(Abramowitz and Saunders 2006, Iyengar and Hahn 2009). 

Emerging collaborative structures that attempt to bring 

together multiple agencies and stakeholders to deliberate 

and plan for resource management have become prevalent 

(Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). 

Public land management agencies are finding new ways 

to measure and evaluate the variety of benefits that ecosystems provide. The concept of ecosystem services has developed more over the past 10 years in resource management 

as a useful framework. The ecosystem services framework 

assigns economic and noneconomic values to ecological 

functions, allowing policymakers to evaluate ecosystems 

using comparable metrics (Carpenter et al. 2009). The MEA 

(2005) framework describes four categories of ecosystem 

services: supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural. 

Ecosystem services featured prominently in the National 

Forest System land management planning rule, which 

guides how forest management plans for each national 

forest are developed (USDA FS 2012). The new planning 

rule is historically significant in that it signals a shift toward 

valuing resources more broadly (using the ecosystem 

services framework) as well as a greater emphasis on public 

engagement, which recognizes the importance of public 

values, attitudes, and beliefs. This is especially relevant for 

the NWFP, which exists as amendments to 17 forest plans 

that are due for revision. 

One goal of the NWFP was to provide a “balanced and 

comprehensive strategy for the conservation and management of forest ecosystems, while maximizing economic and 

social benefits from forests.” An updated understanding 

of these complex dynamics related to humans and their 

myriad interactions with public lands in the NWFP area 

is an essential component of this chapter, particularly 

with regard to public lands. This chapter illuminates how 

public perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and values regarding 

forests and their economic and social benefits may have 

changed over the past 20 years. While chapter 8 speaks to 

socioeconomic ties between communities and forests, this 

chapter identifies what we know about shifting values, place 

meanings, outdoor recreation trends, and ways of public 

engagement. The focus of chapter 9 falls into the basket of 

“cultural ecosystem services,” (also referred to as cultural 

services) (Costanza et al. 2014). Cultural services include 

benefits gained through spiritual enrichment, outdoor 

recreation, religious or spiritual value, reflection, learning, 

sensory enhancement, and socializing, as well as placebased benefits such as identity, cultural heritage, and sense 

of place (Chan et al. 2012, Klain and Chan 2012, MEA 

2005, Satterfield et al. 2013) and often emerge as a result 

of enduring relations between people and a landscape over 

many generations (Fagerholm et al. 2012). 

Several chapters in this volume address other aspects 

of the sociocultural aspects of the SES, with many points 

of articulation with chapter 9. Chapter 8 focuses on the 

socioeconomic well-being of rural communities, the role of 

forest industries, and implications for private landowners in 

the Plan area. The discussion of recreation’s contributions 

to rural economies in chapter 8 can be considered alongside 

discussion of recreation trends in chapter 9. In addition, 

both chapters touch on notions of trust and its importance 

for effective resource governance. For an indepth discussion 

of challenges and opportunities related to environmental 

justice, poverty, and resource access in the NWFP area, see 

chapter 10; for discussion of tribal resource governance, 

resource use, and indigenous knowledge systems, refer to 

chapter 11. As we consider elements of public involvement 

and collaboration in this chapter, it may be useful to inquire 

whether existing governance mechanisms promote participation from underserved communities. These discussions 

can be considered alongside findings related to collaboration 

in this chapter. These points of overlap are intentional and 

desirable to fully understand the SES as an integrated whole.
720

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Guiding Questions

A goal of SES science is to better understand the social 

context in which ecological goals are identified and 

achieved. The questions below were given to the chapter 9 

science team by managers. The authors used these questions 

to frame chapter contents and relied on available literature 

to address and respond to these questions. 

• What does social science tell us about how stakeholders’ attitudes, beliefs, and values have changed 

over the past 20 years? How are these attitudes, 

beliefs, and values associated with resource management (recreation, resource use, protection)? 

• How have stakeholders’ relationships to the landscape 

and natural resources changed in the NWFP area? 

• What value do people place on cultural ecosystem 

services from public lands, including recreation? 

• What has been learned about the importance of 

valuing place?

• How have public uses and interactions with forests 

and grasslands changed over the past 20 years? 

• What are the drivers that shape public uses of forest 

lands for recreation? 

• How have recreation values and uses changed in the 

past 20 years?

• How does the body of science inform sustainable 

recreation? 

• What strategies are effective in engaging communities and the public in the NWFP area?

• What kinds of collaborative groups and processes 

are engaged in the NWFP area?

• How is collaborative forest management changing? 

• What elements contribute to successful collaboration in forest management? What examples exist of 

successful collaboration? 

• How much has collaboration contributed to achieving objectives in resource management and socioeconomic well-being?

Two additional topics were added later by the science 

team to address the specific themes considered of importance to understanding the scientific basis of forest planning 

and management. These topics included a discussion of 

trust as well as social acceptability of various harvest 

practices. We structured the chapter into seven subsections: 

public values, attitudes, and beliefs; valuing place; cultural 

ecosystem services; outdoor recreation; trust; involving the 

public; and agency-citizen collaboration. Each subsection 

deals with a set of topics that contribute to the questions 

asked and concludes with a brief summary. The chapter 

concludes with an overview of research needs, uncertainties, and information gaps, as well as a discussion of 

management considerations. 

The study team used standard social science perspectives rooted in geography, anthropology, sociology, environmental psychology, and public administration. It was not 

our intent to collect primary data, but rather to synthesize 

existing literature in these five topic areas assigned to this 

chapter. We relied on the best available social science to 

highlight current knowledge about these important topics. 

For some topics, there is little or no empirical research 

conducted in the Plan area. Authors drew from case studies, 

dissertations, or technical reports when peer-reviewed 

publications for a given topic were not available. We 

focused foremost on scientific findings relevant to the Plan 

area. However, we did include a few seminal works which 

offered theoretical or methodological contributions or 

relevant research results from other parts of North America 

to demonstrate a trajectory of inquiry with bearing on the 

Plan area. Data synthesized here are based on scientific 

publications and case studies that occurred since the previous NWFP science synthesis in 2006 (Haynes et al. 2006), 

except in cases when current research was not available. 

Key Findings

Public Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs 

Understanding values, attitudes, and beliefs has become 

increasingly important in environmental decisionmaking 

and natural resource governance (Allen et al. 2009). 

Recognizing how and why people value different aspects of 

ecological systems potentially can allow resource managers 

to gain awareness about how different forest management 

goals and strategies may be viewed by the public and potentially understand the roots of conflict among stakeholders. 

Values inform how people interact with the landscape and 
721

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

engage with conservation issues (Brown and Reed 2012). 

Values are known to predispose attitudes, management preferences, and behaviors. Thus, values can indicate whether 

proposed activities or goals in a plan would be socially 

acceptable and to whom (Allen et al. 2009, Fulton et al. 

1996, Vaske and Donnelly 1999). By understanding public 

values, land managers will be better equipped to reach 

informed decisions (Tarrant et al. 2003). 

Understanding values, attitudes, and beliefs—

Values are most commonly understood as enduring beliefs 

about the world that are often formed in childhood and 

serve as guideposts for desirable actions (Rohan 2000, 

Rokeach 1973, Schwartz 1994). Values are “modes of 

conduct” or end-states of what is desirable (Manfredo et 

al. 2004). Two types of values are discussed by natural 

resource social scientists. “Held values” represent an 

embedded human characteristic that shapes the judgments 

people make about the world and the subsequent actions 

they take (Bengston and Xu 1995, Rokeach 1973). Held 

values are associated with desirable goals, standards, 

guidelines, or criteria that help people decide what is right 

or wrong, worthy, or undesirable (Schwartz et al. 2012). 

“Assigned values” can be attached to a specific object or 

physical place in the world, as well as to intangible concepts 

(i.e., an economic system or political institution) whereby 

a person attempts to denote relative worth to an object 

or place on the landscape (Bengston 1994, Brown 1984, 

Rokeach 1973). Both held and assigned values are important 

for land managers because they have been shown to predispose people to certain attitudes toward forest management 

practices and certain patterns of resource use and other 

environmental behaviors (Fulton et al. 1996). 

The cognitive hierarchy model provides a logical structure for understanding the relationship between values, attitudes, and beliefs, and how these in turn influence human 

behaviors and actions (Dietz et al. 2005, Rokeach 1973, 

Vaske and Donnelly 1999) (fig. 9-1). Originally developed 

by Rokeach (1973), the model was fleshed out more fully 

by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) as the “Theory of Reasoned 

Action” and later the “Theory of Planned Behavior” (Ajzen 

1991, Ajzen and Fishbein 2005).

The cognitive hierarchy offers a reasoned conceptual 

framework that allows social scientists to explore the 

relationship between values, attitudes, and goals for forest 

management (Brown and Reed 2000). The components of the 

model include beliefs, value orientations, attitudes, intentions, 

and behaviors (box 1). Beliefs are statements of a person’s 

understanding of the world; “they are facts as an individual 

perceives them” (Dietz et al. 2005: 346). Beliefs are a person’s 

judgment about what they consider to be true or false. They 

can be shaped by science, feelings, experiences, intuition, 

or social norms (Zinn et al. 1998). Value orientations are the 

aggregation of beliefs about a particular issue or topic (Allen 

et al. 2009). Values are not directly measured, as they are 

often difficult to express, but social psychologists do measure 

value orientations as the basic set of beliefs (Fulton et al. 

Few

Slow to change

Central to beliefs

Transcend situations

Numerous

Fast to change

Peripheral

Situationally specific

Figure 9-1—Cognitive hierarchy model 

of human behavior. 

Source: Adapted from 

Fulton et al. 1996.
722

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

1996, Rokeach 1973). Beliefs form the basis for attitudes. 

Attitudes are statements of people’s positive or negative 

evaluations of a specific object or situation and are typically 

expressed as likes or dislikes, or preferences (Hoult 1977). 

Attitudes stem from values and also from lived experiences 

that shape a person’s typical response or approach to something. They reflect one’s dominant personality traits (e.g., 

optimistic vs. pessimistic; internal responsibility vs. external 

responsibility) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1975). Environmental 

attitudes have shown to be more predictive than values for 

understanding management preferences. The relationship 

between values, beliefs, and attitudes has been explored in 

many studies in natural resource settings (Bright et al. 2000, 

Fulton et al. 1996, Vaske and Donnelly 1999). 

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) set out to develop a framework that could predict intentions (the aim of a particular 

action) and behaviors (actions people take in nature, and may 

include stewardship, recreation, or consumption of forest 

resources). In their Theory of Reasoned Action, their focus 

is on antecedents to behavior, including beliefs about the 

consequences of a specific behavior and generalized attitudes 

(favorable or unfavorable) about a specific behavior (Fishbein 

and Ajzen 1975). For example, the behavior of riding motorized vehicles off developed roads would depend on a person’s 

understanding of how that action affects the biophysical and 

social environment as well as overall attitudes about off-highway vehicles. They also introduce the concept of normative 

beliefs and subjective norms. The normative beliefs are judgments held by others about the appropriateness of a particular 

behavior. The subjective norm is a combination of beliefs 

about the existence of social norms and individual motivations to comply with norms (Ajzen 2000). The interaction 

among beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior is shown as 

a feedback loop, whereas when a particular behavior (behavior X) is performed, this affects one’s normative beliefs about 

what is appropriate, which is guided by social norms, which 

then shapes intentions (fig. 9-2). The next iteration of the 

model, the Theory of Planned Behavior, added a component 

of individual agency or power, noting how the role of an 

individual’s perceived control over their behavior can affect 

behavioral intentions (Ajzen and Fishbein 2005).

Values, attitudes, and beliefs can affect human 

intentions and actions (behaviors), but other factors play 

a role, including norms. Another concept used commonly 

in natural resources settings, particularly with emphasis 

on understanding pro-environmental behavior, is the 

Box 1—Key Definitions

Values: Enduring, consistent principles, often formed 

at an early age, about the important elements in life, 

including, what is good or bad; desirable or undesirable 

(Manfredo et al. 2009) (e.g., inclusiveness, justice, 

integrity, equality).

Value orientations: Set of beliefs about nature and 

the environment (Fulton et al. 1996). (e.g., orientations 

toward nature, human’s role in the environment, public 

land management).

Beliefs: Judgments about what is true or false and what 

attributes are associated with someone or something, or 

the consequences of an action. (Ajzen 2002). (e.g., beliefs 

about land management agencies, forest conditions, or 

effects of actions).

Attitudes: Learned tendencies to react favorably or 

unfavorably to a situation, conditions, people, objects or 

ideas (e.g., level of support for an agency’s actions; preferences for particular activities or actions).

Intentions: Convictions, aims to act in a particular way. 

Behaviors: What people do, actions they take (e.g., participate in environmental activism, voting, stewardship 

behaviors, recycling, littering, outdoor recreation use, 

consumptive use of resources).

Norms: Implied or explicit rules or guidelines that regulate behavior and prescribe what people do (Stern et al. 

2000). Norms can be individual (personal guidelines) or 

social (societal expectations).
723

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

values-beliefs-norms (VBN) theory of environmentalism 

(Stern 2000). The VBN theory has been successful in 

explaining different types of environmental actions (Stern 

et al. 1999) and the acceptability of social or environmental 

policies or actions. This theory suggests that values do 

not directly predict behavior, but are indirectly implicated 

through beliefs and norms (de Groot et and Steg 2008, Steg 

and Vlek 2009). The idea is that values affect behavior 

indirectly by activating personal norms (moral obligations 

to perform a particular action). Personal norms are activated 

when someone acknowledges that (a) not acting pro-environmentally will lead to negative consequences, (b) when 

someone feels personally responsible for those negative 

outcomes, and (c) they believe their own efforts will help 

to mitigate the problem or minimize consequences (taking 

responsibility). One should first be aware of problems 

caused by the relevant behavior before considering to what 

extent one personally contributes to the problems and 

whether one could possibly be part of the solution, which 

in turn determines the extent to which personal norms are 

activated. Values thus influence the extent to which one is 

aware of the problem, but also may predict variables about 

how they respond to the problem (de Groot and Steg 2008). 

Our awareness of those norms influences or fine tunes our 

ultimate actions (Stern 2000). 

Steg et al. (2014) discovered four value types important 

for understanding beliefs, norms, intentions, and behaviors: 

hedonic (concern for achieving personal needs or exerting 

minimal effort), egoistic (concern for costs and benefits for 

the individual), altruistic (concern for human welfare), and 

biospheric (concern for quality of nature and the environment). Biospheric and altruistic values were found to 

promote pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Stern 

and Dietz 1994). In contrast, egoistic and hedonic values 

were negatively related to pro-environmental attitudes and 

behaviors. Those with altruistic and biospheric values are 

likely to be more aware of the problem, while awareness 

is lower with those who have hedonic and egoistic values 

(de Groot and Steg 2008). Whitmarsh and O’Neill (2010) 

learned that self-identity as an environmentalist is a 

significant predictor of behavior, especially in combination 

with values, attitudes, and beliefs. Yet, others have shown 

Beliefs about the

consequences

of behavior X

Attitude toward

behavior X

Intent to

perform

behavior X

Normative

beliefs about

behavior X

Subjective norm

concerning

behavior X

Feedback

Feedback

Behavior X

Figure 9-2—Theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975).
724

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

that self-identity has a minimal effect (Rise et al. 2010). 

More research is needed to show whether self-identity as an 

environmentalist is a useful variable. 

Recent studies of values have combined perspectives 

from cultural anthropology with systems theory. Anthropologists have long suggested that values are relatively stable 

and enduring and are developed through collective processes of socialization (schools, religious organizations, traditions, etc.) and that are shared with communities, cultural 

groups, or societies (Kenter et al. 2015, Kluckhohn 1951, 

Schwartz 2006). Values do not exist alone, but are deeply 

embedded in our social institutions, governments, collective behaviors (cultural practices), and the media (Schwartz 

2006). Values exist at multiple levels and locations throughout our socioecological system and are mutually reinforced 

(Manfredo et al. 2017). One’s individual values may guide 

one’s actions or determine one’s membership in a particular 

organization, but that organization reflects and reinforces 

the shared values deeply embedded in the social system. 

For values shift to occur, multiple entities at various levels 

of the socioecological system would need to be engaged 

(Manfredo et al. 2017). This systems theory framework 

views values as resistant to rapid change, but recognizes 

that major socioecological events, such as mass migrations 

resulting from changing environmental conditions (Kitayama et al. 2010), modernization (Inglehart 1997), or urbanization (Manfredo et al. 2009) can result in a gradual shift 

in values (Manfredo et al. 2009, 2017). New research, such 

as that offered by Dietsch et al. (2016), is needed to explore 

the influence of macro-level organizations on one’s values 

and the ways that shared values emerge. 

We know that values can evolve during processes of 

deliberation and discussion, where mutual learning takes 

place among people who have different backgrounds and 

experiences (Daniels and Walker 2001). Deliberation 

allows participants to consider their own arguments and the 

assumptions behind them, hear the perspectives and experiences of other participants and understand the reasoning 

behind their views, evaluate various positions, and reach 

informed decisions. Deliberation results in social learning 

(Cundill and Rodela 2012). Deliberation through organized 

workshops and stakeholder engagements can lead to 

exposure to different perspectives and result in new insights 

and knowledge about how people value natural resources 

(Steyaert et al. 2007). Deliberative processes are useful for 

identifying values that are difficult to pinpoint (Kenter et al. 

2016a). Collaborative groups, public engagement opportunities, and other processes can result in individual and group 

learning. Efforts to engage citizens in collaborative and 

deliberative processes are discussed later in this chapter. 

Exploring environmental values and attitudes—

Environmental values have been measured in a variety of 

ways. Table 9-1 features several approaches in the literature that are the most common. This is not meant to be an 

exhaustive list, and there are new approaches to measuring 

environmental values, attitudes, and beliefs that are not 

included here, because they have not been widely used. 

Many scholars measure “value orientations,” which 

are sets of values that link together based on a common 

orientation to nature and the environment. Environmental 

value orientations are clusters of interrelated values that 

reflect an overall relationship between humans and the 

environment (Fulton et al. 1996, Vaske et al. 2001). Many 

classification systems have been used to explore value 

orientations. Xu and Bengston (1997) classified values 

into instrumental (the usefulness of forests as the means 

to a further end, such as logs for housing or recreation use 

for people); and noninstrumental (forests are valuable in 

themselves), which Moore (2007) also calls intrinsic values. 

Stern and Dietz (1994), Schultz et al. (2005), and others used 

three value categories: egocentric (self-oriented), altruistic

(public good), and biospheric (for nature itself) to predict 

environmental behavior. A widely used framework of value 

orientations used by Vaske et al. (2001) identified anthropocentric (utilitarian) and biocentric (nature centered) (Steel 

et al. 1994). Later studies added a third orientation, moral/

spiritual/aesthetic, which also encompasses sacred values 

and heritage values as well as bequest values (Bengston et 

al. 2004). This category of values includes both religious 

values as well as spirituality that relates to people’s respect 

for natural forces, as well as a spirituality that exists without 

humans (Proctor 2009). Winter and Lockwood (2004) 

developed a natural area scale, which included intrinsic, use, 

and non-use values. 
725

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Value orientations provide the foundation for specific 

attitudes toward forest management (McFarlane and Boxall 

2000, Steel et al. 1994, Tarrant and Cordell 2002). Environmental value orientation scales approaches distinguish 

between anthropocentric (oriented to human well-being) 

and biocentric (oriented to ecological well-being). Others 

identified an ecocentric orientation that emphasizes ecosystems (Surmeli and Saka 2013). Value orientations can often 

predict attitudes toward forest management practices and 

support for natural resource policies, although particular 

circumstances can override values, such as a person’s unique 

relationship to a particular setting or if their income depends 

on the decision outcome. Individual motivations sometimes 

override value preferences. While some of these studies have 

successfully shown that people hold shared sets of values, 

they have not been able to explain why distinct stakeholder 

groups (e.g., fishermen and biologists) holding the same set 

of value orientations exhibit divergent behaviors. 

Studies have shown that some factors can predict 

attitudes toward management outcomes. One of the most 

consistent predictors of values is gender. Several independent studies have shown that women tend to favor biocentric 

(noneconomic) values more often than men, although the 

differences are small in most cases (Kellert and Berry 1987, 

Table 9-1—Various approaches to exploring environmental values

Values approach Goal Tools or methods Relevant studies

Value orientations Quantifying values and classifying 

respondents into similar groups 

based on their orientations to the 

natural environment

Various Likert scales de Groot and Steg 2008, 

Dietz et al. 2005, Fulton 

1996, Steel et al. 1994, 

Stern and Dietz 1994, 

Stern et al. 1995, Xu and 

Bengston 1997

New Ecological 

Paradigm, also 

known as “New 

Environmental 

Paradigm”

Measures anthropocentric and 

biocentric orientations to the 

natural environment

15-item scaled survey Cordano et al. 2003, 

Dunlap 2008, Dunlap and 

van Liere 1978, Dunlap et 

al. 2000, Stern et al. 1995

Natural area values scale Measures values relevant to natural 

areas, including intrinsic, use, nonuse, recreational, and aesthetic

20-item scaled survey Ford et al. 2012, Winter and 

Lockwood 2004

Values suitability 

analysis 

Values compatibility 

analysis

Evaluates consistencies between 

land management prescriptions and 

public values

Numerical rating system Brown and Reed 2012, 

Reed and Brown 2003

Public values of forest Predicts public values based on forest 

outputs, amenities, and protection

12-point scaled survey Tarrant et al. 2003

Landscape values 

mapping 

Shows what values are associated 

with places on the landscape 

using maps 

Maps and other spatial tools Alessa et al. 2008; Brown 

and Kyttä 2014; Brown 

and Reed 2000, 2012

Valued attributes of 

landscape scale 

Emphasis on the value of site 

attributes (natural, social, 

experiential, cultural, productive)

Measures 26 value 

attributes

Kendal et al. 2015

Deliberative Value 

Formation Model 

Based on the notion of shared 

values. Use of a deliberative 

process to generate learning and 

values shift.

Value orientation scales and 

deliberative process

Kenter 2016; Kenter et al. 

2016a, 2016b
726

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Steel et al. 1994, Tarrant et al. 2003, Vaske et al. 2001). 

Other linkages have been found between value orientations 

and the visual impacts of resource management (Tindall 

2003), perceived threats to forest health (Abrams et al. 

2005), and participation in activism directed at the forest 

sector (McFarlane and Hunt 2006). Working in Australia, 

Ford et al. (2009) showed that the public’s acceptance of 

clearcutting was related to their value orientation. Those 

with stronger “use values” (timber production) were more 

likely to find clearcutting acceptable than those with stronger “intrinsic values” for nature. In Canada, Tindall (2003) 

also found that those with a biocentric orientation tended to 

support policies aimed toward resource protection and view 

commercial forest practices as unsustainable, and its visual 

impacts unacceptable. Steel et al. (1994) conducted a study 

in Oregon about whether value orientations predict public 

attitudes toward various forest management practices. 

They observed that respondents with an anthropocentric 

values orientation support resource use for economic gain, 

and view forest management as sustainable and its visual 

impacts acceptable (Steel et al. 1994). From their work on 

public acceptance of clearcutting in Australia, Ford et al. 

(2012) learned that a person’s aesthetic experience in nature 

is filtered by values and that this experience directly shapes 

their attitudes toward management actions. 

Clement and Cheng (2011) used a random household survey (response rate 34 percent) in Colorado and 

Wyoming to explore values and attitudes toward forest 

management, and preferences for specific management 

activities (logging, oil and gas drilling, and off-highway 

vehicle use) in three national forests. Overall, respondents 

scored highest on the values “aesthetic,” “recreation,” 

and “biodiversity.” Statistical analysis showed that both 

values and attitudes influenced management preferences. 

Specifically, they found that certain values were more 

prevalent in classifying respondents for each management 

issue. Understanding one’s values was helpful in predicting 

responses to management preferences. Respondents that 

shared similar value orientations sometimes held different 

and even opposing policy preferences (Clement and Cheng 

2011), which suggests that values and attitudes/preferences 

are most powerful when examined together. For example, 

those with stronger values in “recreation” and “economic” 

were positively correlated with oil and gas leasing. Interestingly, the same two values also correlated positively with 

sport hunting and fishing and negatively with wilderness 

designation. They also found that those who ranked recreation, economic, historical, and cultural values high are 

more comfortable with forest treatments to reduce wildfire 

risk. This approach is a useful example of how to tease out 

the relationship between values, attitudes, and management 

preferences. Results show that members of the public have 

a range of values and may share many in common, while 

holding different management preferences.

The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), also referred 

to as the New Environmental Paradigm, is another widely 

used scale that measures environmental attitudes along a 

biocentric to anthropocentric continuum. The original 

scale developed in 1978 used 12 items and measured along 

three facets of internalized beliefs and values: beliefs about 

humans’ ability to upset the balance of nature, recognition 

of limits to growth, and beliefs about humanity’s rights to 

rule over nature (Dunlap and van Liere 1978). The scale was 

later updated and renamed to constitute a 15-item scale that 

measured values along five facets: beliefs that humans affect 

the balance of nature, beliefs that humans are causing harm 

to the environment, beliefs that humans are not exempt from 

constraints of nature, beliefs that the Earth’s resources are 

limited, and beliefs that humans have the right to modify 

and control the environment (Dunlap 2008, Dunlap et al. 

2000). Respondents agreed or disagreed with statements 

related to each facet to develop a score for each facet and 

an overall NEP score. In a meta-analysis conducted in 

2009 (Hawcroft and Milfont 2010), the authors found 69 

distinct studies (52 in the United States) that used NEP in 36 

countries. Despite its widespread use, Hawcroft and Milfont 

(2010) found a lack of empirical and theoretical integration 

in studies that used NEP to measure environmental attitudes. Partly this is due to variations in the implementation 

of NEP (differences in sample size and context). Others 

who tested the validity of NEP found variation among the 

five facets, with the most reliable being the scale measuring 

the “balance of nature.” Moreover, they found that the five 

subscales were more useful than the cumulative NEP score 
727

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

(Amburgey and Thoman 2012). Still, it is not clear that the 

NEP scale is adequately measuring environmental attitudes. 

The Natural Area Values Scale has been used primarily 

in Australia. This approach identifies five factors (intrinsic, 

use, non-use, recreational, and aesthetic) (Ford et al. 2012, 

Winter and Lockwood 2004). Values suitability analysis 

(also called values compatibility analysis) is an approach 

that evaluates the extent to which public values and attitudes are consistent with agency management actions. 

Brown and Reed (2012) determined where all-terrain 

vehicles (ATV) could occur within a national forests that 

would not compromise other values. These data helped land 

managers establish areas that were compatible with ATV 

use and areas that would require tradeoffs with other forest 

uses. Acknowledging distinct values sets and their compatibility with management actions is useful, but in many 

cases, resource users have conflicting values. Collaborative 

learning processes can raise awareness of values to the surface and acknowledge the tradeoffs among values that exist, 

achieving solutions that reflect a multiplicity of coexisting 

values (Daniels and Walker 2001).

The Public Values of Forest Scale (Tarrant et al. 2003) 

is a survey based on a 12-item scale that considers three 

factors: outputs (timber, roads, raw materials, range, recreation), amenities (quiet, education, aesthetics), and protection (clean water, fish and wildlife, endangered species). The 

survey was found to have predictive validity for discerning 

values among demographic variables and in predicting 

attitudes toward wilderness. Understanding attitudes 

is helpful, yet one’s attitudes do not necessarily predict 

whether one accepts a particular management approach or 

outcome, which can be influenced by contextual conditions 

and learned behaviors (Oreg and Katz-Gerro 2006). 

Landscape values mapping (LVM) is an approach used 

to understand what values people attach to places on the 

landscape (Brown and Reed 2000). The LVM approach is 

used to capture values across a landscape for use in planning and decisionmaking (Brown and Reed 2009, Raymond 

and Brown 2006). The approach understands humans as 

cognizant actors who experience the landscape directly 

through their senses, and assign meaning to places based on 

these experiences (Zube 1987). Brown and Reed (2000) built 

a landscape values typology derived from work of Rolston 

and Coufal (1991). They defined 13 landscape values: economic, learning, historic, cultural, future, intrinsic, spiritual, 

therapeutic, subsistence, life supporting, biodiversity, recreation, and aesthetic, and asked respondents to place colored 

dots on a map for each value. Brown and Reed (2000) 

validated their landscape values typology by demonstrating 

that each landscape value represented a discrete construct, 

and that the values could not be organized into higher order 

factors. The study also showed that respondents were as 

likely to select noncommodity values (aesthetic, spiritual) as 

commodity values (economic, subsistence). The assigning 

of landscape values to a map requires that the respondents 

recall their direct experiences or the images from stories 

told about these places and the meanings generated by these 

experiences, which are influenced by held values. 

LVM has been applied in a wide variety of countries, 

spatial scales, and sociocultural settings and has achieved 

some level of standardization through replication (Alessa et 

al. 2008; Beverly et al. 2008; Brown 2006, 2012; Brown and 

Raymond 2007; Brown and Weber 2012; Clement and Cheng 

2011; Fagerholm et al. 2012; Nielsen-Pincus 2011; Reed and 

Brown 2003, Reed et al. 2009; Sherrouse et al. 2011). The 

landscape values typology is commonly used in conjunction 

with spatial attributes mapping (Brown 2004) where participants have options to assign multiple values across a landscape (using points or drawing shapes). Across the studies, 

there has been fairly consistent application of the original 13 

landscape values, with some customization to suit sociocultural or biophysical conditions. For example, in Alaska and 

Washington, the value “subsistence” was used because of the 

cultural, political, and economic importance of food gathering 

as a cultural practice (Alessa et al. 2008, Cerveny et al. 2017). 

Another value that has been sometimes added is “wilderness,” 

which is appropriate in Euro-American settings, but is less 

meaningful in non-Western societies (Brown and Alessa 

2005). Several studies employing the landscape values 

typology have included “special places” as an additional 

mapped feature, often designated with a special symbol (“X”) 

and described using narrative description. (See Brown and 

Kyttä [2014] for a comprehensive overview of existing public 

participation geographic information systems studies). 
728

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The Valued Attributes of Landscape Scale represents 

a tool that measures the value of site attributes, features, 

or properties (Kendal et al. 2015). Site attributes may be 

understood as natural, social, experiential, cultural, or productive. This scale uses a standardized approach that can be 

compared across groups of people and in diverse landscapes 

(Kendal et al. 2015). The approach is an attempt to bridge 

held values (core values) and assigned values (attached to 

places or objects). More tests are required to establish the 

reliability of this approach.

Values are known to shift or change in response to 

new learning and deliberative engagement (Manfredo et al. 

2017). The Deliberative Value Formation Model (DVF) is 

built upon the idea that group interactions and deliberative 

processes can result in new learning that results in a shift in 

values (Kenter et al. 2016a). Through deliberation, people 

can learn from each other and gain practice in forming 

reasoned opinions and evaluating arguments, resulting in 

new knowledge and insights (Steyaert et al. 2007). In group 

processes, members can express their views, reflect upon 

their own opinions as well as others, share experiences, and 

engage in meaningful debate (Kenter et al. 2016a). The DVF 

approach integrates deliberation with structured valuation 

to inform both individual values and group values (Kenter 

et al. 2016a). The model is based on an understanding of 

shared values, or those values held in common as communities, societies, and cultures (Kenter et al. 2015). The model 

has been tested in studies focused on monetary valuation 

and ecosystem services (Kenter 2016, Kenter et al. 2016b), 

as well as deliberative decisionmaking by communities 

for marine-protected areas (Ranger et al. 2016). Although 

different, these studies all showed the emergence of shared 

values among deliberative groups. DVF has not been tested 

in the NWFP area to date, but represents a promising 

approach, particularly given the preponderance of collaborative groups engaged in shared learning about resource 

management, discussed later in this chapter. 

Each of the approaches described above and presented 

in table 9-1 have potential value or application to attempts 

to manage resources in the Plan area. Some approaches, 

such as LVM, which highlights the public’s connection to 

landscape and places at various scales, have already been 

used extensively in the Plan area, as this chapter describes 

below. We note later in the chapter that longitudinal social 

values data for the Plan area would be useful for understanding if or how the social context may be changing since 

the inception of the NWFP. Approaches that use surveys 

to measure value orientations and a sampling scheme that 

allows for a representative sample would illuminate the 

range of value orientations throughout the Plan area and 

enable comparisons between urban and rural communities, 

among different counties, states, or subregions, or by 

demographic factors. 

The diversity of stakeholder values, attitudes, and 

preferences associated with land management are a source 

of ongoing difficulty for resource managers. Assessing the 

range of social values orientations and attitudes toward 

forest management goals held by the public and how these 

values may be changing is important to inform resource 

management decisions. Yet, as studies have shown, 

stakeholders can share common attitudes or beliefs, but 

possess different sets of values, while some constituents 

who disagree about forest management practices may share 

common values. The relation to place can be a factor, as 

studies have shown differences in attitudes among stakeholders who have a specific knowledge or keen interest in 

a particular ecosystem, place, issue, or activity (Ford et 

al. 2009, Seymour et al. 2011). Understanding the relation 

between values and attitudes and behaviors will help 

resource managers understand the implications of actions 

and decisions on various stakeholders. 

Changing relationships to the landscapes and 

resources in the NWFP area—

Over the past 12 years, very few studies have been conducted in the NWFP region that relate to environmental 

values, attitudes, or beliefs about forest management 

practices. National studies in value orientations and 

environmental attitudes demonstrate a shift away from 

commodity values and toward a mix of resource production 

and protection (commodity and noncommodity), sometimes 

referred to as “green drift” (Klyza and Sousa 2010, Sousa 

2011). Few such studies have been conducted in the Plan 

area in recent years, and those that have been published are 

summarized below. 
729

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Beliefs about the ecological value of old-growth forests began to change in the 1970s as new science revealed 

important information about forest structure and composition (Spies and Duncan 2012). Steel et al. (1994) compared 

Oregon residents (n = 872; 75.7 percent response rate) 

with a national sample (n = 1,094; 68.4 percent response 

rate) to understand value orientations and attitudes toward 

forest management. The study found that respondents both 

in Oregon and the national sample held biocentric values 

more so than anthropocentric values. The study also found 

that respondents in the national sample held stronger 

biocentric views compared to Oregon residents. In other 

words, overall, the U.S. population leaned more toward 

valuing nature for the sake of nature than valuing the 

human use of nature. The study also found that the national 

sample universally opposed traditional resource management (regardless of values orientation), whereas in Oregon, 

primarily those with biocentric orientations opposed 

traditional forest management practices while those with 

anthropocentric values were more likely to favor policies 

that promote jobs and rural communities (Steel et al. 1994). 

These studies show that regional differences in value 

orientations exist.

Another study in the NWFP area showed that variations can exist at the county level. Dietsch et al. (2016) 

explored wildlife conservation values in Washington state 

(n = 4,183) in relation to wolf management. The goal of the 

study was to understand the relationship between modernization (urbanization, wealth, and education) and wildlife 

value orientations. Wildlife values were measured on a scale 

that examined degrees of mutualism (prioritizing the needs 

of wildlife) and domination (prioritizing human needs). The 

study found a positive association between modernization 

and mutualism and a negative association between modernization and domination at the county level, but variations 

existed among counties, with some areas exhibiting more 

domination values and others with a mix of values. This 

implies that setting influences values. In particular, counties in northwest Washington had a higher prevalence of 

mutualism than other regions, with the exception of one 

county (Shelton), which had a lower level of mutualism. 

Meanwhile, counties in eastern Washington had the lowest 

support for mutualism. Yet, one county in eastern Washington had strong support for mutualism, demonstrating that 

variation is not entirely based on regional setting. These 

results suggest that a variety of value orientations exist 

throughout the region. 

In 2013, the Oregon Values Project, cosponsored 

by Oregon State University, surveyed more than 9,500 

Oregonians about their beliefs related to various issues, 

including the environment (DHM Research 2014). Study 

results have not been published in peer-reviewed journals, 

and it should be noted that no response rate was reported 

and a quota sampling scheme was used (DHM Research 

2014). Survey results indicated that 57 percent of Oregonians believe that environmental protection should be 

prioritized even at the risk of slowing economic growth, 

although there were variations statewide with 62 percent 

of metropolitan Portland respondents favoring environmental protection, compared to 50 to 54 percent in other 

parts of Oregon. Statewide, 35 percent said that economic 

growth should be given priority, even if the environment 

suffers. Responses also varied regionally, ranging from 30 

percent in metropolitan Portland to 49 percent in eastern 

Oregon. Again, these results show variation in conservation attitudes among regions within a state. The study 

also inquired about support to increase timber harvests 

in forest stands that were described as “dense and overcrowded.” Statewide, 53 percent were in favor of timber 

harvest in overcrowded stands, but responses ranged with 

less support from Portland (48 percent) and more support 

in other parts of Oregon (60 to 67 percent). It is possible 

that the wording of this question, framing the forests 

as “overcrowded” influenced responses. Still, findings 

suggest uniquely rural and urban patterns in values related 

to the environment. 

One study in the NWFP area investigated public 

attitudes toward policies that favor environmental preservation or economic opportunity on public lands. Williams 

et al. (2017) explored public attitudes toward forest 

management in the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National 

Forest, an urban-proximate forest in the northwest Cascade 

region. Respondents (n = 1,796) participated in an online 

survey and in community workshops, answering a series 
730

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

of questions about the importance of 26 forest management 

goals on a five-point scale. Water quality, wildlife habitat, 

clean air, aesthetics, and human-powered recreation were in 

the top five management goals, compared to wood (ranked 

18th), energy (19th), and mining (24th). The study found few 

significant differences in management preferences between 

rural, suburban, and urban respondents. In a different study, 

which also featured a participatory mapping component 

identifying special places and resource interactions, 

responses of urban and rural residents were compared 

(McLain et al. 2017a). The study found that special places 

identified by urban residents were scattered throughout the 

entire national forest, while rural residents identified special 

places close to home. Resource uses among urban and rural 

residents were largely similar; however, rural residents were 

more likely to use the area for hunting and gathering foods, 

while urban residents were more likely to engage in active 

recreation (McLain et al. 2017a). While this study did not 

explore values, the results suggest different orientations to 

forests and their use. 

Landscape values mapping and public participation 

geographic information systems (PPGIS) have been used 

to understand public values in the NWFP area. Brown 

and Reed (2009) used random household surveys of area 

residents to explore landscape values using a 13-item 

scale in three Oregon national forests in the Plan area: 

Deschutes/Ochoco (n = 1,916; 11.8 percent response rate), 

and Mount Hood (n = 1,350; 11.4 percent response rate). 

Based on the frequency of responses, they found the top 

five values to be consistent in all three forests: developed 

recreation, primitive recreation, aesthetic, wilderness,

and biodiversity. Economic values were ranked seventh 

(Deschutes/Ochoco) and eighth (Mount Hood) (Brown and 

Reed 2009). 

McLain et al. (2013a) studied landscape values for 

residents of Washington’s Olympic Peninsula using a 

community workshop approach that included 169 respondents who were recruited using key informants and a 

snowball approach. Eight community workshops were held. 

Collectively, respondents identified 880 mapped places 

and labelled each with a primary landscape value from a 

list of 14. The most frequent “primary” landscape value 

assigned was recreation (56 percent), followed by economic, aesthetic, and home. When secondary values were 

combined with the primary values, recreation remained the 

most prominent value, followed by aesthetic and economic 

(Cerveny et al. 2017). These results suggest a balance of 

commodity and noncommodity values associated with this 

particular region. 

We also looked at studies conducted in regions 

adjacent to the Plan area to understand values, attitudes, 

and beliefs. Hamilton et al. (2012) conducted a household 

survey of 1,585 northeast Oregonians and compared 

findings to a national sample (no response rates reported.) 

Although outside the Plan area, these results provide some 

insight into the views of rural residents in other parts of the 

state. This study asked respondents to rank management 

goals and found that northeastern Oregon residents were 

more likely than Americans nationwide to prioritize jobs 

and “use of forest resources” over resource conservation. 

Respondents also were more likely than the national 

population to believe that conservation practices and 

environmental rules that restrict development had negative 

effects on their local community. Moreover, in prioritizing 

a list of environmental problems facing their community, 

northeastern Oregonians identified “forest jobs” over a 

multitude of resource issues, including wildfire, insects, 

population growth, forest fragmentation, global warming, 

and overharvesting (Hamilton et al. 2012). Working in the 

Inland Northwest region, which includes eastern Oregon, 

Nielsen-Pincus (2011) conducted a household survey (n 

= 767) that also used an LVM approach to explore values 

attached to public lands. The study determined that the 

most important values were recreation, aesthetic, and 

economic. These results are similar to those found by 

McLain et al. (2013a) and demonstrate the mix of values 

that acknowledge forests for their recreation and scenic 

benefits, but also value income and employment opportunities associated with forests. 

Changing relationships to the landscapes and 

resources outside the NWFP area—

Changes in environmental values in the NWFP area and the 

Pacific Northwest may be understood in the broader context 

of changes in American values. In the 1990s, scholars 
731

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

documented a paradigm shift in American public attitudes 

toward forest management away from a focus on economic 

values, outputs, and commodities, and toward more diverse 

values that include noneconomic values, especially protection of ecosystems and aesthetic values (Bengston and 

Fan 1999, Brown and Reed 2000, Brunson and Steel 1996, 

Manning et al. 1999, Rolston and Coufal 1991, Tarrant and 

Cordell 1997). These studies suggest that survey respondents favor a balance of protection and production in forest 

management. In a national study, Bengston et al. (2004) 

relied on computer-assisted media analysis between 1980 

and 1990. The authors observed a decline in the expression 

of anthropocentric values and an increase in biocentric 

value expressions. 

Shields et al. (2002) surveyed North American households and found that respondents were strongly oriented 

toward environmental protection, and nonconsumptive 

services were rated as more important than consumptive 

goods and services. Another study explored national 

forest policy decisions through the mid-1990s and noticed 

a shift toward greater ecological sensitivity, attributed to 

the success of environmental organizations disseminating 

information to legislators (Burnett and Davis 2002). Studies conducted in other regions of the United States, taken 

collectively, shed light on trends in the NWFP area, especially given the dearth of empirical studies in the NWFP 

area. Several studies in other parts of the country echo 

these national trends. Brown and Reed (2000) surveyed 

Alaskans and found that the most important values were 

aesthetic, recreation, life sustaining (ability to provide air 

and water), and biological. Manning (1999) found that rural 

Vermonters living near a national forest were more likely to 

identify aesthetic, ecological, and recreational values over 

economic values. Bliss et al. (1997) found that the public 

favored a balance of values but leaned heavily toward environmental protection. Collectively, these studies suggest a 

broader shift in American public values. Still, as Rentfrow 

(2010) noted, regional clusters of environmental values and 

beliefs exist, and caution should be exercised in conveying 

national trends. 

A variety of studies conducted in rural, resource-dominated regions throughout the United States and Canada 

may shed light on value subsets of the NWFP area. It often 

is assumed that urban residents have a more biocentric 

values orientation, while residents of rural, resource-based 

communities are more anthropocentric. Recent studies have 

proven that these divisions are not clear cut. Racevskis and 

Lupi (2006) found that timber-dependent communities in 

Michigan did not uniformly fall into an anthropocentric 

orientation of commodity production and utilitarian use. 

Also, urban residents did not express a strong preference 

for resource protection. This diversity may be explained by 

inmigration of new residents with biocentric orientations 

into resource-dependent regions. McFarlane et al. (2011) 

studied forest-dependent communities in New Brunswick 

and uncovered a wide range of values in both rural and 

urban communities. Residents of forest-based communities 

did not always prioritize economic benefits over the natural 

environment, and urban communities did not always 

prioritize resource protection. Nadeau et al. (2008) found 

that urban residents in New Brunswick had strong ties to 

rural forest lands through family connections, woodlots, 

and second homes. 

Amenity migration also may be associated with localized shifts in values. Jones et al. (2003) in a national study 

learned that urban residents are drawn to amenity-rich areas 

to improve their quality of life. This migration diversifies 

value orientations and increases potential for conflict. Smith 

and Krannich (2009) found more similarities than differences in environmental values among new and long-term 

residents in amenity-rich places in the Rockies. Fortmann 

and Kusel (1990) studied California communities and found 

that migrants to amenity-rich areas with biocentric orientations shared values with a subset of existing residents whose 

voices had been previously dominated by more anthropocentric views. The new arrival of urban residents led to 

increased conflict as long-time residents with biocentric 

views became more outspoken. These studies on amenity 

migration and shifting values present mixed results but reinforce the notion of regional variation in value orientations 

and attitudes. Although these studies occurred outside the 

NWFP area, several cities in the NWFP are facing growth 

in amenity migration, and results from these studies can 

inform our overall understanding.
732

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Changing values around forest harvest practices—

Over the past three decades, a number of studies have 

explored public response to forest treatments and the 

acceptability of various harvest practice (see Burchfield 

et al. 2003; Ford et al. 2009; Kearney 2001; Shindler et al. 

2002, 2004). Social acceptability refers to public judgments about the appropriateness of a given management 

action, policy, practice, or resource condition (Allen et al. 

2009, Brunson 1996). When there is a lack of public acceptance of a policy or management action, it is likely to fail 

or lead to conflict (Shindler et al. 2002, Wondolleck and 

Yaffee 2000). Social acceptability includes both individual 

beliefs about what is right and social norms of what is 

appropriate (Allen et al. 2009). Shindler et al. (2004) have 

identified several important themes associated with social 

acceptability. Social acceptability is (a) a dynamic process, 

(b) a result of multiple factors (ecological knowledge, prior 

experience, place attachment, risk perception), (c) context 

dependent (what is acceptable in a neighboring county may 

not be acceptable in my backyard), (d) process-dependent 

(if the process is more transparent, there is likely to be 

greater acceptance), and (e) based on the degree of trust 

among the public in land management agencies (Shindler 

et al. 2002, 2004). 

An abundance of early research explored the scenic 

qualities associated with landscape treatments (See Ribe 

1989 for a complete review.) This work continues with focus 

on alternative siviliculture treatments (Ribe 1989, Shelby 

et al. 2003) and scenic beauty as an indicator of social 

acceptability (Gobster 1996). Despite the power of visual 

images, judgments based on scenery can be influenced by 

the degree of ecological knowledge, environmental communication, and individual value orientations (Brunson and 

Reiter 1996). Acceptability judgments about forest harvest 

treatments were linked to how sites appear once practices 

have been implemented, how the natural characteristics of 

sites might change, the level of trust in information offered, 

perceived community benefits, and citizen engagement in 

the process (Olsen et al. 2012, Shindler and Collson 1998). 

Trust appears to be critical to social acceptability. Trust can 

be both broad based (trust in an agency to manage resources 

and serve public interests) and project based (trust that 

the project will not cause undue harm to the environment 

or change in resource use) (Ribe 2013). The public can 

be influenced by local political narratives and debates, 

perceptions of trust and justice, and fears about potentially 

adverse effects of management (Ford et al. 2009, Tindall 

2003). Ribe (2013) emphasized that resource managers 

design forest treatments that express visible stewardship 

and public education in a way that broadens understanding 

of ecological aesthetics (naturalistic treatments). Existing 

studies about forest perceptions deal primarily with visual 

aesthetics and are not focused on social acceptability based 

on management goals, such as restoring ecosystem health. 

In one NWFP study, perceptions of scenic beauty were 

compared among respondents grouped based on their orientation to resource conservation. Ribe (2002) used images 

of coastal mountain ranges to evaluate perceptions of scenic 

beauty as they corresponded to management acceptability 

among three groups: those favoring resource production, 

those favoring resource protection, and moderates. Respondents in Washington and Oregon (n = 1,035) rated photographic images for scenic beauty and acceptability, using 

fixed categories ranging from “very beautiful” to “unattractive” to label scenes based on their subjective perceptions. The authors found that all respondents (regardless of 

values) determined “very beautiful” scenes to be acceptable. 

Participants with views that favored resource production 

had lower standards for what is acceptable to them and what 

is beautiful, compared to those favoring resource protection. 

Those favoring resource production were more likely to 

perceive “unattractive” scenes as acceptable. 

The potential effects of timber harvesting on ecosystems historically has been a focus of public attention and 

some contention in the NWFP area (Brunson et al. 1997). 

As Ribe (2006) observed, research on harvest practices has 

historically considered timber harvesting and forest preservation as two ends of a continuum (Manning et al. 1999) or 

positioned clearcutting against other types of forest treatments (Bliss 2000). A growing body of work has focused 

on what non-clearcut harvests look like and how the public 

responds to these treatments. New types of forestry, including ecological forestry (chapter 3 and described below) have 

gained momentum in the past 10 years, providing an array 
733

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

of options to harvest some trees in a stand in a way that 

sustains ecosystem function (Franklin et al. 2007). Ford 

et al. (2009) provided simulations of various harvest types 

along with information about logging plans and outcomes 

in Tasmania. They found environmental value orientations 

to be the most reliable predictor of perceptions of acceptability, with “protectionist” respondents finding clearcuts 

least acceptable, and selection harvests most acceptable and 

“productionist” respondents having the reverse pattern. 

Research has shown that clearcutting is not an acceptable management strategy for a large portion of the public 

in the United States (Bliss 2000), and specifically in the 

Pacific Northwest (Ribe and Matteson 2002). This lack of 

support for clearcutting was also evident elsewhere (Clement and Cheng 2011). Hansis (1995) surveyed residents of 

northwest Oregon and southwest Washington and found 

general opposition to clearcutting practices, with particular 

opposition by women, urban residents, educated residents, 

and those with a liberal ideology. Meanwhile, Ribe (2006) 

used photographs of forest treatments to evaluate the social 

acceptability of various forest treatments (19 scenarios) 

that included combinations of age, harvest intensity, 

retention pattern, and down wood level. Respondents were 

shown four photographs per treatment type and asked 

to rate treatments for scenic beauty, service to humans, 

service to wildlife, and overall acceptability. A survey (n = 

272) of western Oregon residents was conducted with the 

photo elicitation. The study revealed that 9 of the 19 forest 

treatments were of “conflicted acceptability,” including all 

three treatments involving old-growth forests. Results also 

showed widespread opposition to clearcutting and some 

acceptance of retention harvests and forest thinning. This 

methodology, adapted from Ford et al. (2007), has been 

used in several other studies in the Pacific Northwest, with 

similar results (Ribe 2009, Ribe and Matteson 2002, Ribe 

et al. 2013). 

Meanwhile, Abrams et al. (2005) conducted household 

surveys (stratified random sample) in Washington and 

Oregon studying the relationship between self-ascribed 

environmental or economic priorities and two variables: 

the acceptability of forest management practices and perceived threats to forest heath. They analyzed surveys from 

492 respondents (51 percent response rate). They found 

that selective thinning was generally accepted by most 

respondents, regardless of their prioritization of policies in 

favor of environmental preservation or economic opportunity. Respondents with a pro-environmental viewpoint 

perceived human-caused factors (overharvesting, motorized vehicle use, road building, and fire suppression) as the 

greatest threats. Those who supported jobs and employment opportunities over environmental preservation saw 

naturally occurring processes (disease, wildfires) as the 

greatest threats. 

Olsen et al. (2012) studied public opinions of alternative management strategies in the McKenzie River watershed of western Oregon, specifically disturbance-based 

management (DBM). The study included surveys (n = 

230) of the “local attentive public” who had shown past 

interest in forest management issues based on attending 

public meetings or other events. Overall, support for DBM 

was mixed in the study population. The authors found that 

members of the public had varying degrees of knowledge 

about landscape-level disturbance processes or concepts, 

with most having low to moderate levels. In addition, 

they observed low levels of confidence in the information 

provided by agencies, and trust levels of local officials 

appeared to be higher than trust levels in the agency as a 

whole. Study participants worried that national level policies and directives would affect their communities. They 

also had fears about DBM being used to harvest old-growth 

forests. The authors suggested that transparent decisionmaking processes and public engagement opportunities that 

feature clear discussion of the risks may increase support 

for forest treatments.

Although outside the NWFP, a study of perceptions 

in the Rocky Mountains supports this trend (Clement 

and Cheng 2011). In a study of three national forests in 

Colorado and Wyoming, the researchers found that support 

for mechanical thinning treatments depended largely on 

management goals associated with those treatments. There 

was support for logging when it was done to protect human 

life and private property, to remove dead trees or insect-infested trees, or to improve wildlife habitat. However, there 

was less support for logging for commercial profit or for 
734

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

clearcutting as a management technique. These results 

are important because they emphasize the need for clear 

communication of management goals to public audiences. 

Although few in number, these studies suggest that 

residents of the NWFP area embody a range of views 

related to the social acceptability of timber harvest and that 

these views are based on their values as well as connections 

to place. Although it appears that the public in the Plan 

area does not generally support clearcutting as a management strategy, there does appear to be potential for public 

support for alternative harvest strategies, such as DBM 

(Olsen et al. 2012), especially when efforts to expand public 

knowledge and share accurate information are included in 

the management effort. It also appears important that any 

harvest strategy avoid old-growth forests and old, large 

individual trees. 

Ecological forestry—Ecological forestry represents a 

recently emerging framework for attacking the “wicked 

problems” associated with forest conservation and management (Weber and Khademian 2008). The framework uses a 

systems approach that recognizes the interlinkages and mutually modifying processes among various entities to create 

a networked system. The framework also relies on ethical 

guidelines for managing forests around ecological objectives 

(Franklin et al. 2007). The approach recognizes forests as 

dynamic systems adaptive to new conditions and that exist 

as one part of a broader landscape that is managed (by multiple actors) to achieve various objectives (Batavia and Nelson 

2016). This approach assumes a socioecological standpoint, 

acknowledging humans as part of the ecosystem and the 

need for integration of social and ecological elements. 

The goal of ecological forestry is to sustain healthy and 

productive forests, retain native species, and provide a range 

of ecosystem services (Batavia and Nelson 2016). This 

goal is met by “managing forests in ways that bring them 

closer ... in structure, function, and composition to healthy, 

natural forests at all stages of successional development” 

(Palik and D’Amato 2017: 51). Ecological forestry strives 

to mimic the effects of natural disturbance and succession 

processes, which includes retaining some elements of 

the existing stand (Batavia and Nelson 2016). Ecological 

forestry is based on (a) continuity of forest structure and 

function between pre- and postharvest systems; (b) structural and compositional complexity biodiversity, and spatial 

heterogeneity at a variety of scales; (c) carefully timed 

treatments based on understanding of ecological processes; 

and (d) planning forest management with understanding 

of the broader context at the landscape scale (Palik and 

D’Amato 2017). 

Traditional forestry was based on utilitarian or anthropocentric views of forests as producing benefits for human 

use and consumption (Nocentini et al. 2017). Although 

research in this area is ongoing, presumably the ethic of 

ecological forestry would lean toward a biocentric orientation with timber output being a byproduct of more holistic 

landscape management. This approach also acknowledges 

humans as active ecosystem participants with specific wants 

and needs including a broad range of ecosystems services 

that forests provide. Batavia and Nelson (2016) argue that 

“ethics need to be institutionalized in the routine practice of 

natural resource management” (2016: 8). Ecological forestry 

also emphasizes the integration of social and ecological 

elements, which makes understanding of values, attitudes, 

and beliefs important. The framework recognizes the need 

for multiple actors to be coordinated and engaged around the 

task of integrating ecological, social, and economic sustainability and developing an ethical framework (Nocentini et al. 

2017). Ecological forestry has been proposed in the NWFP 

area (Franklin et al. 2012); however, the practice has received 

limited testing, and few known studies, with the exception of 

Olsen et al. (2012), have evaluated the social acceptability or 

public attitudes toward these treatment practices. More work 

in this area is needed to understand the potential applications 

of ecological forestry in the Plan area. 

Summary—

Differences in stakeholder values and attitudes are at the root 

of many forest management conflicts. Building consensus 

among stakeholders with different sets of values often is 

difficult and time-intensive. Values can change over time 

in response to major societal changes. Values and attitudes 
735

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

differ among geographic regions, residential classifications 

(urban or rural), and proximity to public lands. Moreover, 

national values are sometimes perceived to be in conflict with 

local interests, which suggests the importance of understanding the multitude of values and attitudes. Findings show that 

the United States has experienced a measureable values shift 

since the 1950s that is related to a wave of policies diminishing the importance of utilitarian values and increasing 

the importance of experiential, aesthetic, and biocentric 

values. Ongoing monitoring of public values will enhance 

our understanding of what is important to people vested in 

the NWFP area. Awareness of these values shifts allows 

resource managers to consider public needs in planning and 

decisionmaking and allows managers to anticipate conflict 

and consider diverse communication strategies. Land 

managers who acknowledge the diversity of values, attitudes, 

and beliefs among stakeholders and socioeconomic groups at 

the appropriate geographic scale will be better equipped to 

understand characteristics of the social system and anticipate 

the need for change. Growing understanding of human-resource connections can strengthen relations between agencies 

and communities and contribute toward trust building.

Valuing Place

The NWFP’s signature characteristic is its focus on 

ecosystem management, a management approach that is 

fundamentally place based (Williams et al. 2013). Place 

has increasingly been used as a concept in national forest 

planning and public engagement efforts (Farnum et al. 

2005, Kruger and Williams 2007, Williams et al. 2013). The 

term “place” embodies both biophysical characteristics and 

sociocultural meanings that are critical to quality of life 

and social identity. This section describes current research 

related to place and lessons learned of relevance to forest 

planning and plan implementation in general, and to forest 

plan revisions within the NWFP area.

Defining place—

Places are not merely geographic locations but rather are 

produced when individuals and groups assign value or 

meaning to undifferentiated space (Tuan 1977). Places and 

the meanings that one attaches to them help people to make 

sense of the world and motivate the actions they take with 

respect to particular locales (Sack 1992). Sense of place, 

or “the perception of what is most salient in a specific 

location” (Cantrill and Senecah 2001: 187), is manifested in 

our views about the kinds of activities and uses we consider 

acceptable in that location. 

The tools and conceptual frameworks for assessing and 

inventorying place meanings in natural resource settings 

are still in the early stages of development. Studies about 

the roles that place plays in environmental and land use 

management have examined the factors that contribute to 

the production of place (Ardoin 2014), the role of place in 

the formation and maintenance of self and group identities 

(Twigger-Ross and Uzzell 1996), the ways in which place 

meanings connect people to particular landscapes or ways 

of life (Davenport and Anderson 2005, Kil et al. 2015), and 

how place meanings are mobilized to support or contest 

land management or economic development objectives 

(Stokowski 2002). Places are multidimensional and produced 

through a melding of the individual and group histories, 

memories, values, and beliefs associated with a locale and its 

biophysical attributes (Ardoin et al. 2012, Cheng et al. 2003, 

Jorgensen and Stedman 2001, Stedman 2003). 

It is generally understood that sense of place has three 

major elements: (1) a biophysical setting (array of physical 

features and amenities embodied in a particular place); 

(2) the individual meanings associated with the location, 

produced through a combination of individual personality 

traits and lived experiences; (3) and the sociocultural or 

shared meanings linked to that location (Smaldone et al. 

2005). Of these, only biophysical features are relatively 

straightforward for land managers to assess and integrate 

into planning. Yet, the individual and cultural meanings 

associated with specific locations are equally important 

to understand if politically viable environmental policies 

and management actions are to be implemented under the 

revised NWFP or other management plans. 

A place meaning is the significance that people assign 

to places (Davenport et al. 2010). Place meanings can be 

positive or negative, specific to an individual, or shared 
736

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

within and across groups (Scannell and Gifford 2010). 

Place meanings are critically important to understanding 

people-place relationships, which in turn influence whether 

policies and management actions will have broad-based 

acceptance among interest groups and the general public. 

Assessing place meanings, however, is challenging in part 

because although relatively stable, they are not static as 

individuals and groups respond to changes in their social 

and physical surroundings (Smaldone et al. 2005: 397; 

Williams 2002: 17). Over the past decade, social scientists 

have developed conceptual frameworks and practical tools 

that managers can draw upon to understand the type and 

intensity of connections that different segments of the 

public have with places in their management jurisdiction 

(fig. 9-3). 

Key concepts: place attachment, place dependence, 

and place identity—

Place researchers often distinguish between three concepts 

linked to the notion of place (box 2): place attachment, place 

dependence, and place identity, with place dependency 

and place identity considered subcomponents of place 

attachment (Anton and Lawrence 2014). Understanding 

the difference between these three concepts is important 

for resource managers because they shape how different 

segments of the public are likely to respond to proposed 

policy changes, such as revisions to the NWFP as well as 

proposed management actions. 

Place attachment is the process by which individuals 

or groups become connected, whether emotionally or for 

instrumental purposes, to a specific geographical location 

Figure 9-3—Observing the surf from the Siuslaw National Forest. 

Lee Cerveny
737

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

(Scannell and Gifford 2010). For groups, place attachment 

is considered “a community process in which groups 

become attached to areas wherein they may practice, and 

thus preserve, their cultures” (Scannell and Gifford 2010: 

2). Empirical research on place suggests that strong positive 

person-place bonds can motivate individuals and groups 

to care for, protect, and defend particular places or types 

of settings (Eisenhauer and Kra 2000, Kil et al. 2014, 

Stedman 2002). Place attachment also is important because 

it is sometimes associated with negative social and environmental outcomes (Lewicka 2011, Yung et al. 2003). For 

example, strong attachments to place may lead to intense 

conflict between long-time residents and newcomers who 

bring with them very different ideas about what uses and 

activities are desirable for that place (Hurley and Walker 

2004). Indeed, the conflicts over timber that led up to the 

NWFP arguably were partly struggles between two groups 

with very different, but equally strong, attachments to 

place. Proctor (1995) described how disagreements in the 

early 1990s between loggers and environmentalists were 

linked to their very different experiences and connections 

with the Pacific Northwest forest landscape. A regional 

socioeconomic assessment of the impacts of the NWFP 

found that feelings of a loss of cultural identity were 

common among residents in rural Oregon and Washington 

communities that had been heavily affected by the shift in 

forest management practices brought about by the NWFP 

(Charnley et al. 2008).

Studies of place attachment among transient residents 

and tourists indicate that even short-term visitors can 

develop strong attachments to places such as seasonal 

homes, parks, or natural areas (Lewicka 2011). Evidence 

is mixed, but overall, it appears that visitors with stronger 

local social ties or who visit more frequently develop 

stronger place attachments (Lewicka 2011). People can 

become attached to places that they have only heard about 

or imagined, a concept that Kruger (2008: 2) refers to as 

“existence attachment.” Just as people can have an “existence value” (a willingness to pay to ensure someplace 

exists even though they have never visited) for resources, 

so too can people develop attachments to places they have 

never visited (Kruger 2008). Attachment to places not 

visited has important management implications for NWFP 

implementation as it points to the need for land managers 

to take into account the place meanings of stakeholders 

who do not use an area, as well as those who do. 

Place dependence has to do with the “importance of 

place in providing features and conditions that support specific goals or desired activities” (Ujang and Zakariya 2015: 

712), and is related to how well the physical characteristics 

of a place fulfill an individual’s goals and needs (Scannell 

and Gifford 2010). The better the conditions at a place meet 

a person’s needs or goals, the more attached that person is 

likely to be to that particular location. The degree to which 

an individual is place dependent also hinges upon how well 

the quality of a place they are currently using compares 

with the quality of potential substitute places (Smaldone et 

al. 2005). However, the meanings associated with the physical features of a place may be what cause people to value 

that place rather than the features themselves (Stedman 

2003). Changes in biophysical features as a result of forest 

management actions or policies may trigger strong negative 

reactions among those segments of the public for whom that 

particular suite of biophysical characteristics is imbued with 

deeper meaning.

In some circumstances, bonds to places or settings are 

so strong that those places become intimately bound up 

with the person’s or group’s core sense of self (i.e., personal 

or social identity), a phenomenon known as place identity 

(Proshansky et al. 1983). Place identity is closely linked 

Box 2—Key Concepts About Place

Place attachment—people develop strong connections to a place based on repeated experiences and 

in-depth knowledge of that place.

Place dependence—people have places they rely on 

to provide services and products that sustain their livelihoods or lifestyles or provide desired experiences.

Place identity—people sometimes have places that 

have such deep symbolic meaning (cultural, historical, spiritual) that those places help define who they 

are in the world.
738

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

with the symbolic meanings of place rather than its utilitarian values and “is based on the notion that places serve 

various functions in identity development that promote a 

sense of belongingness” (Davenport and Anderson 2005: 

628). In situations where the symbolic meanings of place 

are spiritual in nature, such places are sometimes viewed 

as sacred in the eyes of those for whom they have spiritual 

meaning. In the late 20th century, so-called old-growth 

forests of the Pacific Northwest became imbued with 

religious meaning for many Americans (Lee 2009, Proctor 

2009), and efforts to protect what many people had begun 

to see as sacred forests arguably contributed toward policies 

such as the NWFP. 

Droseltis and Vignoles (2010) described the distinction between place attachment and place identity, a 

subset of place attachment, as the difference between a 

place where someone feels “at home” (place attachment) 

and a place that one feels is a fundamental part of one’s 

self (place identity). When individuals identify with a 

place or have a particularly strong attachment to it, place 

disruptions, or changes in the fit between place meanings 

and its physical and social characteristics, may lead to 

feelings of severe anxiety and loss (Devine-Wright 2009, 

Proshansky et al. 1983, Stedman 2002, Twigger-Ross 

and Uzzell 1996). Denial, detachment, and taking part in 

place-protective actions, such as forming protest groups 

or signing petitions against proposed changes, are among 

the strategies used by individuals and groups to cope with 

threats to place meanings (Devine-Wright 2009). The 

resource conflicts associated with the development of the 

NWFP are just one example of the intense social tensions 

that can emerge when place identities are threatened. Proactively identifying which places (or types of places) are 

likely to trigger large-scale place identity crises if they 

are fundamentally changed through forest management 

actions is one strategy that managers could use to reduce 

the likelihood of major land use conflicts and intense 

polarization. Like social identities, which are generally 

relatively stable but which can change under some 

circumstances for some individuals (Amiot et al. 2015, 

Carlsson et al. 2015, Cohen and Sherman 2014, Miller 

and Caughlin 2013, Perozzo et al. 2016), place identities 

tend to be stable but can change as individuals and groups 

have new experiences or engage in dialogue with others 

for whom a place has different meanings (Coen et al. 

2017, Wheeler 2017). 

Salience, or the “probability that an identity will be 

activated in a situation” (Stets and Burke 2000: 229), is 

an important concept in social identity theory that has 

implications for how place identity can provide the seed 

for constructive collaboration as well as conflict (Bryan 

2008). Social identity is “a person’s knowledge that he 

or she belongs to a social category or group” (Stets and 

Burke 2000: 225). Characterization, another important 

social identity theory concept, is “what an individual 

or group perceives another individual or group to be” 

(Wondolleck et al. 2003). All individuals’ social identities 

are derived from membership in multiple categories (Stets 

and Burke 2000). Which social identity is salient for an 

individual or group depends on the social context, or 

the degree to which an individual perceives that a social 

category they have characterized themselves as fits with 

reality (Turner 1987). As described earlier in this section, 

geographical context can serve as the basis for social 

identity, with place identity arising from the link between 

groups of individuals and specific locales (Proshansky 

1983, Wondolleck et al. 2003). 

Social identity theory further suggests that “conflict 

derives in part from social group comparisons in which 

in-groups portray themselves (identity) more positively 

and out-groups (characterization) more negatively” (Bryan 

2008: 54), processes known respectively as identity or 

characterization framing (Wondolleck et al. 2003). Identity and characterization framing can be used to describe 

the roles that an individual plays without assigning judgment, to draw connections with others, or to distinguish 

one’s self or one’s group from others (Wondolleck et al. 

2003). The Quincy Library Group is a place-based collaborative planning group that emerged in California’s northern Sierras in the 1990s in response to a major reduction 

in timber harvested on federal lands. The Quincy Library 

Group helped shift participants’ salient identities from the 

previously conflictual identities of “logger,” “environmentalist,” or “Forest Service employee” to a common identity 
739

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

linked to place, i.e., “resident of Plumas County” (Bryan 

2008). A similar process of identity reframing where “us 

vs. them” moved toward “we” occurred in the Applegate 

Valley of southwestern Oregon during the same period 

(Rolle 2002). 

Place-making is a political process (Manzo 2003, 

Yung et al. 2003) and some natural resource conflicts 

are as much struggles about place meanings as they are 

about how those resources should be allocated (Cheng et 

al. 2003). When place meanings are threatened by prospective land management actions, groups or individuals 

whose identities are tied to them may try to defend those 

meanings or create new ones (Hurley and Walker 2004, 

Manzo 2003). Through the process of place creation and 

maintenance, individuals and groups promote their values 

and beliefs about what landscapes should look like, what 

activities should take place where, and who belongs (or 

does not belong) in particular places (Cheng et al. 2003). 

Understanding the dynamics of the politics of place can 

provide managers with insights on the fundamental issues 

underlying natural resource conflicts and facilitate the 

development of natural resource decisionmaking processes 

that are less contested (Austin 2004, Kemmis and McKinney 2011, Yung et al. 2003). 

People often use symbols, myths, and narratives as 

tools for supporting or resisting place claims (Cheng et al. 

2003, Stokowski 2002). Such techniques typically rely on 

the “moral language of ecology or community” (Williams 

2002: 21). To understand conflicts over place meanings—

and take a step toward potentially finding solutions to 

those conflicts—it may be helpful to pay attention to the 

language and stories that different stakeholders use to 

create and maintain place meanings (Stokowski 2002, 

Yung et al. 2003). During the past two decades, collaborative forest management groups operating in the NWFP 

region have provided new venues where stakeholders with 

diverse interests can create shared meanings and common 

ground as to what activities are considered acceptable in 

particular locations (Moseley and Winkel 2014). However, 

Yung et al. (2003) point out that in contexts of intense 

resource conflict, multiple and incompatible senses 

of place often lie at the heart of the conflicts. In such 

contexts, creating shared meanings will be challenging, 

and in some cases, impossible. Managers may find it 

useful to develop the capacity to identify when collaborative management is likely to be a successful strategy 

for creating shared meanings and when other strategies 

are called for. A rich body of research on place-related 

concepts has emerged over the past 20 years. However, 

examples of how place-related concepts have informed the 

design and implementation of planning processes or how 

data regarding place meanings, attachment, identities, or 

dependence have been used in planning or management 

processes are rare. 

Public participation GIS and how “place” connects 

to participatory mapping—

During the past decade, public participation GIS (PPGIS) 

has increasingly been used as an approach for collecting 

data about place attachment, place dependence, place identity and other place-related constructs (McLain et al. 2013b). 

PPGIS links computerized mapping technology with broadbased public participation processes to generate spatial data 

about human-environmental connections. The discussion of 

LVM studies earlier in this chapter focuses on how PPGIS 

has been used to study values. However, PPGIS can also 

help clarify understandings of place meanings (McLain et 

al. 2013b: 652). Maps created from these data show how 

place meanings are distributed across the landscape, and 

spatial analyses can help identify how place meanings are 

related to certain habitat types, landforms, or other biophysical features (Brown and Brabyn 2012). These tools could 

be useful to land managers to improve their understandings 

of the types and intensity of place meanings that different 

segments of the public associate with forested landscapes.

In the United States, PPGIS is typically structured as 

a data collection process, with the goal of expanding the 

opportunities the general public has for providing input 

into environmental planning processes (Brown et al. 2014). 

However, in some contexts—primarily in developing 

countries and among indigenous peoples in industrialized 

nations—PPGIS is structured so that mapping participants 

have an opportunity to design the mapping process, analyze 

alternatives, and empower individuals to have a voice in 

decisionmaking (Sieber 2006). Public participation GIS 
740

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

has been used to identify places where social and ecological hotspots are co-located (Alessa et al. 2008), measure 

changes in place values over time (Brown and Donovan 

2014), and understand place meanings associated with 

forested ecosystems (Gunderson and Watson 2007, Lowery 

and Morse 2013). However, national forests have been slow 

to adopt PPGIS (Brown 2012). Brown (2012) attributed 

the lack of interest in PPGIS on the part of the U.S. Forest 

Service to organizational culture and regulatory barriers, 

including the lack of directives calling for the collection of 

data on place meanings, lack of capacity within the agency 

to collect and analyze such data, uncertainty about whether 

such data are considered scientifically valid, and the difficulty of getting approval from the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for collecting such data. 

Place-based planning—

Interest in place-based planning emerged in the late 20th

century as resource management shifted from single-species or dominant-use management toward integrated and 

holistic systems approaches aimed at managing for a 

diverse set of ecological and human values (Potschin and 

Haines-Young 2013, Williams et al. 2013). Lowery and 

Morse (2013: 1423) defined place-based planning as “a 

process used to involve stakeholders by encouraging them 

to come together to collectively define place meanings and 

attachments.” Other scholars view place-based planning as 

a process that fosters social learning and adaptive management at the scale of the place of interest to the community 

engaged in planning (Cheng and Mattor 2010, Farnum et 

al. 2008). The degree to which place-based planning tends 

more toward information gathering or more toward social 

learning and participatory adaptive management differs 

considerably. Most PPGIS efforts fall into the information-gathering category (McLain et al. 2013b); forest 

collaborative planning processes focus more on social 

learning (Davis et al. 2017). 

Place-based planning is site-specific and takes into 

account both social and biophysical contexts (Potschin and 

Haines-Young 2013, Yung et al. 2003). Place-based planning 

differs from locally based participatory planning in that 

place-based planning focuses around a particular geographical area or place but may include nonlocal participants, 

such as members of regional or national interest groups 

(Moseley and Winkel 2014). Yet places do not exist in isolation from each other (Flint 2013). Consequently, place-based 

planning must factor in the socioecological connections that 

link bounded places to the broader realm in which they are 

situated (Flint 2013). This might take the form of establishment of a regional or national group composed of participants who are also active in planning at more local levels, 

and which therefore provides opportunities for the sharing 

of planning or management priorities and socioecological 

knowledge across scales (Flint 2013). 

Place-based planning acknowledges “the multiple 

relationships people have with geographic locations, 

relationships that encompass livelihood and economics, and

values, symbols, emotions, history, and identity” (Yung et 

al. 2003: 856). To identify these multiple uses, values, and 

meanings, placed-based planners purposefully set up opportunities for stakeholders coming from multiple perspectives 

to engage in constructive dialogue with each other (Kruger 

2008). Through the conversations that take place between 

stakeholders, place-based planning reveals the diversity of 

meanings that people attach to different parts of the planning area. Moreover, through dialogue about those place 

meanings, participants can engage in place-making, which 

in some situations may enable them to create a “shared 

image of place” (Patriquin and Halpenny 2017: 5). Even 

when place-making is not the goal of place-based planning, 

knowledge of which meanings are associated with which 

geographic locations can help managers identify when 

proposed management actions are likely to be contentious 

and how management actions might be structured so as to 

minimize the likelihood or intensity of conflict (Yung et 

al. 2003). It is important to recognize that the participatory 

nature of place-based planning will likely create expectations among the public that their recommendations will 

be incorporated into decisions; these expectations need to 

be acknowledged and managed (Bruña-Garcia and Marey-Pérez 2014, McCall 2003).

Cheng and Kruger (2008) describe a place-based 

planning project on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and 

Gunnison National Forests in which a multi-stakeholder 

participatory mapping approach was used. The working 
741

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

groups first expanded the range of management options on 

the table by developing thematic landscape units, categories 

of land that included a much broader set of values and uses 

than were included in the forests’ traditional management 

units. The thematic units were places that participants 

identified as being significant for a combination of social 

and ecological reasons, and which took into account the 

special or unique features of those areas as well as future 

conditions participants envisioned for those parts of the 

landscape. The themes varied from natural conditions only 

to permanently altered areas. Maps were used as a starting 

point for dialogue, and mapping exercises were structured 

around stakeholder-derived categories, which revealed 

interdependencies in uses and values at landscape scales 

(Cheng and Kruger 2008). Although the process provided 

opportunities for social learning, some stakeholders felt that 

meaningful participation was hindered by the management 

framework imposed by the U.S. Forest Service. Moreover, 

the use of technical language during the meetings functioned as a barrier to widespread participation. And, some 

stakeholders accustomed to issues-based planning resisted 

the idea of place-based planning (Cheng and Mattor 2010). 

Issues-based planning focuses attention on outputs 

of individual uses (i.e., timber production, wilderness, 

recreation, wildlife habitat), and stakeholders organize 

their participation in planning around “protecting and 

increasing the output of their favored uses while opposing 

the output of other uses that are perceived to interfere with 

their own uses” (Cheng and Mattor 2010: 397). In contrast, 

place-based planning focuses on acquiring a broad-based 

understanding of the meanings associated with particular 

parts of the landscape and managing so as to maintain 

or create a particular sense of place (Cheng and Mattor 

2010). Presumably through the process of place-based 

planning, participants revise their expectations as to what 

outputs can be derived from the planning area. However, 

a report on forest restoration occurring as a result of the 

Quincy Library Group planning process mentioned earlier 

in this chapter found that timber production goals fell 

short of what the timber industry participants in the group 

had hoped to achieve (Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

2013). A more detailed discussion about the challenges 

of place-based collaborative planning is provided later in 

this chapter. 

Another challenge associated with place-based planning is the difficulty in scaling locally successful planning 

processes up to regional and national scales (Potschin and 

Haines-Young 2013). Moreover, local-level data required for 

planning are often inadequate or unavailable (Potschin and 

Haines-Young 2013). Additionally, place-based planning 

can be costly in terms of the time and resources needed to 

involve a diverse set of stakeholders in deliberative planning 

processes over a sustained period (Cheng and Mattor 2010). 

In the NWFP area, the most salient examples of place-based 

planning are the forest-level collaborative planning groups 

that have emerged since the mid-1990s (Moseley and Winkel 

2014). Many of these collaboratives emerged out of a desire 

to find common ground through creating a shared sense 

of place, partly as a means to reduce tensions perceived as 

unproductive. The collaboratives and their relationship to the 

NWFP are described in greater detail later in this chapter. 

Studies about place in the NWFP region—

We located several studies that focused on or incorporated 

elements of place and place-based planning from the 

NWFP area conducted since 2003. Using a psychologyof-place approach, White et al. (2008) looked at the 

relationship between place identity and place dependence 

on visitor perceptions of ecological, social, and depreciative impacts (i.e., littering, vandalism, dumping garbage) 

linked to recreation activities in the Molalla River Corridor Recreation Area and Table Rock Wilderness in western Oregon. They also looked at the relationship between 

the length of time visitors had been coming to the area 

and the intensity of their place identity and place dependence. They found no association between place identity 

or place dependence and perceptions of recreation-linked 

social, ecological, or depreciative impacts. However, 

individuals who had been coming to the recreation area 

longer had higher levels of place identity and, to a lesser 

extent, place dependence. Specifically, White et al. (2008)

found that visitors’ sense of place identity increased by 7 

percent on the five-point scale used in the interviews for 

every additional year they had been coming to the site. 

One important implication of this study for forests in 
742

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

the NWFP area is that longer term recreation users (and 

likely other types of forest users as well) are likely to have 

stronger attachments to particular locations, and are likely 

to react negatively to any management actions that change 

those places unless they have a voice in the planning 

processes that lead to those changes. 

Rudestam (2014) examined links between sense of 

place, regional identity, watershed perceptions, and wateruse behavior in the Willamette River basin. She found that 

landowners consistently described the water supply as 

being limited and scarce, belying the region’s reputation 

for excessive rain. Although most interviewees articulated 

deep connections to water in the Willamette basin, few 

were willing to change their water-use behavior. A takehome lesson for planners is that strong place attachments 

are not necessarily associated with actions that improve 

the ecological conditions at a particular location, and that 

other incentives may be required to encourage ecologically 

beneficial behaviors.

Cheng and Daniels (2003) looked at how geographic 

scale and ways of knowing about watersheds are linked in 

place-based collaborative planning venues in the McKenzie 

River valley. They found that participants in the watershed 

group working at a smaller geographic scale were much 

more place oriented than their counterparts that covered 

a larger area. They concluded that people know places in 

multifaceted ways, and the scale at which a collaborative 

group operates affects place knowledge. However, because 

participants differed between the two groups, the extent to 

which the study’s observed differences in place orientation 

can be attributed to scalar differences rather than differences in participants is unclear. 

One of the challenges of place-based planning is the 

mismatch between traditional administrative boundaries 

and the way in which people inhabit places. Farnum et al. 

(2008) describe an effort by the Willamette National Forest 

to develop a set of place-based planning units corresponding to three geographic scales: an overarching “social 

resource unit” made up of three “human resource units,” 

each of which in turn was composed of several “community 

resource units.” The project was undertaken as a proactive 

step toward identifying community priorities, but the data 

and analytical tools it produced were never integrated into 

the forest’s planning or assessment processes. The authors 

attribute this to a combination of factors, including managers’ reluctance to accept anthropological data as “scientific,” 

loss of support for the project owing to leadership turnover, 

and the lack of planning directives calling for this type of 

analysis. Brown and Reed (2009) also identified a serious 

gap in the U.S. Forest Service’s capacity to incorporate data 

about place meanings into its planning processes. Given 

that place meanings can significantly affect whether forest 

policies and management actions are viewed as socially 

acceptable, filling this gap in agency capacity would be one 

way to reduce controversy and build stronger partnerships 

and collaborations. The discussion of agency capacity in 

chapter 8 helps to illuminate the challenges and opportunities that exist to build partnerships.

McLain et al. (2013a, 2017b) conducted a study that 

mapped meaningful places on the Olympic Peninsula. 

The authors found that east-side residents on the Olympic 

Peninsula differed noticeably from west-side residents in 

how they mapped their meaningful places (McLain et al. 

2013a). The west-side residents drew much larger polygons, 

often covering entire watersheds, while east-side residents 

typically used smaller polygons, points, or lines, to mark 

places. The authors speculate that the differences in the 

sizes and shapes of meaningful places reflect differences in 

how the two groups connect with and use the landscape, as 

well as topographical differences. The mapping study also 

revealed social identities linked to residents’ relationship 

with place, particularly in the western part of the peninsula, 

which has historical roots in the timber industry (McLain 

et al. 2017b). 

Todd (2014) collected data on meaningful places from 

Olympic Peninsula visitors. Intercepts were done at major 

trails, campgrounds, and visitor centers as well as on the 

ferries. Todd’s research showed that the visitors’ meaningful 

places tended to be located in Olympic National Park. In 

contrast, the places marked by residents in McLain et al.’s 

(2013a) study were heavily concentrated on the Olympic 

National Forest or on state trust lands. Todd also found that 

less-frequent visitors tended to map fewer places, and the 

places they mapped were generally limited to the major 
743

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

tourist destinations. More frequent visitors and locals mapped 

more places and covered a broader geographic range. These 

results suggest differences in stakeholder connections to the 

area based on visitation frequency and residency.

McLain et al. (2017a) explored special places and 

associated resource uses on the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie 

National Forest as part of a study in support of travel management planning (USDA FS 2015c). Among other findings, 

this study showed that special places for rural residents 

tend to be more concentrated close to home, while urban 

residents identified special places with more geographic 

diversity. Resource uses were similar between urban and 

rural residents, with hiking being the predominant activity; 

however, urban forest visitors were more likely to engage in 

strenuous recreation (mountain biking, backpacking, climbing) while rural residents were more likely to be involved 

in hunting and berry picking, which are important both for 

food, lifestyle, and recreation (McLain et al. 2017a).

The projects by Farnum et al. (2008), McLain et al. 

(2013a, 2017a), and Todd (2014) resulted in the development 

of methods useful for identifying the range of ways that 

people connect with particular landscapes, information that 

can help guide forest planning and management actions. 

However, the process by which this information is then considered and incorporated will ultimately determine whether 

tradeoffs are acceptable and conflict minimized. Todd 

(2014) showed that residents and visitors have very different 

relationships to their landscape, underlining the importance 

of ensuring that efforts to inventory place meanings are 

structured in ways that capture place meanings from a 

broad spectrum of forest users. Moreover, McLain et al. 

(2017a) noted differences in landscape connections between 

urban and rural stakeholders. 

Brown and Reed (2009) observed that differences in 

locations of special places differed depending on familiarity 

with the forest, whether the respondent worked in the forest 

products industry, and membership in an environmental 

organization. They concluded that the location of special 

places differs by subgroups, and recommended the use of 

multiple data collection approaches (Internet, mail survey, 

meetings). Barriers they identified to the use of LVM in 

forest planning included (a) lack of directives specifically 

mentioning collecting data on landscape values and special 

places, (b) costs associated with conducting surveys, (c) 

difficulties with getting approval from the OMB to administer surveys, (d) unfamiliarity of Forest Service personnel 

with this approach, and (e) uncertainty about whether LVM 

data will stand up in court. 

Regional studies of place and place-based planning—

Given the small number of studies falling within the 

NWFP area, we also examined studies that took place in 

the broader region. These include one study from eastern 

Washington, one from the region where Idaho, Oregon, 

and Washington intersect, and one from the Sierra Nevada 

region of California. 

Nielsen-Pincus et al. (2010) drew on psychology of 

place theory to examine whether place identity and place 

attachment differed between local and absentee property 

owners in three rural counties in northeastern Oregon and 

northern Idaho. They found the models could not distinguish between place dependence and place attachment and 

concluded that at landscape scales, the two may be indistinguishable. Their study also showed that place identity was 

slightly stronger among local landowners when compared 

with absentee landowners, but not enough to be meaningful. Findings suggest that place identity is likely more 

influenced by self and social identity than by day-to-day 

experiences. For place attachment, their analyses showed 

that the number of months spent in the place each year was 

more important than the amount of time spent in residence. 

This study points to the value of ensuring that planning 

processes are structured in ways that include long-term 

seasonal residents, as well as year-round residents. 

Donovan et al. (2009) captured the full range of 

landowner and stakeholder views about the landscape in 

the Palouse region of eastern Washington, and overlaid the 

resulting maps on ecological and land cover GIS layers. 

They asked participants to assign one value to each mapped 

location, but found that participants resisted this restriction, 

wanting to assign multiple values, which is consistent with 

previous findings, that multiple factors draw people to a 

place (Cerveny et al. 2017, McLain et al. 2013a). The values 

mapped fell into two distinct clusters: (a) historical/cultural/

agriculture/private land; and (b) outdoor recreation/natural 
744

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

diversity/scenic views. Donovan’s study points to the importance of using methods that can capture and adequately 

describe a range of place meanings. Practically, this implies 

that few places have just one meaning, even for individuals, 

and that it may be the suite of meanings that needs to be 

maintained in order for management actions to be socially 

acceptable, rather than just a dominant meaning.

Brown (2013) piloted a Google MapsTM values mapping 

application on the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests in northern California, using both a LVM survey and 

volunteered data. Outreach targeted diverse stakeholders, 

including a conservation group, forest industries organization, and resource managers. Brown et al. (2014) also asked 

respondents to map acceptable and unacceptable forest uses. 

Comparing survey data from randomly selected households 

with Web link respondents, Brown et al. concluded that the 

volunteer Web mappers had mobilized to ensure that their 

values were strongly represented, concluding that PPGIS 

practitioners should not assume that the data received 

through open Web links are representative of the general 

public’s views (Brown 2013, Brown et al. 2014). 

Collectively, these studies have important implications 

for forest plan revisions in the NWFP area and subsequent 

implementation: (1) place meanings are likely to differ for 

different subgroups of the public (i.e., visitors, residents, 

rural, urban), (2) methods used to collect place-related data 

differ in terms of the types of publics that they are likely 

to reach, (3) use of multiple data collection approaches 

can help to diversify participation, which allows a broader 

range of place meanings to emerge, (4) institutional barriers 

exist within the Forest Service (and likely within other land 

management agencies as well) to the collection and use, and 

long-term storage of social science data, and (5) challenges 

in the agency’s ability to collect and use place-based data 

may hinder the agency’s capacity to develop socially acceptable policies, plans, and management actions.

Summary—

People have the capacity to derive symbolic meanings 

and develop emotional ties with outdoor places. Place 

meanings, whether derived through stories, histories, 

or experiential knowledge, have implications for forest 

ecosystem management. The positive power of place 

motivates people to engage in forest stewardship projects, 

planning processes, and collaborative groups. The variety 

of place meanings held by diverse stakeholders suggests 

the need for broad-based public engagement processes. 

Because place meanings are dynamic and constantly 

being renegotiated, a public engagement process that 

emphasizes multiple ways of gathering information about 

place meanings and that is deliberately designed to reach 

out to a broad spectrum of the public is far more likely to 

capture the range of meanings than processes that rely on 

only one approach. 

Cultural Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services describe the wide range of benefits 

that forests and landscapes provide to people and that 

help to sustain human life (Brown et al. 2007). Ecosystem 

services provide a comprehensive and holistic framework 

for considering and evaluating multiple resource benefits 

(MEA 2005). The significance of ecosystem services for 

resource governance in the United States is becoming 

increasingly evident. A presidential memorandum issued 

in 2015 directs all federal land managers and regulatory 

agencies to use an ecosystem services framework for 

planning, policymaking, and decisionmaking (OMB 2015). 

Consideration of ecosystem services also is mandated in 

the national forest planning process under the 2012 forest 

planning rule (USDA FS 2012). Ecosystem services is a 

category for consideration in the forest assessment phase, 

although studies of early adopter forests demonstrate an 

uneven treatment of the ecosystem services principles 

(Ryan et al., in press). For more discussion of ecosystem 

services, see chapters 8 and 12. 

Key concepts—

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defined 

cultural ecosystem services as “the nonmaterial benefits 

people obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and 

aesthetic experiences” (MEA 2005: 5). Many of these 

human benefits are intangible, such as spiritual benefits, 

cultural benefits, symbolic benefits, or heritage benefits 
745

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

(de Groot et al. 2010, MEA 2005). Cultural ecosystem 

services are the products of people’s interactions with landscapes and ecosystems (Chan et al. 2011, Fish et al. 2016). 

They are shaped by direct human perceptions and senses 

(Braat and de Groot 2012) and are further shaped by human 

values, norms, and beliefs (Fish et al. 2016). Cultural 

ecosystem services can inspire “‘deep attachment” between 

communities and landscapes (Chan et al. 2011) and serve as 

points of entry for public involvement processes related to 

ecosystem management (Daniel et al. 2012). 

Cultural ecosystem services (also referred to as 

“cultural services”) have proven to be challenging to 

operationalize and measure (Hernández-Morcillo et al. 

2013). Analysis of cultural ecosystem service indicators 

has found that some are more readily captured, such as 

education and recreation, while others are more difficult 

to quantify or are often conceptualized inconsistently (de 

Groot et al. 2010, Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013). Efforts 

to assign value to both tangible and intangible aspects 

of cultural services have been fraught with challenges; 

new methods of operationalizing cultural services are 

sought (Daniel et al. 2012, Hernández-Morcillo 2013, 

Plieninger et al. 2013). Cooper et al. (2016) observed that 

aesthetic and spiritual values are frequently mentioned in 

MEA reports as important, but there has been very little 

research to explore how these values may be best characterized, operationalized, quantified, or measured (fig. 

9-4). Cultural services are rarely considered in ecosystem 

Figure 9-4—Dawn on the Hoh River, Washington.

Keith Routman
746

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

services assessments, or if they are included, they often 

are given a cursory treatment (Feld et al. 2009). Some 

cultural services are considered vague and difficult to 

capture or quantify. And, cultural services are not always 

singular, but are intertwined or “bundled” with other 

services. As Klain et al., 2014) noted, Pacific salmon have 

cultural value as well as provisional value to Northwest 

coast indigenous people. They can be quantified based on 

price, but this ignores the spiritual value of salmon (Klain 

et al. 2014). Because of the lack of conformity of cultural 

services to a reliable metric, there has been a tendency 

to relegate cultural values to an afterthought, which has 

impacts for stakeholders who rely on ecosystems for a 

variety of cultural benefits (Chan et al. 2011). New studies 

are investigating ways to capture cultural services (Bryce 

et al. 2016, Daniel et al. 2012). Cultural services should 

not be overlooked because they play an important role 

in building public support for ecosystem management 

(Plieninger et al. 2013). An analysis of ecosystem services 

that does not fully maximize the measurement of cultural 

services is incomplete. 

Managing for cultural services—

The MEA framework provides a useful template for land 

managers to consider the vast array of ecosystem benefits 

and to prioritize benefits for their management unit. The 

identification of cultural services as a critical component 

of that framework encourages even greater attention to the 

less “tangible” benefits associated with forest ecosystems, 

which often get overlooked in the planning process or when 

identifying forest management objectives and targets. The 

research on cultural services is emerging, and there have 

been some attempts to develop a management framework 

(see Fish et al. 2016). 

Several studies have explored how PPGIS can be used 

to explore cultural services for use in land and resource 

planning (Brown and Fagerholm 2015, Brown et al. 2012, 

Bryan et al. 2010; Klain and Chan 2012, Plieninger et al. 

2013, Raymond et al. 2009, Sherrouse et al. 2011). Mapping 

stakeholder preferences provides understanding of how 

cultural services attach to places on the landscape (Fagerholm et al. 2012). Klain et al. (2012) found that it was much 

more common to identify areas that were associated with 

tangible values (recreation, cultural heritage, aesthetics) 

than intangible values (spiritual, sense of place, identity). 

Recreation values are often associated with developed 

recreation facilities, just as cultural heritage values can be 

evaluated by the number of heritage sites in a landscape and 

scenic areas can be used as a proxy for aesthetics. However, 

it may be more difficult to operationalize concepts like 

“social identity” or “sense of place,” which are typically 

measured through qualitative investigations. More research 

is needed to understand the distribution of cultural services 

across landscapes and implications for resource managers. 

Potentially, PPGIS would be useful to explore cultural 

services spatially.

A useful framework for investigating cultural ecosystem services was developed by Fish et al. (2016), who 

created four categories of cultural ecosystem services: 

environmental spaces (localities, places, landscapes 

where people and nature interact); cultural practices 

(symbols, signs, interpretation, and other expressions 

about the relations between people and nature); cultural 

benefits (areas where human health and well-being are 

linked to interactions between people and forests, such 

as spirituality, inspiration, freedom); and cultural goods 

(or services), where the interaction between people and 

nature result in market transactions or other exchange that 

results in income or other benefit (e.g., guiding, tourism, 

sporting events, festivals). This framework may be useful 

for exploring the diverse human connections of forests in 

the NWFP area. 

The Forest Service has begun to use an ecosystem 

services framework to describe forest values (monetary 

and nonmonetary) provided by public lands (Deal et al. 

2017). Forests using this framework have found it helpful 

to identify relevant ecosystem services for their forest, 

assess tradeoffs among services associated with proposed 

forest treatments and management activities, and engage 

partners who share mutual benefits from particular services (Deal et al. 2017). Several projects in the NWFP area 

incorporated an ecosystem services framework as a way 
747

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

to assess benefits, develop metrics, and monitor outcomes 

for a particular planning area (Deal et al. 2017, Smith 2014, 

Smith et al. 2011). One project in the Big Marsh area of 

the Deschutes National Forest emphasized the tradeoffs 

between water quality, aquatic habitat, recreation activity, 

and mushroom harvest, to name a few (Smith et al. 2011). 

Another project involving active forest management on 

the Williamette National Forest engaged tribes to identify 

values associated with timber harvest, cultural heritage, 

recreation, wildlife, water quality, and harvest of special 

products (i.e., huckleberries, beargrass). 

Two empirical studies explored public perceptions of 

ecosystem services in the NWFP area. Asah et al. (2012) 

investigated how people identify and construct forest 

ecosystem services in Deschutes County, Oregon. Results 

revealed that the public view of ecosystem services is similar to the MEA framework, with some notable differences. 

Although this framework categorizes mushroom picking 

and Christmas tree harvest as “provisioning services,” 

local residents view these both as provisioning and cultural 

services, providing opportunities to nurture social relationships and develop forest connections. The study also 

revealed that respondents viewed the national forest lands as 

both a source of affordable housing (temporary residence) 

and as a hedge against urban sprawl (Asah et al. 2012). 

In a related project, Asah et al. (2014) investigated 

perceptions of ecosystems benefits by the Confederated 

Tribes of Warm Springs. Respondents emphasized both 

provisioning services (especially fish, game, and plants) and 

cultural services (especially spiritual, aesthetics, and place 

attachment), with less attention to regulating and supporting 

services (Asah et al. 2014). They also described direct and 

indirect connections between provisioning and cultural 

services, whereby the gathering of provisions provides 

an opportunity to solidify ties among tribal members and 

strengthen intergenerational connections. Tribal members 

emphasized items as cultural services that are not featured 

on the original MEA list, including sense of place, sense 

of community, and political license to exercise historical 

tribal rights (Asah et al. 2014). More research in the NWFP 

area is needed to understand public perceptions of cultural 

services. Chapter 11 addresses many of the cultural aspects 

of forests and landscapes for American Indian tribes in the 

NWFP area. 

Finally, in a study described earlier, Williams et al. 

(2017) used principal component analysis to create bundles 

or clusters of management preferences for residents of 

northwest Washington (n = 1796). Respondents were asked 

to evaluate the importance of 26 management preferences 

for the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest. The 

authors revealed six preference bundles: environmental 

quality, utilitarian, heritage, general recreation (hiking, 

scenic viewing), specialized recreation (mountain biking, 

equestrian, winter), and access/roads. The bundles were 

fairly consistent across sociodemographic categories and 

residential classifications (rural, suburban, and urban). 

Notably, some management preferences did not bundle, 

including nature study and food/fuel gathering. These 

bundles roughly coincide with the ecosystem service items 

described in the MEA (MEA 2005). 

Summary—

Ecosystem services, and cultural services in particular, 

could be a very useful framework for land managers in the 

NWFP area to consider the diversity of spiritual, aesthetic, 

recreation, heritage, discovery and learning, and therapeutic benefits associated with forest settings. Currently, 

the agency emphasizes one aspect of cultural services, 

recreation benefits, which are discussed below. Recreation 

is quantifiable and measurable within standard agency 

practices. Also commonly considered are scenic resources 

and heritage sites, although budgetary and personnel 

constraints limit these functions. Other aspects of cultural 

services, like spirituality, solitude, wilderness therapy, 

and education, are managed but not actively tallied, which 

is a missed opportunity. A growing emphasis on cultural 

ecosystem services will allow resource managers to 

recognize the various benefits associated with a forest and 

stakeholder attachment to sets of benefits. The ecosystem 

services framework can be useful in identifying and 

measuring a full range of benefits and values assigned to 

forests and landscapes. 
748

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Outdoor Recreation 

This section focuses on how society uses forests generally, 

and specifically within the NWFP area, for outdoor recreation and leisure. It addresses trends in who is recreating 

on forests and what they are doing, how technology and 

changes in leisure time are changing recreation patterns, 

and recreation sustainability. 

Recreation is viewed as an important forest benefit 

and is a critical component of the cultural services model. 

Hiking, camping, and nature study are important activities 

that allow people to experience the benefits of forests (de 

Groot et al. 2006). Additional forest benefits include mental 

health and well-being, aesthetic encounters, cognitive 

development, and others (Chan et al. 2011) (fig. 9-5). 

Recreation benefits of parks, forests, and public lands have 

been widely recognized (Nielson et al. 2007, Stein and Lee 

1995). Numerous studies acknowledge the positive effects 

of nature exposure to human health and well-being (Bowler 

et al. 2010; Hartig et al. 2003, 2011; Karmanov and Hamel 

2008; and others); and green spaces are important venues 

for promoting exercise that leads to improved health (Henderson and Bialeschki 2005). Recreation use is facilitated 

by the presence of built amenities (Donovan et al. 2016) 

and access, but also depends on ecological factors (Fuller et 

al. 2007). Various monetary and nonmonetary approaches 

have been used to characterize recreation values, most of 

which rely on knowing frequency of visitation, intensity of 

use, and visitor recreation spending (Stynes 2005).

Figure 9-5—Hiker in the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest.

Lee Cerveny
749

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

The 20th century was a prolific period for recreation 

research and assessment, especially in the latter half of 

the century, which saw the establishment of the Outdoor 

Recreation Resources Review Commission in 1958, as well 

as the establishment and findings of the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors in 1985. In the 21st century, 

the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation, 

established in response to the America’s Great Outdoors 

Report, continues the coordinated, multi-agency effort to 

better understand recreation and its management. Management issues and challenges faced by all of the federal land 

agencies have been the focus of recreation research over the 

past several decades. However, the National Park Service 

and the U.S. Forest Service’s National Forest System (NFS) 

have received the greatest research attention. This section 

will draw primarily on research in the Pacific Northwest on 

national forest lands, but will also include broader studies of 

recreation trends and recreation behavior elsewhere in the 

United States and on other public lands. 

Trends in outdoor recreation and visitation to national 

forests in the NWFP area—

The degree to which Americans are recreating outdoors 

generally, and on federal public lands specifically, has been 

the source of discussion in mainstream books, such as 

Last Child in the Woods (Louv 2005), as well as scientific 

literature (Pergams and Zaradic 2008, Stevens et al. 2014). 

Special attention has been given to the extent to which 

youth are recreating in nature and the implications for 

future attitudes about natural resources and recreation use. 

Although some (Pergams and Zaradic 2008, Stevens et al. 

2014) contend that outdoor recreation on public lands has 

been declining, a number of researchers have disputed that 

notion, suggesting instead that visitation is flat to slightly 

increasing (Jacobs and Manfredo 2008; Larson et al. 2011; 

Siikamaki 2011; Warnick et al. 2010, 2013). 

Visitation levels—

Studies based on data from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment in the United States have 

found that the percentage of the population participating in 

outdoor recreation on public and private lands has remained 

relatively flat in recent years and is projected to remain that 

way in coming decades (Bowker et al. 2012, Cordell 2012, 

White et al. 2016). Future increases in the total U.S. population will overcome the steady, or even slightly declining, 

participation rates, so the total number of people recreating 

in the outdoors is projected to increase over time (Bowker et 

al. 2012). If potential climate changes are also considered in 

those projections, participation rates for undeveloped skiing 

and snowmobiling are projected to decline by 6 percent 

and 18 percent, respectively, but the general projection of 

greater number of participants in the future remains largely 

unchanged nationally. Within specific regions (e.g., the 

Northeastern United States), the effects of climate change 

on recreation use may be more pronounced, and the number 

of participants in some regions may decline markedly 

(Bowker et al. 2012). 

Activities such as viewing nature, visiting developed 

sites (which includes developed-site camping and picnicking), and visiting interpretive centers are projected to have 

the greatest numbers of participants across the Nation (each 

having more than 200 million participants) in 2030 (Bowker 

et al. 2012, Cordell 2012, White et al. 2016). In addition, 

more than 100 million people are projected to participate 

separately in hiking, visiting primitive areas (primitive 

camping, backpacking, visiting wilderness areas), and 

birding. As is the case presently, most future participants 

in outdoor recreation are expected to be participating in 

general activities, such as hiking, picnicking, or viewing 

nature. Participation in specialized activities like undeveloped skiing (10 million participants), motorized snow use 

(11 million participants), horseback riding (16 million participants), and challenge activities (e.g., rock climbing—25 

million participants) is projected to continue to be small in 

2030 relative to participation in general activities (Bowker 

et al. 2012, White et al. 2016). 

Long-term assessments of recreation use and activity 

patterns are made difficult by variations in measurement 

systems and the missions and monitoring resources of 

federal land management agencies. The National Visitor 

Use Monitoring (NVUM) program, used by the NFS 

to monitor recreation, has been in place since 2000, 

although pilot testing on some national forests started in 

1996. Estimates of recreation use under NVUM are not 
750

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

comparable to estimates under prior recreation monitoring systems used by the NFS. Further, comparisons of 

NVUM results for individual national forests can only 

reliably be made between two periods, 2005–2009 and 

2010–2014, because of refinements to its methods after 

the initial 2000 to 2004 monitoring period and the 5-year 

sampling cycle of NVUM. The most recent visitation 

estimate for the NFS using data collected between 2011 

and 2015 was 149 million visits. This visitation has been 

trending upward since 2010 (the earliest comparable year 

for analysis) with 2015 estimates about 4 percent greater 

than 2010 (USDA FS 2016b) (table 9-2). 

Forest Service recreation monitoring indicates that 

use has been relatively stable over the last 10 years in the 

NWFP national forests. National forests within the NWFP 

area have received about 15 million recreation visits per 

year in recent years (USDA FS 2016b) (table 9-3). Day-use 

developed sites and the undeveloped (but nonwilderness) 

portions of national forests account for the greatest 

numbers of recreation visits. Recreation use in wilderness 

areas of NWFP-area forests is about 1 million visits per 

year. The difference in visit estimates between 2006–2010 

and 2011–2015 cannot yet be interpreted as a trend because 

it is based on only two points in time and they are not 

statistically different.

Recreation use on NWFP-area national forests is 

consistent with the pattern of high participation in outdoor 

recreation by residents of the three-state region (California 

State Parks 2014, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 

2013, Washington State Recreation and Conservation 

Office 2013). The most recent statewide comprehensive 

outdoor recreation plans for Oregon and Washington found 

that more than 90 percent of state residents participate in 

some form of outdoor recreation (including activities such 

as hiking/walking, picnicking, camping, outdoor sports, 

and general relaxing) at least once a year. The statewide 

comprehensive outdoor recreation plan for California 

focused specifically on outdoor recreation that took place in 

parks and public lands (i.e., open space provided for natural 

environments and/or leisure opportunities), unlike in Washington and Oregon, but more than 90 percent of California’s 

population reported using an outdoor park at least once in 

the prior year. 

Recreation activities—

Hiking, downhill skiing, and nature-related pursuits (i.e., 

viewing natural features, visiting nature centers, and nature 

study) are the most common primary recreation activities on 

national forests in the NWFP area (table 9-4). A primary recreation activity is defined as the single activity that prompted 

the recreation visit to the national forest. The relative popularity of those three activities is generally consistent with 

patterns of use on other national forests throughout the NFS. 

More specialized activities, such as cross-country skiing, 

camping, hunting, off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use, boating, 

Table 9-2—Trend in visits annually to the National Forest Systema

Year FY 2006–2010 FY 2007–2011 FY 2008–2012 FY 2009–2013 FY 2010–2014 FY 2011–2015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Millions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Visits 143.6 145.5 147.5 146.7 146.8 149.0

a The National Visitor Use Monitoring Program runs on 5-year cycles. National-level visit estimates are calculated for these 5-year periods. 

Source: USDA FS 2016b.

Table 9-3—Recreation use at national forests in the 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area by forest/site 

type for two recent periodsa

Forest/site type 2006–2010 2011–2015

Millions of visits

All NWFP-area national forests 15.6 14.6

Site visits:

Day-use developed sites 7.5 8.5

Overnight-use developed sites 2.4 2.0

Undeveloped areas 10.0 8.4

Wilderness 0.9 1.4

a

 Visitors typically complete multiple site visits during their visit to the 

national forest so the sum of site visits is more than the “all NWFP-area 

national forests” value. 

Source: USDA FS 2016b.
751

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

and bicycling are less common primary recreation activities 

on NWFP-area national forests. The patterns found for those 

specialized activities are also consistent with national-level 

patterns. The Plan-area forests differ slightly from national 

patterns in the share of visits that are nature related (a higher 

share of visits), and hunting and biking (smaller shares 

of visits). Within the Plan area, between the two NVUM 

periods, the share of visits with hiking or downhill skiing 

as the primary activity increased slightly, while the share of 

visits in nature-related activities decreased slightly. Those 

differences cannot yet be interpreted as trends because they 

represent only two points in time. 

The patterns in recreation activities on the NWFP-area 

national forests are consistent with patterns in outdoor 

recreation activity of the general populations of California, 

Oregon, and Washington (California State Parks 2014, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 2013, Washington 

State Recreation and Conservation Office 2013). Walking 

for pleasure is the most commonly reported activity in 

each state, with between 64 and 73 percent of residents of 

each state reporting walking for leisure at least once during 

the year. About 50 percent of the populations in each state 

report hiking on unpaved trails at least once during the 

previous year. More than half of each state’s population 

Table 9-4—Participation in primary recreation activities in Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP)-area national 

forests for two recent periods

NWFP area National averages 

Primary activity 2006–2010 2011–2015 2011–2015

- - - - - - - - - - - -Percent - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hiking 18 25 24

Nature related 18 15 14

Downhill skiing 12 15 16

Hanging out/relaxing 7 6 5

Some other activitya 6 6 4

Fishing 7 5 6

Cross-country skiing 3 5 2

Hunting 4 3 5

Developed camping 4 3 3

Driving 3 3 5

OHV use 4 2 2

Boating 3 2 2

Biking 2 2 4

Other nonmotorized 2 2 2

Primitive camping/backpacking 2 2 1

Picnic 1 1 2

Snowmobile 1 1 1

No activity provided 2 < 1 1

Resort use < 1 < 1 < 1

Horseback riding < 1 < 1 1

Total 100 100 100

a

 Some outdoor recreation activities are not listed directly and would fall into the catagory of “some other activity” such as orienteering, geocaching, 

parasailing, and other forms of recreational aviation.

Source: USDA FS 2016b.
752

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

reported participating in general, nature-based recreation 

activities, such as sightseeing or picnicking. About half 

of Oregon residents and 40 percent of California and 

Washington residents reported that they had camped in a 

developed camping site in the past year. Participation in 

more specialized nature-based outdoor recreation activities, such as hunting, fishing, backpacking, biking, and 

freshwater boating, was generally reported by less than 

half, and typically less than one-quarter, of residents in the 

three states. 

Research conducted elsewhere shows that volunteers 

can be motivated by a variety of factors, including the desire 

to expand public access and recreation opportunities, social 

engagement, and commitment to the environment (Bruyere 

and Rappe 2007, Lu and Schuett 2014, Propst et al. 2003). 

Volunteer organizations in the NWFP area have sizeable 

memberships and work closely with public land managers to 

identify mutually desired projects. Nationwide, reliance on 

partners and volunteers has played an important role in bolstering the capacity of national resource agencies, which face 

maintenance backlogs on recreation infrastructure (Seekamp 

and Cerveny 2010, Seekamp et al. 2011). The National Trails 

Stewardship Act of 2016 (P.L. 144-225) directs the Forest 

Service to expand volunteerism and partnerships further in 

support of trail maintenance. Volunteering and stewardship 

have also been studied in relation to place attachment, with 

stewardship in a forest or park generating stronger feelings 

of connection (Caissie and Halpenny 2003, Dresner et al. 

2015, Ryan 2005). 

Population aging and implications for forest visitation—

Most recreation visits to NWFP-area national forests are 

by those between the ages of 30 and 60 (table 9-5). Those 

less than 20 years old account for about 17 percent of visits. 

For comparison, those under age 18 represented about 23 

percent of the U.S. population in 2014 (U.S. Census) (Colby 

and Ortman 2015). In most cases, those visits from someone 

under the age of 16 likely involve family recreation with 

children. The age distribution of those recreating at NWFParea forests is consistent with patterns on all national forests, although there are slightly more visits in the 20 to 40 

age group in the plan area compared to the national pattern 

(table 9-5). Compared to the national median age of 37.7 in 

2014, Oregon’s residents are slightly older, Washington’s 

residents are about the same age, and California’s residents 

are slightly younger. 

The average ages of the populations of California, 

Oregon, and Washington are expected to continue to 

increase over time. Age is consistently found to be a factor 

in recreation participation and correlates with differing 

perceived barriers to participation in recreation (Bowker 

et al. 2006, Child et al. 2015). Considering outdoor recreation anywhere, not just on Forest Service land, those over 

45 years of age participate in a smaller set of recreation 

activities than those who are younger and, as people age, 

they continue to reduce activity participation (Cordell 2012, 

White et al. 2016). Recreationists in age groups over 45 are 

most commonly participating in developed-site activities 

and viewing and photographing nature (table 9-6). Those 

over age 45 have moderate rates of participation in motorized activities, hunting, and fishing that decline steadily as 

they age. Older people are more likely to feel that personal 

health, safety, and disability are barriers to participating 

in outdoor recreation; younger people view the amount of 

leisure time, limited information about recreation opportunities, and lack of transportation as barriers to participating 

in outdoor recreation (Ghimire et al. 2014). 

Table 9-5—Percentages of Northwest Forest Plan 

(NWFP) area and national recreation visits by age 

groups for two recent periods

Age group

2006–2010

NWFP 

2011–2015

NWFP 

2011–2015

National 

- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - -

Under 16 17 13 16

16–19 4 4 4

20–29 14 16 13

30–39 17 17 15

40–49 18 17 17

50–59 16 17 17

60–69 10 13 13

Over 70 3 4 5

Source: USDA FS 2016b.
753

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Those under age 20 account for about 17 percent of the 

recreation visits on NWFP-area national forests (see table 

9-5). That rate of outdoor recreation participation is generally consistent with what was found nationally. In a national 

study of the outdoor recreation behavior of those under age 

20, Larson et al. (2011) found that the majority of children 

do spend time in outdoor recreation each week and that 62 

percent spend at least 2 hours recreating outside daily. Of 

those under 20, those between 16 and 19 had the lowest 

rates of being outdoors for recreation: most of respondents 

at that age spent less than a half an hour outdoors daily 

(Larson et al. 2011). Hispanic youth had the highest rates 

of spending time in outdoor recreation. Across all groups, 

those under 20 were focused on general recreation in the 

outdoors, e.g., playing or hanging out (84 percent of participants); biking, walking, jogging (80 percent); and using 

electronic devices outdoors (65 percent). More specialized 

outdoor recreation activities such as wildlife viewing (31 

percent), hiking/camping/ fishing (29 percent), and snow 

sports (9 percent) were reported by lesser shares of young 

participants (Larson et al. 2011). The greatest impediment 

to participating in outdoor recreation for those under 20 was 

interest in other activities, including using electronic media 

indoors. Issues with limited access, lack of transportation, 

or concerns about safety were cited as reasons for not 

recreating outdoors by less than one-fourth of those under 

20 (Larson et al. 2011). 

Work patterns and leisure time—

Lack of time has been identified as the key reason that some 

Oregon and Washington residents never visit national forests 

for recreation, or visit them less frequently than desired 

(Burns and Graefe 2007). Lack of time was also found to 

be a moderate impediment to youth participation in outdoor 

recreation generally (Larson et al. 2011). Time availability 

was identified as a much stronger factor in constraining 

recreation use of national forests than perceived recreation 

site characteristics or crowding (Burns and Graefe 2007). In 

the NWFP area, the median duration of a national forest visit 

is about 4 hours (table 9-7). However, that figure is influenced 

by the length of stay of those camping in national forest 

campgrounds. Excluding campground use, the median length 

of stay of visitors to Plan-area national forests is less than 3 

hours for day-use sites and general forest areas, and less than 

4 hours for those recreating in wilderness. The vast majority 

of recreation visits to Plan-area forests are short-duration 

Table 9-6—Percentage of age groups 45 and older participating in outdoor recreation by site/activity type

Site/activity type Age 45–54 Age 55–64 Age 65+ 

- - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - -

Visiting developed sites 81 75 62

Viewing and photographing nature 80 75 65

Backcountry activities (including hiking) 48 37 22

Motorized activities 37 27 17

Hunting and fishing 38 29 20

Nonmotorized winter activities 10 5 2

Nonmotorized water activities 22 15 7

Source: Cordell 2013, adapted from White et al. 2016.

Table 9-7—Median duration of visits to NWFP-area 

national forests

Category 2005–2009 2010–2014

- - - - Hours - - - -

National forest visit (all sites) 4.5 4.1

Day-use developed sites 1.7 2.1

Overnight-use developed sites 44.2 41.8

Undeveloped areas 3.5 3.0

Wilderness 4.4 4.0

Source: USDA FS 2016b.
754

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

trips. The preponderance of short-visit durations is consistent 

with the patterns of high use in developed sites (where visits 

are likely focused on viewing natural features or a brief hike). 

Sustainable recreation—

For natural resource management, broadly, sustainability is 

typically thought to relate to the capacity of the landscape 

(comprising human and natural systems) to provide desirable social, ecological, and economic outcomes now and into 

the future under current management. Research addressing 

the sustainability of recreation has largely focused on (1) 

the ability of the resource and managers to provide current 

recreation opportunities (especially winter recreation) in 

the face of a changing climate (e.g., Beaudin and Huang 

2014, Buckley and Foushee 2012, Smith et al. 2016); (2) how 

alteration of environmental conditions through disturbance, 

recreation use, or resource management affects the conditions of recreation resources and user experiences (e.g., 

Brown et al. 2008, Cole 2013, Shelby et al. 2005, White et 

al. 2008); (3) how high use levels at recreation sites may 

change the behavior, experience, and satisfaction of visitors 

(e.g., Cole and Hall 2009, Fonner and Berrens 2014, Lawson 

et al. 2003); or (4) the social and economic conditions in 

recreation gateway communities and reliance of those communities on tourism for economic activity (e.g., Andereck et 

al. 2005, Frauman and Banks 2011, Kurtz 2010). Within the 

recreation scientific literature, perhaps the greatest attention 

has been paid to items 2 and 3. The scientific literature 

lacks a definition of “sustainable recreation,” and integrated 

studies of recreation sustainability that look at a suite of 

sustainability factors. This lack of scientific research into 

sustainable recreation contrasts with the fairly extensive use 

of the term in management and policy directions in recent 

years. Unlike the focus of scientific literature, which is more 

broad, managers tend to view recreation sustainability in 

terms of capacity to provide desired recreation opportunities in the face of declining agency budget allocations and 

perceived greater recreation use.2

Visitor satisfaction with recreation site conditions and 

the recreation experience is a component of sustainable 

recreation. Oregon and Washington residents have rated 

recreation conditions on the national forests they visited 

most frequently at moderate to high quality (Burns and 

Graefe 2006). The highest quality rankings were given for 

the undeveloped characteristics of views, courteous and 

friendly staff, and safe sites with clearly posted rules and 

regulations. The lowest quality scores were given for availability of multilingual services, accessibility of uniformed 

Forest Service personnel, risk of vandalism and theft to 

vehicles, and assistance for people with special needs. 

However, even for those items, the most common quality 

ranking was “fair” (the second lowest rating on a scale 

from “awful” to “excellent”). In a separate study, Burns 

and Graefe (2007) found that 60 percent of households in 

Oregon and Washington with a person having a disability 

felt hampered in their ability to use national forests for 

recreation. However, 21 percent of those who felt national 

forests were not accessible for recreation also stated no 

interest in outdoor recreation (Burns and Graefe 2007). The 

conditions of roads and trails and conditions of facilities 

were rated as good to very good (Burns and Graefe 2006). 

Recreationists stated their perception of site quality was 

highest when there was (1) minimal litter, (2) a feeling of 

safety and security, (3) clearly posted rules and regulations, 

and 4) clean restrooms and toilets (Burns and Graefe 2006). 

The presence of litter, trash, or vandalism was the key 

factor in explaining recreationists’ perceptions of recreation 

site quality and environmental condition at Bureau of Land 

Management recreation sites in the northwest Oregon Cascade foothills (White et al. 2008). Visitors who have visited 

those sites with litter over increasingly long time frames 

appear more sensitive to deterioration in site conditions 

(White et al. 2008).

Recreation and climate change—

Changing climate can change (increase or decrease) the 

availability and quality of recreation opportunities (Shaw 

and Loomis 2008). Changing environmental conditions that 

result from weather and climate patterns can affect the ability of people to participate in certain recreation activities 

with implications for quality of life and future public health 

2

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 

2016. Region 6 sustainable recreation strategy. Unpublished 

report. On file with: Lee K. Cerveny, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, 400 N 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle 

WA 98103, lcerveny@fs.fed.us. 20 p.
755

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

(White et al. 2016). Climate change models project warmer 

weather conditions for longer periods, which are expected 

to increase participation in summer and warm-weather 

recreation activities (Bowker et al. 2013, Farley et al. 2011). 

Temperature and precipitation changes directly change 

the availability and quality of recreation sites. Based on 

preliminary research conducted in the northern Rocky 

Mountains (Hand and Lawson 2018) and more generally 

(Shaw and Loomis 2008), it is understood that climate 

change can alter ecological conditions and may affect optimal recreation conditions. Recreation visitors are likely to 

engage in substitution as an adaptation strategy to climate 

change—substituting one location for another, changing 

the timing of their recreation visits, or shifting into new 

activities as opportunities for their favorite activities 

decline (Loomis and Crespi 2004). However, substitution 

may represent a net benefit loss, even when participation 

changes only subtly. For example, the substitute site may be 

more expensive to access, take more time to reach, or offer 

inferior quality. Studies conducted in central Oregon are 

underway and have identified certain recreation activities 

that may be more sensitive to a warming climate as well 

as implications associated with the possible expansion of 

shoulder seasons. 

Summary—

Recreation visits are expected to grow in day-use settings and developed facilities. At the national level, the 

number of outdoor recreation visits will increase in the 

coming decades in accordance with population growth. 

The majority of outdoor recreation use is for general 

recreation activities, like hiking, viewing nature, visiting 

nature centers, viewing wildlife. Most recreation visits 

to national forests are relatively brief, lasting less than 

one-half day, and tend to occur at developed sites. These 

are important trends to consider when managers are 

asked to allocate resources to recreation facilities. The 

greatest barriers to outdoor recreation participation are 

lack of time and travel distance to national forests. Other 

barriers include concerns for personal safety, signage, and 

accurate information, all of which have positive effects 

on visitor perceptions of site conditions. Natural resource 

agencies like the Forest Service seek information about 

the ecological effects of recreation in efforts to promote 

sustainable recreation. Lack of conceptual development 

of what sustainable recreation means or tested sustainable 

recreation models or tools is inhibiting use of this concept 

in planning. 

Trust 

Trust is one of the key foundations of human social order 

and is viewed as critical for personal development, interpersonal relationships, mutual cooperation, and enduring 

institutions, such as governments, financial markets, and 

religious organizations (Lewicki et al. 1998). Humans 

operate in an environment often characterized by ambiguity, complexity, risk, and change (Lewicki et al. 1998). Trust 

and distrust are distinct emotional responses that allow 

individuals and entities to navigate uncertainty, manage 

efficiently, and survive. 

Defining trust—

Trust is defined by early social psychologists as expressions of confidence in others’ intentions and motives. 

Trust was understood as the sincerity of a person/institution’s word (Mellinger 1956), and was seen as dependent 

upon the confidence that one’s interests would be protected and promoted by another and with an agreement 

on full information sharing (Read 1962). Predictability 

was also seen as integral to the notion of trust (Deutsch 

1958). Scholars later explored trust as an aspect of actual 

behavior, rather than as a primary motivation, understanding trust as one’s hope of another’s favorable behavior in 

a situation of vulnerability (Hosmer 1995). Regardless 

of their motivations, there is an expectation that, in a 

position of dependence, one will not injure or ignore the 

interest of another (Hosmer 1995). Lewicki et al. (1998) 

suggested that trust and distrust are best understood not 

as a binary construct in polar opposition, where trust is 

good and distrust is bad. Nor is trust/distrust viewed as 

an inverse relationship, where trust increases only when 

distrust decreases and vice versa. “There are elements that 

contribute to the growth and decline of trust, and there 

are elements that contribute to the growth and decline of 
756

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

distrust” (Lewicki et al. 1998: 440). These elements are 

repeatedly modified through frequent human encounters 

and transactions. Because of the many layers and facets 

of human interactions, it is possible to both have trust and 

distrust for a person or entity simultaneously—trusting 

some aspects of the relationship, but not others. Understanding that trust and distrust can coexist has important 

implications for public engagement in forest management, 

in particular the critical importance of creating processes 

that are trusted.

Trust also should be understood with both attention 

to social context and recognizing it as a dynamic process 

(Lewicki et al. 1998). A person can trust an individual or 

agency in one sociopolitical setting but be wary of their 

performance in another setting. For example, an environmental advocate can develop a trusting relationship with 

a timber industry representative in the context of a small 

collaborative group focused on forest restoration, but this 

level of trust may change when the organizations appear 

in a large public hearing to deliberate a proposed timber 

sale. And, trust is dynamic and inconsistent. Trust can 

build and subside with each short-term interaction, which 

can influence the long-term trajectory of a relationship. For 

natural resource agencies, which often make decisions in 

the context of wicked problems, conflicting ideologies, and 

high stakes, developing processes and protocols that can be 

trusted is essential, even when trust can be elusive among 

various actors involved in those processes. 

Trust as a topic in natural resource management—

Trust has been a topic of investigation in scholarship related 

to natural resource management (Beierle and Konisky 

2000). Trust between stakeholders has been characterized 

as a factor that shapes natural resource management 

outcomes (Cvetkovich and Winter 2003, Davenport et al. 

2007, Stern 2008a). At its core, trust is a fundamental 

component of human relationships that suggests a party’s 

acceptance of vulnerability related to positive expectations 

of the behavioral intentions of another party (Rousseau 

and Tijoriwala 1999). In the context of natural resource 

governance, scholars distinguish between various types 

of trust. Davenport et al. (2007) delineated two kinds of 

trust: “institutional trust” (trust in agencies to represent 

and serve the public) and “interpersonal trust” (trust based 

on personal relationships). Some scholars have focused on 

“rational trust,” calculated based on an entity’s predictable 

behavior, accountability, and reliability of performance 

(Hardin 2002, Stern 2008b). Others emphasize “social (or 

affinitive) trust,” which grows based on shared experiences 

and enduring interactions (Braithwaite 1998, Cvetkovich 

and Winter 2003). Trust in natural resource agencies has 

been discussed in the context of “broad-level” trust in 

governing agencies to achieve goals of resource conservation and meeting public needs, and as “project level” trust, 

which emphasizes whether the agency can be trusted to 

successfully implement the project goals and minimize 

harm to the social and natural environment (Ribe 2013). 

For an agency to craft a socially acceptable management 

strategy, trust is important both at the broad level and the 

project level (Olsen and Shindler 2010). 

Community-based collaborative groups, which are 

discussed later in this chapter, have emerged partly in 

response to perceptions of distrust between communities 

and public land agencies. In the context of collaborative 

management, Stern and Coleman (2015) developed a 

conceptual framework that identified four types of trust: 

“dispositional” (the predisposition of individuals to trust), 

“rational” (based on likeliness of predicted behavior 

as judged by prior performance), “affinitive” (based on 

shared values and developed through positive interactions), 

and “systems based” (transparent process, fair and just 

procedures) (table 9-8). They posited that the diversity of 

these four trust types within natural resource management 

contexts is important for successful outcomes. Stern and 

Baird (2015) used this framework to study variation of 

degrees and proportions of the four types of trust. They 

found that explicit attention to the development of three 

types of trust (rational, affinitive, and systems based) can 

enhance the efficiency and resilience of natural resource 

management institutions. They also found that when 

one type of trust is damaged, having other types of trust 

can buffer the loss (Stern and Baird 2015). These studies 

emphasize the importance of trust to the success of collaborative management and suggest the need for deliberate 
757

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

attention to fostering all four types of trust to maximize 

institutional resilience. 

Recent studies have explored the relationship between 

values and trust in forest management. Although some 

suggest that the degree of institutional trust can influence 

the extent to which someone supports forest management 

actions, we do know that trust expands when agencies 

make decisions that reinforce an individual’s values (Vaske 

et al. 2008). Trust can be built (and in many cases conflict 

reduced) through fair participation processes or transparent 

decisionmaking (Webler and Tuler 2000, Webler et al. 

2001). In a comparative study among national forests in 

northern California, northern Florida, and Michigan, Winter et al. (2004) found a relationship between shared values 

and social trust in a study of fuel management strategies. In 

California, Winter et al. (1999) learned that trust predicted 

attitudes in the public’s willingness to pay recreation fees. 

In their study of prescribed fire burning in Colorado, Vaske 

et al. (2008) used an approach known as “shared values 

similarity,” which measures the degree of similarity among 

a set of environmental values (Cvetkovich and Winter 

2003). They found that when values were held in common 

between the public and the land management agency, there 

was a greater degree of trust. They also learned that when 

social trust was improved, there was more support for land 

manager policies of prescribed burning and mechanical 

thinning. A lack of trust in governing agencies is cited as 

a primary barrier in natural resource planning (Lachapelle 

and McCool 2012) and can potentially lead to litigation or 

noncompliance (Stern 2008b). 

Achieving trust among multiple conflicting parties 

in resource management can be challenging; still, there 

is an increasing recognition that trust can be fostered by 

direct public engagement or participation in a collaborative 

decision processes where deliberation is encouraged. For 

trust to flourish, processes should be inclusive, representative, transparent, and predictable (Beierle and Konisky 

2000). In addition, trust can be aided by groups having clear 

objectives, outlined roles and responsibilities, and a tangible 

and enduring commitment from key partners. 

Summary—

Natural resource institutions like the Forest Service often 

make difficult decisions in uncertain environments in which 

science is evolving and public sentiment is conflicted. 

The degree of trust established between public agencies, 

stakeholders, and communities is an important factor in 

public support for resource management decisions. Clear 

objectives, consistent communication, transparent processes, reasonable timelines, maintained commitments, and 

opportunities for candid deliberation can enhance institutional trust both at the project level and at the national level. 

Developing processes and protocols that can be trusted is 

essential, even when trust can be elusive among various 

actors involved in those processes. 

Table 9-8—Varying interpretations of trust

Types of trust Definitions Citations

Institutional trust Trust in agencies to represent and serve the public Davenport et al. 2007

Interpersonal trust Trust based on personal relationships

Social trust Trust among people that grows based on shared experiences 

and enduring interactions

Braithwaite 1998, Cvetkovich 

and Winter 2003

Rational trust Based on predictable behavior, accountability, and reliability 

of performance

Stern and Baird 2015,

 Stern and Coleman 2015

Affinitive trust (similar 

to social)

Trust among people that grows based on shared experiences 

and enduring interactions

Dispositional trust The predisposition of individuals to trust (based on one’s 

natural inclinations, values, experiences

Systems-based trust Derived from presence of fair processes; just procedures
758

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Involving the Public 

Public participation in federal agency land management planning processes is required by various laws, 

regulations, and policies, including the Multiple-Use 

Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (MUSYA), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (box 3). A 

national planning rule for the USDA Forest Service 

stipulates that public participation efforts must “...have 

significant potential to reach and involve diverse segments of the population that historically have not played 

a large role in NFS (National Forest System) planning 

and management” (USDA FS 2012). This contemporary 

emphasis on robust public participation in land management planning suggests new innovations, strategies, and 

methods of encouraging diverse public participation, 

which can generate trust among stakeholders and land 

managers. This section will review recent trends in public 

participation, including institutional constraints and best 

practices. Because peer-reviewed research on this topic 

is limited in the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest 

Region, this section will also include information from 

federal agency reports, doctoral dissertations, and standard texts in the field of public administration, conflict 

management, and collaboration. 

Trends in public participation in natural 

resource management—

In 1969, Sherry Arnstein published the article, “A Ladder 

of Citizen Participation.” Although dated, this article 

remains relevant as a way of describing different types of 

public involvement. At the core of Arnstein’s argument is 

the premise that different types of public involvement are 

directly related to the different levels of power citizens 

have in determining outcomes (Arnstein 1969). The ladder 

is a metaphor for illustrating increasing levels of public 

influence in decisionmaking as one climbs each rung of 

the ladder. Lower rungs indicate nonparticipatory types of 

public involvement, such as education, while middle rungs 

allow participants to share information without assurance 

that a change in the outcome will occur (Arnstein 1969). 

The top rungs of the ladder provide increasing levels of 

influence in decisions affecting the outcome. 

A key finding of Arnstein’s work is the recognition 

that participation without a clearly defined public role (i.e., 

the type of participation, or identifying which “rung on the 

ladder”) can lead to a meaningless or frustrating process 

for all involved. In 1999, the International Association of 

Public Participation (IAP2 2014) transformed Arnstein’s 

“ladder” into a “spectrum.” This decision-oriented, 

objective-driven, and values-based approach to public 

participation was designed to assist with selection of the 

appropriate level of public participation in any community 

engagement program (fig. 9-6). The spectrum seeks to “...

legitimize differing levels of participation depending on 

the goals, time frames, resources and levels of concern in 

the decision to be made” (IAP2 2014). As described by the 

IAP2, the spectrum defines the promise being made to the 

public within each level of participation (2014). The arrow 

at the top of the diagram indicates that as one moves to the 

right, the level of participation and public influence in the 

decisionmaking process increases, similar to moving up the 

rungs of Arnstein’s ladder. Note that while the spectrum 

covers the full range of public influence in a decisionmaking process, government agencies retain their decisionmaking authority in all instances and are ultimately 

Box 3—MUSYA, NEPA & NFMA 

Requirements 

MUSYA requires that management “best meet the 

needs of the American people,” by identifying the 

public’s values and desires (US Congress, OTA, p.78). 

NEPA requires agencies to inform the public about the 

possible environmental impacts of their decisions, including the public as a participant in decisionmaking.

NFMA further reinforced the public’s right to participate in Forest Service planning and decisionmaking.
759

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

responsible for their actions (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). 

Thus, government agencies are not authorized to use the 

“empower” end of the IAP2 spectrum. Bryan (2004: 882) 

put this into perspective: “While participants may challenge the decisions authorities ultimately make, they do not 

challenge their authority to make those decisions.”

The IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum can assist 

with the selection of the level(s) of participation that defines 

the public’s role throughout a forest plan revision effort. 

Importantly, the amount of effort required among the different spectrum levels can vary widely for both the agency and 

the public. Imperial (2005: 312) emphasized the importance 

Figure 9-6—The International Association of Public Participation’s [IAP2] Public Participation Spectrum.
760

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

of judiciously identifying collaborative opportunities that 

add public value while minimizing transaction costs, and 

suggests that “public managers are...cautioned to use collaboration wisely. When used correctly, collaboration is an 

effective governance strategy. When used inappropriately, it 

can create more problems than it solves.” 

Thus, different phases of plan revision call for different 

levels of public involvement. For example, in the assessment 

phase of plan revision, a collaborative process could be 

designed to identify the benefits provided to people by a 

national forest. Here, the public works in conjunction with 

agency personnel to identify the unique places, roles, and 

contributions a national forest provides based on their 

preferences, interests, and values. English et al. (2004) 

emphasized the importance of eliciting values early on in 

public involvement processes and further acknowledged 

that to be effective, these processes “must be tailored to the 

place, the people, and the circumstances; there is no single 

recipe for success.” Collaboratively identifying unique roles 

and contributions, early in the assessment phase of forest 

plan revision, can focus forest management on issues that 

people value most. 

Alternatively, during the NEPA phase of plan revision, 

while the interdisciplinary team is conducting its analysis in 

compliance with the act, it may be appropriate to inform the 

public as a means of assisting them in understanding issues 

or alternatives. For example, following the 90-day comment 

period on the Inyo, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forest 

draft plans and draft environmental impact statements, the 

interdisciplinary team spent months analyzing comments, 

defining issues and resolutions, and preparing responses to 

comments in preparation for release of the final environmental impact statement and draft record of decision (USDA FS 

2016a). During this time frame, little interaction with the 

public occurs. To fill this gap, a series of informational bulletins provided additional detail on topics of interest identified 

during the comment period (Long et al. 2014). In the case 

of the Sierra synthesis, the agency is not asking for public 

feedback, it is providing information to assist the public in 

understanding issues or alternatives. As Arnstein and others 

have found, the key is defining these various levels of public 

participation prior to initiating the plan revision, and being 

clear with the public about what their actual role will be, 

ensuring them a meaningful and robust participation process. 

Newer research continues to support and refine Arnstein’s 

work and that of the IAP2 (Carpini et al. 2004, Kelshaw and 

Gastil 2008, Lynam et al. 2007, Rowe and Frewer 2005). 

Rowe and Frewer (2005) developed a typology that further 

defines key concepts of public engagement within the IAP2 

spectrum based on the direction information flows from the 

sponsor (i.e., Forest Service) to the public. This typology 

(Rowe and Frewer 2005) defines three key types of public 

engagement: public communication (e.g., inform on the IAP2 

spectrum), public consultation (e.g., consult on the IAP2 

spectrum), and public participation (e.g., involve and collaborate on the IAP2 spectrum). Specifically, Rowe and Frewer 

(2005) suggested that public communication characterizes 

information flowing from the agency to the public, public 

consultation from the public to the agency, and information 

flowing both directions as public participation. Another aspect 

of their research is the importance of aligning mechanisms, 

defined as processes, techniques, and instruments, to the 

appropriate level of engagement (Rowe and Frewer 2005). 

Carpini et al. (2004) focused their research on the mechanism 

of “face-to-face” meetings. They found that face-to-face 

communication is the single greatest factor in increasing the 

likelihood of cooperation among participants (Carpini et al. 

2004). Kelshaw and Gastil (2008) differentiated face-to-face 

meetings among the different types of public engagement. For 

example, informational meetings fall into the “inform” level 

of the IAP2 spectrum, where the agency initiates conversation 

with the public. Alternatively, communication flows both 

directions in collaborative face-to-face meetings initiated 

by the agency and the public. Finally, Lynam et al. (2007:1) 

summed up the importance of applying the right mechanism 

to the right level of public engagement: “...picking the right 

tool does not guarantee that the data desired will be produced, 

but selecting the wrong tool does make success less likely.” 

As mentioned in the beginning of this section, NEPA 

requires federal land management agencies, including the 

Forest Service, to involve the public in agency planning 

processes (Brown and Donovan 2013, Hoover and Stern 

2014). Hoover and Stern (2014: 174) argued that although 

“NEPA regulations do not specifically empower the public 
761

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

to directly influence the NEPA process,” the public generally becomes involved in these efforts to have a genuine 

impact, “...or influence on decisions that affect them or 

the public resources they value.” They also acknowledged, 

“While there are minimum standards related mostly to the 

timing of involvement and disclosure, the NEPA process 

grants the implementing agency broad discretion regarding 

the form and nature of the public involvement process” 

(Hoover and Stern 2014: 175). 

Given this considerable level of discretion, scholars 

have argued that understanding what motivates the behaviors and actions of key personnel, such as interdisciplinary 

team leaders as well as the public, has the potential to 

improve the public participation experience for both agency 

personnel and the public (Hoover and Stern 2014, Lipsky 

1980, Yang 2005). According to Cerveny et al. (2011: 202), 

“The ID team leader is responsible for managing group 

interactions, synthesizing scientific findings, and coordinating analysis of alternatives.” Hoover and Stern (2014) 

found that agency team leaders of planning processes across 

the Forest Service expressed a desire for greater public 

influence in planning processes through improved “substantive” input to management decisions rather than through 

objections and litigation. Stern and Predmore (2011) have 

characterized substantive comment as information that can 

improve management decisions, as opposed to comments 

based on opinions or conjecture.

The literature describes four broad and interrelated 

behavioral factors of participating publics related to their 

ability to gain influence in decisionmaking (Hoover and 

Stern 2014). These factors include values and desires, time, 

trust and prior experience, and the skill to provide comments 

(Beierle and Konisky 2000, Cheng and Mattor 2006, Creighton 2005, Germain et al. 2001, Halvorsen 2006, Smiley et al. 

2010, Smith and McDonough 2001, Whitall 2007, Yang and 

Pandey 2011). Thus, in understanding and accommodating 

these inherent behavioral factors, Forest Service team 

leaders and decisionmakers can improve the public’s level of 

influence in decisionmaking earlier in the planning process 

through improved “substantive” comment processes. 

To identify key factors that either motivate or constrain 

an interdisciplinary team leader, Hoover and Stern (2014) 

conducted a qualitative case study analysis of interviews with 

Forest Service employees. Through their research, they found 

that the following four factors influenced interdisciplinary 

team leaders’ (IDTLs’) ability “...to go above and beyond 

the minimum requirements to facilitate public influence: (1) 

the IDTLs’ personal beliefs and norms; (2) past and present 

experiences with the public; (3) the IDTLs’ workloads; 

and (4) the influence of the decision maker” (Hoover and 

Stern 2014: 181). To enhance motivation of IDTL’s, Hoover 

and Stern (2014) suggested that the agency may be able to 

improve employees’ ability to cope with stress, assist in maintaining reasonable workloads, and offer training to effectively 

respond to public concerns about resource management.

The complexity of public participation in the 

21st century—

Creating effective public involvement strategies is challenged not only by varying levels of public influence, 

statutory ambiguity, and consequent agency discretion, but 

also by socially dynamic systems (Brown and Donovan 

2013) (box 4). Changes in demographic patterns are occurring most rapidly in the southern and western regions of 

the United States, with increasing numbers of young people 

and immigrants (Colby and Ortman 2015). Along with these 

changing demographic patterns are changing values and 

user preferences (Brown and Donovan 2013). Incorporating 

traditional and emerging values necessitates new methodologies for creating public involvement processes as required 

by the 2012 planning rule. This section highlights new 

research in the fields of dispute resolution, stakeholder and 

social network analyses, as well as public participation GIS. 

Box 4—Whom Do You Ask?

Sample bias—The answer you get depends on whom 

you ask. 

In a 2012 PPGIS case study in the southern Sierra 

Nevada, it was found that responses from a random 

sample of households preferred forest amenities 

over the stronger utilitarian values and consumptive 

use preferences of stakeholders who volunteered to 

participate in the study (Brown et al. 2013).
762

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Seeking resolution through dialogue: The importance 

of framing and reframing—

As a science-based organization, the Forest Service has 

focused much of its attention on increasing the amount of 

technical information provided to the public as a means to 

increase understanding of complex environmental issues 

and associated risks. In other words, the agency uses a technical frame of reference to define and explain environmental 

issues. Nisbet (2009) and others have argued that this type 

of information is likely to reach a small audience of already 

informed and engaged citizens (Ho et al. 2008, Nisbet 2005, 

Popkin 1991). He further stated, “...the rest of the public 

either ignores the coverage or reinterprets competing claims 

based on partisanship or self-interest, a tendency confirmed 

across several decades by public opinion research” (Nisbet 

2009: 14). Nisbet’s argument illustrates how technical and 

lay populations frequently frame environmental issues 

differently. Framing involves “shaping, focusing, and organizing the world around us” (Gray 2003: 11). Gray (2003: 

12) further explained that “through framing, we place 

ourselves in relation to the issues or events—that is, we take 

a stance with respect to them.” Simply, a frame reflects what 

we believe is going on and how we see ourselves and others 

involved in what is happening. The process of framing then 

offers insights into why some environmental issues are 

difficult to resolve (Gray 2003). 

Elliott et al. (2003) drew conclusions from eight case 

studies on how framing affects the potential for conflict 

resolution of intractable environmental disputes. They 

found that frames may not be permanent and can change 

through reframing activities (Elliott et al. 2003). In seven of 

the eight cases studied, they found that efforts were made 

to consciously reframe the conflict through public dialogue. 

Lengwiler (2008) found that the lay-technical divide could 

be transcended by reframing the dialogue within a wider 

socioeconomic context. In other words, by reframing the 

environmental issue within a wider socioeconomic context, 

laypersons have the potential to coalesce around a set of 

common concerns and effectively engage in problemsolving activities. Thus, they are not expected to become 

scientific and technical experts, nor are experts expected 

to compromise their role in solving environmental issues 

(McKinney and Harmon 2008). The goal, as stated by 

McKinney and Harmon (2008: 63), is “...to integrate expert 

and public knowledge and information to shape decisions 

that are scientifically credible, politically legitimate, and 

relevant to the problem at hand.”

In another case study, Whitall et al. (2014) used interest-based problem-solving (IBPS) techniques to reframe 

environmental conflict in the Sierra Nevada ecoregion. 

Here “IBPS techniques were used to redefine the meaning 

ascribed to the ecological restoration of the Sierra Nevada 

ecoregion from two differing points of view. Techniques 

included focusing the conversation on why these individuals 

wanted something, as opposed to what they wanted or 

needed” (Whitall et al. 2014: 176). In so doing, common 

interests emerged from intractable positions. Yet Burton 

(1990) and Maiese (2004) provided a cautionary note when 

using IBPS techniques: “...while interest-based bargaining 

is effective in interest-based disputes, it should not be 

applied to disputes involving deep differences in values.” 

Thus, this research (Elliott et al. 2003, Lengwiler 2008, 

McKinney and Harmon 2008, Whitall et al. 2014) suggests 

that in at least some environmental conflicts, frames can 

change through intentional actions and interventions. 

Reframing environmental issues within a wider socioeconomic context has the potential to bridge the gap between 

technical experts and laypersons. Finally, by reframing 

dialogue from positions (what people want) to interests 

(why people want it) it is possible to render interest-based 

disputes more tractable. 

Public participation and the identification 

of stakeholders—

Reed et al. (2009) found that the role of stakeholders is 

becoming increasingly embedded in environmental policy. 

Yet, they argued, “...stakeholders are often identified 

and selected on an ad hoc basis. This has the potential to 

marginalize important groups, bias results and jeopardize 

long-term viability and support for the process” (Reed et 

al. 2009: 1933). Thus, they discussed growing interest in a 

collection of systematic methods that can be used to identify 
763

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

individuals, groups, and organizations who are affected by 

a decision and then prioritize these individuals and groups 

for involvement in the decisionmaking process (Reed et al. 

2009). Stakeholder analysis is one way of systematically 

identifying groups implicated by an environmental policy or 

decision (Grimble and Wellard 1997, Prell et al. 2009, Reed 

2008, Reed et al. 2009). 

Reed et al. (2009) identified three critical, sequential 

steps of stakeholder analysis: (1) identifying stakeholders 

and their interest in the problem or decision, (2) differentiating between and categorizing stakeholders, and (3) 

exploring relationships among stakeholders. For each step, a 

variety of methods exist depending on the knowledge, skills, 

and resources available. For example, in step one where 

individuals and groups with a stake in the plan revision 

or amendment process are widely known, the stakeholder 

analysis can be conducted without active participation of the 

stakeholders themselves. Yet, Reed (2008) cautioned that 

stakeholder participation may be necessary if the agency has 

incomplete knowledge on the population that may have an 

interest in the outcome. Identifying stakeholders is an iterative process, where stakeholders are added as the analysis 

continues using different methods such as expert opinion, 

focus groups, semistructured interviews, or snowball 

sampling (Prell et al. 2009, Reed 2008, Reed et al. 2009). 

Various methods also exist for step two: categorization 

of stakeholders. Here, methods may be either top-down 

or bottom-up. In the top-down approach, stakeholders are 

classified based on their observations as applied through 

a predetermined conceptual framework or theoretical 

perspective (Grimble and Wellard 1997, Reed 2008). The 

bottom-up approach allows categories to be defined by the 

stakeholders themselves, allowing the analysis to better 

reflect their perceptions (Dryzek and Berejikan 1993, Hare 

and Pahl-Wostl 2002). 

Finally in step three, two principal methods are used 

to investigate the relationships among and between stakeholders (both as individuals and groups): social network 

analysis, which provides insights into patterns of communication, trust, and influence between stakeholders in social 

networks (Lienert et al. 2013, Prell et al. 2009, Whitall 

2007); and knowledge mapping analysis, which examines 

the flow of information between these stakeholders (Reed 

et al. 2009). When used in conjunction with social network 

analysis, Reed argued that knowledge mapping may extend 

the “who knows who” of social network analysis by providing a visual representation of “who knows what” (Reed et 

al. 2009: 1940). Social network analysis has been used in 

the NWFP area to evaluate the structure of fire protection 

and restoration institutions in the eastern Cascade Range of 

Oregon (Fischer and Jasny 2017, Fischer et al. 2016). 

The increasing use of stakeholder analysis in natural 

resource management reflects a growing recognition that 

stakeholders influence environmental decisionmaking 

(Prell et al. 2009). The literature also shows that stakeholder 

analysis can be used to minimize conflict, reduce marginalization of certain groups, and provide fair representation of 

diverse interests (Prell et al. 2009, Provan et al. 2005, Reed 

2008, Reed et al. 2009, Whitall 2007). 

Participatory mapping and geospatial approaches—

A growing number of scholars and government agencies 

are interested in the integration of technology and spatial 

information into public participation strategies (Brown et 

al. 2013). As an example, the 2012 planning rule encourages 

the U.S. Forest Service to be proactive and use contemporary tools such as the Internet to engage the public in 

forest planning (USDA FS 2012). As noted earlier, public 

participation GIS has featured prominently in forest plan 

revision efforts in the past decade (Brown and Donovan 

2013, Brown and Reed 2009, Brown et al. 2013). 

The term “public participation geographic information 

systems” was conceived in 1996, during the National 

Center for Geographic Information and Analysis meeting 

(Sieber 2006). Brown and Reed (2009: 166–167) described 

the process as “...using GIS technologies to produce local 

knowledge with the goal of including and empowering 

marginalized populations.” In 2012, they conducted a public 

participation GIS case study on the Chugach National Forest 

as part of the forest plan revision process under the 2012 

planning rule. Results of their study indicate the potential 

utility of public participation GIS to assist forest planners 
764

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in identifying areas suitable for various forest uses (Brown 

and Reed 2012). Essentially, Brown and Reed (2012) found 

that public participation GIS provides a systematic approach 

to identifying the social suitability of various forest uses to 

supplement traditional biophysical analyses and can assist 

the agency in determining whether particular activities or 

uses are consistent with desired conditions (box 4; fig. 9-7). 

Effectiveness of public involvement approaches—

Reed (2008: 2417) suggested, “The complex and dynamic 

nature of environmental problems requires flexible and 

transparent decisionmaking that embraces a diversity of 

knowledge and values.” Studies suggest that public involvement can improve Forest Service analyses and provide 

information otherwise unavailable to the agency that may 

improve the quality of the decision (Creighton 2005, Hoover 

and Stern 2014). Scholars have identified additional benefits, 

including enhanced relationships, reduced conflict, public 

buy-in, and increasing compliance with agency regulations 

and removing barriers to project implementation (Koontz 

1999, Stern 2008, Whitall 2007). Although these studies 

suggest that stakeholder participation can improve the 

quality of decisions, Reed (2008: 2421) asserted that they 

do so with one strong caveat: “...the quality of a decision 

is strongly dependent on the quality of the process that 

leads to it.” What follows is current research concerning 

institutional constraints as well as public involvement best 

practices that can either enhance or hinder the quality of 

public involvement and hence the quality of associated decisions. Another critical consideration affecting the quality 

of decisionmaking is the perception and effect of public 

involvement activities on indigenous peoples and nations. 

Von der Porten and De Loë (2014) conducted a systematic review of collaboration literature that focused on 

environmental concerns and referred to indigenous peoples. 

Through this review they found that many collaborative 

processes are grounded in assumptions about the roles of 

Figure 9-7—Participatory mapping for travel management planning, Washington.

Rebecca McLain
765

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

different members of society in decisionmaking that are 

incompatible with how indigenous peoples view themselves. While indigenous peoples have been portrayed as 

“stakeholders,” “minorities,” “groups,” “participants,” or 

as “nations,” only the recognition of indigenous peoples 

as nations aligns with indigenous governance literature 

(Von der Porten and De Loë 2014: 1041). Thus, they affirm, 

“...how indigenous peoples are characterized and treated 

in collaborative processes is a sensitive and important 

issue” (Von der Porten and De Loë 2014: 1041). Chapter 11 

discusses tribal governance and efforts to share traditional 

ecological knowledge and tribal perspectives as part of 

tribal engagement in resource management. 

Institutional constraints— 

Scholarly research concerning institutional constraints to 

public participation and the quality of decisions addresses 

three different levels within the U.S. Forest Service: agency, 

unit, and employee (Davenport et al. 2007, Kaufman 2006, 

Margerum and Whitall 2004, Stankey et al. 2003). Agency-level constraints have been attributed to diminished 

resources, organizational commitment, centralized power 

structure, and the statutory and regulatory environment 

(Davenport et al. 2007, Stankey et al. 2003). 

Through their research, Davenport et al. (2007) identified the centralized system of decisionmaking as inhibiting 

the unit’s ability to be responsive to the public and address 

their concerns in a timely manner. Unit-level constraints 

include increased division of labor, use of technical jargon 

in planning documents, and reliance on traditional forms 

of public involvement (Davenport et al. 2007). Here, an 

increasing division of labor, or specialization, among unit 

employees was found to reduce the unit’s overall responsiveness to communities (Davenport et al. 2007). Additionally, Davenport et al. (2007) found that meeting minimum 

legal requirements for public involvement was not enough 

to stimulate local participation. 

Employee-level constraints included staff turnover and 

long-distance commuting (Davenport et al. 2007, Margerum and Whitall 2004, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). 

Studies also acknowledge the difficulty in maintaining 

long-term relationships with local communities, private 

entities, and nongovernmental organizations from frequent 

turnover of personnel (Davenport et al. 2007, Margerum 

and Whitall 2004, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Paradoxically, advancement within the Forest Service hierarchy 

is frequently dependent on personnel moving to different 

locations within the agency (Wondolleck and Yaffee 

2000). Kaufman’s study of the U.S. Forest Service (2006) 

found that by routinely moving field officers to different 

agency locations and levels, they formed allegiances to 

one another, the organization, and specific policies and 

procedures, allowing a large, dispersed organization with 

multiple objectives to successfully create a coherent, 

unified decisionmaking regime. Kaufman (2006) further 

acknowledged that this unified approach has not been 

without challenges, especially during times of social 

change. The 2012 planning rule’s emphasis on collaborative development of land management plans represents a 

change from previous planning rule public involvement 

requirements by emphasizing the importance of building 

and maintaining relationships. Specifically, the planning 

rule final directives state that “public participation...helps 

build and maintain working relationships, trust, capacity, 

and commitment to the plan” (USDA FS 2015b: 3). Building and maintaining relationships takes time and requires 

access. Margerum and Whitall (2004) found that staff 

turnover slowed the momentum of collaboration efforts 

in southwest Oregon because of the time required for new 

participants to become involved and the different operating 

approaches that new managers held. Davenport et al. (2007: 

47) emphasized these findings, noting, “Staff turnover 

has reduced the time communities and agency personnel 

have to get to know and trust one another. Long-distance 

commuting by agency employees has meant they are not 

actively participating in the community...” 

Assessing success of public involvement and applying 

best practices—

Current research on the effectiveness of public involvement approaches is divided into two categories: (1) those 

that evaluate the success of processes and (2) those that 

evaluate the success of outcomes of processes (Chess and 

Purcell 1999, Cundill and Rodela 2012, Muro and Jeffrey 

2008, Newig and Fritsch 2009, Renn 2006). Chess and 

Purcell (1999: 2685) acknowledged that “evaluating the 
766

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

outcome ...is problematic because researchers cannot be 

sure if an effect is due to public participation efforts or to 

other variables.” Yet they take a position in the middle of 

the process-outcome spectrum by arguing that “...neither 

“good” process nor “good” outcome is sufficient by itself.” 

Cundill and Rodela (2012) agreed with this middle ground 

by suggesting that processes and outcomes work in tandem: 

improvements in processes such as sustained interaction, 

shared knowledge, and ongoing deliberation can lead 

to social outcomes of improved decisionmaking, better 

relationships, and improved problem-solving capacity. 

Muro and Jeffrey’s (2008) research found additional social 

outcomes of participatory learning processes, including the 

generation of new knowledge, acquisition of technical and 

social skills, and increased trust. Finally, Newig and Fritsch 

(2009) supported Renn’s (2006) argument that listening 

to the public and establishing a two-way communication 

stream is not alone sufficient: “Discursive processes need a 

structure that assures the integration of technical expertise, 

regulatory requirements, and public values” (Renn 2006: 

9). In combining these processes effectively, Newig and 

Fritsch (2009) concluded that the ecological standard of 

decisions was positively influenced. Yet, Irvin and Stansbury (2004) argued for caution in deciding whether participatory processes achieve better outcomes on the ground. 

They found that certain situations precipitate “ideal” 

(low-cost/high benefit) conditions for public involvement, 

while other circumstances led to “ineffective and wasteful” 

(high-cost/low benefit) participatory processes (Irvin and 

Stansbury 2004: 62). 

Finally, the literature shows broad consensus over key 

features of best practices in public involvement processes. 

Reed (2008) used qualitative methods and a systematic 

approach to derive key features from existing literature 

that includes the following: 

• Stakeholder participation needs to be underpinned 

by a philosophy that emphasizes empowerment, 

equity, trust, and learning.

• Stakeholder participation should be considered as 

early as possible and throughout the process.

• Relevant stakeholders need to be analyzed and represented systematically.

• Clear objectives for the participatory process need to 

be agreed among stakeholders at the outset.

• Methods should be selected and tailored to the decisionmaking context, considering the objectives, type 

of participants, and appropriate level of engagement. 

• Highly skilled facilitation is essential.

• Local and scientific knowledges should be integrated. 

• Participation needs to be institutionalized, ensuring 

that decisionmakers are comfortable in committing 

to an unknown outcome of a participatory process, 

while understanding that ultimate decision authority 

resides with the agency.

Summary—

The quality of a resource management decision depends 

on the quality of the process that leads to it. A public 

involvement strategy that resonates with a dynamic and 

diverse range of interests helps to ensure sound resource 

decisionmaking. Best practices include a philosophy 

of empowerment, equity, and inclusiveness; systematic 

assessment of potentially relevant stakeholders and 

strategies to encourage participation; engaging stakeholders early in the process; iterative or frequent engagement 

throughout the process; clear objectives, timelines, and 

parameters; skilled facilitation; integration of local and 

scientific knowledge; and enduring agency commitment 

to the process. NEPA grants agencies broad discretion in 

the structure of public involvement; agencies engaged in 

resource planning are empowered to take advantage of 

the spectrum of public involvement approaches. Different 

planning phases may call for different levels of public 

involvement. Defining these various levels of engagement 

prior to initiation of plan revision promotes a robust 

participation process.

Agency-Citizen Collaboration 

Contemporary natural resource management decisions 

present complex choices among interests and values, so that 

the choices are political, social, cultural, and economic, as 

much as they are scientific and technical (Dietz and Stern 

2008). As a result, over the past several decades, communities, governments, private organizations, and individuals 
767

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

have increasingly turned to collaboration as a supplement 

to traditional planning and decisionmaking processes. By 

focusing on shared concerns and promoting problem-solving, the intent is to better address complex resource management issues such as watershed management, endangered 

species management, planning for climate change, or 

habitat restoration. 

Collaboration is defined here as “a process through 

which parties who see different aspects of a problem can 

constructively explore their differences and solutions that 

go beyond their own limited version of what is possible” 

(Gray 1989: 5). Collaborative approaches are often place 

based, cooperative, involve multiple parties, and strive to 

create or improve relationships between individuals and 

groups, or develop solutions to specific issues or problems. 

The approach involves interactions with representatives 

of a variety of stakeholder groups and organizations, 

often over a period of months or years, depending on the 

scope and complexity of the group’s efforts. Collaboration 

requires diverse stakeholder participants (private landowners, American Indian tribes, government organizations, 

nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and others) to 

work together over a period of time to identify and address 

resource management issues. The efforts often rely on 

outside neutral facilitators to help them work toward their 

common goals. 

Why collaboration?—

The rise of collaborative approaches reflects a shift 

toward increased civic participation in agency planning 

and decisionmaking. This shift has occurred because 

resource management issues are not easily solved, are 

characterized by incomplete or contradictory information, 

and are subject to increasing interdependencies between 

management agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 

and citizens (Head 2008). Natural resource management 

also has become extremely complex and networked, as 

responsibility for many issues has shifted from the federal 

government to state and local governments as a result of 

shrinking federal government resources and programs 

(Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). Frustration with gridlock, 

declining budgets, and overall lack of trust in government 

decisionmaking processes have fueled interest in collaboration, as have challenges with the multiple jurisdictions and 

landowners needed to effectively manage resource issues 

across landscapes (Dukes and Firehock 2001, Wondolleck 

and Yaffee 2000). 

Societal expectations and policy-driven requirements 

for public involvement in resource decisionmaking have 

also increased the use of collaborative approaches. For 

example, in the Forest Service, “...laws such as NEPA, 

NFMA, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) provided 

important leverage to conservation groups and gave them 

an empowered seat in collaborative processes” (Nie and 

Metcalf 2015: 6). Nie and Metcalf (2015) summarized the 

evolution of collaboration in the Forest Service, noting 

that “collaboration was increasingly invoked to facilitate a 

more inclusive dialogue as part of a new focus on ecosystem management in the 1990s,” and the two were linked 

together by the Forest Service’s Committee of Scientists 

(1999), which recommended more ecosystem and collaborative-based approaches to forest planning (Committee of 

Scientists 1999). Collaboration was also called for in the 

2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act, the 2009 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act, and the 2012 

NFMA regulations, which focus extensively on public 

participation in forest planning, with collaboration encouraged by the agency, and public participation required 

during plan development, revision, and amendment (Nie 

and Metcalf 2015).

Collaboration is touted as an appropriate approach 

because many resource management issues are local, 

site specific, and often cannot be easily resolved within 

legislatures, agencies, or courts (O’Leary and Bingham 

2003). Proponents of collaboration argue that it is a logical 

response to policy gridlock and litigation (Susskind et 

al. 1999) and an alternative to centralized planning and 

command and control regulation. Collaboration can produce 

more creative and adaptive solutions to natural resource 

management problems, encourage shared ownership of the 

problem, and facilitate implementation of potential solutions 

(Bacow and Wheeler 1984, Susskind et al. 1999). Such 

efforts also can garner sufficient resources or expertise to 

achieve what cannot be accomplished by one single party 

or a smaller coalition, and is often less costly than litigation 
768

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

(Dukes and Firehock 2001, Susskind and Ozawa 1984). In 

many cases, collaboration has proven to be a powerful tool 

for resolving conflict, building trust, addressing uncertainty, 

fostering cooperation and coordination, and developing 

capacity for addressing future resource management issues 

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Collaboration is often 

viewed as part of the solution to increasing trust and social 

license for forest management.

General critiques and concerns about collaboration—

Critiques of collaborative approaches argue that the process 

does not necessarily ensure “better” decisions, and that 

collaboration may reinforce existing power disparities 

rather than promote truly diverse stakeholder inclusion and 

meaningful dialogue (Burke 2013, Dukes and Firehock 

2001). Not all stakeholders can or will participate; there may 

not be enough time to resolve the issues; the issues may not 

be “ripe” or ready for collaboration; and there are serious 

capacity concerns related to the time and other resources 

needed for participation (Amy 1987). 

Other studies have raised concerns about the devolution of public lands management and suggested that 

collaboration could potentially weaken environmental 

protection (Hibbard and Madsen 2003, Kenney 2000). 

Questions have been raised about the nature and quality 

of the environmental outcomes from collaborative processes, which is an enduring question across all sectors. 

Layzer (2008: 5) suggests that “...the initiatives whose 

goals were set in collaboration with stakeholders have 

produced environmental policies and practices that are 

less likely to conserve and restore ecological health than 

those whose goals were set through conventional politics.” More recently, efforts to understand links between 

collaboration and performance reveal that while there is a 

perceived positive link between the two, concerns remain 

about costs in terms of power, time, conflict, stress, 

process, suboptimal outcomes, and resources required 

(Mitchell et al. 2015). 

Structures and functions of collaborative approaches—

In practice, collaboration is designed and implemented in a 

wide variety of ways. Differences in structures and functions across several key factors illustrate multiple interactions, each of which affect the processes and outcomes of a 

particular effort. Collaborative efforts can vary in several 

ways including: 

• Who sponsors (funds all or part) 

• Who convenes (plans and leads) 

• Facilitation 

• Scope (local, state, regional, national, international)

• Jurisdictions, authorities, and laws 

• Geographic scale (related to scope) 

• Participants and who they represent (more inclusive 

or less inclusive)

• Purpose and goals (e.g., policy or issue oriented; or 

site specific and focused on a specific issue related to 

a particular place) 

• Drivers of the effort, such as direct conflict over an 

issue, or a perceived opportunity

• Urgency of issues and timeframe for decision

• Formal and informal rules (decisionmaking 

approaches—ranging from consensus to voting to 

agency maintaining decision authority, managing 

interactions over time)

Types of federal forest land collaboration and trends in 

the Pacific Northwest—

Research on federal forest land collaboration in the Pacific 

Northwest has covered collaboration at scales from local 

communities of place to larger landscapes and regions. 

It has tended to focus on collaboration for wildfire risk 

reduction and forest health restoration, and particularly 

on collaboration during planning (e.g., before and during 

NEPA analysis, or community wildfire protection planning). 

Although collaborative watershed management for fish 

habitat and other aquatic restoration goals has also become 

common practice, most of these efforts have focused on 

private landownerships and capacity to implement restoration projects on the ground, so science on this topic is not 

reviewed here. 

Because there is no established baseline from which to 

begin, it is difficult to accurately and completely describe 

the status of collaborative forest management on national 

forests, and whether or how this has changed over time. 

Anecdotally, there are a plethora of types of collaboration 
769

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

in the region, yet there are few if any studies that comprehensively document this (censuses, statewide assessments, 

etc.). Some documentation can be found in policy or 

program reports (Bixler and Kittler 2015, Swezy et al. 2016, 

White et al. 2015), or student theses (Hughes 2015, Spaeth 

2014, Summers 2014), but there is no single standard for 

defining, identifying, or studying collaboration. Although 

much of the existing science on collaboration consists of 

case studies, the research has identified common themes, 

challenges, lessons learned, and best practices. Two overall 

trends emerge from the available science:

• Collaboration takes place at a variety of spatial and 

political scales but is increasingly occurring over 

larger landscapes as federal policies and programs 

have focused at larger scales over time. 

• Collaboration is increasingly occurring through collaborative groups (“forest collaboratives”) that meet 

regularly and focus on a specified landscape, rather 

than individual processes or projects. Organization 

and leadership of these groups differ greatly by location and context. 

Changes in the scale of collaboration over time—

Collaboration often is thought of as occurring at the local 

community scale, referring to communities of place. This 

is a very fine-scale approach. Following the NWFP and 

listing of species such as the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) and Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha), community-based collaborative efforts arose 

in several affected communities in the Pacific Northwest 

states. These are documented in previous science syntheses covering the period prior to 2003 and are often 

described as community-based forestry, community 

forestry, community-based conservation, or grassroots 

ecosystem management (Baker and Kusel 2003, Weber 

2003). Early efforts were often spurred by local community members, typically working on a range of projects 

including, but not limited to, federal lands management, 

e.g., local business development or community multiparty 

monitoring. The goal of these efforts was to improve 

ecological and socioeconomic conditions in a given place, 

and leadership was local. 

From 2001 onward, there has been a trend toward 

collaboration driven in part by state and national policies 

and programs. A primary focus of more community-scale 

collaboration since 2003 has been community wildfire protection planning, spurred by the National Fire Plan (2001) 

and Healthy Forests Restoration Act (2003). However, 

the scale of these processes and plans differed, as some 

plans covered subdivisions or neighborhoods, while others 

were for entire counties (Jakes et al. 2007). Currently, 

there are community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) in 

nearly every county and at smaller community scales in 

the NWFP area, indicating that this form of collaboration 

has become widespread (Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, California 

Fire Safe Council). However, the nature of collaboration 

around the plans also differed; some were largely developed 

by consultants and others through extensive community 

engagement and collective action (Williams et al. 2012). 

Over time, there has been an increase in community-scale 

groups collaborating beyond this planning process under 

the “cohesive strategy” process (USDA FS 2014). Twelve 

communities (two of which are in the Plan area) are 

collaborating through the tools provided by the Strategy 

to become “fire-adapted communities.” They also are 

participating in a larger nationwide network (Fire-Adapted 

Communities Network). 

No scientific research has comprehensively reviewed 

these CWPPs, but there has been some case study research. 

The largest study included 13 CWPP cases at diverse 

scales, (including two cases from the Plan area), and found 

that successful CWPP processes emphasized problem 

framing, choosing tractable scales, and ensuring a path 

toward implementation (Williams et al. 2012). Other 

studies found that trust was an essential ingredient in two 

cases in west-central Montana (Lachapelle and McCool 

2012). However, one study of two cases in Oregon (one in 

the Plan area and one in eastern Oregon) concluded that 

CWPP processes were not necessarily successful for future 

wildfire risk reduction, in part because communities could 

not or did not establish effective decisionmaking processes 

or have sufficient influence to induce change (Fleeger and 

Becker 2010).
770

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Collaboration in the Pacific Northwest has more 

recently shifted to a focus on watershed and landscape-scale 

restoration. The term “landscape” has multiple definitions 

and expressions. For the Forest Service, the Forest Landscape Restoration Act (2009) and resulting Collaborative 

Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP 2010) allocated funds to national forest units and their collaborative 

partners to work on landscapes of at least 50,000 ac (20 234 

ha) with a 10-year plan of prioritized restoration treatments 

(Schultz et al. 2012). Within the Pacific Northwest states, 

there are currently nine CFLRP projects (USDA FS 2015a). 

These are largely outside the NWFP area, given the program’s wildfire focus. Portions of the Okanagan-Wenatchee 

and Deschutes National Forests, where two CLFRPs are 

active, are within the Plan area. Insights about the program, 

however, may be applicable to future collaborative efforts 

within the Plan area. 

An initial study of the CFLRP suggested that collaborating at the landscape scale and requiring monitoring could 

result in more efficient future forest management (Schultz 

et al. 2012); but further research indicates that barriers such 

as lack of stakeholder and agency capacity may be emerging 

(Schultz et al. 2014). Another monitoring report identified 

inconsistent implementation of socioeconomic monitoring among the CFLRs (Swezy et al. 2016). Other recent 

research has dug more deeply into collaborative processes 

and collaboration during the implementation stage (Butler 

et al. 2015). Collaboration during implementation expands 

possible roles for collaborative groups, which in the past 

have been confined to planning and monitoring activities. 

Collaboration during the implementation phase also may 

strengthen accountability and stakeholder diversity (Butler 

et al. 2015). Increasing collaboration during implementation 

may pose new legal tensions; meanwhile, given that ultimate 

decisionmaking authority remains with the land management agency. Another related study finds that the program’s 

mandate to collaborate may lead to increased stakeholder 

engagement and attention to designing effective collaborative processes (Monroe and Butler 2016). Bixler and 

Kittler (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of CFLR research 

to identify research gaps. The biggest needs in research 

were related to leadership, trust, and accountability. Finally, 

Urgenson et al. (2017) examined six CFLRP collaborative 

groups, identifying common challenges (meeting multiple 

objectives; collaborative capacity and trust; and integrating 

ecological science and social values in decisionmaking) and 

strategies used to overcome these challenges.

From “collaboration” to “collaborative”—

There is little scientific documentation of how the organization and structure of federal forest land collaboration may be 

changing (Davis 2015a, 2015b, 2017) and general knowledge 

of forest collaborative groups in the NWFP gained from discussions with colleagues in regional and national conferences 

as well as preliminary (unpublished) research in Washington 

and Idaho. Numerous forest collaborative groups or “collaboratives” are now active on national forests in the NWFP 

area—working together and with the Forest Service beyond 

individual processes or projects (fig. 9-8). These groups typically have a recognized name, mission, and a regular process 

for meeting, reviewing federal land management activities, 

and providing collective input to the Forest Service. But, 

there is no single definition of “collaborative” currently 

found in federal or state policy, and likely a great degree of 

variability in what these collaboratives do and how they are 

organized between and among states. 

The trend of organized collaboratives groups has been 

extensive in Oregon, where an estimated 25 forest collaboratives are currently identified as active in all national 

Figure 9-8—South Santiam All-Lands Collaborative, Oregon.

Emily Jane Davis
771

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

forests (Davis et al. 2015a, 2017). Other Western states 

(California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Washington) 

also have growing numbers of identified collaborative 

groups. Although some of these efforts date to the 1990s, 

particularly in California and Oregon, a majority appear to 

have originated more recently (post-2009). No comprehensive assessment or empirical research on these collaboratives has been conducted. Existing research suggests that 

“collaboratives with formalized structures and workgroups” 

tend to be more successful at attracting and using resources 

than less formalized groups (Cheng and Sturtevant 2012). 

The capacity of these groups to organize and accomplish 

their goals has not been tested. 

Elements of successful collaboration— 

Notions of success depend on the particular goals of the 

participants in the collaborative process, and evaluation is 

challenging because collaborative efforts produce a variety 

of different products. The large variation in the structure, 

function, goals, context, and terminology of collaborative 

processes poses challenges for researchers, making it 

difficult to operationalize and measure collaboration and 

collaborative performance, and there is little agreement 

about what constitutes effective performance in collaborative arrangements (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015). Further, 

a majority of existing science on collaborative evaluation 

examines single or few case studies, and often, only a few 

factors of success. Therefore, the amount of generalizable or 

comprehensive information about what constitutes successful collaboration is limited. In particular, little to no research 

explicitly evaluates collaboration in the NWFP area. 

Evaluations of collaboration that do exist have tended 

to focus on combinations of process, social, environmental, 

or economic criteria (Conley and Moote 2003). For example, 

collaborative efforts are often deemed successful based on 

process outcomes such as whether the effort established a 

shared vision among participants, had diverse and inclusive 

participation, used an open and transparent process, made 

links to groups beyond those participating, and made 

decisions by consensus. Social outcomes could include 

relationships built or strengthened, increased trust, whether 

participants gained knowledge or understanding, increased 

capacity for dispute resolution, or changes in existing or 

new institutions. Process and social outcomes can be particularly confusing to analyze, because they can also be factors 

in success as well as evidence of success. A study conducted 

of six projects in national forests in eastern Oregon suggests 

that four of the six projects that had input from collaborative 

groups appeared less likely to be appealed (Summers 2014); 

more research is needed to understand potential intervening 

variables and to identify a clear definition of “collaboration” 

among these cases (box 5).

The environmental outcomes of collaboration are 

also difficult to evaluate owing to monitoring challenges, 

relatively long time frames between implementation of 

collaborative outputs and detection of environmental 

responses, and demonstrating that implementation of collaborative involvement (rather than other factors) changed 

environmental conditions (Koontz and Thomas 2006). 

Further, scientific studies of economic impacts of collaboration are also limited, although some policies and programs 

are increasingly requiring monitoring of job creation and 

economic activity. Similar to the environmental outcomes 

challenge, linking specific collaborative activities to 

economic outcomes is quite difficult.

More recent efforts to understand links between 

collaboration and performance reveal that while there 

is a perceived positive link between collaboration and 

performance, concerns remain about costs in terms of 

power, time, conflict, stress, process, suboptimal outcomes, 

and resources required (Mitchell et al. 2015). Margerum 

(2011) presented an overview of the principal elements of 

successful collaboration (see box 5), which can focus on 

inputs (information for decisionmaking); process (such as 

the equitability, diversity of participation, and other aspects 

of the decisionmaking process); outputs (assessing products, 

such as plans or agreements); performance (measuring plan 

and policy performance); outcomes (monitor actual results); 

and program logic (linking outputs to outcomes).

The available research on successful collaboration in 

federal forest lands is quite limited, and focuses on selected 

factors of success. No research is available that addresses all 

possible factors of success. From the available research, the 

following can be important ingredients for success: 
772

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

• Collaborative capacity, or the ability to “organize, 

coordinate, and manage people, resources, and tasks 

to achieve desired outcomes” (Cheng and Sturtevant 

2012: 2). 

• A shared culture and set of behaviors (Cheng 2006).

• Inclusion of all interests (Hibbard and Madsen 2003)

• Undertaking monitoring, joint fact-finding, or other 

information gathering and learning activities, which 

has been found to lead to shared understanding, 

social learning, a sense of community, and trust; 

however, research also finds that monitoring data 

are often not being used or rarely results in adaptive 

management (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008).

• Agency participation, which can demonstrate commitment and bring technical knowledge and support 

(Butler 2013, Wondolleck Yaffee 2003). 

• Genuine non-agency, community leadership 

(Cheng 2006). 

Summary—

Collaboration has been widely accepted as a useful model 

for engaging diverse stakeholders in the process of deliberation over critical forest issues, including fire, forest restoration, and wildlife protection. Collaboration requires time, 

resources, and enduring commitment. Managers choosing 

to participate in collaborative efforts may want to ensure 

they have adequate resources and provide support to staff to 

enable them to build these relationships over time. Successful agency participation in collaboration includes open 

communication, clear expectations, and realistic information about internal priorities, plans, schedules, and decision 

points. Collaborative groups may be part of the solution to 

increasing trust and social license for forest management 

to meet NWFP and other goals. Yet, not every stakeholder 

is eager to participate in a collaborative. The scope, scale, 

and end goals of a given collaborative effort may make it 

more relevant and accessible to some stakeholders than 

others. Currently, collaboratives in the NWFP area exist 

in a variety of forms and are engaged in a diversity of 

Box 5— Factors Identified With 

Successful Collaboration

Inputs:

• Clear goals

• Available information

• Appropriate scope

• No fundamental value differences

• Issues are “ripe” for collaboration

• Appropriate scale

• Appropriate authority

Process:

• Shared information

• Trust/good faith in participation

• Decision rules

• Shared vision/goals

• Diverse participation

• Satisfaction

• Membership

• Facilitation

• Legitimacy

• Support for agreement/process

Outputs:

• Plan, agreement or project

• Implementation plan

• Monitoring or enforcement 

• Clear communication 

• Shared, high-quality fact base

• Intervention strategy

Outcomes/performance:

• Difficult to evaluate because of time lag 

associated with implementation

• Difficult to link to collaborative effort 

unless well documented and monitored

• Research needed linking outcomes to specific 

actions of collaborative groups
773

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

activities, including stewardship contracting, environmental assessment for NEPA, and monitoring (Davis et al. 

2015b). Federal land management agencies have committed 

resources to collaboration and have invested in its longterm success. Collaboration is often viewed as part of the 

solution to increasing trust and social license for forest 

management. Yet, we do not have consistent evidence that 

collaboratives are achieving the goals that proponents have 

espoused, including trust building, better results on the 

ground, a reduction in appeals or litigation, or improved 

forest health. 

Research Needs, Uncertainties, 

Information Gaps, and Limitations

Socioecological systems science recognizes that human 

societies and ecological systems are interwoven and 

interdependent (Berkeset al. 2000). We understand that 

ecosystems are embedded in levels of social organization 

(Brondizio et al. 2009). Although contemporary resource 

management is built from a strong foundation of ecological 

information, knowledge of our social systems and how 

they integrate with ecological elements at the appropriate 

geographic scale is sorely lacking. The need is great for 

data that describe the socioeconomic, psychological, 

cultural, and political landscape in the NWFP. This chapter 

characterizes the current state of knowledge in the planning 

area and identifies the gaps. 

In this section, we identify the most high-priority 

research needs and significant gaps in knowledge for each 

of the five key findings of this chapter. The dearth of social 

science research in the NWFP area creates a need for a 

wide variety of studies to understand more about changing values and relations with place, changing recreation 

patterns, and changing expectations for public involvement 

in resource management. The recent emergence of collaborative forms of governance is creating new opportunities 

for the public to engage in resource management, although 

the science has not yet captured the benefits and challenges 

of collaboration. 

Public Values, Attitudes, and Beliefs

Values orientations of North Americans are said to be shifting from an emphasis on resource production to a balance of 

resource protection and production. However, little research 

has been conducted in the past 20 years to assess the current 

status of environmental values, either nationally or regionally. Longitudinal data is sorely lacking in the social sciences, 

as most research studies focus on a single case (Stidham et al. 

2014). Longitudinal social values monitoring in the NWFP 

area would help to evaluate regional trends and identify any 

subregional variations or disparities among urban, amenitymigrant, and rural residents. Values research also would be 

useful to identify value sets held by sociocultural groups 

and stakeholders with a keen interest in management of the 

NWFP lands. A better understanding of stakeholder values 

will help land managers identify and predict attitudes toward 

resource management practices such as restoration.

Constraints to conducting this work are primarily 

budgetary and regulatory. First, the cost of random-sample survey work has escalated in recent years, and societal 

trends in favor of privacy have made it challenging to 

collect survey data with an adequate response rate from 

the study population. New ways to budget for this type of 

consistent social data might be considered as well as ties 

with existing agency monitoring programs. Second, any 

survey being conducted by federal government agencies 

or on behalf of federal agencies is required to undergo 

review by the OMB per the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. This OMB approval process must ensure that the 

public is not being unduly burdened or harmed by the 

study or that the project is not redundant. Interagency 

coordination of public values studies within the NWFP 

area may help to increase efficiencies associated with 

obtaining OMB approval. 

If a process was established to monitor public values at 

reasonable iterations (every 10 years, for example), data collection and analysis could be standardized and institutionalized, with efficiencies gained. These data would benefit 

multiple resource agencies and provide the opportunity for 
774

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

public values and environmental beliefs to be considered by 

federal, state, and municipal land managers. Without these 

data at the regional or local scale, land managers are left 

to make decisions based on information gathered in public 

meetings or in small studies that are not coordinated regionally and may not accurately reflect the definitive views of a 

diverse public. 

Finally, new research about the social acceptability of 

forest management practices is warranted, with emphasis 

on public knowledge and perceptions of ecological forestry 

as well as traditional forms, reactions to a diversity of 

treatment types and setting conditions, and with a focus 

on understanding the role of trust and communication on 

shaping public responses. 

Valuing Place

Extensive literature exists on the concept of place and its 

relationship to natural resource management. However, 

very little of this research has taken place in the Pacific 

Northwest or California. The need for applied research that 

helps managers and policymakers capture and integrate into 

planning the place meanings associated with forest socioecological systems is therefore great. Findings from such 

studies can be applied to the NWFP area. 

One area for place research that has immediate practical 

utility for land managers is improving understanding of the 

physical and social characteristics associated with places that 

tend to trigger place-protective behaviors. This knowledge 

would be useful for land managers making decisions about 

what places to emphasize for protection through management, 

where to focus management, or where to allow certain activities to occur. Places mean different things to different people. 

A related research topic has to do with identifying how place 

attachment differs within forest user groups. For example, 

boaters residing near a lake may resist proposed closures of 

picnic areas on the lakeshore, whereas boaters who come from 

a distance may be indifferent to those closures. More broadly, 

place research can also help managers better understand 

where to allow certain activities by forest users and where to 

focus vegetation management and other activities. 

A gap exists in our knowledge about which public 

engagement methods are most effective for capturing place 

meanings for different segments of the public. Studies 

suggest that Internet and mail surveys as well as standard 

mapping workshops tend to be biased toward forest users 

who are older, better educated white men with relatively 

high incomes. A workshop format proved successful at 

reaching Latino forest product harvesters on the Olympic 

Peninsula (Biedenweg et al. 2014), forest users who were 

not reached through a broader mapping workshop process. 

However, only the tip of the iceberg has been seen so 

far, and more work needs to be done to determine which 

methods work for which segments of the population. Additionally, there is a mismatch between the techniques likely 

to be effective at reaching nontraditional forest users and 

the capacity of the land management agencies to conduct 

such outreach. A grassroots-driven mapping project on the 

Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest offers a promising avenue for how land management agencies can work 

with partners to augment their capacity for developing place 

meaning inventories (McLain et al. 2017a).

Finally, a regional or forestwide sense of place assessment might usefully inform forest management decisions 

and public engagement processes. Key questions might be: 

What places matter to people? To whom do they matter, 

why, or for what? How much do they matter? And, under 

what social, economic, political, and ecological circumstances do they matter? Because the answers to these questions are likely to differ depending on the socioecological 

context, a clear need exists for research that moves beyond 

isolated case studies toward a coordinated set of regionwide applied research projects. There is a need for applied 

research on place meanings and related concepts, such as 

place attachment, place identity, and place dependence. By 

applied research, we mean the systematic collection and 

analysis of data that are deliberately structured so as to 

inform land management and policy.

Cultural Ecosystem Services

A 2015 presidential memorandum directs all federal land 

managers and regulatory agencies to use an ecosystem 

services framework for planning, policymaking, and 

decisionmaking (OMB 2015), and consideration of ecosystem services is also required by the 2012 forest planning 
775

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

rule (USDA FS 2012). New research on cultural ecosystem 

services has drawn attention to the less tangible benefits 

associated with forest ecosystems. However, there have 

been few empirical studies that explore how people perceive 

cultural services, how cultural services may be operationalized, measured, and monitored, and how to integrate 

cultural services into the planning process. Case studies in 

ecosystem services management with inclusion of cultural 

services are needed to build a foundation of knowledge. In 

addition, tools and applications are needed that reinforce 

concepts in cultural ecosystem services. Early studies and 

cases in the NWFP area offer new insights and promising 

prototypes. In particular, it would be helpful to learn more 

about how cultural services have been bundled in various 

ways and whether it makes sense to unbundle them. 

Outdoor Recreation

Much of recent scientific literature on U.S. outdoor recreation is at the national level or from studies in other U.S. 

regions. Just because those studies were not completed 

in the NWFP area does not mean their findings are not 

transferable to the NWFP area. However, it would be useful 

to increase the amount of recreation research in the NWFP 

area to learn whether there are unique patterns locally. Much 

of the traditional scientific literature on national forest recreation focuses on what the authors thought were traditional 

national forest recreation activities, such as backpacking, 

primitive camping, and hunting. Contemporary recreation 

use is much more focused on short visits, often to developed 

recreation sites, and focused on generalist activities. New 

research is needed to understand how the Forest Service fits 

into current and future demands for the full suite of leisure 

patterns by Americans, and specific desired outcomes from 

national forest recreation. The recreation research literature 

lacks comprehensive studies of multiple, combined factors 

of sustainable recreation; most of the current literature has 

focused on one or two factors (e.g., economic impacts, social 

impacts) individually, and does not look at the whole array 

of factors in an integrated fashion. Comprehensive studies 

that consider integrated factors of sustainable recreation 

will inform managers as they respond to policy direction to 

manage for sustainable recreation. 

Trust

Research on trust has identified and defined multiple types 

of trust in the context of natural resource governance. Stern 

and Coleman (2014) identified four types of trust: dispositional (one’s natural inclination to trust); rational (stemming 

from predictable behavior, past performance, and reasoned 

logic); affinitive (based on personal relationships that 

develop through repeated encounters); and procedural 

(based on having processes that are viewed as fair, just, 

and open). A follow up study found that at least three types 

of trust needed to be present for broader institutional trust 

to be acknowledged (Stern and Baird 2015). Although this 

study was conducted in the context of natural resource 

collaborative groups, the trust typology is applicable to 

other forms of forest governance. More research is needed 

to understand the various types of trust and how they interact. For example, how does affinitive (interpersonal) trust 

relate to broader agency trust? What happens when rational 

trust declines, while procedural trust grows? What types of 

processes and protocols help to enhance procedural trust? 

There are opportunities to explore how broad-based 

trust for a public agency affects project-level trust, and 

vice versa. In other words, what happens when the public 

distrusts the agency at the national policy level but has 

greater trust in the ability of local officials to manage a 

project? And, what happens when there is high broad-based 

trust in an agency’s purpose, but lack of trust at the project 

level? In addition, more information is needed about the 

ways that public trust can influence social acceptability of 

forest management practices, such as active management 

and forest restoration as well as prescribed burns. Finally, 

trust can be enhanced through participation in various types 

of public engagement opportunities and in collaborative 

or comanagement groups. Yet, it is not clear what types of 

trust may be generated by these different types of processes. 

Public Involvement

Peer-reviewed research on public involvement is limited in 

the NWFP area. Broad-scale questions exist concerning the 

disconnect between participatory requirements and Forest 

Service structures and cultural norms. Practical policy 

implications of public involvement in decisionmaking lead 
776

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

to questions of accountability, such as: To what degree 

does the agency give up some control and still maintain 

or improve social, economic, and ecological outcomes? 

Perhaps more fundamental is the question: What results 

are important to achieving socially sustainable outcomes? 

The application of stakeholder and social network analysis 

within the government sector remains largely untapped, 

and could provide a wealth of knowledge about building 

effective networks in support of the public good. Specific 

questions also exist concerning public involvement methods 

employed by the “early adopter” national forests engaged in 

planning under the 2012 planning rule. 

Forest Service social scientists can play a much greater 

role in assisting the agency develop innovative public 

involvement strategies. Although the field of social science 

is diverse, expertise exists in the methods and practice of 

understanding values, attitudes, and beliefs; stakeholder and 

social network analysis; and place identity and attachment 

through tools like public participation GIS. Integration of 

these foundational methods and practices into programmatic forest planning can increase the likelihood that land 

management decisions better reflect the diverse range of 

public and tribal interests. 

Agency Collaboration

Very little research has been conducted on forest collaboration in the NWFP area, and our synthesis only examines 

research on Forest Service-related collaborative efforts. 

Therefore, many gaps and research needs exist. First, 

large-scale, comprehensive studies of collaborative forest 

management and how it has changed are needed, including 

basic information about how many collaboratives exist and 

how they are defined and function. It is not possible to say 

whether communities are more engaged with the agency 

than before, or how, as there is no commonly accepted 

definition of “engagement” or what would indicate “more 

engagement.” Research on collaboratives tends to occur via 

case studies, and single case studies are not generalizable 

to broader scales. Further, because much collaboration has 

occurred around wildfire in dry forests, few studies have 

focused on the NWFP area, which means there is even less 

clarity about the drivers, activities, outputs and outcomes of 

collaboration. Many NWFP forests differ from their eastside counterparts in terms of higher annual precipitation, 

longer historical fire-frequency intervals, diverse moist/

wet forest types, presence of endangered species, different 

forest health challenges, increased population density, and 

proximity to urban areas; southern Oregon and northern 

California forests have more frequent fire and a mixture of 

east- and west-side characteristics. 

Second, no scientific evaluations have been conducted 

on whether, or how, collaboratives are achieving resource 

management goals or social or economic objectives. No 

studies measure these goals or outcomes, or identify what 

can be attributed specifically to collaboratives as opposed 

to other variables such as economic change, agency or 

other organizational change, efforts from programs and 

activities occurring outside the collaboratives, etc. One 

study monitored changes in several indicators such as 

timber harvest, acres restored, and jobs created as a result 

of the state’s Federal Forest Health Program in Oregon, but 

it did not clearly link these outcomes to specific activities 

of collaboratives (White et al. 2015). One master’s thesis 

examined the question of whether collaboratives in eastern 

Oregon are decreasing appeals—a topic of great interest to 

managers and policymakers—but the evidence was largely 

inconclusive (Summers 2014). 

Beyond these broad questions, additional questions 

about collaboratives remain unanswered and present rich 

opportunities for future research. Some of these relate 

to process: How do collaboratives build, codify, and use 

social agreement? Does the agency use the agreements that 

collaboratives make, and if so, how? Other questions relate 

to the roles of various stakeholder types (e.g., industry, 

conservation, American Indian tribes) and whether and 

how they participate. How collaboration relates to other 

processes such as consultation with tribes or the established public process used during environmental planning 

is not well understood. Moreover, the potential tradeoffs of 

forming an enduring collaborative group versus a collaborative process for specific issues or decisions have not 

been assessed. For example, do the investments in capacity 

and organizational development of collaborative groups 

pay off in outcomes? Do collaborative groups offer input 
777

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

that accurately reflects the spectrum of public values? In 

general, the need for collaborative groups or processes may 

differ and collaboration may not provide solutions for all 

issues in all places. Additional questions concern collaboratives and knowledge production, as many collaboratives 

focus on “science-based restoration.” How compatible are 

scientific and collaborative processes? What role do collaboratives and agencies have in bringing science to bear 

on management? Finally, few if any studies have examined 

the ability of collaboratives to endure and adapt in the face 

of shocks and stressors, such as large wildfires, climate 

change, or community social discord. 

Conclusions and Management 

Considerations

Conservation goals are most often met when ecological and 

social elements are integrated (Charnley 2006). Socioecological system (SES) science recognizes that changes to 

society, including demographic shifts, changes in human 

settlement patterns, new governance structures or regulations, can affect interactions with the natural environment 

and likewise, large-scale landscape and climate variations 

can affect human institutions, such as markets and communities. Greater awareness of how social and ecological 

systems intersect will help resource managers improve 

the quality of their decisionmaking. This includes greater 

understanding of human values and management preferences, place-relations, resource uses, and visitation patterns. 

New participatory strategies have attempted to democratize 

and deepen citizen engagement in environmental decisionmaking. The proliferation of collaborative institutions has 

the potential to influence future management of ecological 

systems. As agencies expand their conceptualizations of forest resources from “sustained yield” to “ecosystem management” to “ecosystem services” in the NWFP area, there are 

no doubt implications for what this means on the ground. A 

greater recognition of diverse stakeholder values and place 

attachments, of shifting visitation patterns across the forest 

landscape, and of the opportunities for public expression of 

these values will enhance efforts to understand the NWFP 

area as a dynamic and integrated system. This chapter notes 

several highlights of interest to resource managers. 

Systematic and steady research and monitoring of 

public values will enhance our understanding of what is 

important to people living in and around the NWFP area, 

or who have a stake in the future of these lands. A greater 

understanding of environmental values associated with 

public lands can improve the ability of land managers to 

weigh public needs alongside the best available science 

to make management decisions. Information about public 

values, attitudes, and beliefs also allows managers to 

anticipate conflicts in values and develop strategies for 

communicating with stakeholders. As societal values shift, 

public responses to resource policies and decisions will 

also likely evolve. And, as population changes occur, new 

migrants can influence the existing composition of values 

and value orientations within a particular subregion. Land 

managers who have access to up-to-date information about 

the values, beliefs, and preferences of both the general 

public and a variety of stakeholders and socioeconomic 

groups at the appropriate geographic scale will be better 

equipped to understand characteristics of their social system 

and anticipate the need for change. Moreover, social system 

data gathered at the appropriate scale can be integrated 

with biophysical data about ecological conditions to expand 

understanding of the complex socioecological system and 

identify possible barriers and opportunities in implementing 

management plans. 

Residents of the NWFP area embody a range of views 

related to the social acceptability of various land uses, 

including timber harvest and these views are based on their 

environmental values, connections to place, knowledge of 

harvest practices, awareness of goals and outcomes, and 

degrees of trust. Existing research suggests that stakeholders and citizens in the NWFP generally do not support 

clearcutting as a desirable silviculture strategy. There does 

appear to be potential public support for alternative harvest 

strategies, such as disturbance-based management and other 

practices that mimic natural processes, particularly when 

old-growth forests can be avoided. 

Recognition of the symbolic meanings and emotional 

ties that people have with places is important for engaging 

people in stewardship efforts, encouraging collaboration, and engaging the public in resource management. 
778

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The scientific evidence about the importance of place is 

unequivocal. Places and the meanings that are bound up in 

them have real implications for forest ecosystem management. Managers can take advantage of the positive power 

of place as the bonds that people have with places can also 

motivate them to engage in forest stewardship projects. By 

recognizing and appealing to these bonds, managers may 

be able to attract volunteers with substantial knowledge of 

local conditions to accomplish objectives.

The variability that exists in place meanings, together 

with the strong feelings that are bound up in people-place 

relationships, suggests that broad-based public engagement 

processes are critical at an early stage of the planning 

process. There are great benefits in considering the dynamics of place in a systematic way. For example, a conflict 

over forest management that threatens the social identity 

of stakeholders may call for a very different outreach 

and involvement approach than another type of conflict 

where place is important, but not critical to social identity. 

Because place meanings are dynamic and constantly being 

renegotiated, a public engagement process that emphasizes 

multiple ways of collecting data about place meanings and 

that is deliberately designed to reach out to a broad spectrum of the public, is far more likely to capture the range 

of meanings than processes that rely on only one type of 

information gathering approach. 

Cultural ecosystem services provides a framework for 

land managers in the NWFP area to consider the diversity 

of spiritual, aesthetic, recreation, heritage, discovery and 

learning, and therapeutic benefits associated with forest 

settings. Recreation is one example of a quantifiable and 

measurable benefit that currently is monitored by federal 

agencies, along with scenic resources and heritage sites. 

Other aspects of cultural ecosystem services, like spirituality, solitude, wilderness therapy and education, are managed, but not actively tallied, which is a missed opportunity. 

A growing emphasis on cultural ecosystem services will 

allow resource managers to recognize the variety of benefits 

associated with a forest and stakeholder attachment to sets 

of benefits. The ecosystem services framework may prove 

useful in identifying and measuring a full range of benefits 

and values assigned to forests and landscapes. 

Recreation visits are expected to grow in day-use settings and developed facilities. At the national level, current 

scientific literature indicates that the numbers of people 

participating in outdoor recreation will increase in the coming decades with continued population growth, although 

participation rates will be relatively flat. From general 

public surveys and NFS visitor monitoring, we know that 

the vast majority of outdoor recreation use is for general 

recreation activities, like hiking, viewing nature, visiting 

nature centers, viewing wildlife. Further, NFS recreation 

monitoring indicates that the vast majority of recreation 

visits to national forests are relatively brief, lasting less than 

one-half day, and the majority are focused on recreation at 

developed sites (e.g., day-use areas, campgrounds, visitor 

centers). Recognition of that pattern of use is helpful when 

considering the amount of resources committed to managing general, common recreation activities versus more 

specialized, but perhaps higher profile, activities in which 

fewer people are engaged. The greatest barriers to participating in outdoor recreation identified in the literature are 

items over which Forest Service managers have limited 

control: lack of time and distance to national forests. For 

items the Forest Service can control, expanding personal 

safety at recreation sites, improving signage, and providing 

information, all have been found to have positive effects on 

user perceptions of site conditions.

Developing decisionmaking processes and protocols 

that are consistent, reliable, fair, and transparent can help to 

improve institutional trust. The degree of trust established 

between public agencies, stakeholders, and communities is 

an important factor in public support for resource management decisions. Trust is not fixed, but rather is dynamic and 

iterative—modified by each encounter and shared experience. Public trust of natural resource agencies may vary 

between the local (or project) level and the national (broadbased) level. Trust exists in multiple forms: dispositional 

(based on inclination), rational (based on predictability), 

affinitive (based on relationships), and procedural (based 

on process), and although trust levels between entities 

can vary among those four types, enduring trust cannot 

exist without at least three of these present. Having clearly 

stated objectives, consistent communication, transparent 
779

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

processes, reasonable timelines, honored commitments, 

and opportunities for candid deliberation can enhance trust. 

Enduring personal relationships also are important. 

The quality of a resource management decision is 

strongly dependent on the quality of the process that 

leads to it. The necessity of designing public involvement 

strategies that resonate with a dynamic and diverse range 

of interests is imperative to ensuring sound decisionmaking 

affecting Forest Service lands. Best practices provide critical components of an effective public participation strategy, 

and offer useful guidance for incorporation into decision 

processes (Reed 2008), including: a philosophy of empowerment, equity, and inclusiveness; systematic assessment of 

potentially relevant stakeholders and strategies to encourage 

participation; engaging stakeholders early in the process; 

iterative or frequent engagement throughout the process; 

clear objectives, timelines, and parameters; skilled facilitation; integration of local and scientific knowledge; and 

enduring agency commitment to the process. The NEPA 

grants the Forest Service broad discretion in the public 

involvement process, and therefore this process should take 

full advantage of the spectrum of opportunities available. 

Inconsistent use of “collaboration” as a catch-all 

term for public involvement has often led to conflicting 

expectations on the part of agency employees, stakeholders, 

and tribal entities. These different expectations can result 

in reduced trust, and more importantly, less willingness 

to participate in long-term planning. The IAP2 Public 

Participation Spectrum can assist in selecting the level(s) 

of participation that define(s) the public’s role throughout a 

forest plan revision effort. Different phases of plan revision 

or any management decision process may call for different 

levels of public engagement. The key is defining these 

various levels of public participation prior to initiation of 

plan revision, ensuring the public a meaningful and robust 

participation process (Arnstein 1969). 

 Collaboration takes time, resources, and long-term 

commitment from all parties. Managers seeking to initiate 

or participate in a collaborative process or group may want 

to consider that collaboration, particularly through an 

organized group, is typically time consuming, requiring 

tremendous commitment and effort to build and maintain 

relationships. Managers choosing to participate in collaborative efforts may want to ensure they have adequate 

resources and provide support to staff who collaborate, so 

they can build these relationships over time. 

Successful agency participation in collaboration 

includes open communication, clear expectations, and 

realistic information about internal priorities, plans, and 

timelines. If plans or timelines change, it helps to provide 

timely and transparent information. Managers can also aid 

collaborative efforts by notifying participants of future 

decision points, and how they may use any collaborative 

input that they receive. Collaborative groups may be part of 

the solution to increasing trust and social license for forest 

management to meet NWFP and other goals.

Collaboration is not the answer for every situation. 

Not every stakeholder for a management unit will be 

eager to participate in an organized collaborative group or 

process. If the alternatives to collaboration are expected 

to be better than participation, some stakeholders may opt 

out. In some cases, the outcome from an agency appeal or 

court decision process may be preferred over collaboration. 

Moreover, the scope, scale, and end goals of a given collaborative effort may make it more relevant and accessible to 

some stakeholders than others. Research about the effectiveness of collaborative groups for achieving social and 

ecological goals is still underway. Until we have definitive 

results, we do not really know yet whether collaboration is 

the ultimate answer.

Literature Cited

Abramowitz, A.I.; Saunders, K.L. 2006. Exploring the 

bases of partisanship in the American electorate: social 

identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly. 59(2): 

175–187. doi:10.1177/106591290605900201.

Abrams, J.; Kelly, E.; Shindler, B.; Wilton, J. 2005.

Value orientation and forest management: the forest 

health debate. Environmental Management. 36(4): 

495–505. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-7256-8.

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. 

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 

50(2): 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t.
780

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. 2005. The influence of attitudes on 

behavior. In: Albarracín, D.; Johnson, B.T.; Zanna, M.P., 

eds. The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates: 173–221.

Alessa, L.; Kliskey, A.; Brown, G. 2008. Social–

ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for 

identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 85(1): 27–39. doi:10.1016/j.

landurbplan.2007.09.007.

Allen, S.D.; Wickwar, D.A.; Clark, F.P.; Dow, R.R.; Potts, 

R.; Snyder, S.A. 2009. Values, beliefs, and attitudes 

technical guide for Forest Service land and resource 

management, planning, and decision-making. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-788. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 112 p. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-788.

Amburgey, J.W.; Thoman, D.B. 2012. Dimensionality of 

the new ecological paradigm. Environment and Behavior. 

44(2): 235–256. doi:10.1177/0013916511402064.

Amiot, C.E.; de la Sablonniere, R.; Smith, L.G.E.; 

Smith, J.R. 2015. Capturing changes in social identities 

over time and how they become part of the self-concept. 

Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 9(4): 

171–187. doi:10.1111/spc3.12169.

Amy, D.J. 1987. The politics of environmental mediation. 

New York: Columbia University Press. 255 p.

Andereck, K.L.; Valentine, K.M.; Knopf, R.C.; Vogt, 

C.A. 2005. Residents’ perceptions of community 

tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research. 32(4): 

1056–1076. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2005.03.001.

Anton, C.E.; Lawrence, C. 2014. Home is where the heart 

is: the effect of place of residence on place attachment 

and community participation. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 40: 451–461. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.10.007.

Ardoin, N.M. 2014. Exploring sense of place and 

environmental behavior at an ecoregional scale in three 

sites. Human Ecology. 42(3): 425–441. doi:10.1007/

s10745-014-9652-x.

Ardoin, N.M.; Schuh, J.S.; Gould, R.K. 2012. Exploring 

the dimensions of place: a confirmatory factor 

analysis of data from three ecoregional sites. 

Environmental Education Research. 18(5): 583–

607. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.640930.

Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. 

Journal of the American Planning Association. 35(4): 

216–224.

Asah, S.T.; Blahna, D.J.; Ryan, C.M. 2012. Involving 

forest communities in identifying and constructing 

ecosystem services: millennium assessment and 

place specificity. Journal of Forestry. 110(3): 149–

156. doi:10.5849/jof.11-054.

Asah, S.T.; Guerry, A.D.; Blahna, D.J.; Lawler, J.J. 

2014. Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem 

services: human behavior, and ecosystem management 

and policy implications. Ecosystem Services. 10: 180–

186. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.003.

Austin, E. 2004. Building on place: a conceptual 

foundation for civic discourse in public administration. 

Administrative Theory and Practice. 26(3): 345–361.

Bacow, L.S.; Wheeler, M. 1984. Environmental dispute 

resolution. New York: Plenum Press. 372 p.

Baker, M.; Kusel, J. 2003. Community forestry in the 

United States: learning from the past, crafting the future. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 247 p.

Batavia, C.; Nelson, M.P. 2016. Conceptual ambiguities 

and practical challenges of ecological forestry: a critical 

review. Journal of Forestry. 114(5): 572–581. doi:10.5849/

jof.15-103.

Beaudin, L.; Huang, J.-C. 2014. Weather conditions and 

outdoor recreation: a study of New England ski areas. 

Ecological Economics. 106: 56–68. doi:10.1016/

j.ecolecon.2014.07.011.
781

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Beierle, T.C.; Konisky, D.M. 2000. Values, conflict, and 

trust in participatory environmental planning. Journal 

of Policy Analysis and Management. 19(4): 587–

602. doi:10.1002/1520-6688(200023)19:4<587::

aid-pam4>3.0.co;2-q.

Bengston, D.N. 1994. Changing forest values and 

ecosystem management. Society & Natural Resources. 

7(6): 515–533. doi:10.1080/08941929409380885.

Bengston, D.N.; Fan, D.P. 1999. Roads on the U.S. national 

forests. Environment and Behavior. 31(4): 514–539. 

doi:10.1177/00139169921972218.

Bengston, D.N.; Webb, T.J.; Fan, D.P. 2004. Shifting 

forest value orientations in the United States, 1980–2001: 

a computer content analysis. Environmental Values. 

13(3): 373–392. doi:10.3197/096327104323312734.

Bengston, D.N.; Xu, Z. 1995. Changing national forest 

values: a content analysis. Res. Pap. NC-RP-323. St. 

Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 29 p. 

doi:10.2737/NC-RP-323.

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C., eds. 2000. Linking 

social and ecological systems: management practices and 

social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 476 p.

Beverly, J.L.; Uto, K.; Wilkes, J.; Bothwell, P. 2008.

Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: 

an internet-based participatory mapping approach. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38(2): 289–

303. doi:10.1139/x07-149.

Bevir, M. 2013. Governance: a very short introduction. 

Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 144 p.

Biedenweg, K.; Cerveny, L.; McLain, R. 2014. Values 

mapping with Latino forest users: contributing to the 

dialogue on multiple land use conflict management. 

Practicing Anthropology. 36(1): 33–37.

Bixler, R.P.; Kittler, B. 2015. Collaborative forest 

landscape restoration: a meta-analysis of existing 

research on the CFLR Program. Washington, DC: 

Pinchot Institute for Conservation. http://www.xalioxs.

pinchot.org/pubs/548. (15 December 2017).

Bliss, J.C. 2000. Public perceptions of clearcutting. 

Journal of Forestry. 98(12): 4–9.

Bliss, J.C.; Nepal, S.K.; Brooks, R.T.; Larsen, M.D. 

1997. In the mainstream: environmental attitudes of 

mid-south forest owners. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry. 21(1): 37–43.

Bowker, J.; Askew, A.; Poudyal, N.; Zarnoch, S.; 

Seymour, L.; Cordell, H. 2013. Climate change and 

outdoor recreation participation in the southern United 

States. In: Vose, J.M.; Klepzig, K.D., eds. A guide for 

natural resource managers in southern forest ecosystems. 

Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 421–450. doi:10.1201/

b15613-13.

Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; 

Zarnoch, S.J.; Seymour, L. 2012. Outlook for outdoor 

recreation in the United States: a technical document 

supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-160. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 34 p. doi:10.2737/srs-gtr-160.

Bowker, J.M.; Murphy, D.; Cordell, H.K.; English, 

D.B.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Starbuck, C.M.; Betz, 

C.J.; Green, G.T. 2006. Wilderness and primitive 

area recreation participation and consumption: an 

examination of demographic and spatial factors. Journal 

of Agricultural and Applied Economics. 38(02): 317–

326. doi:10.1017/s1074070800022355.

Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, 

A.S. 2010. A systematic review of evidence for the added 

benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. 

BMC Public Health. 10(1): 456. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-

10-456.
782

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Braat, L.C.; de Groot, R. 2012. The ecosystem services 

agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and 

economics, conservation and development, and 

public and private policy. Ecosystem Services. 1(1): 

4–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011.

Braithwaite, J. 1998. Institutionalizing distrust, 

enculturating trust. In: Braithwaite, V.; Levi, M., eds. 

Trust and governance. New York: Russell Sate: 343–375.

Bright, A.; Manfredo, M.; Fulton, D. 2000. Segmenting 

the public: an application of value orientations to wildlife 

planning in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(1): 

218–226.

Brondizio, E.S.; Ostrom, E.; Young, O.R. 2009.

Connectivity and the governance of multilevel socialecological systems: the role of social capital. Annual 

Review of Environment and Resources. 34(1): 253–

278. doi:10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707.

Brown, G. 2004. Mapping spatial attributes in survey 

research for natural resource management: methods 

and applications. Society and Natural Resources. 

18(1): 17–39.

Brown, G. 2006. Mapping landscape values and 

development preferences: a method for tourism and 

residential development planning. International Journal 

of Tourism Research. 8(2): 101–113. doi:10.1002/jtr.562.

Brown, G. 2012. Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for 

regional and environmental planning: reflections on a 

decade of empirical research. URISA Journal. 25(2): 5–16.

Brown, G. 2013. Relationships between spatial and nonspatial preferences and place-based values in national 

forests. Applied Geography. 44: 1–11.

Brown, G.; Alessa, L. 2005. A GIS-based inductive 

study of wilderness values. International Journal of 

Wilderness. 11(1): 14–18.

Brown, G.; Brabyn, L. 2012. An analysis of the 

relationships between multiple values and physical 

landscapes at a regional scale using public participation 

GIS and landscape character classification. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 107(3): 317–331. doi:10.1016/j.

landurbplan.2012.06.007.

Brown, G.; Donovan, S. 2013. Escaping the national forest 

planning quagmire: using public participation GIS to 

assess acceptable national forest use. Journal of Forestry. 

111(2): 115–125. doi:10.5849/jof.12-087.

Brown, G.; Donovan, S. 2014. Measuring change in 

place values for environmental and natural resource 

planning using public participation GIS (PPGIS): 

results and challenges for longitudinal research. 

Society & Natural Resources. 27(1): 36–54. doi:

10.1080/08941920.2013.840023.

Brown, G.; Fagerholm, N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS 

mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. 

Ecosystem Services. 13: 119–133. doi:10.1016/j.

ecoser.2014.10.007.

Brown, G.; Kelly, M.; Whitall, D. 2013. Which ‘public’? 

Sampling effects in public participation GIS (PPGIS) 

and volunteered geographic information (VGI) systems 

for public lands management. Journal of Environmental 

Planning and Management. 57(2): 190–214. doi:10.1080/

09640568.2012.741045.

Brown, G.; Kyttä, M. 2014. Key issues and 

research priorities for public participation GIS 

(PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. 

Applied Geography. 46: 122–136. doi:10.1016/j.

apgeog.2013.11.004.

Brown, G.; Montag, J.M.; Lyon, K. 2012. Public 

participation GIS: a method for identifying ecosystem 

services. Society & Natural Resources. 25(7): 633–

651. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.621511.

Brown, G.; Raymond, C. 2007. The relationship between 

place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping 

place attachment. Applied Geography. 27(2): 89–

111. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002.
783

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Brown, G.; Reed, P. 2000. Typology for use in national 

forest planning. Forest Science. 46: 240–247.

Brown, G.; Reed, P. 2009. Public participation GIS: a 

new method for use in national forest planning. Forest 

Science. 55(2): 166–182.

Brown, G.; Reed, P. 2012. Values compatibility analysis: 

using public participation geographic information 

systems (PPGIS) for decision support in national forest 

management. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy. 5(4): 

317–332. doi:10.1007/s12061-011-9072-x.

Brown, G.; Reed, P.; Harris, C.C. 2002. Testing a placebased theory for environmental evaluation: an Alaska 

case study. Applied Geography. 22(1): 49–76. doi:10.1016/

s0143-6228(01)00019-4.

Brown, G.; Weber, D. 2012. Measuring change in 

place values using public participation GIS (PPGIS). 

Applied Geography. 34: 316–324. doi:10.1016/j.

apgeog.2011.12.007.

Brown, R.N.K.; Rosenberger, R.S.; Kline, J.D.; Hall, 

T.E.; Needham, M.D. 2008. Visitor preferences for 

managing wilderness recreation after wildfire. Journal 

of Forestry. 106(1): 9–16.

Brown, T.C. 1984. The concept of value in resource 

allocation. Land Economics. 60(3): 231–246.

Brown, T.C.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Loomis, J.B. 2007.

Defining, valuing and providing ecosystem goods and 

services. Natural Resources Journal. 47(2): 329–376.

Bruña-García, X.; Marey-Pérez, M.F. 2014. Public 

participation: a need of forest planning. iForest—

Biogeosciences and Forestry. 7(4): 216–226. doi:10.3832/

ifor0979-007.

Brunson, M.W. 1996. A definition of “social acceptability” 

in ecosystem management. In: Brunson, M.W.; Kruger, 

L.E.; Tyler, C.B.; Schroeder, S.A., eds. Defining social 

acceptability in ecosystem management: a workshop 

proceedings. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-369. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 7–16. http://dx.doi.

org/10.2737/pnw-gtr-369 doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-369.

Brunson, M.W.; Reiter, D.K. 1996. Effects of ecological 

information on judgments about scenic impacts of 

timber harvest. Journal of Environmental Management. 

46(1): 31-41.

Brunson, M.W.; Shindler, B.; Steel, B.S. 1997. Consensus 

and dissension among rural and urban publics 

concerning forest management in the Pacific Northwest. 

In: Steel, B.S., ed. Public lands management in the west: 

citizens, interest groups, and values. Westport, CT: 

Praeger: 83–94.

Brunson, M.W.; Steel, B.S. 1996. Sources of variation 

in attitudes and beliefs about federal rangeland 

management. Journal of Range Management. 49(1): 

69. doi:10.2307/4002728.

Brussard, P.F.; Reed, J.M.; Tracy, C.R. 1998. Ecosystem 

management: What is it really? Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 40(1–3): 9–20. doi:10.1016/s0169-

2046(97)00094-7.

Bruyere, B.; Rappe, S. 2007. Identifying the motivations 

of environmental volunteers. Journal of Environmental 

Planning and Management. 50(4): 503–516. 

doi:10.1080/09640560701402034.

Bryan, B.A.; Raymond, C.M.; Crossman, N.D.; 

Macdonald, D.H. 2010. Targeting the management of 

ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, 

and how? Landscape and Urban Planning. 97(2): 111–

122. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.002.

Bryan, T.A. 2004. Tragedy averted: the promise of 

collaboration. Society & Natural Resources. 17(10): 

881–896. doi:10.1080/08941920490505284.
784

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Bryan, T.A. 2008. Aligning identity: social identity and 

changing context in community-based environmental 

conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. 321 p. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Bryce, R.; Irvine, K.N.; Church, A.; Fish, R.; Ranger, 

S.; Kenter, J.O. 2016. Subjective well-being indicators 

for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem 

services. Ecosystem Services. 21: 258–269. doi:10.1016/j.

ecoser.2016.07.015.

Buckley, L.B.; Foushee, M.S. 2012. Footprints of climate 

change in US national park visitation. International 

Journal of Biometeorology. 56(6): 1173–1177. doi:10.1007/

s00484-011-0508-4.

Burchfield, J.A.; Miller, J.M.; Allen, S.; Schroeder, 

R.F.; Miller, T. 2003. Social implications of alternatives 

to clearcutting on the Tongass National Forest: an 

exploratory study of residents’ responses to alternative 

silvicultural treatments at Hanus Bay, Alaska. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-575. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 28 p. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-575.

Burke, C.A. 2013. Who litigates and who collaborates? 

Evidence from environmental groups influencing 

national forest management. Interest Groups & 

Advocacy. 2(2): 163–184. doi:10.1057/iga.2013.1.

Burnett, M.; Davis, C. 2002. Getting out the cut: 

politics and national forest timber harvests,1960–1995. 

Administration and Society. 34: 208–228.

Burns, R.C.; Graefe, A.R. 2006. Service quality measures: 

recreationists’ perceptions of US Pacific Northwest 

national forests. World Leisure Journal. 48(1): 40–

51. doi:10.1080/04419057.2006.9674429.

Burns, R.C.; Graefe, A.R. 2007. Constraints to outdoor 

recreation: exploring the effects of disabilities on 

perceptions and participation. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 39(1): 156–181.

Burton, J. 1990. Conflict: resolution and prevention. 

New York: St. Martin’s Press. 320 p.

Butler, W.H. 2013. Collaboration at arm’s length: 

navigating agency engagement in landscape-scale 

ecological restoration collaboratives. Journal of Forestry. 

111(6): 395–403. doi:10.5849/jof.13-027.

Butler, W.H.; Monroe, A.; McCaffrey, S. 2015.

Collaborative implementation for ecological 

restoration on US public lands: implications for legal 

context, accountability, and adaptive management. 

Environmental Management. 55(3): 564–577. doi:10.1007/

s00267-014-0430-8.

Caissie, L.T.; Halpenny, E.A. 2003. Volunteering for 

nature: motivations for participating in a biodiversity 

conservation volunteer program. World Leisure Journal. 

45(2): 38–50. doi:10.1080/04419057.2003.9674315.

California State Parks. 2014. Survey on public opinions 

and attitudes on outdoor recreation in California, 

2012. Sacramento, CA.

Cantrill, J.G.; Senecah, S.L. 2001. Using the ‘sense of 

self-in-place’ construct in the context of environmental 

policy-making and landscape planning. Environmental 

Science & Policy. 4(4-5): 185–203. doi:10.1016/s1462-

9011(01)00023-5.

Carlsson, J.; Wängqvist, M.; Frisén, A. 2015. Identity 

development in the late twenties: a never ending story. 

Developmental Psychology. 51(3): 334–345. doi:10.1037/

a0038745.

Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, 

D.; DeFries, R.S.; Diaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, 

A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; Perrings, C.; 

Reid, W.V.; Sarukhan, J.; Scholes, R.J.; Whyte, A. 

2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond 

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(5): 1305–

1312. doi:10.1073/pnas.0808772106.

Carpini, M.X.D.; Cook, F.L.; Jacobs, L.R. 2004. Public 

deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen 

engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual 

Review of Political Science. 7(1): 315–344. doi:10.1146/

annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630.
785

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Cerveny, L.K.; Biedenweg, K.; McLain, R. 2017.

Mapping meaningful places on Washington’s Olympic 

Peninsula: toward a deeper understanding of landscape 

values. Environmental Management. 60(4): 643–

664. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0900-x.

Cerveny, L.K.; Blahna, D.J.; Stern, M.J.; Mortimer, M.; 

Freeman, J.W. 2011. Forest Service interdisciplinary 

teams: size, composition, and leader characteristics. 

Journal of Forestry. 109(4): 201–207.

Chan, K.M.A.; Goldstein, J.; Satterfield, T.; Hannahs, 

N.; Kikiloi, K.; Naidoo, R.; Vadeboncoeur, N.; 

Woodside, U. 2011. Cultural services and non-use 

values. In: Kareiva, P.M.; Tallis, H.; Ricketts, T.H.; 

Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S., eds. Natural capital: theory 

& practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford, 

United Kingdom: Oxford University Press: 206–

228. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588992.003.0012.

Chan, K.M.A.; Satterfield, T.; Goldstein, J. 2012.

Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and 

navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics. 74: 

8–18. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011.

Charnley, S., ed. 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. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-649.

Charnley, S.; McLain, R.J.; Donoghue, E.M. 2008.

Forest management policy, amenity migration, and 

community well-being in the American West: reflections 

from the Northwest Forest Plan. Human Ecology. 36(5): 

743–761. doi:10.1007/s10745-008-9192-3.

Cheng, A.S. 2006. Build it and they will come—mandating 

collaboration in public lands planning and management. 

Natural Resources Journal. 46: 841–858.

Cheng, A.S.; Daniels, S.E. 2003. Examining the 

interaction between geographic scale and ways of 

knowing in ecosystem management: a case study of 

place-based collaborative planning. Forest Science. 

49(6): 841–854.

Cheng, A.S.; Kruger, L.E. 2008. Collaborative place-based 

forest planning: a case example from the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest in western 

Colorado. In: Kruger, L.E.; Hall, T.E.; Stiefel, M.C., eds. 

Understanding concepts of place in recreation research 

and management. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 175–197. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-744.

Cheng, A.S.; Kruger, L.E.; Daniels, S.E. 2003. “Place” 

as an integrating concept in natural resource 

politics: propositions for a social science research 

agenda. Society & Natural Resources. 16(2): 87–

104. doi:10.1080/08941920309199.

Cheng, A.S.; Mattor, K.M. 2006. Why won’t they come? 

Stakeholder perspectives on collaborative national 

forest planning by participation level. Environmental 

Management. 38(4): 545–561. doi:10.1007/s00267-005-

0124-3.

Cheng, A.S.; Mattor, K.M. 2010. Place-based planning 

as a platform for social learning: insights from a 

national forest landscape assessment process in western 

Colorado. Society & Natural Resources. 23(5): 385–

400. doi:10.1080/08941920802178198.

Cheng, A.S.; Sturtevant, V.E. 2012. A framework for 

assessing collaborative capacity in community-based 

public forest management. Environmental Management. 

49(3): 675–689. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9801-6.

Chess, C.; Purcell, K. 1999. Public participation and the 

environment: Do we know what works? Environmental 

Science & Technology. 33(16): 2685–2692. doi:10.1021/

es980500g.

Child, S.; Kaczynski, A.T.; Sharpe, P.A.; Wilcox, S.; 

Schoffman, D.E.; Forthofer, M.; Mowen, A.J.; BarrAnderson, D.J. 2015. Demographic differences in 

perceptions of outdoor recreation areas across a decade. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 33(2): 1–19.
786

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Clement, J.M.; Cheng, A.S. 2011. Using analyses of public 

value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform 

national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. 

Applied Geography. 31(2): 393–400.

Coen, S.; Meredith, J.; Condie, J. 2017. I dig therefore we 

are: community archaeology, place-based social identity, 

and intergroup relations within local communities. 

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 

27(3): 212–225. doi:10.1002/casp.2299.

Cohen, G.L.; Sherman, D.K. 2014. The psychology 

of change: self-affirmation and social psychological 

intervention. Annual Review of Psychology. 65(1): 333–

371. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137.

Colby, S.L.; Ortman, J.M. 2015. Projections of the size 

and composition of the U.S. Current Population Reports. 

P25-1143. Washington, DC: U.S Census Bureau. 13 p.

Cole, D.N. 2013. Changing conditions on wilderness 

campsites: seven case studies of trends over 13 to 32 

years. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-300. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 99 p.

Cole, D.N.; Hall, T.E. 2009. Perceived effects of setting 

attributes on visitor experiences in wilderness: variation 

with situational context and visitor characteristics. 

Environmental Management. 44(1): 24–36. doi:10.1007/

s00267-009-9286-8.

Committee of Scientists. 1999. Sustaining the people’s 

lands: recommendations for stewardship of the national 

forests and grasslands into the next century. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 7 p.

Conley, A.; Moote, M.A. 2003. Evaluating collaborative 

natural resource management. Society & Natural 

Resources. 16(5): 371–386. doi:10.1080/08941920309181.

Cooper, N.; Brady, E.; Steen, H.; Bryce, R. 2016.

Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising 

the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural 

ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosystem Services. 21: 218–

229. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014.

Cordano, M.; Welcomer, S.A.; Scherer, R.F. 2003. An 

analysis of the predictive validity of the new ecological 

paradigm scale. The Journal of Environmental Education. 

34(3): 22–28. doi:10.1080/00958960309603490.

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: 

a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 

RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS- 150. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 167 p.

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Zarnoch, S.J. 2013. Recreation 

and protected land resources in the United States: a 

technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 

RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-GTR-169. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 198 p. doi:10.2737/

srs-gtr-169.

Cordell, H.K.; Green, G.T.; Betz, C.J. 2002. Recreation 

and the environment as cultural dimensions in 

contemporary American society. Leisure Sciences. 

24(1): 13–41. doi:10.1080/01490400252772818.

Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Sutton, P.; van der Ploeg, S.; 

Anderson, S.J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Farber, S.; Turner, 

R.K. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem 

services. Global Environmental Change. 26: 152–

158. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.

Creighton, J.L. 2005. The public participation handbook: 

making better decisions through citizen involvement. 

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 288 p.

Cundill, G.; Rodela, R. 2012. A review of assertions 

about the processes and outcomes of social learning 

in natural resource management. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 113: 7–14. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2012.08.021.

Cvetkovich, G.; Winter, P.L. 2003. Trust and social 

representations of the management of threatened and 

endangered species. Environment and Behavior. 35(2): 

286–307. doi:10.1177/0013916502250139.

Daily, G. 1997. Nature’s services: societal dependence on 

natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 412 p.
787

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, 

O.; Boyd, J.W.; Chan, K.M.A.; Costanza, R.; 

Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C.G.; Gobster, P.H.; GretRegamey, A.; Lave, R.; Muhar, S.; Penker, M.; Ribe, 

R.G.; Schauppenlehner, T.; Sikor, T.; Soloviy, I.; 

Spierenburg, M.; Taczanowska, K.; Tam, J.; von der 

Dunk, A. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the 

ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 

109(23): 8812–8819. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109.

Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 2001. Working through 

environmental conflict: the collaborative learning 

approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. 299 p.

Davenport, M.A.; Anderson, D.H. 2005. Getting 

from sense of place to place-based management: 

an interpretive investigation of place meanings 

and perceptions of landscape change. Society 

& Natural Resources. 18(7): 625–641. 

doi:10.1080/08941920590959613.

Davenport, M.A.; Anderson, D.H.; Leahy, J.E.; Jakes, 

P.J. 2007. Reflections from USDA Forest Service 

employees on institutional constraints to engaging and 

serving their local communities. Journal of Forestry. 105: 

43–48.

Davenport, M.A.; Baker, M.L.; Leahy, J.E.; Anderson, 

D.H. 2010. Exploring multiple place meanings at an 

Illinois state park. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 28(1): 52–69.

Davenport, M.A.; Leahy, J.E.; Anderson, D.H.; Jakes, 

P.J. 2007. Building trust in natural resource management 

within local communities: a case study of the Midewin 

National Tallgrass Prairie. Environmental Management. 

39(3): 353–368. doi:10.1007/s00267-006-0016-1.

Davis, E.J.; Cerveny, L.K.; Nuss, M.; Seesholtz, D. 2015a.

Oregon’s forest collaboratives: a rapid assessment. RCS1. Oregon State University, College of Forestry, Forest 

Research Laboratory. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/

xmlui/handle/1957/55791. (15 December 2017).

Davis, E.J.; Nuss, M.; White, E. 2015b. Oregon 

forest collaboratives: a brief overview. In: Oregon 

forest collaborative network workshop. http://www.

sustainablenorthwest.org/uploads/general/Davisoverview-11-9-15.pdf. (15 December 2017).

Davis, E.J.; White, E.M.; Cerveny, L.K.; Seesholtz, 

D.; Nuss, M.L.; Ulrich, D.R. 2017. Comparison of 

USDA Forest Service and stakeholder motivations and 

experiences in collaborative federal forest governance in 

the western United States. Environmental Management. 

60(5): 908–921. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0913-5.

De Groot, R.S.; Alkemade, R.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.; 

Willemen, L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the 

concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape 

planning, management and decision making. Ecological 

Complexity. 7(3): 260–272.

de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. 2008. Value orientations to 

explain beliefs related to environmental significant 

behavior. Environment and Behavior. 40(3): 330–

354. doi:10.1177/0013916506297831.

Deal, R.L.; Smith, N.; Gates, J. 2017. Ecosystem services 

to enhance sustainable forest management in the US: 

moving from forest service national programmes to 

local projects in the Pacific Northwest. Forestry: An 

International Journal of Forest Research. 90(5): 632–

639. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpx025.

Deutsch, M. 1958. Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict 

Resolution. 2(4): 265–279.

Devine-Wright, P. 2009. Rethinking NIMBYism: the role 

of place attachment and place identity in explaining 

place-protective action. Journal of Community & 

Applied Social Psychology. 19(6): 426–441. doi:10.1002/

casp.1004.

DHM Research. 2014. Oregon values and beliefs survey. 

Oregon values project. http://oregonvaluesproject.org/

findings/top-findings/. (15 December 2017).
788

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Dietsch, A.M.; Teel, T.L.; Manfredo, M.J. 2016. Social 

values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world. 

Conservation Biology. 30(6): 1212–1221. doi:10.1111/

cobi.12742.

Dietz, T.; Fitzgerald, A.; Shwom, R. 2005. Environmental values. Annual Review of Environment and 

Resources. 30(1): 335–372. doi:10.1146/annurev.

energy.30.050504.144444.

Dietz, T.; Stern, P.C., eds. 2008. Public participation in 

environmental assessment and decision making. National 

Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12434.

Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006. Socioeconomic 

change in planning provinces of the Northwest Forest 

Plan region. Northwest Science. 80(2): 73–85.

Donovan, G.H.; Cerveny, L.K.; Gatziolis, D. 2016. If you 

build it, will they come? Forest Policy and Economics. 

62: 135–140. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.002.

Donovan, S.M.; Looney, C.; Hanson, T.; Sánchez 

de León, Y.; Wulfhorst, J.D.; Eigenbrode, S.D.; 

Jennings, M.; Johnson-Maynard, J.; Bosque Pérez, 

N.A. 2009. Reconciling social and biological needs 

in an endangered ecosystem: the Palouse as a model 

for bioregional planning. Ecology and Society. 14(1). 

doi:10.5751/es-02736-140109.

Dresner, M.; Handelman, C.; Braun, S.; RollwagenBollens, G. 2015. Environmental identity, proenvironmental behaviors, and civic engagement 

of volunteer stewards in Portland area parks. 

Environmental Education Research. 21(7): 991–

1010. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.964188.

Droseltis, O.; Vignoles, V.L. 2010. Towards an integrative 

model of place identification: dimensionality and 

predictors of intrapersonal-level place preferences. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30(1): 23–

34. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.006.

Dryzek, J.S.; Berejikian, J. 1993. Reconstructive 

democratic theory. American Political Science Review. 

87(1): 48–60. doi:10.2307/2938955.

Dukes, E.F.; Firehock, K. 2001. Collaboration: a guide 

for environmental advocates. Charlottesville, VA: 

University of Virginia, Institute for Environmental 

Negotiation. http://ien.arch.virginia.edu/publications/

collaboration-guide-environmental-advocatesuva-2001. (15 December 2017).

Dunlap, R.E. 2008. The new environmental paradigm 

scale: from marginality to worldwide use. The Journal 

of Environmental Education. 40(1): 3–18. doi:10.3200/

joee.40.1.3-18.

Dunlap, R.E.; van Liere, K.D. 1978. The “new 

environmental paradigm”. The Journal of Environmental 

Education. 9(4): 10–19.

Dunlap, R.E.; van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. 

2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: 

measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: 

a revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 

425–442. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176.

Eisenhauer, B.W.; Kra, R.S. 2000. Attachments to 

special places on public lands: an analysis of activities, 

reason for attachments, and community connections. 

Society & Natural Resources. 13(5): 421–441. 

doi:10.1080/089419200403848.

Elliott, M.; Gray, B.; Lewicki, R. 2003. Lessons 

learned about the framing and reframing of intractable 

environmental conflicts. In: Lewicki, R.J.; Gray, B.; 

Elliott, M., eds. Environmental conflicts: frames and 

cases. Washington, DC: Island Press: 409–435.

Emerson, K.; Nabatchi, T. 2015. Collaborative 

governance regimes. Washington, DC: Georgetown 

University Press. 264 p.

English, M.R.; Peretz, J.H.; Manderschied, M.J. 2004.

Building communities while building plans: a review of 

techniques for participatory planning processes. Public 

Administration Quarterly. 28(2): 182–221.
789

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Fagerholm, N.; Käyhkö, N.; Ndumbaro, F.; Khamis, M. 

2012. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape 

assessments—mapping indicators for landscape services. 

Ecological Indicators. 18: 421–433. doi:10.1016/j.

ecolind.2011.12.004.

Farley, K.A.; Tague, C.; Grant, G.E. 2011. Vulnerability 

of water supply from the Oregon Cascades to changing 

climate: linking science to users and policy. Global 

Environmental Change. 21(1): 110–122. doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2010.09.011.

Farnum, J.; Hall, T.; Kruger, L.E. 2005. Sense of place 

in natural resource recreation and tourism: an evaluation 

and assessment of research findings. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-660. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 59 p. doi:102737/pnw-gtr-660.

Farnum, J.O.; Priester, K.; Rodgers, P.; Farnum, J.O.; 

Kruger, L.E. 2008. The Willamette National Forest. In: 

Farnum, J.O.; Kruger, L.E., eds. Place-based planning: 

innovations and applications from four western forests. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 15–

21. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-741.

Feld, C.K.; Martins da Silva, P.; Paulo Sousa, J.; 

de Bello, F.; Bugter, R.; Grandin, U.; Hering, D.; 

Lavorel, S.; Mountford, O.; Pardo, I.; Pärtel, M.; 

Römbke, J.; Sandin, L.; Bruce Jones, K.; Harrison, 

P. 2009. Indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem 

services: a synthesis across ecosystems and spatial 

scales. Oikos. 118(12): 1862–1871. doi:10.1111/j.1600-

0706.2009.17860.x.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Ballard, H.L.; Sturtevant, 

V.E. 2008. Adaptive management and social learning in 

collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study 

of five community-based forestry organizations in the 

western USA. Ecology and Society. 13(2). doi:10.5751/

es-02400-130204.

Fischer, A.P.; Jasny, L. 2017. Capacity to adapt to 

environmental change: evidence from a network of 

organizations concerned with increasing wildfire risk. 

Ecology and Society. 22(1): 23. doi:10.5751/es-08867-

220123.

Fischer, A.P.; Vance-Borland, K.; Jasny, L.; Grimm, 

K.E.; Charnley, S. 2016. A network approach to 

assessing social capacity for landscape planning: the 

case of fire-prone forests in Oregon, USA. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 147: 18–27. doi:10.1016/j.

landurbplan.2015.10.006.

Fish, R.; Church, A.; Winter, M. 2016. Conceptualising 

cultural ecosystem services: a novel framework for 

research and critical engagement. Ecosystem Services. 

21: 208–217. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.002.

Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and 

behavior: an introduction to theory and research reading. 

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 578 p.

Fleeger, W.E.; Becker, M.L. 2010. Decision processes 

for multijurisdictional planning and management: 

community wildfire protection planning in 

Oregon. Society & Natural Resources. 23(4): 351–

365. doi:10.1080/08941920802120067.

Flint, C. 2013. Conservation connecting multiple scales of 

place. In: Williams, D.R.; Stewart, W.P.; Kruger, L.E., 

eds. Place-based conservation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: 

Springer: 35–44. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5802-5_3.

Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. 2005.

Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. 

Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 30(1): 

441–473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.

Fonner, R.C.; Berrens, R.P. 2014. A hedonic pricing 

model of lift tickets for US alpine ski areas: examining 

the influence of crowding. Tourism Economics. 20(6): 

1215–1233. doi:10.5367/te.2013.0338.
790

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Ford, R.M.; Williams, K.J.H.; Bishop, I.D.; Webb, 

T. 2009. A value basis for the social acceptability of 

clearfelling in Tasmania, Australia. Landscape and 

Urban Planning. 90(3–4): 196–206. doi:10.1016/j.

landurbplan.2008.11.006.

Ford, R.M.; Williams, K.J.H.; Smith, E.L.; Bishop, 

I.D. 2012. Beauty, belief, and trust: toward a model of 

psychological processes in public acceptance of forest 

management. Environment and Behavior. 46(4): 476–

506. doi:10.1177/0013916512456023.

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

forest environmentalism among new and longstanding rural residents. Rural Sociology. 55(2): 214–

232. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1990.tb00681.x.

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N. 2012. A restoration 

framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Forestry. 110(8): 429–439. doi:10.5849/

jof.10-006.

Franklin, J.F.; Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural 

disturbance and stand development principles for 

ecological forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-NRS-19. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 44 p. 

doi:10.2737/nrs-gtr-19.

Frauman, E.; Banks, S. 2011. Gateway community 

resident perceptions of tourism development: 

incorporating importance-performance analysis 

into a limits of acceptable change framework. 

Tourism Management. 32(1): 128–140. doi:10.1016/j.

tourman.2010.01.013.

Fuller, R.A.; Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Warren, 

P.H.; Gaston, K.J. 2007. Psychological benefits of 

greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters. 

3(4): 390–394. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149.

Fulton, D.C.; Manfredo, M.J.; Lipscomb, J. 1996.

Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and 

measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 

1(2): 24–47. doi:10.1080/10871209609359060.

Germain, R.H.; Floyd, D.W.; Stehman, S.V. 2001. Public 

perceptions of the USDA Forest Service public 

participation process. Forest Policy and Economics. 

3(34): 113–124. doi:10.1016/s1389-9341(01)00065-x.

Ghimire, R.; Green, G.T.; Poudyal, N.C.; Cordell, 

H.K. 2014. An analysis of perceived constraints to 

outdoor recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 32(4): 52–67.

Gobster, P.H. 1996. Forest aesthetics, biodiversity, and the 

perceived appropriateness of ecosystem management 

practices. In: Brunson, M.W.; Kruger, L.E.; Tyler, C.B.; 

Schroeder, S.A., eds. Defining social acceptability in 

ecosystem management: a workshop proceedings. PNWGTR-369. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

77–97. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-369.

Gosnell, H.; Abrams, J. 2011. Amenity migration: 

diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic 

dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal. 76(4): 

303–322. doi:10.1007/s10708-009-9295-4.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for 

multiparty problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 329 p.

Gray, B. 2003. Framing environmental disputes. In: 

Lewicki, R.J.; Gray, B.; Elliott, M., eds. Environmental 

conflicts: frames and cases. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 11–34.

Grimble, R.; Wellard, K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologies 

in natural resource management: a review of 

principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. 

Agricultural Systems. 55(2): 173–193. doi:10.1016/s0308-

521x(97)00006-1.

Gunderson, K.; Watson, A. 2007. Understanding 

place meanings on the Bitterroot National Forest, 

Montana. Society & Natural Resources. 20(8): 705–721. 

doi:10.1080/08941920701420154.

Gunderson, L.H.; Holling, C.S. 2002. Panarchy: 

understanding transformations in human and natural 

systems. Washington, DC: Island Press. 506 p.
791

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Halliday, A.; Glaser, M. 2011. A management perspective 

on social ecological systems: a generic system model 

and its application to a case study from Peru. Human 

Ecology Review. 18(1): 1–18.

Halvorsen, K.E. 2006. Critical next steps in research on 

public meetings and environmental decision-making. 

Human Ecology Review. 13(2): 150–160.

Hamilton, L.C.; Hartter, J.; Stevens, F.; Congalton, 

R.G.; Ducey, M.; Campbell, M.; Maynard, D.; 

Staunton, M. 2012. Forest views: northeast Oregon 

survey looks at community and the environment. 

Issue Brief. No. 47. Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire, Carsey Institute. 12 p.

Hand, M.L.; Lawson, M. 2018. Effects of climate change 

on recreation. In: Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Hoang, 

L., eds. In: Halofsky, J.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Dante-Wood, 

S.K.; Hoang, L.; Ho, J.J.; Joyce, L.A., eds. Climate 

change vulnerability and adaptation in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-374. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 398–433. 

Chapter 10.

Hansis, R. 1995. The social acceptability of clearcutting 

in the Pacific Northwest. Human Organization. 54(1): 

95–101. doi:10.17730/humo.54.1.yj5338v42768002r.

Hardin, R. 2002. Trust and trustworthiness. New York: 

Russell Sage Foundation. 256 p.

Hare, M.; Pahl-Wostl, C. 2002. Stakeholder categorisation 

in participatory integrated assessment processes. 

Integrated Assessment. 3(1): 50–62. doi:10.1076/

iaij.3.1.50.7408.

Harley, J.B. 2009. Maps, knowledge and power. In: 

Henderson, G.; Waterstone, M., eds. Geographic thought: 

a praxis perspective. New York: Routledge: 129–148.

Hartig, T.; Evans, G.W.; Jamner, L.D.; Davis, D.S.; 

Gärling, T. 2003. Tracking restoration in natural 

and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 23(2): 109–123. doi:10.1016/s0272-

4944(02)00109-3.

Hartig, T.; van den Berg, A.E.; Hagerhall, C.M.; 

Tomalak, M.; Bauer, N.; Hansmann, R.; Ojala, A.; 

Syngollitou, E.; Carrus, G.; van Herzele, A.; Bell, S.; 

Podesta, M.T.C.; Waaseth, G. 2011. Health benefits 

of nature experience: psychological, social and cultural 

processes. In: Nilson, K.; Snagster, M.; Gallis, C.; 

Hartig, T.; de Vries, S.; Seeland, K.; Schipperijn, J., eds. 

Forests, trees and human health. Dordrecht, Netherlands: 

Springer: 127–168. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9806-1_5.

Hawcroft, L.J.; Milfont, T.L. 2010. The use (and 

abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale 

over the last 30 years: a meta-analysis. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 30(2): 143–158. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvp.2009.10.003.

Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R. 

2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-

2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 292 p. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-651.

Head, B.W. 2008. Wicked problems in public policy. Public 

Policy. 3(2): 101–118.

Henderson, K.A.; Bialeschki, M.D. 2005. Leisure and 

active lifestyles: research reflections. Leisure Sciences. 

27(5): 355–365. doi:10.1080/01490400500225559.

Hernández-Morcillo, M.; Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C. 

2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem 

service indicators. Ecological Indicators. 29: 434–444. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013.

Hibbard, M.; Madsen, J. 2003. Environmental 

resistance to place-based collaboration in the U.S. 

West. Society & Natural Resources. 16(8): 703–718. 

doi:10.1080/08941920309194.

Ho, S.S.; Brossard, D.; Scheufele, D.A. 2008. Effects of 

value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge 

on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. 

International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 20(2): 

171–192. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017.
792

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Hoover, K.; Stern, M.J. 2014. Constraints to public 

influence in US Forest Service NEPA processes. Journal 

of Environmental Planning and Management. 57(2): 

173–189. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.849232.

Hosmer, L.T. 1995. Trust: the connecting link between 

organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy 

of Management Review. 20(2): 379–403. doi:10.5465/

amr.1995.9507312923.

Hoult, T.F. 1977. Dictionary of modern sociology. 

Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Co. 426 p.

Hufty, M. 2011. Investigating policy processes: the 

governance analytical framework (GAF). In: Wiesmann, 

U.; Hurni, H., eds. Research for sustainable development: 

foundations, experiences, and perspectives. Bern, 

Switzerland: Geographica Bernensia: 403–424.

Hughes, J. 2015. Exploring roles for scientists and simulation 

models in collaborative, science-based, ecosystem 

restoration. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. M.P.P 

final essay. 69 p. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/

handle/1957/56164. (10 January 2018).

Hurley, P.T.; Walker, P.A. 2004. Whose vision? 

Conspiracy theory and land-use planning in Nevada 

County, California. Environment and Planning A. 36(9): 

1529–1547. doi:10.1068/a36186.

Imperial, M.T. 2005. Using collaboration as a governance 

strategy-lessons from six watershed management 

programs. Administration & Society. 37(3): 281–320. 

doi:10.1177/0095399705276111.

Inglehart, R. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: 

cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. 

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 464 p. https://

press.princeton.edu/titles/5981.html.

Inglehart, R.; Norris, P. 2016. Trump, brexit, and the rise 

of populism: economic have-nots and cultural backlash. 

SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2818659.

International Association for Public Participation 

[IAP2]. 2014. P2 practitioner tools: iAP2 spectrum 

of participation. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.

org/resource/resmgr/Foundations_Course/IAP2_P2_

Spectrum.pdf. (20 October 2015).

Irvin, R.A.; Stansbury, J. 2004. Citizen participation 

in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public 

Administration Review. 64(1): 55–65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2004.00346.x.

Iyengar, S.; Hahn, K.S. 2009. Red media, blue media: 

evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal 

of Communication. 59(1): 19–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-

2466.2008.01402.x.

Ives, C.D.; Kendal, D. 2014. The role of social values 

in the management of ecological systems. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 144: 67–72. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2014.05.013.

Jacobs, M.H.; Manfredo, M.J. 2008. Decline in 

nature-based recreation is not evident. Proceedings 

of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(27): E40. 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0802380105.

Jakes, P.; Burns, S.; Cheng, A.; Saeli, E.; Nelson, K.; 

Brummel, R.; Williams, D. 2007. Critical elements 

in the development and implementation of community 

wildfire protection plans (CWPPs). In: Butler, B.W.; 

Cook, W., eds. The fire environment—innovations, 

management, and policy. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: 26–30. https://www.fs.usda.

gov/treesearch/pubs/28545.

Jones, R.E.; Fly, J.M.; Talley, J.; Cordell, H.K. 2003.

Green migration into rural America: the new frontier of 

environmentalism? Society & Natural Resources. 16(3): 

221–238. doi:10.1080/08941920309159.

Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. 2001. Sense of place as 

an attitude: lakeshore owners’ attitudes toward their 

properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21(3): 

233–248. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0226.
793

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Karmanov, D.; Hamel, R. 2008. Assessing the restorative 

potential of contemporary urban environment(s): 

beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape 

and Urban Planning. 86(2): 115–125. doi:10.1016/j.

landurbplan.2008.01.004.

Kaufman, H. 2006. The forest ranger: a study in 

administrative behavior. Washington, DC: Resources 

for the Future 269 p.

Kearney, A.R. 2001. Effects of an informational 

intervention on public reactions to clear-cutting. 

Society & Natural Resources. 14(9): 777–790. 

doi:10.1080/089419201753210594.

Kellert, S.R.; Berry, J.K. 1987. Attitudes, knowledge, and 

behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 15(3): 363–371.

Kelshaw, T.; Gastil, J. 2008. When citizens and 

officeholders meet, part 2: a typology of face-toface public meetings. International Journal of Public 

Participation. 2(1): 33–54.

Kemmis, D.; McKinney, M. 2011. Collaboration and the 

ecology of democracy. Sustainable Development Law 

and Policy. 12(1): 46–50, 69–70.

Kendal, D.; Ford, R.M.; Anderson, N.M.; Farrar, 

A. 2015. The VALS: a new tool to measure people’s 

general valued attributes of landscapes. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 163: 224–233. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2015.08.017.

Kenney, D.S. 2000. Arguing about consensus: examining 

the case against western watershed initiatives and 

other collaborative groups active in natural resources 

management. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado 

Boulder, Natural Resources Law Center. 72 p.

Kenter, J.O. 2016. Integrating deliberative monetary 

valuation, systems modelling and participatory mapping 

to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosystem 

Services. 21: 291–307. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010.

Kenter, J.O.; Bryce, R.; Christie, M.; Cooper, N.; 

Hockley, N.; Irvine, K.N.; Fazey, I.; O’Brien, L.; 

Orchard-Webb, J.; Ravenscroft, N.; Raymond, C.M.; 

Reed, M.S.; Tett, P.; Watson, V. 2016a. Shared values 

and deliberative valuation: future directions. Ecosystem 

Services. 21: 358–371. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006.

Kenter, J.O.; Jobstvogt, N.; Watson, V.; Irvine, 

K.N.; Christie, M.; Bryce, R. 2016b. The impact 

of information, value-deliberation and group-based 

decision-making on values for ecosystem services: 

integrating deliberative monetary valuation and 

storytelling. Ecosystem Services. 21: 270–290. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.006.

Kenter, J.O.; O’Brien, L.; Hockley, N.; Ravenscroft, 

N.; Fazey, I.; Irvine, K.N.; Reed, M.S.; Christie, 

M.; Brady, E.; Bryce, R.; Church, A.; Cooper, N.; 

Davies, A.; Evely, A.; Everard, M.; Fish, R.; Fisher, 

J.A.; Jobstvogt, N.; Molloy, C.; Orchard-Webb, 

J.; Ranger, S.; Ryan, M.; Watson, V.; Williams, S. 

2015. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? 

Ecological Economics. 111: 86–99. doi:10.1016/j.

ecolecon.2015.01.006.

Kil, N.; Holland, S.M.; Stein, T.V. 2014. Place meanings 

and participatory planning intentions. Society & Natural 

Resources. 27(5): 475–491. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.8

42274.

Kil, N.; Holland, S.M.; Stein, T.V. 2015. Experiential 

benefits, place meanings, and environmental setting 

preferences between proximate and distant visitors to a 

national scenic trail. Environmental Management. 55(5): 

1109–1123. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0445-9.

Kitayama, S.; Conway, L.G.; Pietromonaco, P.R.; Park, 

H.; Plaut, V.C. 2010. Ethos of independence across 

regions in the United States: the production-adoption 

model of cultural change. American Psychologist. 65(6): 

559–574. doi:10.1037/a0020277.

Klain, S.C.; Chan, K.M.A. 2012. Navigating coastal 

values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for 

spatial planning. Ecological Economics. 82: 104–113. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.008.
794

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Klain, S.C.; Satterfield, T.A.; Chan, K.M.A. 2014. What 

matters and why? Ecosystem services and their 

bundled qualities. Ecological Economics. 107: 310–320. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.003.

Kluckhohn, C. 1951. Values and value-orientations 

in the theory of action: an exploration in definition 

and classification. In: Parsons, T.; Sils, E., eds. 

Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press: 388–433. doi:10.4159/

harvard.9780674863507.c2.

Klyza, C.M.; Sousa, D. 2010. Beyond gridlock: green 

drift in American environmental policymaking. Political 

Science Quarterly. 125(3): 443–463. doi:10.1002/j.1538-

165x.2010.tb00681.x.

Koontz, T.M. 1999. Administrators and citizens: measuring 

agency officials’ efforts to foster and use public input in 

forest policy. Journal of Public Administration Research 

and Theory. 9(2): 251–280. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.

jpart.a024410.

Koontz, T.M.; Thomas, C.W. 2006. What do we know 

and need to know about the environmental outcomes 

of collaborative management? Public Administration 

Review. 66(s1): 111–121. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2006.00671.x.

Kruger, L.E. 2008. An introduction to place-based 

planning. In: Farnum, J.O.; Kruger, L.E., eds. 

Place-based planning: innovations and applications 

from four western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-741. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1–6. 

doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-741.

Kruger, L.E.; Hall, T.E.; Stiefel, M.C. 2008.

Understanding concepts of place in recreation research 

and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-744. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 204 p. 

doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-744.

Kruger, L.E.; Williams, D.R. 2007. Place and placebased planning. In: Kruger, L.E.; Mazza, R.; Lawrence, 

K., eds. Proceedings: national workshop on recreation 

research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-698. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

83–88. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-698.

Kurtz, R.S. 2010. Public lands policy and economic trends 

in gateway communities. Review of Policy Research. 

27(1): 77–88. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00428.x.

Lachapelle, P.R.; McCool, S.F. 2012. The role of trust in 

community wildland fire protection planning. Society & 

Natural Resources. 25(4): 321–335. doi:10.1080/08941920

.2011.569855.

Lange, S.E. 2016. Policy-oriented learning among 

national forest stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest: 

changes in policy beliefs since adoption of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington. 87 p. M.S. thesis.

Larson, L.R.; Green, G.T.; Cordell, H.K. 2011.

Children’s time outdoors: results and implications of the 

National Kids Survey. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 29(2): 1–20.

Lawson, S.R.; Manning, R.E.; Valliere, W.A.; Wang, B. 

2003. Proactive monitoring and adaptive management 

of social carrying capacity in Arches National Park: an 

application of computer simulation modeling. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 68(3): 305–313. doi:10.1016/

s0301-4797(03)00094-x.

Layzer, J.A. 2008. Natural experiments: ecosystem-based 

management and the environment. Cambridge, MA: 

MIT Press. 365 p.

Lee, R.G. 2009. Sacred trees. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., 

eds. Old growth in a new world: a Pacific Northwest icon 

reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press: 95–103.

Lengwiler, M. 2008. Participatory approaches in science 

and technology: historical origins and current practices 

in critical perspective. Science, Technology, & Human 

Values. 33(2): 186–200. doi:10.1177/0162243907311262.
795

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Lewicka, M. 2011. Place attachment: how far have we 

come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 31(3): 207–230. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvp.2010.10.001.

Lewicki, R.J.; McAllister, D.J.; Bies, R.J. 1998. Trust 

and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy 

of Management Review. 23(3): 438–458. doi:10.5465/

amr.1998.926620.

Lienert, J.; Schnetzer, F.; Ingold, K. 2013. Stakeholder 

analysis combined with social network analysis provides 

fine-grained insights into water infrastructure planning 

processes. Journal of Environmental Management. 125: 

134–148. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.052.

Lipsky, M. 1980. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of 

the individual in public services. New York: SAGE 

Publications. 299 p.

Long, J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, L.; Skinner, C.N. 2014.

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience 

in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 723 p. doi:10.2737/psw-gtr-247.

Loomis, J.; Crespi, J. 2004. Estimated effects of climate 

change on selected outdoor recreation activities in the 

United States. In: Mendelsohn, R.; Neumann, J., eds. The 

impact of climate change on the United States economy. 

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press: 289–314. 

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511573149.012.

Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods. New York: 

Algonquin Books. 416 p.

Lowery, D.R.; Morse, W.C. 2013. A qualitative method for 

collecting spatial data on important places for recreation, 

livelihoods, and ecological meanings: integrating focus 

groups with public participation geographic information 

systems. Society & Natural Resources. 26(12): 1422–

1437. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.819954.

Lu, J.; Schuett, M.A. 2014. Examining the relationship 

between motivation, enduring involvement and volunteer 

experience: the case of outdoor recreation voluntary 

associations. Leisure Sciences. 36(1): 68–87. doi:10.1080/

01490400.2014.860791.

Lynam, T.; de Jong, W.; Sheil, D.; Kusumanto, T.; 

Evans, K. 2007. A review of tools for incorporating 

community knowledge, preferences, and values into 

decision making in natural resources management. 

Ecology and Society. 12(1): 5. doi:10.5751/es-01987-

120105.

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E.; Burch, W.R. 1997. The 

human ecosystem part I: the human ecosystem as 

an organizing concept in ecosystem management. 

Society & Natural Resources. 10(4): 347–367. 

doi:10.1080/08941929709381034.

Maiese, M. 2004. Interests, positions, needs, and values. 

Beyond intractability: knowledge base & conflict 

fundamentals. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/

interests. (6 June 2017)

Manfredo, M.; Teel, T.; Bright, A. 2003. Why are public 

values toward wildlife changing? Human Dimensions of 

Wildlife. 8(4): 287–306. doi:10.1080/716100425.

Manfredo, M.J.; Bruskotter, J.T.; Teel, T.L.; Fulton, 

D.; Schwartz, S.H.; Arlinghaus, R.; Oishi, S.; Uskul, 

A.K.; Redford, K.; Kitayama, S.; Sullivan, L. 2017.

Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of 

conservation. Conservation Biology. 31(4): 772–780. 

doi:10.1111/cobi.12855.

Manfredo, M.J.; Teel, T.L.; Henry, K.L. 2009. Linking 

society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting 

wildlife value orientations in the western United States. 

Social Science Quarterly. 90(2): 407–427. doi:10.1111/

j.1540-6237.2009.00624.x.

Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Bruyere, B.L.; Field, 

D.R.; Brown, P.J. 2004. Society and natural resources: 

a summary of knowledge. In: 10th international 

symposium on society and resource management. 

Jefferson City, MO: Modern Litho Press: 361.
796

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Manning, R.; Valliere, W.; Minteer, B. 1999. Values, 

ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: 

an empirical study. Society & Natural Resources. 12(5): 

421–436. doi:10.1080/089419299279515.

Manzo, L.C. 2003. Beyond house and haven: toward a 

revisioning of emotional relationships with places. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23(1): 47–61. 

doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00074-9.

Margerum, R.D. 2011. Beyond consensus: improving 

collaborative planning and management. Cambridge, 

MA: MIT Press. 368 p.

Margerum, R.D.; Whitall, D. 2004. The challenges and 

implications of collaborative management on a river 

basin scale. Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Management. 47(3): 409–429. doi:10.1080/09640560420

00216537.

McCall, M.K. 2003. Seeking good governance in 

participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance 

dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial 

planning. Habitat International. 27(4): 549–573. 

doi:10.1016/s0197-3975(03)00005-5.

McFarlane, B.L.; Beckley, T.M.; Huddart-Kennedy, 

E.; Nadeau, S.; Wyatt, S. 2011. Public views on forest 

management: value orientation and forest dependency 

as indicators of diversity. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 41(4): 740–749. doi:10.1139/x11-003.

McFarlane, B.L.; Boxal, P.C. 2000. Factors influencing 

forest values and attitudes of two stakeholder groups: 

the case of the foothills model forest, Alberta, Canada. 

Society & Natural Resources. 13(7): 649–661. 

doi:10.1080/08941920050121927.

McFarlane, B.L.; Hunt, L.M. 2006. Environmental 

activism in the forest sector: social psychological, 

social-cultural, and contextual effects. Environment and 

Behavior. 38(2): 266–285. doi:10.1177/0013916505277999.

McGinnis, M.D.; Ostrom, E. 2014. Social-ecological 

system framework: initial changes and continuing 

challenges. Ecology and Society. 19(2): 30. doi:10.5751/

es-06387-190230.

McKinney, M.; Harmon, W. 2008. Governing nature, 

governing ourselves: engaging citizens in natural 

resource decisions, part 2. International Journal of Public 

Participation. 2(1): 55–71.

McLain, R.; Banis, D.; Todd, A.; Cerveny, L.K. 2017a.

Multiple methods of public engagement: disaggregating 

socio-spatial data for environmental planning in western 

Washington, USA. Journal of Environmental Management. 

204: 61–74. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.08.037.

McLain, R.; Cerveny, L.; Besser, D.; Banis, D.; Todd, 

A.; Rohdy, S.; Kimball-Brown, C. 2013a. Mapping 

human-environment connections on the Olympic 

Peninsula: an atlas of landscape values. Occasional 

Papers in Geography. No. 7. Portland, OR: Portland State 

University. 68 p.

McLain, R.; Cerveny, L.; Biedenweg, K.; Banis, D. 

2017b. Values mapping and counter-mapping in 

contested landscapes: an Olympic Peninsula (USA) case 

study. Human Ecology. 45(5): 585–600. doi:10.1007/

s10745-017-9930-5.

McLain, R.; Poe, M.; Biedenweg, K.; Cerveny, L.; 

Besser, D.; Blahna, D. 2013b. Making sense of 

human ecology mapping: an overview of approaches 

to integrating socio-spatial data into environmental 

planning. Human Ecology. 41(5): 651–665. doi:10.1007/

s10745-013-9573-0.

Mellinger, G.D. 1956. Interpersonal trust as a factor in 

communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social 

Psychology. 52(3): 304–309. doi:10.1037/h0048100.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA]. 2005.

Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p.

Miller, L.E.; Caughlin, J.P. 2013. “We’re going to be 

survivors”: couples’ identity challenges during and after 

cancer treatment. Communication Monographs. 80(1): 

63–82. doi:10.1080/03637751.2012.739703.
797

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Mitchell, G.E.; O’Leary, R.; Gerard, C. 2015.

Collaboration and performance: perspectives from public 

managers and NGO leaders. Public Performance & 

Management Review. 38(4): 684–716. doi:10.1080/153095

76.2015.1031015.

Monroe, A.S.; Butler, W.H. 2016. Responding to a policy 

mandate to collaborate: structuring collaboration in the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. 

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 

59(6): 1054–1072. doi:10.1080/09640568.2015.1053562.

Moore, K.D. 2007. In the shadow of the cedars: the 

spiritual values of old-growth forests. Conservation 

Biology. 21(4): 1120–1123. doi:10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2007.00669.x.

Moseley, C.; Winkel, G. 2014. Sustainable forest 

management on federal lands in the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest: making sense of science, conflict, and 

collaboration. In: Katila, P.; Galloway, G.; de Jong, W.; 

Pacheco, P.; Mery, G., eds. Forests under pressure: local 

responses to global issues. IUFRO World Series. [Place 

of publication unknown]: International Union of Forest 

Resources Organization: 189–204.

Muro, M.; Jeffrey, P. 2008. A critical review of the theory 

and application of social learning in participatory 

natural resource management processes. Journal of 

Environmental Planning and Management. 51(3): 

325–344. doi:10.1080/09640560801977190.

Nadeau, S.; Beckley, T.M.; Huddart Kennedy, E.; 

McFarlane, B.L.; Wyatt, S. 2008. Public views on 

forest management in New Brunswick: report from 

a provincial survey. Information Report. M-X-222E. 

Fredericton, Canada: Natural Resources Canada, 

Canadian Forest Service,Atlantic Forestry Centre. 

http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/nrrn/pdf/en/ForestsCrownLands/ForestSurvey.pdf. (15 

December 2017).

Newig, J.; Fritsch, O. 2009. Environmental governance: 

participatory, multi-level - and effective? Environmental 

Policy and Governance. 19(3): 197–214. doi:10.1002/

eet.509.

Nie, M.; Metcalf, P. 2015. The contested use of 

collaboration and litigation in national forest 

management. Bolle Center Perspective Paper. Missoula, 

MT: University of Montana, College of Forestry & 

Conservation. 30 p.

Nielsen, A.B.; Olsen, S.B.; Lundhede, T. 2007. An 

economic valuation of the recreational benefits 

associated with nature-based forest management 

practices. Landscape and Urban Planning. 80(12): 63–71. 

doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.06.003.

Nielsen-Pincus, M. 2011. Mapping a values typology in 

three counties of the interior Northwest, USA: scale, 

geographic associations among values, and the use of 

intensity weights. Society & Natural Resources. 24(6): 

535–552. doi:10.1080/08941920903140972.

Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Hall, T.; Force, J.E.; Wulfhorst, 

J.D. 2010. Sociodemographic effects on place bonding. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 30(4): 443–454. 

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.007.

Nisbet, M.C. 2005. The competition for worldviews: 

values, information, and public support for stem cell 

research. International Journal of Public Opinion 

Research. 17(1): 90–112. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh058.

Nisbet, M.C. 2009. Communicating climate change: why 

frames matter for public engagement. Environment: 

Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. 51(2): 

12–23. doi:10.3200/envt.51.2.12-23.

Nocentini, S.; Buttoud, G.; Ciancio, O.; Corona, P. 2017.

Managing forests in a changing world: the need for a 

systemic approach. A review. Forest Systems. 26(1): 

eR01. doi:10.5424/fs/2017261-09443.

O’Leary, R.; Bingham, L.B., eds. 2003. Promise and 

performance of environmental conflict resolution. 1st ed. 

Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. 366 p. 

Olsen, C.S.; Mallon, A.L.; Shindler, B.A. 2012. Public 

acceptance of disturbance-based forest management: 

factors influencing support. ISRN Forestry. 2012: 1-10. 

doi:10.5402/2012/594067.
798

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Olsen, C.S.; Shindler, B.A. 2010. Trust, acceptance, and 

citizen-agency interactions after large fires: influences 

on planning processes. International Journal of Wildland 

Fire. 19(1): 137. doi:10.1071/wf08168.

Oreg, S.; Katz-Gerro, T. 2006. Predicting proenvironmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the 

theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm 

theory. Environment and Behavior. 38(4): 462–483. 

doi:10.1177/0013916505286012.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 2013.

SCORP: ensuring Oregon’s outdoor legacy. Salem, OR. 

127 p.

Palik, B.J.; D’Amato, A.W. 2017. Ecological forestry: 

much more than retention harvesting. Journal of 

Forestry. 115(1): 51–53. doi:10.5849/jof.16-057.

Patriquin, D.L.; Halpenny, E.A. 2017. Building consensus 

through place: place-making as a driver for place-based 

collaboration. Cogent Social Sciences. 3(1): 1300864. doi:

10.1080/23311886.2017.1300864.

Pergams, O.R.W.; Zaradic, P.A. 2008. Evidence 

for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from 

nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences. 105(7): 2295–2300. doi:10.1073/

pnas.0709893105.

Perozzo, C.; de la Sablonnière, R.; Auger, E.; CaronDiotte, M. 2016. Social identity change in response to 

discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology. 

55(3): 438–456. doi:10.1111/bjso.12145.

Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2013. Independent 

science panel report: Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library 

Group Forest Recovery Act. Washington, DC. 97 p.

Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. 

2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural 

ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy. 

33: 118–129. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013.

Popkin, S.I. 1991. The reasoning voter: communication 

and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago Press. 332 p. doi:10.1017/

s0008423900021752.

Potschin, M.; Haines-Young, R. 2013. Landscapes, 

sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem 

services. Landscape Ecology. 28(6): 1053–1065. 

doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9756-x.

Prell, C.; Hubacek, K.; Reed, M. 2009. Stakeholder 

analysis and social network analysis in natural resource 

management. Society & Natural Resources. 22(6): 501–

518. doi:10.1080/08941920802199202.

Proctor, J.D. 1995. Whose nature? The contested moral 

terrain of ancient forests. In: Cronon, W., ed. Uncommon 

ground: toward reinventing nature. New York: W.W. 

Norton and Company: 269–297.

Proctor, J.D. 2009. Old growth and a new nature: the 

ambivalence of science and religion. In: Spies, T.A.; 

Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth in a new world: a Pacific 

Northwest icon reexamined. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 104–115.

Propst, D.B.; Jackson, D.L.; McDonough, M.H. 2003.

Public participation, volunteerism and resource-based 

recreation management in the U.S.: What do citizens 

expect? Society and Leisure. 26(2): 389–415. doi:10.1080/

07053436.2003.10707628.

Proshansky, H.M.; Fabian, A.K.; Kaminoff, R. 1983.

Place-identity: physical world socialization of the self. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 3(1): 57–83. 

doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(83)80021-8.

Provan, K.G.; Veazie, M.A.; Staten, L.K.; Teufel-Shone, 

N.I. 2005. The use of network analysis to strengthen 

community partnerships. Public Administration Review. 

65(5): 603–613. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00487.x.

Racevskis, L.A.; Lupi, F. 2006. Comparing urban and 

rural perceptions of and familiarity with the management 

of forest ecosystems. Society & Natural Resources. 

19(6): 479–495. doi:10.1080/08941920600663862.
799

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Ranger, S.; Kenter, J.O.; Bryce, R.; Cumming, G.; 

Dapling, T.; Lawes, E.; Richardson, P.B. 2016.

Forming shared values in conservation management: 

an interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to 

including community voices. Ecosystem Services. 21: 

344–357. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.016.

Raymond, C.; Brown, G. 2006. A method for 

assessing protected area allocations using a typology 

of landscape values. Journal of Environmental 

Planning and Management. 49(6): 797–812. 

doi:10.1080/09640560600945331.

Raymond, C.M.; Bryan, B.A.; MacDonald, D.H.; Cast, 

A.; Strathearn, S.; Grandgirard, A.; Kalivas, T. 

2009. Mapping community values for natural capital 

and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics. 68(5): 

1301–1315. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006.

Read, W.H. 1962. Upward communication in 

industrial hierarchies. Human Relations. 15(1): 3–15. 

doi:10.1177/001872676201500101.

Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for 

environmental management: a literature review. 

Biological Conservation. 141(10): 2417–2431. 

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.

Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; 

Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; 

Stringer, L.C. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology 

of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource 

management. Journal of Environmental Management. 

90(5): 1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.

Reed, P.; Brown, G. 2003. Values suitability analysis: 

a methodology for identifying and integrating public 

perceptions of ecosystem values in forest planning. 

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 

46(5): 643–658. doi:10.1080/0964056032000138418.

Renn, O. 2006. Participatory processes for natural resource 

management. In: Stoll-Kleemann, S.; Welp, M., eds. 

Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. 

Berlin, Germany: Springer: 3–15. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-

36917-2_1.

Rentfrow, P.J. 2010. Statewide differences in personality: 

toward a psychological geography of the United States. 

American Psychologist. 65(6): 548–558. doi:10.1037/

a0018194.

Ribe, R.G. 1989. The aesthetics of forestry: What has 

empirical preference research taught us? Environmental 

Management. 13(1): 55–74. doi:10.1007/bf01867587.

Ribe, R.G. 2002. Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable 

management? The influence of environmental attitudes 

on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior. 

34(6): 757–780. doi:10.1177/001391602237245.

Ribe, R.G. 2006. Perceptions of forestry alternatives 

in the US Pacific Northwest: information effects 

and acceptability distribution analysis. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 26(2): 100–115. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvp.2006.05.004.

Ribe, R.G. 2009. In-stand scenic beauty of variable 

retention harvests and mature forests in the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest: the effects of basal area, density, retention 

pattern and down wood. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 91(1): 245–260. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2009.08.014.

Ribe, R.G. 2013. Public perceptions of west-side forests: 

improving visual impact assessments and designing 

thinnings and harvests for scenic integrity. In: Anderson, 

P.D.; Ronnenberg, K.L., eds. Density management in 

the 21st century: west side story. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-880. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 

22–37. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-880.

Ribe, R.G.; Ford, R.M.; Williams, K.J.H. 2013. Clearfell 

controversies and alternative timber harvest designs: 

how acceptability perceptions vary between 

Tasmania and the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 114: 46–62. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2012.09.029.
800

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Ribe, R.G.; Matteson, M.Y. 2002. Views of old forestry 

and new among reference groups in the Pacific 

Northwest. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

17(4): 173–182.

Rise, J.; Sheeran, P.; Hukkelberg, S. 2010. The role of 

self-identity in the theory of planned behavior: a metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 40(5): 

1085–1105. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00611.x.

Rohan, M.J. 2000. A rose by any name? The values 

construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 

4(3): 255–277. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0403_4.

Rokeach, M. 1973. The nature of human values. New York: 

Free Press. 438 p.

Rolle, S. 2002. Measures of progress for collaboration: 

case study of the Applegate Partnership. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-565. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 13 p. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-565.

Rolston, H.; Coufal, J. 1991. A forest ethic and multivalue 

forest management. Journal of Forestry. 89: 35–40.

Rousseau, D.M.; Tijoriwala, S.A. 1999. What’s a good 

reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social 

accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of 

Applied Psychology. 84(4): 514–528. doi:10.1037/0021-

9010.84.4.514.

Rowe, G.; Frewer, L.J. 2005. A typology of public 

engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human 

Values. 30(2): 251–290. doi:10.1177/0162243904271724.

Rudestam, K. 2014. Loving water, resenting regulation: 

sense of place and water management in the Willamette 

watershed. Society & Natural Resources. 27(1): 20–35. 

doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.840020.

Ryan, C.M.; Cerveny, L.C.; Blahna, D.J.; Robinson, 

T. 2018. Implementing the 2012 forest planning rule: 

best available scientific information in forest planning 

assessments. Forest Science. 64(2): 159–169.

Ryan, R.L. 2005. Exploring the effects of environmental 

experience on attachment to urban natural areas.

Environment and Behavior. 37(1): 3–42. doi:10.1177/

0013916504264147.

Sack, R.D. 1992. Place, modernity and the consumer’s 

world. Baltimore, MD: Johns-Hopkins University 

Press. 264 p.

Satterfield, T.; Gregory, R.; Klain, S.; Roberts, 

M.; Chan, K.M. 2013. Culture, intangibles and 

metrics in environmental management. Journal of 

Environmental Management. 117: 103–114. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2012.11.033.

Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. 2010. Defining place attachment: 

a tripartite organizing framework. Journal of 

Environmental Psychology. 30(1): 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvp.2009.09.006.

Schultz, C.A.; Coelho, D.L.; Beam, R.D. 2014. Design 

and governance of multiparty monitoring under the 

USDA Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program. Journal of Forestry. 112(2): 198–

206. doi:10.5849/jof.13-070.

Schultz, C.A.; Jedd, T.; Beam, R.D. 2012. The 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program: 

a history and overview of the first projects. Journal of 

Forestry. 110(7): 381–391. doi:10.5849/jof.11-082.

Schultz, P.W.; Gouveia, V.V.; Cameron, L.D.; Tankha, 

G.; Schmuck, P.; Franek, M. 2005. Values and their 

relationship to environmental concern and conservation 

behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 36(4): 

457–475. doi:10.1177/0022022105275962.

Schultz, P.W.; Shriver, C.; Tabanico, J.J.; Khazian, 

A.M. 2004. Implicit connections with nature. Journal 

of Environmental Psychology. 24(1): 31–42. doi:10.1016/

s0272-4944(03)00022-7.

Schwartz, S. 2006. A theory of cultural value orientations: 

explication and applications. Comparative Sociology. 

5(2): 137–182. doi:10.1163/156913306778667357.
801

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Schwartz, S.H. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the 

structure and contents of human values? Journal of 

Social Issues. 50(4): 19–45.

Schwartz, S.H.; Cieciuch, J.; Vecchione, M.; Davidov, 

E.; Fischer, R.; Beierlein, C.; Ramos, A.; Verkasalo, 

M.; Lönnqvist, J.-E.; Demirutku, K. 2012. Refining 

the theory of basic individual values. Journal of 

personality and social psychology. 103(4): 663.

Seekamp, E.; Cerveny, L.K. 2010. Examining USDA 

Forest Service recreation partnerships: institutional and 

relational interactions. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 28(4): 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/

s00267-011-9695-3 

Seekamp, E.; Cerveny, L.K.; McCreary, A. 

2011. Institutional, individual, and socio-cultural 

domains of partnerships: a typology of USDA Forest 

Service recreation partners. Environmental Management. 

48(3): 615–630. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9695-3.

Selin, S.W. 2017. Operationalizing sustainable recreation 

across the National Forest System: a qualitative content 

analysis of six regional strategies. Journal of Park and 

Recreation Administration. 35(3): 35–47. doi:10.18666/

jpra-2017-v35-i3-8020.

Seymour, E.; Curtis, A.; Pannell, D.J.; Roberts, A.; 

Allan, C. 2011. Same river, different values and why it 

matters. Ecological Management & Restoration. 12(3): 

207–213. doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00605.x.

Shaw, W.D.; Loomis, J.B. 2008. Frameworks for analyzing 

the economic effects of climate change on outdoor 

recreation. Climate Research. 36: 259–269. doi:10.3354/

cr00748.

Shelby, B.; Thompson, J.; Brunson, M.; Johnson, R. 

2003. Changes in scenic quality after harvest: a decade 

of ratings for six silviculture treatments. Journal of 

Forestry. 101(2): 30–35.

Shelby, B.; Thompson, J.R.; Brunson, M.; Johnson, R. 

2005. A decade of recreation ratings for six silviculture 

treatments in western Oregon. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 75(3): 239–246. doi:10.1016/j.

jenvman.2004.12.004.

Sherrouse, B.C.; Clement, J.M.; Semmens, D.J. 2011. A 

GIS application for assessing, mapping, and quantifying the 

social values of ecosystem services. Applied Geography. 

31(2): 748–760. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.08.002.

Shields, D.J.; Martin, I.M.; Martin, W.E.; Haefele, M.A. 

2002. Survey results of the American public’s values, 

objectives, beliefs, and attitudes regarding forests and 

grasslands: a technical document supporting the 2000 

USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. RMRS-GTR-95. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 111 p. doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-95.

Shindler, B.A.; Brunson, M.; Stankey, G.H. 2002. Social 

acceptability of forest conditions and management 

practices: a problem analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-537. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 68 p. 

doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-537.

Shindler, B.A.; Brunson, M.W.; Check, K.A. 2004. Social 

acceptability in forest and range management. In: 

Manfredo, M.; Vaske, J.; Bruyere, B.; Field, D.; Brown, 

P., eds. Society and natural resources: a summary of 

knowledge. Jefferson City, MO: Modern Litho Press: 

147–157.

Shindler, B.A.; Collson, P. 1998. Assessing public 

preferences for ecosystem management practices. In: 

Soden, D.; Lamb, B.L., eds. Ecosystem management: a 

social science perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt: 

161–174.

Sieber, R. 2006. Public participation geographic 

information systems: a literature review and framework. 

Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 

96(3): 491–507. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x.
802

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Siikamaki, J. 2011. Contributions of the US state park 

system to nature recreation. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 

108(34): 14031–14036. doi:10.1073/pnas.1108688108.

Smaldone, D.; Harris, C.; Sanyal, N. 2005. An 

exploration of place as a process: the case of Jackson 

Hole, WY. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 25(4): 

397–414. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.12.003.

Smiley, S.; de Loë, R.; Kreutzwiser, R. 2010. Appropriate 

public involvement in local environmental governance: a 

framework and case study. Society & Natural Resources. 

23(11): 1043–1059. doi:10.1080/08941920802627491.

Smith, J.W.; Seekamp, E.; McCreary, A.; Davenport, 

M.; Kanazawa, M.; Holmberg, K.; Wilson, B.; Nieber, 

J. 2016. Shifting demand for winter outdoor recreation 

along the North Shore of Lake Superior under variable 

rates of climate change: a finite-mixture modeling 

approach. Ecological Economics. 123: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.

ecolecon.2015.12.010.

Smith, M.D.; Krannich, R.S. 2009. ‘Culture clash’ 

revisited: newcomer and longer-term residents’ attitudes 

toward land use, development, and environmental issues 

in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural 

Sociology. 65(3): 396–421. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.

tb00036.x.

Smith, N. 2014. Sustaining ecosystem services across 

public and private lands: the Cool Soda All Lands 

Restoration Proposal. The federal resource management 

and ecosystem services guidebook. National Ecosystem 

Services Partnership, Federal Resource Management 

of Ecosystem Services Project (FRMES). 11 p. https://

nespguidebook.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/

FRMES-CE-4-FULL-PDF.pdf.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.; Blahna, D.; Patterson, 

T.; Spies, T.A.; Bennett, K. 2011. Ecosystem services 

as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes 

National Forest overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p. 

doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-852.

Smith, P.D.; McDonough, M.H. 2001. Beyond public 

participation: fairness in natural resource decision 

making. Society and Natural Resources. 14(3): 239–249. 

doi:10.1080/089419201750111056.

Soini, K. 2001. Exploring human dimensions of 

multifunctional landscapes through mapping and 

map-making. Landscape and Urban Planning. 57(3–4): 

225–239. doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(01)00206-7.

Sousa, D.J. 2011. The resilience of the Northwest Forest 

Plan: green drift? Journal of Environmental Studies and 

Sciences. 1(2): 114–125. doi:10.1007/s13412-011-0015-2.

Spaeth, A. 2014. Resilience in collaborative forest landscape 

restoration: the Lakeview Stewardship Group’s response 

to the Barry Point Fire. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. M.P.P final essay. http://ir.library.oregonstate.

edu/xmlui/handle/1957/50630. (15 December 2017).

Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. 2012. Old growth in 

a new world: a Pacific Northwest icon reexamined. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 360 p.

Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, 

B.; Sturtevant, V.; Clark, R.N.; Philpot, C. 

2003. Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest 

Plan: rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry. 101(1): 

40–46.

Stedman, R.C. 2002. Toward a social psychology of 

place: predicting behavior from place based cognitions, 

attitude, and identity. Environment and Behavior. 34(5): 

561–581. doi:10.1177/0013916502034005001.

Stedman, R.C. 2003. Is it really just a social construction? 

The contribution of the physical environment to sense 

of place. Society & Natural Resources. 16(8): 671–685. 

doi:10.1080/08941920309189.

Steel, B.S.; List, P.; Shindler, B. 1994. Conflicting values 

about federal forests: a comparison of national and 

Oregon publics. Society & Natural Resources. 7(2): 

137–153. doi:10.1080/08941929409380852.
803

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G.; van der Werff, E.; Lurvink, 

J. 2014. The significance of hedonic values for 

environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and 

actions. Environment and Behavior. 46(2): 163–192. 

doi:10.1177/0013916512454730.

Steg, L.; Vlek, C. 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental 

behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. 

Journal of Environmental Psychology. 29(3): 309–317. 

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.

Stein, T.V.; Lee, M.E. 1995. Managing recreation resources 

for positive outcomes: an application of benefitsbased management. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 13(3): 52–70.

Stern, M.J. 2008a. Coercion, voluntary compliance 

and protest: the role of trust and legitimacy in 

combating local opposition to protected areas. 

Environmental Conservation. 35(03): 200. doi:10.1017/

s037689290800502x.

Stern, M.J. 2008b. The power of trust: toward a theory 

of local opposition to neighboring protected areas. 

Society & Natural Resources. 21(10): 859–875. 

doi:10.1080/08941920801973763.

Stern, M.J.; Baird, T.D. 2015. Trust ecology and the 

resilience of natural resource management institutions. 

Ecology and Society. 20(2): 14. doi:10.5751/es-07248-

200214.

Stern, M.J.; Coleman, K.J. 2014. The multidimensionality 

of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource 

management. Society & Natural Resources. 28(2): 

117–132.

Stern, M.J.; Predmore, S.A. 2011. Decision making, 

procedural compliance, and outcomes definition in 

U.S. forest service planning processes. Environmental 

Impact Assessment Review. 31(3): 271–278. doi:10.1016/j.

eiar.2011.01.006.

Stern, P.C. 2000. New environmental theories: toward 

a coherent theory of environmentally significant 

behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 407–424. 

doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175.

Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. 1994. The value basis of 

environmental concern. Journal of Social Issues. 50(3): 

65–84. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x.

Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T., eds. 2008. Public participation 

in environmental assessment and decision making. 

Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 322 p.

Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Abel, T.; Guagnano, G.A.; Kalof, 

L. 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for 

social movements: the case of environmentalism. Human 

Ecology Review. 6: 81–95.

Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T.; Guagnano, G.A. 1995. The 

new ecological paradigm in social-psychological 

context. Environment and Behavior. 27(6): 723–743. 

doi:10.1177/0013916595276001.

Stets, J.E.; Burke, P.J. 2000. Identity theory and social 

identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly. 63(3): 224. 

doi:10.2307/2695870.

Stevens, T.H.; More, T.A.; Markowski-Lindsay, M. 2014.

Declining national park visitation: an economic analysis. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 46(2): 153–164.

Steyaert, P.; Barzman, M.; Billaud, J.-P.; Brives, H.; 

Hubert, B.; Ollivier, G.; Roche, B. 2007. The role of 

knowledge and research in facilitating social learning 

among stakeholders in natural resources management 

in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environmental 

Science & Policy. 10(6): 537–550. doi:10.1016/j.

envsci.2007.01.012.

Stidham, M.; Olsen, C.; Toman, E.; Frederick, S.; 

McCaffrey, S.; Shindler, B. 2014. Longitudinal social 

science research in natural resource communities: 

lessons and considerations. Society & Natural Resources. 

27(10): 1104–1108. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.905895.

Stokowski, P.A. 2002. Languages of place and discourses 

of power: constructing new senses of place. Journal of 

Leisure Research. 34: 368–382.
804

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Stynes, D.J. 2005. Economic significance of recreational 

uses of national parks and other public lands. Social 

Science Research Review. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service. 5(1). 

http://npshistory.com/publications/social-science/ssrr/

v5n1.pdf.

Summers, B. 2014. The effectiveness of forest collaborative 

groups in eastern Oregon. Portland, OR: Portland State 

University. 66 p. M.S. thesis.

Surmeli, H.; Saka, M. 2013. Preservice teachers’ 

anthropocentric, biocentric, and ecocentric 

environmental ethics approaches. International Journal 

of Academic Research. 5(5): 159–163. doi:10.7813/2075-

4124.2013/5-5/b.23.

Susskind, L.; McKearnon, S.; Thomas-Larner, J., eds. 

1999. The consensus building handbook. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Not paged].

Susskind, L.; Ozawa, C. 1984. Mediated negotiation 

in the public sector: the planner as mediator. Journal 

of Planning Education and Research. 4(1): 5–15. 

doi:10.1177/0739456x8400400103.

Swezy, C.; Reeve-Jolley, A.; Kusel, J. 2016. Monitoring 

socio-economics within collaborative forestry projects: 

trends in practices and challenges. Taylorsville, CA: 

Sierra Institute for Community and Environment. 24 p.

Tarrant, M.A.; Cordell, H.K. 1997. The effect of 

respondent characteristics on general environmental 

attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and 

Behavior. 29(5): 618–637. doi:10.1177/0013916597295002.

Tarrant, M.A.; Cordell, H.K. 2002. Amenity values of 

public and private forests: examining the value-attitude 

relationship. Environmental Management. 30(5): 692–

703. doi:10.1007/s00267-002-2722-7.

Tarrant, M.A.; Cordell, H.K.; Green, G.T. 2003. PVF: 

a scale to measure public values of forests. Journal of 

Forestry. 101(6): 24–30.

Tindall, D.B. 2003. Social values and the contingent nature 

of public opinion and attitudes about forests. The Forestry 

Chronicle. 79(3): 692–705. doi:10.5558/tfc79692-3.

Todd, A. 2014. Mapping sociocultural values of visitors 

on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Portland, OR: 

Portland State University. 104 p. M.S. thesis. http://

dx.doi.org/10.15760/etd.1636. (31 May 2017).

Tuan, Y.F. 1977. Space and place: the perspective of 

experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 

Press. 235 p.

Tuan, Y.F. 2013. Topophilia: a study of environmental 

perceptions, attitudes, and values. New York: Columbia 

University Press. 260 p.

Turner, J.C. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: a selfcategorization theory. Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil 

Blackwell. 239 p. 

Twigger-Ross, C.L.; Uzzell, D.L. 1996. Place and identity 

processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 16(3): 

205–220. doi:10.1006/jevp.1996.0017.

Urgenson, L.S.; Ryan, C.M.; Halpern, C.B.; Bakker, 

J.D.; Belote, R.T.; Franklin, J.F.; Haugo, R.D.; 

Nelson, C.R.; Waltz, A.E.M. 2017. Visions of 

restoration in fire-adapted forest landscapes: lessons 

from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program. Environmental Management. 59(2): 338–353. 

doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0791-2.

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment [US 

OTA]. 1992. Forest Service planning: accommodating 

uses, producing outputs, and sustaining ecosystems. 

OTA-F-505. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office. 206 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2012. Final programmatic environmental impact 

statement: National Forest System land management 

planning. Washington, DC. https://www.fs.usda.gov/

detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprdb5349164. (31 

May 2017).
805

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

[USDA FS]. 2014. The National Strategy: the final 

phase in the development of the National Cohesive 

Wildland Fire Management Strategy. https://www.

forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/thestrategy.shtml. 

(15 December 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2015a. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program 5-year report, FY2010-2014. FS-1047. http://

www.fs.fed.us/restoration/documents/cflrp/CFLRP_5-

YearReport.pdf. (15 December 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2015b. Land management planning handbook. 

FSH 1909.12. Washington, DC. https://www.fs.usda.

gov/detail/planningrule/home/?cid=stelprd3828310. 

(31 May 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2015c. Mt. Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest 

forest-wide sustainable roads report. https://www.fs.usda.

gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd486757.pdf. 

(31 May 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2016a. Draft environmental impact statement 

for revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National 

Forests land management plans. Vallejo, CA: Pacific 

Southwest Region. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r5/

landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRD3802842. 

(10 January 2018).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2016b. National visitor use monitoring results. 

Washington, DC. http://apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/

results/. (24 February 2016).

U.S. Office of Management and Budget [US OMB]. 2015.

Incorporating ecosystem services into federal decision 

making. Memorandum. M-15-01. Washington, DC. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/

omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf. (10 January 2018).

Ujang, N.; Zakariya, K. 2015. The notion of place, 

place meaning and identity in urban regeneration. 

Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences. 170: 709–717. 

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.073.

Vaske, J.J.; Bright, A.D.; Absher, J.D. 2008. Salient value 

similarity, social trust, and attitudes toward wildland fire 

management strategies. In: Chavez, D.J.; Absher, J.D.; 

Winter, P.L., eds. Fire social science research from the 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: studies supported 

by National Fire Plan funds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-209. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

233–251. doi:10.2737/psw-gtr-209.

Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P. 1999. A value-attitudebehavior model predicting wildland preservation voting 

intentions. Society & Natural Resources. 12(6): 523–537. 

doi:10.1080/089419299279425.

Vaske, J.J.; Donnelly, M.P.; Williams, D.R.; Jonker, S. 

2001. Demographic influences on environmental value 

orientations and normative beliefs about national forest 

management. Society & Natural Resources. 14(9): 761–

776. doi:10.1080/089419201753210585.

von der Porten, S.; de Loë, R.C. 2014. How collaborative 

approaches to environmental problem solving view 

indigenous peoples: a systematic review. Society & 

Natural Resources. 27(10): 1040–1056. doi:10.1080/08941

920.2014.918232.

Warnick, R.B.; Schuett, M.A.; Kuentzel, W.; Stevens, 

T. 2013. National Park Service visitation and search 

behavior: an update to 2010. http://scholarworks.umass.

edu/nerr/2012/Papers/17/. (24 February 2016).

Warnick, R.B.; Stevens, T.; Schuett, M.A.; Kuentzel, 

W.; Moore, T.A. 2010. Changes in national park 

visitation and interest in outdoor recreation activities. 

In: Watts, C.E., Jr.; Fisher, C.L., eds. Proceedings of the 

2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. 

Proceedings. NRS-P-66. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station: 204–213.
806

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office. 

2013. Outdoor recreation in Washington: the 2013 State 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Olympia, WA. 

176 p.

Weber, E.P. 2003. Bringing society back in: grassroots 

ecosystem management, accountability, and sustainable 

communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 334 p. 

Weber, E.P.; Khademian, A.M. 2008. Wicked problems, 

knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity 

builders in network settings. Public Administration 

Review. 68(2): 334–349. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

6210.2007.00866.x.

Webler, T.; Tuler, S. 2000. Fairness and competence 

in citizen participation: theoretical reflections from a 

case study. Administration & Society. 32(5): 566–595. 

doi:10.1177/00953990022019588.

Webler, T.; Tuler, S.; Krueger, R. 2001. What is a good 

public participation process? Five perspectives from the 

public. Environmental Management. 27(3): 435–450. 

doi:10.1007/s002670010160.

Wheeler, R. 2017. Reconciling windfarms with rural 

place identity: exploring residents’ attitudes to existing 

sites. Sociologia Ruralis. 57(1): 110–132. doi:10.1111/

soru.12121.

Whitall, D.; Thomas, C.; Brink, S.; Bartlett, G. 2014.

Interest-based deliberative democracy in natural resource 

management. In: Morgan, D.F.; Cook, B.J., eds. New 

public governance: a regime-centered perspective. New 

York: M.E. Sharpe: 169–179.

Whitall, D.R. 2007. Network analysis of a shared 

governance system. Portland, OR: Portland State 

University. 125 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

White, D.D.; Virden, R.J.; van Riper, C.J. 2008. Effects 

of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use 

history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural 

setting. Environmental Management. 42(4): 647–657. 

doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9143-1.

White, E.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Langner, L.L.; 

Arnold, J.R.; English, D.B.K. 2016. Federal outdoor 

recreation trends: effects on economic opportunities. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

White, E.M.; Davis, E.J.; Bennett, D.E.; Moseley, C. 

2015. Monitoring of outcomes from Oregon’s Federal 

Forest Health Program. Working Paper. 57. University 

of Oregon, Ecosystem Workforce Program. http://ewp.

uoregon.edu/sites/ewp.uoregon.edu/files/WP_57.pdf. 

(20 June 2017).

Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. 2010. Green identity, green 

living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity 

in determining consistency across diverse proenvironmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental 

Psychology. 30(3): 305–314. doi:10.1016/

j.jenvp.2010.01.003.

Williams, D.R. 2002. Leisure identities, globalization, and 

the politics of place. Journal of Leisure Research. 34: 

351–367.

Williams, D.R.; Jakes, P.J.; Burns, S.; Cheng, A.S.; 

Nelson, K.C.; Sturtevant, V.; Brummel, R.F.; 

Staychock, E.; Souter, S.G. 2012. Community wildfire 

protection planning: the importance of framing, scale, 

and building sustainable capacity. Journal of Forestry. 

110(8): 415–420. doi:10.5849/jof.12-001.

Williams, D.R.; Stewart, W.P.; Kruger, L.E. 2013. The 

emergence of place-based conservation. In: Williams, 

D.R.; Stewart, W.P.; Kruger, L.E., eds. Place-based 

conservation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer: 1–17. 

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5802-5_1.

Williams, K.; Biedenweg, K.; Cerveny, L. 2017.

Understanding ecosystem service preferences across 

residential classifications near Mt. Baker Snoqualmie 

National Forest, Washington (USA). Forests. 8(5): 157. 

doi:10.3390/f8050157.
807

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Winter, C.; Lockwood, M. 2004. The natural area 

value scale: a new instrument for measuring natural 

area values. Australasian Journal of Environmental 

Management. 11(1): 11–20. doi:10.1080/14486563.2004.1

0648594.

Winter, P.L.; Palucki, L.J.; Burkhardt, R.L. 1999.

Anticipated responses to a fee program: the key is trust. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 31(3): 207–226.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Gray, B.; Bryan, T. 2003. Us versus 

them: how identities and characterizations influence 

conflict. Environmental Practice. 5(3): 207–213. 

doi:10.1017/s1466046603035592.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making collaboration 

work: lessons from innovation in natural resource 

management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 280 p.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. 2003. Collaborative 

ecosystem planning processes in the United States: 

evolution and challenges. Environments. 31(2): 59–72.

Wood, D. 1992. The power of maps. New York: Guilford 

Press. 349 p.

Xu, Z.; Bengston, D.N. 1997. Trends in national 

forest values among forestry professionals, 

environmentalists, and the news media, 1982-

1993. Society & Natural Resources. 10(1): 43–59. 

doi:10.1080/08941929709381008.

Yang, K. 2005. Public administrators’ trust in citizens: 

a missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public 

Administration Review. 65(3): 273–285. doi:10.1111/

j.1540-6210.2005.00453.x.

Yang, K.; Pandey, S.K. 2011. Further dissecting 

the black box of citizen participation: When does 

citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public 

Administration Review. 71(6): 880–892. doi:10.1111/

j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x.

Yung, L.; Freimund, W.A.; Belsky, J.M. 2003. The 

politics of place: understanding meaning, common 

ground, and political difference on the Rocky Mountain 

front. Forest Science. 49(6): 855–866.

Zinn, H.C.; Manfredo, M.J.; Vaske, J.J.; Wittmann, 

K. 1998. Using normative beliefs to determine 

the acceptability of wildlife management actions. 

Society & Natural Resources. 11(7): 649–662. 

doi:10.1080/08941929809381109.

Zube, E.H. 1987. Perceived land use patterns and landscape 

values. Landscape Ecology. 1(1): 37–45. doi:10.1007/

bf02275264.
808

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Inner City Youth Institute, High School Natural Resources Camp, Multnomah Falls, Oregon. 

Photo by USDA Forest Service.
809

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Chapter 10—Environmental Justice, Low-Income and 

Minority Populations, and Forest Management in the 

Northwest Forest Plan Area

Susan Charnley, Delilah Jaworski, Heidi Huber-Stearns, 

Eric M. White, Elisabeth Grinspoon, Rebecca J. McLain, 

and Lee Cerveny1

Introduction 

This chapter synthesizes literature about the relation 

between federal forest management and low-income and 

minority populations, as defined by Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12898 (February 16, 1994)—“Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” (Clinton 1994). The order 

requires federal land managers to identify and address 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects of agency programs, policies, and 

actions on minority and low-income populations. In this 

chapter, we use the term “environmental justice populations” to refer to populations protected by E.O. 12898 in 

matters of environmental justice (defined below). The U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and U.S. 

Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) primarily address environmental justice in their 

land and resource management planning processes. For 

example, the Forest Service 2012 planning rule2 requires 

responsible officials to “encourage participation by 

youth, low-income, and minority populations” (p. 21167) 

throughout all stages of the planning process, and, under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, 

preparation of an environmental impact statement that 

includes impacts on low-income and minority populations.

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) socioeconomic 

monitoring has not explicitly monitored low-income or 

minority populations other than American Indian tribes. 

Moreover, since 2006, NWFP socioeconomic monitoring has focused on status and trends in socioeconomic 

well-being in the Plan area, and has not examined how 

these trends might be linked to the NWFP. Thus, we are 

unable to specify how the NWFP has affected low-income 

and minority populations. However, federal land managers 

in the Plan area submitted several priority management 

questions pertaining to environmental justice and forest 

management for consideration in this science synthesis 

report. These serve as the guiding questions for this 

chapter. Chapter 8 discusses the economic impacts of the 

plan in Plan-area communities. American Indian tribes 

are the subject of chapter 11; this chapter focuses on other 

minority populations.

In the absence of monitoring data, we rely mainly on 

existing scholarly research studies. Existing environmental 

justice-related forestry research focuses mainly on urban 

issues; for example, the distribution of urban tree cover in 

relation to the social and economic characteristics of people 

living in different city neighborhoods (e.g., Schwarz et al. 

2015). Nevertheless, some studies address how environmental justice populations use and value federal forests. 

Although none has directly investigated how the NWFP has 

affected minority populations, some include information 

about how federal forest management may affect them more 

broadly. A tendency to think about environmental justice 

as an urban issue challenges federal forest managers to 

consider how their actions may affect environmental justice 

populations in rural settings.

1 Susan Charnley is a research social scientist, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

620 SW Main Street, Portland OR 97205; Delilah Jaworski is a 

social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Region, 1617 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 

80401; Heidi Huber-Stearns is an assistant research professor 

and associate director of the Ecosystem Workforce Program, 

Institute for a Sustainable Environment, 130 Hendricks Hall, 

5247University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; Eric M. White is a 

research social scientist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 

93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512.; Elisabeth Grinspoon is a 

regional social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, 

OR 97204; Rebecca J. McLain is an assistant research professor, 

Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, 1600 

SW 4th Avenue, Suite 110, Portland, OR 97201; Lee Cerveny is a 

research social scientist, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 

N. 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103. 2

 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 36 CFR Part 

219, National Forest System Land Management Planning, Section 

219.5. Federal Register 77(68): 21162–21276. April 9, 2012, Rules 

and Regulations.
810

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Defining Environmental Justice

Most of the following section on defining environmental 

justice—including the references to other documents—is 

excerpted from Grinspoon et al. (2014: 3–8), a guidance 

document for Forest Service staff to help them comply with 

E.O. 12898 during the NEPA process. NEPA requires the 

agency to consider the potential social and economic effects 

of its proposed actions. There is no one universally agreedupon definition of environmental justice in the scholarly 

literature; the Forest Service defines environmental justice 

in accordance with USDA departmental regulations (USDA 

1997). Environmental justice includes the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental 

laws, regulations, and policies (USEPA 2013). An environmental justice population is a group of people that meets the 

criteria for low-income or minority status under E.O. 12898. 

An environmental justice population may be low income 

and/or minority. 

Defining Minority Population

During the 1980s and 1990s, the U.S. Census Bureau 

(USDC CB 1999) enumerated population in four racial 

categories (White, Black, American Indian or Alaska 

Native, Asian or Pacific Islander), and two categories 

of ethnicity (Hispanic and non-Hispanic). Adopting the 

Census Bureau’s categories, USDA regulations define a 

minority as “a person who is a member of the following 

population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; 

Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; 

or Hispanic” (USDA 1997: 2). Following guidelines for 

federal data regarding race and ethnic categories issued by 

the Office of Management and Budget in 1997, the Census 

Bureau revised its racial categories for the 2000 and 2010 

censuses (White; Black or African American; American 

Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander; some other race; and two or more 

races). It also revised its ethnicity categories for the 2000 

and 2010 censuses from Hispanic and non-Hispanic, to 

Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. USDA 

regulations have not been updated to reflect these more 

recent Census Bureau categories; however, environmental 

justice guidance documents continue to treat all populations other than non-Hispanic or non-Latino Whites as 

minorities. Note that there are some White people who are 

non-Hispanic or non-Latino who may be considered to be 

minorities based on other national origins (e.g., people of 

Middle Eastern origin) who are excluded by this USDA 

definition. For purposes of this chapter, we adopt the 

terminology for minority populations used by the Census 

Bureau at the time of the study or data cited; or by the 

terminology used by the study we cite if it is different 

from the Census Bureau categories (to accurately represent 

research findings).

In its direction on environmental justice in NEPA, 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines a 

minority population as:

1. A readily identifiable group of people living in 

geographic proximity with a population that is 50 

percent minority or greater. The population may be 

made up of one minority or a number of different 

minority groups; together the sum is 50 percent or 

more; or,

2. A minority population may be an identifiable group 

that has a meaningfully greater minority population than the adjacent geographic areas, or may 

also be a geographically dispersed/transient set 

of individuals such as migrant workers or Native 

Americans (CEQ 1997).

Defining Low-Income Population

According to the CEQ, a low-income population is a community or a group of individuals living in geographic proximity 

to one another, or a set of individuals such as migrant 

workers or American Indians, who meet the standards for 

low income and experience common conditions of environmental exposure or effect (CEQ 1997). USDA departmental 

regulations (USDA 1997: 2) state that low-income populations in an affected area should be identified by the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s 

annual current population reports (Series P-60) on income 
811

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

and poverty. The official poverty measure was developed 

in the 1960s. The Census Bureau (USDC CB 2013) defines 

low-income populations by the percentage of people living 

below poverty in a given area, which is consistent with 

CEQ’s environmental justice guidance. Low-income status 

is determined by comparing annual income to a set of dollar 

values called poverty thresholds that differ by family size, 

number of children, and age of householder. If a family’s 

before-tax monetary income is less than the dollar value of 

their threshold, then that family and every individual in it 

are considered to be living in poverty. For people not living 

in families, poverty status is determined by comparing the 

individual’s income to his or her poverty threshold. 

For tables showing Department of Health and Human 

Services guidelines for poverty, see the Federal Register 

notice (USDHHS 2013).3 For more information, see also 

“How poverty is calculated in the ACS [American Community Survey]” (USDC CB 2013). In 2013, the poverty 

guideline for the 48 contiguous states and the District of 

Columbia was $11,490 for a one-person household and 

$23,550 for a four-person household. The Census Bureau 

updates the poverty thresholds annually using the Consumer Price Index.

Guiding Questions 

Regional federal land managers wished to know whether 

environmental justice populations in the NWFP area have 

been growing, and to understand the implications of trends 

in the size of these populations for federal forest management. Thus, this chapter addresses the following questions 

pertaining to environmental justice, low income and 

minority populations, and federal forest management:

1. What are the trends in the size of low-income 

and minority populations in the NWFP area 

since the Plan was adopted, and what is their 

current distribution?

2. How do low-income and minority populations 

interact with federal forests in the NWFP area?

We address the implications of these trends and 

interactions for forest management in the “Conclusions and 

Management Considerations” section of this chapter.

Key Findings

Trends in Low-Income and Minority Population 

Sizes and Current Distribution

The size and percentage of environmental justice populations in the Plan area have increased since the NWFP was 

adopted, consistently with national trends. This increase 

has occurred both in the size of low-income populations 

(measured here by number of people living below the poverty line), and the number of people belonging to minority 

groups specified by E.O. 12898. These trends are detailed 

below. We use 1990 as our baseline because of the availability of decennial U.S. Census data from 1990. For current 

status, we use U.S. Census data from 2012, consistent with 

the 20-year NWFP socioeconomic monitoring report (Grinspoon et al. 2016). The census data provide the best available 

information on low-income and minority populations across 

the Plan area. Although some low-income and minority populations may be missed by census takers, such as transient 

workers or undocumented immigrants, no other datasets 

are currently available that capture these populations for the 

Plan area as a whole in a statistically significant manner. 

There are 72 counties—32 metropolitan, and 40 nonmetropolitan—in the Plan area (appendix). The population size 

data presented below are for the Plan area as a whole, and for 

metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan counties (in aggregate). 

There is no evidence to suggest that trends in the size and 

percentage of environmental justice populations since the 

NWFP was adopted are in any way linked to the Plan.

Low-income populations—

The poverty rate in the NWFP area as a whole increased 

from 11.2 to 14.7 percent of the region’s population between 

1990 and 2012 (table 10-1). Nevertheless, the poverty rate 

was lower overall than the national poverty rate during the 

three periods reported here. Although poverty rates fell in 

many subregions of the Plan area between 1990 and 2000, 

those improvements were more than offset by increases 

in poverty across the Plan area between 2000 and 2012. 

Poverty rates were uniformly higher in nonmetropolitan 

counties than in metropolitan counties during the analysis 

period, and they were also higher than the national average 

(which includes both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
812

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

counties) (table 10-1). Overall, poverty rates were highest in 

Oregon and lowest in Washington in both 1990 and 2012. 

However, in California, nonmetropolitan counties had the 

highest poverty rates within the Plan area during the period. 

These counties also experienced the biggest increase in 

poverty—rising from 15.6 percent in 1990 to 21.7 percent in 

2012, with no dip in 2000, unlike the other subregions (table 

10-1). Figure 10-1 shows poverty rates in the NWFP area by 

county in 2012. The highest poverty rates were concentrated 

in northern California and southern Oregon. Counties with 

the lowest poverty rates are concentrated around the greater 

San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle metropolitan areas.

Minority populations—

The percentage of the population identifying as a racial or 

ethnic minority grew in both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties within the Plan area between 1990 and 2012 

(table 10-2). Most notably, the percentage of the population 

identifying as Hispanic or Latino doubled in nonmetropolitan counties, and nearly tripled in metropolitan counties 

in the Plan area. The percentage of the White population 

declined more in metropolitan counties than in nonmetropolitan counties. Plan-area counties with high concentrations of 

minority residents were clustered near California’s Central 

Valley and east of the Cascade Range crest in Washington 

(fig. 10-2). This finding may be explained by evidence that 

about half of farm laborers and their supervisors in the 

United States are Hispanic or Latino (USDA ERS 2012), 

and these are areas of high agricultural activity.

American Indian and Alaska Native populations were 

higher in the NWFP area than in the nation as a whole (table 

10-3). They were more prevalent in nonmetropolitan counties 

than in metropolitan counties of the Plan area throughout 

the period (table 10-2). In 2012, they accounted for a higher 

percentage of the population in nonmetropolitan counties 

in California (in aggregate) than in other subregions (tables 

10-4 to 10-6; fig. 10-3). In Oregon and Washington, counties 

with high percentages of American Indian and Alaska Native 

populations reflect the presence of tribal reservation lands 

(e.g., the Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon and the 

Colville Indian Reservation in Washington). In contrast, Black 

or African American, and Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other 

Pacific Islander populations formed a higher percentage of the 

population in metropolitan than in nonmetropolitan counties 

(table 10-2), and the highest percentage population for both 

was in metropolitan counties in Washington (tables 10-4 to 

10-6). At the individual county level, Black or African American, and Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander 

populations are concentrated around Seattle, Portland, and 

Table 10-1—County-level poverty rates in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) area, 1990, 2000, and 2012

1990 poverty rate 2000 poverty rate 2012 poverty rate

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

United States 13.5 11.3 15.0

All NWFP-area counties 11.2 10.0 14.7

All metropolitan counties 10.3 9.1 13.9

All nonmetropolitan counties 15.3 14.2 19.0

All California NWFP-area counties 11.4 11.1 15.4

All California metropolitan counties 9.6 9.0 13.1

All California nonmetropolitan counties 15.6 16.4 21.7

All Oregon NWFP-area counties 12.2 10.4 16.9

All Oregon metropolitan counties 11.4 9.7 16.4

All Oregon nonmetropolitan counties 15.2 13.2 19.2

All Washington NWFP-area counties 10.5 9.4 13.2

All Washington metropolitan counties 9.9 8.8 12.8

All Washington nonmetropolitan counties 15.1 13.3 16.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau small-area income and poverty estimates. 
813

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Poverty percentage

8–13

13–16

16–1

18–21

21–25

Metropolitan county

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

!

!

!

! State boundary

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

Figure 10-1—Percentage 

of people living in poverty 

in Northwest Forest Planarea counties, 2012.
814

Table 10-2—Minority populations in the Northwest Forest Plan area, 1990, 2000, and 2012

1990 2000 2012

Plan 

area

NonmetropolitanMetropolitanPlan 

area

NonmetropolitanMetropolitanPlan 

area

NonmetropolitanMetropolitan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

American Indian and 

Alaska Native

2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 

Asian, Native 

Hawaiian, other 

Pacific Islandera

4 1 4 5 1 6 7 2 9 

Black or African 

American

3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 4 

White 92 95 92 88 93 86 84 90 82 

Hispanic or Latinob 5 6 5 9 7 8 14 12 14 

≥ two racesc 3 2 3 4 4 4 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.

a

 The 1990 Census grouped Asians and Pacific Islanders into one category. In 2000, this category was divided into two: Asian, and Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander. For consistency across years, we have grouped these two back into one category. 

b Hispanic or Latino is a category of ethnicity. Individuals may identify as Hispanic or Latino and any of the racial categories (e.g., Hispanic or Latino 

and White, Hispanic or Latino and Black). Therefore, table totals will not sum to 100 percent.

c This category was not available on the 1990 census form.

Table 10-3—Minority populations in the United States, 1990, 2000, and 2012

1990 2000 2012

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

American Indian and Alaska Native 1 1 1 

Asian, Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islandera 3 4 5 

Black or African American 12 13 13 

White 84 81 78 

Hispanic or Latinob 9 13 17 

≥ two racesc 1 2 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.

a

 The 1990 Census grouped Asians and Pacific Islanders into one category. In 2000, this category was divided into two: Asian, and Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander. For consistency across years, we have grouped these two back into one category. 

b Hispanic or Latino is a category of ethnicity. Individuals may identify as Hispanic or Latino and any of the racial categories (e.g., Hispanic or Latino 

and White, Hispanic or Latino and Black). Therefore, table totals will not sum to 100 percent.

c This category was not available on the 1990 census form.
815

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Portland

Seattle

Minority percentage

8.2–13.8

13.9–18.2

18.3–26.2

26.3–33.9

34–63.2

Metropolitan county

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

!

!

!

! State boundary

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

San Francisco

Figure 10-2—Minority 

percentage of populations (combined) in 

Northwest Forest Planarea counties, 2012.
816

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Table 10-4—Minority populations in California’s Northwest Forest Plan area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 

1990 2000 2012

California

Nonmetropolitan MetropolitanNonmetropolitan MetropolitanNonmetropolitan Metropolitan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

American Indian and 

Alaska Native

4 1 4 1 5 2 

Asian, Native 

Hawaiian, other 

Pacific Islandera

1 4 1 5 2 7 

Black or African 

American

1 2 2 2 2 2 

White 94 93 90 89 87 85 

Hispanic or Latinob 9 11 14 17 19 23 

≥ 2 racesc 3 2 4 4 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.

a

The 1990 Census grouped Asians and Pacific Islanders into one category. In 2000, this category was divided into two: Asian, and Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander. For consistency across years, we have grouped these two back into one category. 

b Hispanic or Latino is a category of ethnicity. Individuals may identify as Hispanic or Latino and any of the racial categories (e.g., Hispanic or Latino 

and White, Hispanic or Latino and Black). Therefore, table totals will not sum to 100 percent.

c

This category was not available on the 1990 census form.

Table 10-5—Minority populations in Oregon’s Northwest Forest Plan area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 

1990 2000 2012

Oregon

Nonmetropolitan MetropolitanNonmetropolitan MetropolitanNonmetropolitan Metropolitan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

American Indian and 

Alaska Native

2 1 2 1 2 1 

Asian, Native 

Hawaiian, other 

Pacific Islandera

1 3 1 1 2 6 

Black or African 

American

<0.5 2 1 3 1 3 

White 97 94 94 90 92 86 

Hispanic or Latinob 3 4 6 9 9 15 

≥ 2 racesc 2 2 3 4 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.

a

 The 1990 Census grouped Asians and Pacific Islanders into one category. In 2000, this category was divided into two: Asian, and Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander. For consistency across years, we have grouped these two back into one category. 

b Hispanic or Latino is a category of ethnicity. Individuals may identify as Hispanic or Latino and any of the racial categories (e.g., Hispanic or Latino 

and White, Hispanic or Latino and Black). Therefore, table totals will not sum to 100 percent.

c This category was not available on the 1990 census form.
817

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

the San Francisco Bay area (figs. 10-4 and 10-5). The high 

percentage of the population that was Black or African 

American in northeastern California is attributable to the 

demographic composition of the prison population that resides 

in Lassen County. The percentage of the population identifying as Hispanic or Latino was high relative to other minority 

groups in the Plan area as a whole, and was similar between 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties (table 10-2). The 

percentage of the population that was Hispanic or Latino was 

highest in California counties (in aggregate) (tables 10-4 to 

10-6). Hispanic or Latino populations were highest in NWFP 

counties of eastern Washington and California’s Central 

Valley, where farming is an important economic sector.

The percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native, 

and Black or African American populations did not increase 

between 1990 and 2012, while the percentage of Asian, 

Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations grew, 

and the percentage of Hispanic or Latino populations grew 

substantially (table 10-2). The NWFP area had a higher 

percentage of the total population that was American Indian 

or Alaska Native, and Asian, Native Hawaiian, or other 

Pacific Islander compared with the nation as a whole in 2012, 

but a substantially lower percentage of the total population 

that was Black or African American, or Hispanic or Latino, 

compared with the nation as a whole (tables 10-2 and 10-3). 

Many poor counties in the Plan area also have large 

shares of minority residents (fig. 10-7). However, poverty 

is not limited to those areas having high concentrations 

of minorities. For example, Josephine, Douglas, and Lane 

counties in Oregon and Trinity County in California have 

some of the highest rates of poverty in the Plan area (all 

exceed 20 percent), yet their residents are predominantly 

White who are not of Hispanic/Latino origin. Similarly, 

low-poverty counties in the greater San Francisco, Portland, 

and Seattle metropolitan areas have relatively high concentrations of minorities. The coarseness of county-level 

data used for NWFP socioeconomic monitoring over the 

past decade, and the data presented here, prevent finer scale 

comparisons (e.g., community-level) of minority status, 

poverty, and the relationship between them. Examining how 

trends in minority group populations and poverty rates may 

be linked is beyond the scope of this chapter. Nevertheless, 

at the national level, Black/African American, American 

Indian, and Hispanic or Latino populations in the United 

States experience significantly higher rates of poverty than 

White and Asian populations (Macartney et al. 2013).

Table 10-6—Minority populations in Washington’s Northwest Forest Plan area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 

1990 2000 2012

Washington

Nonmetropolitan MetropolitanNonmetropolitan MetropolitanNonmetropolitan Metropolitan

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

American Indian and 

Alaska Native

3 2 3 1 3 2

Asian, Native 

Hawaiian, other 

Pacific Islandera

2 5 2 8 2 10

Black or African 

American

1 4 1 4 1 5

White 94 89 92 84 90 79

Hispanic or Latinob 6 5 7 7 11 12

≥ 2 racesc 2 3 3 5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau population estimates.

a

 The 1990 Census grouped Asians and Pacific Islanders into one category. In 2000, this category was divided into two: Asian, and Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander. For consistency across years, we have grouped these two back into one category. 

b Hispanic or Latino is a category of ethnicity. Individuals may identify as Hispanic or Latino and any of the racial categories (e.g., Hispanic or Latino 

and White, Hispanic or Latino and Black). Therefore, table totals will not sum to 100 percent.

c This category was not available on the 1990 census form.
818

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Portland

Seattle

American Indian and 

Alaska Native percentage

0.8–4.3

4.4–7.9

8–11.4

11.5–14.9

15–18.4

Northwest Forest Plan boundary !

!

! State boundary

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

San Francisco

Figure 10-3—American 

Indian and Alaska 

Native percentage of 

populations in Northwest Forest Plan-area 

counties, 2012.
819

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Portland

Seattle

Asian, Native Hawaiian, and 

other Pacific Islander percentage

0.2–3.5

3.6–6.7

6.8–10

10.1–13.2

13.3–16.5

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

State boundary

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

San Francisco

!

!

!

Figure 10-4—Asian, 

Native Hawaiian, and 

other Pacific Islander 

percentage of populations in Northwest 

Forest Plan-area 

counties, 2012. 
820

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Portland

Seattle

Black or African American percentage

0.2–2.0

2.1–3.7

3.8–5.5

5.6–7.2

7.3–9.0

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

State boundary

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

San Francisco

!

!

!

Figure 10-5—Black 

or African American 

percentage of populations in Northwest 

Forest Plan-area 

counties, 2012. 
821

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Portland

Seattle

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

San Francisco

Hispanic or Latino percentage

3.1–14.7

14.8–26.3

26.4–37.8

37.9–49.4

49.5–61.0

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

State boundary !

!

!

Figure 10-6—Hispanic 

or Latino Percentage of 

populations in Northwest Forest Plan-area 

counties, 2012. 
822

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Portland

Seattle

OREGON

WASHINGTON

CALIFORNIA

San Francisco

8.2–13.8

13.9–18.2

18.3–26.2

26.3–33.9

34.0–63.2

Minority percentage

!

!

!

!

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

State boundary

8–13

13–16

16–18

18–21

21–25

Poverty percentage

Figure 10-7—Minority 

populations by Northwest Forest Plan-area 

county poverty rates, 

2012.
823

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

How Low-Income and Minority Populations 

Interact With Federal Forests in the Plan Area

The demographic composition of the NWFP area is changing: the percentage of the total population comprised of 

minority groups, especially Hispanic or Latino, is increasing, as are poverty rates. Research indicates that to some 

degree, different populations maintain different relations to 

federal forests, have different use preferences, and face different constraints that influence their use of federal forests, 

though variation within groups exists (as it does among all 

demographic groups). They may also have different views 

of the environment and resource management, and different 

environmental behaviors and values (see chapter 9). To 

comply with E.O. 12898 and to encourage use of federal 

forests by environmental justice populations, it is important 

to understand these differences and ways of overcoming 

constraints. The scientific literature from the Pacific 

Northwest is limited in this arena, and focuses mainly on 

participation by low-income and minority populations in the 

environmental work force, the gathering of nontimber forest 

products, and recreation. We address these topics below, and 

also note some emergent issues: the presence of temporary 

residents—including homeless populations—on national forests, many of whom are likely low income; and connections 

between wildfire management and environmental justice.

The environmental workforce—

Forest workers are employed by contracting businesses to 

conduct forest restoration and related work, often on federal 

lands. Forest workers in the Pacific Northwest perform 

a variety of labor-intensive tasks, such as planting and 

thinning trees, piling and burning brush, manual herbicide 

application, and digging firelines to fight wildland fires 

(Moseley 2006) (fig. 10-8). These tasks, which typically 

Figure 10-8—Forest workers cut and pile brush on the Six Rivers National Forest in California. 

Susan Charnley
824

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

require shoveling, planting, hand cutting, and similar manual 

labor, are more labor-intensive than other work performed 

by forest workers that entails less manual labor, such as 

operating heavy machinery and timber cruising. In 2014, 

there were an estimated 6,400 forest workers in Oregon 

alone during peak season (Wilmsen et al. 2015). This section 

focuses on the working conditions of workers hired by 

forestry and fire contracting businesses. To date there have 

been few systematic studies conducted on forest workers 

(Wilmsen et al. 2015). Most of the studies we draw on took 

place in western Oregon; information is much more limited 

for the California and Washington parts of the Plan area. 

Since the late 1970s, forest workers in the Pacific 

Northwest have been predominantly Hispanic or Latino, 

marking a shift away from what was previously a White, 

not Hispanic or Latino, workforce toward one that is now 

primarily composed of low-income Hispanic or Latino 

immigrants and undocumented workers (Casanova and 

McDaniel 2005; Moseley et al. 2014; Sarathy 2006, 2012). 

Although the available scientific literature does not provide current statistics on the proportions of Hispanic or 

Latino workers now in the Northwest’s forestry workforce, 

research by Sarathy (2008) found that, in the mid-2000s, 

Mexican immigrants constituted the largest proportion of 

immigrant forest workers on federal lands in the Pacific 

Northwest. Moseley (2006) found that at a time when the 

U.S. Census put Oregon’s Hispanic or Latino population at 

8 percent of the state total, a random sample of contractors 

interviewed from two national forests in Oregon during the 

high season were 45 to 60 percent Hispanic or Latino. A 

2006 estimate found that between 2.2 and 3.1 million of the 

unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States were 

active in the labor force, particularly the lower skilled labor 

force (e.g., agri-food, crop production, forestry, and food 

services) (Sarathy and Casanova 2008). 

What has been termed the “Latinization” of forestry 

work originated in a confluence of public policy (e.g., Small 

Business Administration set-asides for minority-owned 

businesses) and social networks (i.e., recent immigrants 

enter the sector because of relationships with earlier immigrants who work in forestry services) (Sarathy 2006). In 

contrast, minorities are underrepresented in the white-collar 

environmental workforce that offers higher job quality (e.g., 

less manual labor, more consistent oversight of safety); one 

possible explanation is their low participation in university 

environmental programs (Weintraub et al. 2011). In Oregon, the majority of ecological restoration businesses are 

small, family-owned seasonal businesses that fit the Small 

Business Administration’s definition of a small business 

(Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 2013). Research about the 

proportion of forestry and fire contracting businesses that 

are minority owned is lacking. 

With this change in workforce composition came a 

series of working condition concerns that disproportionately affected immigrant forest workers, especially those 

without legal immigration status (Sarathy 2008). These 

forest workers are often Hispanic or Latino, and have been 

referred to as “pineros” by the U.S. media (a Spanish word 

meaning “man of the pines” or “someone who works in the 

woods”) to describe the ethnicity of the workers and the 

type of work that they do (see Knudson and Amezuca 2005, 

Sarathy 2012). Job quality among forest workers is typically 

low, measured by lack of employment stability, low wages, 

no benefits, and distance from home. Although all such 

workers face low job quality, Hispanic or Latino workers 

are more likely to work far from home and seasonally, and 

less likely to receive health insurance through their employers (Moseley 2006). For example, Moseley (2006) found 

a statistically significant correlation between the ethnic 

composition of a company’s workforce and the type of 

work performed. During high season, Hispanics or Latinos 

comprised 43 percent of the total workforce and 66 percent 

of the labor-intensive workforce. By contrast, those who 

were not Hispanics or Latinos accounted for 53 percent of 

the total workforce but 73 percent of the equipment-intensive workers. Labor-intensive workers often work seasonally 

and travel long distances (Moseley and Reyes 2008). 

Although there is limited research on equipment-intensive 

contractors, available data suggest that these contractors 

do not typically travel as far for work, and are less exposed 

to exploitative working conditions, compared to labor-intensive workers (Moseley and Reyes 2008). These findings 

suggest that there are job quality differences between 

Hispanics or Latinos, and non-Hispanics or Latinos. 
825

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Research on forest workers from Oregon also shows 

that Hispanics or Latinos often face poorer working 

conditions than their counterparts who are not Hispanic or 

Latino, including disrespectful treatment, uncompensated 

injuries, little opportunity for advancement, and retribution 

if they complain (Sarathy 2012). High injury and fatality 

rates; low, unpaid, or stolen wages; lack of training; decline 

of union protection; and dangerous work environments 

also characterize this sector (Campe et al. 2011, Moseley et 

al. 2014, Sarathy 2012, Wilmsen et al. 2015). Similar poor 

working conditions exist for immigrants who are agricultural workers. For example, low-wage immigrant workers 

in labor-intensive agricultural occupations often experience 

wage theft, unsafe working conditions, inadequate safety 

training, and fear of retaliation for reporting injuries or 

unfair working conditions (Wilmsen et al. 2015). Hispanic 

or Latino immigrants often face a particular disadvantage 

owing to language barriers and limited access to legal 

resources; fear of deportation makes it less likely that 

forest workers will report labor exploitation or dangerous 

working conditions (Campe et al. 2011; Sarathy 2008, 2012; 

Sarathy and Casanova 2008). Many of these concerns have 

been hidden from elected officials, the general public, 

and decisionmaking bodies, with scholarship, media, and 

public policy focusing disproportionately on the concerns of 

White, native-born loggers (Sarathy 2008). 

Poor working conditions for forest workers have 

persisted over the past two decades. This problem is 

particularly prominent in the Pacific Northwest; for example, forest workers in Oregon were found to have rates of 

occupational injury, illness, and fatality three times higher 

than the workforce at large (Hayford 2013, Wilmsen et 

al. 2015). Moreover, documented rates are thought to be 

low estimates owing to historical underreporting of such 

problems by workers and employers alike (Azaroff et al. 

2002, Ruser 2008, Sarathy 2012, Wilmsen et al. 2015). Two 

deaths of forestry services workers in on-the-job accidents 

in southern Oregon in 2011 were a reminder to the public 

and others of the dangers found in this sector (Wilmsen et 

al. 2015). Increased media attention on working conditions 

for forest workers has led to more Congressional oversight 

and labor law enforcement, but this political attention 

has been inconsistent as other issues arise (Moseley et al. 

2014). Some groups representing forest workers such as the 

Northwest Worker Justice Project and the Northwest Forest 

Worker Center (formerly the Alliance of Forest Workers and 

Harvesters) advocate for better federal labor and contracting 

law enforcement to improve working conditions. But as 

Moseley et al. (2014) explained, the persistence of poor 

working conditions despite decades of political attention 

and advocacy suggests that changing labor laws alone will 

be insufficient for improving job quality. The vulnerability 

of immigrant workers, federal land management policy, and 

federal contracting regulations can also affect working conditions, and deserve attention (Moseley and Reyes 2008). 

The debate regarding how to address poor working conditions, punctuated by political controversy and advocacy, is 

as of yet unresolved. Recent research from southern Oregon 

(Wilmsen et al. 2015)—a region having a high proportion of 

forest workers who are mainly Spanish-speaking Hispanic 

or Latino immigrants—still reported workplace practices 

that are inconsistent with labor laws. Workers’ vulnerable 

economic status, lack of legal status, and fear of retaliation 

remain some of the largest drivers of marginalization for the 

increasing immigrant labor force in the Pacific Northwest 

(Campe et al. 2011, Moseley et al. 2014, Sarathy 2008, 

Wilmsen et al. 2015). This situation can cause the most marginal and vulnerable groups to shoulder a disproportionate 

level of risk and find ways to navigate the system invisibly 

(Moseley et al. 2014, Wilmsen et al. 2015).

Although there have been some job quality improvements for Hispanics or Latinos in recent years, these have 

mainly occurred in the arena of fire suppression work, 

including compensation for travel and training (Moseley 

et al. 2014). There is limited research on the impacts of 

federal contracting on businesses that engage in wildfire 

suppression and their employees, many of whom are forest 

workers (Caldwell et al. 2005, Lyon et al. 2017). Nevertheless, fire suppression work is historically more profitable 

and less price competitive than federal forestry work, in 

which contractors are pressured to cut costs to get contracts 

(Moseley et al. 2014). Additionally, firefighter safety and 

preparedness have become a high priority for federal land 

management agencies, and a culture of firefighter safety 
826

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

has been integrated into the incident command structure in 

which contractors operate (Moseley et al. 2014). Contract 

firefighters also work closely with federal, state, and local 

government employees on fire incidents, making it difficult 

to hide workplace safety issues. In contrast, working conditions for other forest workers have received inconsistent 

attention; labor and safety law enforcement is dispersed 

across a variety of state and federal labor and land management agencies, and workplace safety issues are less visible 

(Moseley et al. 2014). 

Traditionally, most workplace health and safety 

strategies have focused on improving the physical safety of 

the workplace, which is particularly relevant for improving 

the safety of working in the woods (e.g., hard hats, correct 

equipment and gear). However, the broader well-being of 

workers is also important. Research suggests that, once 

basic physical safety conditions for forest workers are 

addressed, there should be more explicit consideration of 

employee well-being to improve retention, morale, and staff 

stability (Mylek and Schirmer 2015).

Research is lacking regarding the proportion of 

minority women who are forest workers. However, there 

has been increasing attention on issues of gender in the 

environmental workforce. To date, this attention has been 

more prevalent in the popular press than in the scientific 

literature, but the topic warrants attention in considering 

workforce conditions. A recent Washington Post article 

recounted women firefighters’ experiences with harassment, discrimination, and sexual violence (Fears 2016), 

which was followed by Congressional oversight hearings. 

Although the hearings focused on federal employees, 

similar problems are experienced by those contracted by the 

federal government (Moseley et al. 2014, Sifuentez 2016). 

A 2016 Association for Fire Ecology survey found that 32 

percent of firefighters have witnessed sexual harassment, 

and 54 percent have witnessed gender discrimination in 

the workplace (Association for Fire Ecology 2016). Similar 

to Hispanic or Latino environmental workers, women may 

be especially vulnerable to workplace safety and culture 

issues, an area that warrants future research attention.

In summary, forest workers in the NWFP area are predominantly Hispanic or Latino. They work as contractors 

who perform a variety of labor- and equipment-intensive 

forestry work on federal forests in addition to participating 

in fire suppression crews. Much of the published literature 

about forest workers draws attention to the low job quality 

and poor working conditions they have experienced over 

the past few decades. Low job quality includes low wages, 

lack of stable employment, no benefits, and long travel 

distances to work sites. Poor working conditions experienced by forest workers include disrespectful treatment, 

little opportunity to advance, unsafe working environments 

and high rates of injury and fatality, lack of training 

opportunities, and fear of retaliation or deportation if they 

complain. Although there have been some improvements in 

recent years, especially in the area of fire suppression work, 

debates over how to address these poor working conditions 

remain unresolved. To date, federal agencies have not 

notably changed their oversight of service contract crews or 

enforcement of labor law provisions (Moseley et al. 2014, 

Sarathy 2012, Wilmsen et al. 2015). 

Nontimber forest products gathering—

The gathering of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) in the 

Pacific Northwest for subsistence, commercial, recreational, 

and cultural purposes is important and widespread, both 

in urban and rural areas (Alexander et al. 2001; Alexander 

and Fight 2003; Charnley et al. 2007; Jones and Lynch 

2007; Love et al. 1998; Lynch and McLain 2003; McLain et 

al. 2012; Poe et al. 2013, 2014). National forests and BLM 

land are important sites for commercial NTFP harvesting 

(Charnley et al. 2008). Most commercial NTFP harvesting 

in the Pacific Northwest occurs in temperate forests from 

the Cascade Range crest west to the Pacific coast, owing 

to high concentrations of economically important species, 

more people, and infrastructure that makes access easier 

(Charnley et al. 2008). Chapter 8 provides an overview of 

NTFP gathering in the Plan area, including common species harvested. Our focus here is on commercial gathering 

owing to the scarcity of studies specific to environmental 

justice populations’ participation in recreational gathering 

and subsistence gathering (apart from American Indians, 

see chapter 11) in the Plan area. One of the few studies that 

includes a substantive discussion of recreational harvesters 

found that the majority (83 percent) of the recreational 
827

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

chanterelle mushroom (Cantharellus spp.) harvesters interviewed on the Olympic Peninsula were Euro-Americans, 

with the next most common ethnic group represented being 

Japanese Americans (6 percent) (Love et al. 1998). In that 

study, none of the Latinos or Southeast Asians categorized 

their harvesting activities as recreational. As elaborated 

in chapter 8, the distinction between work and leisure is 

blurred for many commercial NTFP harvesters. 

Low-income and minority populations are often 

active in harvesting NTFPs for commercial purposes, 

although subsistence and cultural uses are also important. 

For instance, on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula—a 

focal point for the Northwest’s floral greens industry—the 

harvester workforce was originally Euro-American, but 

shifted in the late 1970s and early 1980s to being dominated 

by refugees from Southeast Asia,, then shifted again in 

the late 1980s to become dominated by immigrants from 

Mexico and Central America (McLain and Lynch 2010). 

Asians are also active participants in commercial wild 

mushroom harvesting, particularly matsutake (Tricholoma 

magnivelare) (Tsing 2015). Commercial NTFP harvesting 

for some people may be their primary source of income, 

but for most it fills gaps or provides supplemental income 

between other seasonal jobs such as agricultural or forestry 

services work, or jobs in cities (Love et al. 1998; McLain 

2000, 2008; Tsing 2015).

A survey from the early 1990s—which provides the 

only regional-level data available—found that roughly 

half of the commercial mushroom harvesters in the 

Northwest were White, followed by 37 percent Asians 

and Pacific Islanders, and 9 percent American Indians 

(Schlosser and Blatner 1995). An ethnographic study of 

the Olympic Peninsula chanterelle harvest (Love et al. 

1998) documented the presence of four major groups of 

pickers—Cambodian (and other Southeast Asian), White, 

Latino, and Native American—during 1994 and 1995, but 

did not provide percentages for each category. An analysis 

of wild mushroom permit data for 1996–1998 from the 

Sisters Ranger District on the Deschutes National Forest, 

which falls within the eastern margins of the NWFP area 

and is a popular morel (Morchella esculenta) and bolete 

(Boletus edulis) harvesting site during the spring, estimated 

that 62 percent of permit holders were White, 28 percent 

Southeast Asian, and 10 percent Latino (McLain 2000). The 

only study identified that examined the intersectionality 

between gender and ethnicity for NTFP harvesters found 

that, among commercial chanterelle harvesters on the 

Olympic Peninsula, women comprised roughly 30 percent 

of Euro-American pickers but few Latino and Southeast 

Asian pickers were women (Love et al. 1998). There are no 

more recent studies providing statistics on NTFP harvester 

sociodemographic characteristics, whether at the local or 

regional scale. 

Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) is one example of an 

NTFP harvested from federal forests located within the Plan 

area. Commercial harvesting of beargrass for its flowers and 

leaves gained importance in the Pacific Northwest in the 

1980s (Higgins et al. 2004, Lynch and McLain 2003), and 

it has since become one of the leading commercial NTFP 

species harvested in the region, and a multimillion dollar 

industry (Charnley and Hummel 2011). Most commercial 

beargrass harvesters in the Pacific Northwest are Southeast 

Asian and Latino immigrants (Hansis 1998). Despite the 

physical hardships, these groups may be drawn to gathering 

beargrass and other NTFPs because it is work that does not 

require English language skills; jobs in the forest may be 

more appealing than low-paying jobs in cities; the job can 

be performed by and with families; payment is in cash; and 

it may provide cultural continuity to gathering traditions 

from immigrants’ home countries (Charnley and Hummel 

2011, Hansis 1998). 

Wild mushrooms are another example; matsutake, the 

most economically valuable mushroom in the world (Tsing 

2015), is a case in point. Four distinct populations harvest 

matsutake in the Pacific Northwest. Japanese-Americans 

have been harvesting the mushroom in the region for a 

century and pick them as part of their cultural heritage; 

Oregon’s Mount Hood area is a favorite spot (Tsing 

2013a). These are largely recreational pickers who distribute mushrooms among their relatives and across the 

Japanese-American community, which reinforces social 

relations and their heritage. Matsutake gained commercial 

value for the export trade to Japan in the 1980s. At that 

time, a second group started picking it, White men, such 
828

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

as workers who had lost jobs in the timber industry and 

other rural residents. These pickers have since been largely 

displaced by a wave of Southeast Asian refugees to the 

United States who entered the woods in the thousands 

beginning in the late 1980s: the Khmer from Cambodia, 

and the Lao, Hmong, and Mien from Laos (Richards and 

Creasy 1996; Tsing 2013a, 2013b). Many of these pickers 

migrate to the Pacific Northwest seasonally from cities in 

California to harvest mushrooms between other seasonal 

or temporary jobs (Tsing 2015). Despite associated dangers 

such as the presence of hunters or the possibility of getting 

lost, mushroom harvesting offers these pickers, who often 

are poor, a sense of freedom and the ability to earn money 

as long as they have a permit, transport, and camping 

equipment (Tsing 2013b). Latino pickers, originating 

primarily from Mexico and Guatemala, also participate in 

the commercial matsutake harvest in central Oregon. Many 

are undocumented and thus are in a more precarious legal 

position than Southeast Asian refugees, most of whom 

either have permanent residency or U.S. citizenship (Tsing 

2013c). Many Latino pickers use the matsutake harvest as 

a way to fill in gaps in the demand for work in the agricultural and horticultural sectors (Tsing 2013c). Tsing (2015) 

described the matsutake industry and the pickers who are 

part of it in detail (fig. 10-9).

Salal (Gaultheria shallon), a major commercial product 

in the floral greens industry, is a third example of an NTFP 

harvested from federal forests in the Plan area. Most salal 

harvesters are undocumented migrant workers from Mexico 

and elsewhere in Latin America, and Southeast Asian immigrants (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006, McLain and Lynch 

2010). Research about these harvesters finds that many have 

detailed local ecological knowledge related to stand conditions, canopy cover, soil conditions, and disturbances that 

affect salal (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006). 

Other researchers have also found that NTFP harvesters may possess substantial local ecological knowledge 

about the species they harvest, though this varies with 

experience (Charnley et al. 2007, Love et al. 1998, McLain 

2000, Tsing 2013a). These findings indicate the potential 

capacity of NTFP harvesters to contribute to sustainable 

forest management. However, environmental justice 

populations who engage in NTFP harvesting, and NTFP 

harvesters more broadly—regardless of ethnic or racial 

identity—have been underrepresented in the process of 

developing management guidelines and regulations for 

NTFPs (Charnley et al. 2007, Jones and Lynch 2007, 

McLain 2000, McLain 2002, McLain and Jones 2001, 

McLain and Lynch 2010). A variety of factors likely 

contributes toward NTFP harvester underrepresentation, 

including limited knowledge of English on the part of some 

harvesters, commercial harvesters’ unfamiliarity with land 

management agency public input processes, and ineffective 

outreach on the part of federal and state land management 

agencies (Ballard and Sarathy 2008, McLain 2002, McLain 

and Lynch 2010). 

Land tenure, and the formal and informal rules governing harvester access to commercially viable harvesting 

sites, further condition environmental justice populations’ 

interactions with forests in the NWFP area (Charnley et al. 

2007, Love et al. 1998, McLain 2000, McLain and Lynch 

2010, Tsing 2015). Harvesters are highly dependent on 

public or large tracts of private lands for gathering, making 

them subject to access and use regulations imposed by 

landowners who typically grant access through the issuance of short-term permits or longer term leases (Ballard 

and Huntsinger 2006, McLain and Lynch 2010, Tsing 

2015). Research on wild mushroom policies in central 

Figure 10-9—Southeast Asians play a prominent role in the Oregon suggests that failure to incorporate or consider matsutake industry. 

Rebecca McLain
829

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

harvester input has sometimes resulted in the development 

of regulations, such as prohibitions on harvesting very 

small-sized matsutake (known as “babies”) and fixed 

harvesting season starting and ending dates, that fit poorly 

with ecological conditions (McLain 2002, Tsing 2015). 

Moreover, other land uses (e.g., timber harvest, grazing) 

and management actions (e.g., fire suppression) have an 

impact on the productivity and diversity of NTFP species. 

Thus, NTFP harvesters have a strong interest and stake in 

federal forest management. 

Little research has focused specifically on assessing the 

impacts of restrictions emanating from the Plan on NTFP 

harvesters, whether members of environmental justice 

populations or not. An exception is McLain’s (2000, 2002, 

2008) research on central Oregon’s wild mushroom harvest, 

which documented how restrictions on the commercial 

harvest of NTFPs in late-successional reserves and the 

closure of thousands of miles of forest roads significantly 

reduced areas open to commercial wild mushroom harvest 

on national forests in that area. As discussed in chapter 8, 

the extent to which NTFP harvesters rely on late-successional forest ecosystems for products will vary, depending 

on the requirements of the species gathered. No studies 

about NTFP harvesting on lands administered by the BLM 

were identified in our literature search.

As commercial harvesting of NTFPs increases in 

response to market demand, tensions between commercial 

gatherers and gatherers primarily interested in recreational, subsistence, and cultural uses have emerged in 

some areas where there is competition over harvesting 

the same species (Charnley and Hummel 2011, Dobkins 

et al. 2016, Jones and Lynch 2007, Tsing 2015). For 

example, beargrass is highly valued for the floral greens 

industry, but it is also a culturally important plant to 

American Indian tribes in the NWFP area, especially for 

basketry (Charnley and Hummel 2011) (see chapter 11). 

Leaf properties desirable for commercial versus cultural 

purposes differ, as does forest stand management to 

promote the desired properties (detailed in Charnley and 

Hummel 2011). These competing interests and management requirements can cause conflict among users; some 

tribal members have expressed concern over the impact of 

commercial beargrass harvesting on the plant (Charnley 

and Hummel 2011). Tension also exists among participants 

within specific NTFP sectors, such as within the floral 

greens industry. For example, on the Olympic Peninsula, 

tensions have arisen among floral green harvesters when 

some participants follow harvest regulations and others 

do not (McLain and Lynch 2010). Moreover, some environmental groups do not support any gathering activities 

that they perceive as threatening forest health, even if only 

for subsistence use (Salazar 2009). A generalized lack 

of inventory and monitoring data collected in ways that 

would enable the impacts of harvesting on NTFP species 

to be evaluated makes it difficult to develop effective 

management guidelines (Jones and Lynch 2007).

For their part, harvesters have expressed a number of 

concerns related to NTFP gathering and management. For 

example, Latino harvesters from the Olympic Peninsula 

who participated in a natural resource values mapping 

exercise that included national forest lands stated that 

their main concerns were: the presence of hunters and 

target shooters who they perceived as acting irresponsibly 

in places where they harvest, making them feel unsafe; 

challenges associated with harvesters who do not comply 

with harvest regulations; and encounters with immigration 

and law enforcement officers looking for undocumented 

workers (Biedenweg et al. 2014). Racial profiling by Forest 

Service law enforcement officers is another concern 

expressed by floral greens harvesters on the Olympic 

Peninsula (Biedenweg et al. 2014) and the Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest (Northwest Forest Worker Center 2015), 

and by matsutake harvesters in central Oregon (Tsing 

2015). Additional studies are needed to determine whether 

these concerns apply more generally across the Plan region, 

to harvesters of other NTFPs, or to groups other than 

Latino harvesters.

Other concerns revolve around the intersection 

between labor relations and land tenure. In the wild 

mushroom sector throughout the Plan area, most pickers, 

regardless of ethnicity, operate as independent or family-based entrepreneurs and gain access to harvesting 

sites through relatively affordable permits (McLain and 

Lynch 2010, Tsing 2015). They thus have some measure 
830

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

of independence from the firms to which they sell their 

mushrooms. Conditions for many pickers in the floral 

greens industry on the Olympic Peninsula are much less 

favorable. In that setting, most floral greens harvesters, 

most of whom are Latino, gain access to harvest sites 

through people who operate buying sheds. Buying sheds 

are the buildings where the greens are purchased from 

harvesters, sorted, quantified, and boxed for shipping to 

wholesale distributors and exporters. Shed owners on the 

Olympic Peninsula often obtain leases to large tracts of 

public or private forest where harvesting occurs, then give 

permission for harvesters to pick on those lands, often 

specifying informally (and illegally) that the harvesters 

must sell their product to them (Lynch and McLain 2003, 

McLain and Lynch 2010). One consequence of the pickers’ 

economic position under such circumstances is that they 

are unable to take advantage of higher prices paid by competing sheds (McLain and Lynch 2010). Harvesters and 

small-scale buyers have expressed opposition to leases, 

which large-scale buyers have historically monopolized 

and which appear to facilitate the exploitation of harvesters by limiting their resource access options (McLain and 

Lynch 2010, Northwest Worker Center 2015). 

Harvesters have also identified theft of floral greens 

from leased lands as a problem (McLain and Lynch 2010, 

Northwest Forest Worker Center 2015). In response to 

complaints during the early 2000s by shed operators who 

did not have leases, the Washington Department of Labor 

and Industries sought, unsuccessfully, to have floral greens 

harvesters who gained access to harvesting sites through 

sub-leasing arrangements categorized as employees rather 

than independent contractors. The debate over whether 

harvesters acquiring access to floral greens through 

sub-leases should be considered shed employees, rather 

than independent entrepreneurs, has implications for their 

rights as workers, their working conditions, and whether 

they receive fair prices for their products (McLain and 

Lynch 2010). 

To summarize, environmental justice populations in 

the NWFP area—particularly Southeast Asians, Latinos, 

and low-income Whites—play an active role in the commercial NTFP industry, with Latinos especially prominent 

in the floral greens industry and Asians and Whites 

prominent in the wild mushroom industry. National forests 

and BLM lands are important harvesting sites, but there 

has been virtually no published research documenting the 

impact of the NWFP on environmental justice populations 

who harvest NTFPs there. Although these populations 

are affected by agency regulations associated with NTFP 

harvesting and management practices influencing the 

distribution and productivity of the species they target, they 

have been underrepresented in developing regulations and 

management guidelines for NTFPs on federal forests in 

the Plan area. Important issues for managers to be aware 

of include potential social tension between commercial 

gatherers and those primarily interested in recreational, 

subsistence, and cultural gathering; tenure arrangements 

governing access to NTPFs; physical safety of harvesters when they are out in the forest; fear of encounters 

between undocumented workers and immigration and law 

enforcement officers; challenges associated with illegal 

harvest activities (e.g., theft); and the rights to safe working 

conditions and fair employment practices for harvesters.

Recreation—

Research about recreational uses of federal forests in the 

NWFP area by environmental justice populations comes 

from national surveys and scholarly research. The NWFP 

socioeconomic monitoring reports (Charnley 2006, Grinspoon et al. 2016) contain data on recreation visitation in the 

NWFP area by national forest and BLM district, but these 

reports do not display recreation visitation data by income, 

racial, or ethnic group. In this section, we present recreation 

participation data for Plan-area national forests in aggregate 

by income, and minority group from the Forest Service 

National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. Comparable 

data are unavailable for BLM districts. We also briefly 

synthesize key areas of knowledge from the literature about 

outdoor recreation participation by environmental justice 

populations in the region and nationwide, and constraints 

to participation. Some of this literature is specific to 

Forest Service lands, but none is specific to BLM lands. 

See chapter 9 for a broader discussion of recreation in the 

NWFP area.
831

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Low-income populations—

More than half of recreation visits to NWFP-area national 

forests are made by people whose household incomes are 

less than $75,000 per year (table 10-7). Households with 

incomes under $25,000 per year account for about 12 

percent of all recreation visits in the NWFP area, slightly 

higher than what is found nationally. The only income 

group with a lower participation rate is households having 

incomes of more than $150,000 per year (table 10-7). 

Research from the Pacific Northwest about recreational use of public lands among low-income populations 

focuses on income levels and cost as determinants of 

participation. Using a random sample of 2,005 adult 

Washington and Oregon residents, Burns and Graefe 

(2006) found lower interest and participation in outdoor 

recreation among those with the lowest personal incomes. 

One-quarter of those surveyed whose personal incomes 

were less than $10,000/year reported that they were “not 

at all” interested in outdoor recreation; and 13 percent 

of those with personal incomes between $10,000 and 

$30,000 reported the same low interest level. In contrast, 

only about 5 percent of respondents with incomes greater 

than $30,000 reported no interest in outdoor recreation. 

The vast majority (between 86 and 92 percent) of those 

making more than $30,000 per year had participated in 

an outdoor recreation activity during the preceding year, 

while about 56 percent of those making less than $10,000 

had participated (Burns and Graefe 2006). On average, 

those earning less than $10,000 per year visited national 

forests about 2.6 times per year compared to about 8.5 

times per year for other income groups (Burns and Graefe 

2006). This pattern of visit frequency may be due, at 

least in part, to the ability of people with higher incomes 

to afford the cost of recreation trips to national forests 

(Ostergren et al. 2005).

Regardless of urban or rural residency, the cost of 

recreation on federal forests includes equipment and gear 

expenses, transportation costs to reach the recreation site, 

and in some places, recreation fees. Of these expenses, 

federal land managers have influence only over recreation 

fees. The Forest Service’s Recreation Fee Demonstration 

program, initiated in the late 1990s, established recreation fees at many dispersed areas on national forests 

that previously had no site fees. Brown et al. (2008) 

examined permit data from 1991 through 2005 and found 

that recreation fees to park and access a wilderness area 

on Oregon’s Willamette National Forest had a greater 

negative effect on recreation visitation than did high-severity fire within the wilderness area. In their previously 

referenced survey from Washington and Oregon, Burns 

and Graefe (2006) found that the lowest income respondents in their study (earning less than $10,000 per year) 

were the most likely to indicate that they could not afford 

to pay a hypothetical recreation-use fee on national forest 

lands (although more than half of the respondents in this 

income category indicated they could pay a hypothetical 

recreation use fee). 

Table 10-7— Visits to national forests in the Northwest Forest Plan area and nationally of people age 16 and 

older by household income 

Annual household income

Plan area

2006–2010 

Plan area

2011–2015

National 

2011–2015

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Less than $25,000 10 12 10

$25,000–$49,000 24 18 18

$50,000–$74,999 25 23 22

$75,000–$99,999 18 20 18

$100,000–$149,999 15 17 16

$150,000 and up 8 11 16

Source: USDA FS 2016.
832

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Minority populations—

Nearly all recreational visits to NWFP-area national forests 

are by White visitors (table 10-8). People of Hispanic 

or Latino ethnicity account for more recreation visits to 

NWFP-area national forests (4 percent) than people belonging to other minority groups. Across all national forests, 

the vast majority of visits are also from White visitors, 

and about 6 percent of visits nationally are from those of 

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, again exceeding visits by other 

minority groups (table 10-8). 

Data from the 2008 National Survey on Recreation and 

the Environment (NSRE) (Cordell 2012) indicate that, nationwide, American Indians have activity participation patterns 

that are similar to Whites, although American Indians have 

higher rates of participation in backcountry activities (like 

primitive camping, backpacking, visiting wilderness), and 

lower rates of nonmotorized winter recreation participation 

than Whites (table 10-9). Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other 

Pacific Islanders, like most other groups, have high rates of 

participation in activities at developed sites. A much higher 

percentage participate in viewing and photographing nature 

than in backcountry activities, hunting and fishing, motorized 

recreation (e.g., off-highway vehicles, motorized trail bikes, 

use of motorized play areas), and nonmotorized activities. 

Hispanic or Latino populations surveyed participate more in 

some activities than other minority groups, and less in others, 

but the relative popularity of different activities is generally 

similar between Hispanics or Latinos and other groups. 

Table 10-8—Visits to national forests in the Northwest Forest Plan area and nationally of people age 16 and 

older by racial and ethnic group

Plan area

2006–2010 

Plan area

2011–2015 

National 

(2011–2015)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

American Indian and Alaska Native 3 3 2

Asian 2 3 2

Black or African American 1 1 1

White 96 95 95

Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 1 1 1

Hispanic or Latino 4 4 6

Source: USDA FS 2017.

Table 10-9—Nationwide percentage of participation in outdoor recreation activities of people age 16 and 

older by racial and ethnic group

Activity

American 

Indian

Asian, Native 

Hawaiian, 

Pacific Islander

Black or 

African 

American White 

Hispanic or 

Latino

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Visiting developed sites 84 82 69 80 75

Viewing and photographing nature 79 73 59 78 71

Backcountry activities 60 34 21 46 43

Motorized activities 42 24 15 41 35

Hunting and fishing 38 19 21 38 32

Nonmotorized winter activities 7 11 4 13 12

Nonmotorized water activities 21 21 7 24 19

Source: Adapted from White et al. (2014) and Cordell (2012).
833

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Visiting developed sites, and viewing and photographing 

nature, were the most common activities. Adult Hispanic or 

Latino day visitors interviewed at urban national forests in 

southern California reported that they most often participated 

in picnicking and water recreation when visiting day-use sites 

(Chavez and Olson 2009). Blacks or African Americans have 

the lowest levels of participation in outdoor recreation relative to the other groups surveyed. However, more than half 

of respondents had visited developed sites and participated in 

viewing and photographing nature (table 10-9).

Floyd et al. (2008) provide a comprehensive review of 

research related to race/ethnicity and leisure, including the 

many factors that affect recreation participation by minority 

groups. One national-level study using the 2004 NSRE data 

found that, relative to other groups, ethnic minorities, older 

people, women, and those living in rural places perceived 

higher constraints to participating in outdoor recreation 

(Ghimire et al. 2014). The primary perceived barriers were 

lack of time or money, concerns about personal safety, lack 

of transportation, and lack of multilingual signage. Facility 

condition, perceived crowding, and environmental quality 

were infrequently seen as barriers to outdoor recreation 

by these groups. Distance and cost to access recreation 

opportunities on federal lands are key factors influencing 

outdoor recreation use (Cho et al. 2014, Stevens et al. 2014) 

(fig. 10-10). For example, Bowker et al. (2006), in a national 

Figure 10-10—Distance to primitive settings and the cost of recreation, including equipment expenses, are constraints to outdoor 

recreation participation by low-income and minority populations.

Emily Jane Davis
834

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

study using NSRE data, found evidence that a central factor 

in lower participation by minority group members age 16 

and older is distance to primitive settings. Johnson et al. 

(2007), also using NSRE data, found that minority groups 

were less likely than other groups to support a fee for using 

a recreation site.

Chavez (2008) pointed out the importance of understanding the distinct preferences, expectations, and barriers 

to participation in outdoor recreation among Hispanic 

or Latino populations in the United States. As table 10-2 

shows, the share of the Hispanic or Latino population is 

large and growing in metropolitan counties of the NWFP 

area (see also Johnson and Stewart 2007), making consideration of Hispanic or Latino preferences and barriers to 

access especially important for the management of urban 

national forests (e.g., the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National 

Forest in Washington and the Mount Hood National Forest 

in Oregon). Some studies have found that Hispanics or Latinos tend to participate in outdoor recreation activities with 

extended family members in natural areas located close to 

urban centers (Burns et al. 2008, Chavez 2008). Constraints 

to participation include distance to recreation areas, lack 

of transportation, and lack of information (in Spanish and 

English) about where to recreate and who to contact to learn 

about recreation opportunities (Burns et al. 2008). 

Burns et al. (2008) conducted four focus groups (small 

groups of select people who discuss questions pertaining to 

specific research topics) with adults belonging to different 

minority groups in several Oregon cities. Potential participants were identified through recreation managers (mostly 

from the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department) who 

worked in the communities where the focus groups were 

held. They found that Asian Americans in their study liked 

to recreate with their children and extended family, and 

preferred developed facilities having amenities over camping. Safety concerns loomed large, however, especially 

the safety of children. African Americans in the study 

disliked recreating in remote locations, preferring parks 

close to urban areas having well-managed, clean facilities, 

aesthetically pleasing views, and amenities such as picnic 

tables, places to barbeque, and areas to play sports. Both 

groups identified lack of information about opportunities 

to recreate in parks and on public lands, information in 

multiple languages as an additional constraint (fig. 10-11). 

Metcalf et al. (2013) surveyed 234 racial and ethnic 

minority groups visiting the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie 

National Forest about their perceived constraints to 

outdoor recreation participation, and strategies they use to 

overcome these constraints. The chief factors constraining 

recreation on national forests among these users were 

preferences for other recreation activities, limited time 

and other obligations, and weather conditions. Very few 

survey respondents reported that discrimination from other 

recreation users or Forest Service employees limited their 

outdoor recreation participation. 

In sum, recreation visitation by environmental 

justice populations to national forests in the NWFP area 

is relatively low. Nationwide, different racial and ethnic 

groups exhibit different preferences for types of outdoor 

recreation activity, although visiting developed sites and 

viewing and photographing nature are the most popular 

activities among all groups, including Whites. A main 

barrier to recreating on national forests for low-income 

populations is cost of the trip. Among minorities, distance, 

cost, lack of transportation, safety concerns, lack of awareness about recreation opportunities, and lack of available 

information in languages other than English are barriers. 

Ways of overcoming these barriers are discussed under 

Management Considerations.

Nonrecreational camping and homelessness—

Camping is a common recreational use of Forest Service and 

BLM lands in the NWFP area. But many people camp on 

public lands for nonrecreational purposes, with these lands 

serving as a temporary residence. Some nonrecreational or 

long-term campers temporarily reside on public lands as a 

lifestyle choice or in response to local economic conditions. 

Others are homeless (with no permanent address).

Accurate estimates of homeless individuals in the 

United States are difficult to achieve. One study by Abt 

Associates for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development estimated 549,928 homeless persons in a 

one-day count in 2016 (Henry et al. 2016). Yet, the National 

Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty suggests that these 

figures are grossly underestimated, and places the figure 
835

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

between 2.5 to 3.5 million (NLCHP 2015). Some people 

who are chronically or episodically homeless choose to live 

on public lands. These represent vulnerable populations, 

both in terms of economic vulnerability and social vulnerability. Poverty is the primary risk factor for homelessness 

(Ji 2006). Other economic risk factors include high unemployment, lack of affordable housing, and a female-only 

head of household. Personal setbacks, such as an accident, 

divorce, natural disasters, unpaid medical bills, sudden job 

loss, or loss of a loved one can exacerbate these problems 

and increase a person’s vulnerability (Elliott and Krivo 

1991). Social vulnerabilities include lack of access to 

adequate health care, unmet mental health needs, domestic 

violence, and divorce (Elliot and Krivo 1991, Wasserman 

and Clair 2010). Untreated mental health issues such as 

depression, addiction, post-traumatic stress disorder, and 

others, can negatively affect personal resiliency and are 

associated with homelessness. 

Federal land management agencies do not have 

accurate counts of how many people live on federal lands. 

A recent survey of 290 national forest law enforcement 

officers revealed that encounters with nonrecreational 

campers occur in every region of the United States, and that 

nonrecreational campers were most common in national 

forests near urban areas (Cerveny and Baur n.d.). For 

national forests and grasslands in California (Region 5) 

Figure 10-11—Information in multiple languages may encourage recreation use of national forests by minority populations whose 

primary language is not English. 

USDA Forest Service
836

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

and Oregon and Washington (Region 6), 41 percent of law 

enforcement officers surveyed reported weekly encounters 

with nonrecreational campers, and 85 percent reported 

encounters at least monthly. These encounter rates were 

higher than for the nation as a whole (39 percent weekly and 

75 percent monthly). In addition, 47 percent of officers in 

Region 5, and 49 percent in Region 6 reported that encounters with long-term nonrecreational campers had increased 

in the years since they had begun their current assignment 

(mirroring the national average of 47 percent). 

Cerveny and Baur (n.d.) also identified 10 types of nonrecreational campers who were using the national forest as a 

residence. The most common type in Regions 5 and 6 were 

“separatists,” who were alone and seeking solitude; “transient 

retirees” living in RVs and moving from place to place; and 

“families.” The survey asked officers what they perceived as 

most often contributing to people living in national forests 

on a long-term basis. The most commonly mentioned factors 

associated with homelessness and long-term camping were 

substance abuse, mental health issues, lack of employment, 

and lack of available housing (Cerveny and Baur n.d.). 

An unpublished master’s project conducted in Oregon’s 

Willamette National Forest by students from the University 

of Oregon explored the incidence of homelessness and 

long-term camping there (Bottorff et. al. 2012). The authors 

conducted interviews with staff from the national forest, 

local service agencies, law enforcement, and homeless 

individuals to gain a better understanding of homelessness. 

They learned that the homeless people on the Willamette 

were mostly seasonal, and that lack of services in nearby 

towns often drives the homeless to nearby forests. In 

addition, many homeless people were unwilling to stay in 

available shelters, which prohibited either children or pets. 

They also observed that homeless people living in the forest 

often struggled with addiction and mental health problems.

These results echo the risk factors mentioned above 

and suggest economic and social vulnerabilities. National 

forests and grasslands are serving as a temporary home 

for people who are suffering from health challenges or 

economic hardship. These results confirm a finding from 

the Deschutes National Forest (Asah et al. 2012) that one 

ecosystem service not commonly identified is the ability of 

national forests to serve as a temporary shelter for people 

who are marginalized by dominant economic, social, and 

health care systems. The magnitude of temporary residence 

as a phenomenon and management issue on federal forests, 

and the degree to which it represents a problem for federal 

forest managers in the NWFP area, are unknown; research 

on these topics is only beginning to emerge.

Wildfire management and environmental justice— 

Wildfire management is one of the many areas in which 

federal land management actions may affect adjacent and 

nearby residents and landowners, some of whom may be 

low income or minorities. Research about the relation 

between wildfire management and low-income and minority 

populations living in fire-prone forest ecosystems of the 

United States is limited; research on this topic from the 

Pacific Northwest is even more limited. Key findings from 

the studies that have been conducted include the following: 

1. The rural poor living in fire-prone areas in the 

wildland-urban-interface (WUI) in Arizona’s 

White Mountains, and low-income residents in 

a community in the Sierra-Cascades foothills of 

northern California, were found to have fewer 

resources for creating defensible space around 

their homes, investing in fire-resistant building 

materials, purchasing insurance, or adopting other 

wildfire mitigation strategies than middle- and 

high-income rural residents (though other variables 

also influence people’s choices to mitigate fire on 

their properties) (Collins 2005, 2008). 

2. In the southeastern United States, communities 

having high wildfire risk and high social vulnerability (e.g., below poverty line, non-White, low 

education) are less engaged in wildfire mitigation 

programs than communities having high wildfire 

risk and low social vulnerability (Johnson Gaither 

et al. 2011, Poudyal et al. 2012). Similarly, research 

from Arizona found that participation in wildfire 

mitigation programs is lower among socially vulnerable communities located in areas of high wildfire risk, than among communities with low social 

vulnerability located in high wildfire risk areas 

(Ojerio et al. 2011).
837

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

3. In Washington state, a higher percentage of poor 

households than non-poor households live in areas 

having few to no wildfire response resources that 

provide wildfire protection (Lynn and Gerlitz 

2006). In Florida, Mercer and Prestemon (2005) 

found that the more poverty in a county, the lower 

the rate of wildfire ignitions but the larger the wildfire (acres burned) when an ignition occurs. They 

attribute the lower rate of ignitions to the fact that 

poorer counties have more rural WUI, and federal 

and state lands dominated by pine forests that are 

intensively managed for timber production, where 

prescribed fire is commonly applied. These management actions lower wildfire hazard. However, 

wildfires burn more acres when an ignition occurs 

because poorer counties have fewer firefighting 

resources available for initial attack. 

4. Research from Utah (Roberts 2013) and Florida 

(Mercer and Prestemon 2005) found that people living in higher income WUI locations prefer 

dense forest stands for aesthetic reasons, increasing 

wildland fire risk; however, they are less vulnerable to wildfire because they can afford insurance 

policies and have better access to fire mitigation 

and suppression resources. 

5. In the Northwest and elsewhere in the Western 

United States, poor households usually outnumber 

wealthier households near federal lands, but tend 

to be located in areas having low housing density 

that do not meet the threshold for WUI delineation (Lynn and Gerlitz 2006, Radeloff et al. 2005). 

Thus, they receive fewer benefits from fire hazard 

mitigation activities and suffer longer wildfire 

response times (Lynn and Gerlitz 2006). 

6. Research from the Southern United States 

(Johnson Gaither et al. 2015) found that smoke 

plumes from wildfires and prescribed fires did not 

disproportionately adversely affect socially vulnerable populations (defined using an index of indicators including poverty, minority status, renters, 

and age- and education-related variables). These 

populations experienced no more smoke exposure 

than populations who are not socially vulnerable. 

Comparable research about the impacts of smoke 

on environmental justice populations from the 

Pacific Northwest is lacking. 

7. Research about the location of hazardous fuels 

reduction treatments on national forests in relation to the distribution of nearby environmental justice populations in the Pacific Northwest 

is currently underway. Initial results from two 

national forests in central Oregon found no systematic evidence of disproportionate benefit or 

lack of benefit to environmental justice populations from fuels reduction treatments (Adams 

and Charnley 2018). However, localized areas of 

potential concern were identified where further 

inquiry is warranted.

8. Finally, decades of disaster research by social 

scientists reveal that the effects of natural hazards, such as wildfire, are not experienced equally 

within a community. The most socially vulnerable 

people have the most difficulty coping and recovering from the hazard event and adapting afterward 

(e.g., Oliver-Smith 1996). 

These research findings indicate that wildfire management actions can have differential impacts on people living 

adjacent to or near federal forests because of differences in 

social vulnerability to wildfire that may be associated with 

low-income and minority status. Wildfire management is 

but one example of how the environmental effects of agency 

management actions such as timber harvesting and watershed management, and associated changes in ecosystem 

services, have environmental justice implications. 

Research Needs, Uncertainties, 

Information Gaps, and Limitations

The vast majority of scholarly research on environmental 

justice has focused on unequal exposure to environmental 

toxins, largely in urban areas. There is only a small subset 

of research that focuses on environmental justice in the 

context of unequal access to environmental benefits, 

and that work mostly concerns parks, outdoor recreation 

opportunities, and street trees in urban areas (e.g., Landry 
838

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

and Chakraborty 2009, Montgomery et al. 2015). Furthermore, there is virtually no research or monitoring data that 

concern the specific impacts of the NWFP on low-income 

or minority populations apart from American Indians (see 

chapter 11). If federal forest managers wish to fill this information gap, perhaps environmental justice inquiry could be 

integrated into NWFP socioeconomic monitoring. However, 

this would require revising the current monitoring approach 

to explore links between federal forest management and 

socioeconomic well-being. This chapter provides information about general trends in environmental justice populations in the NWFP area between 1990 and 2012 using 

readily available county-level data. More recent, detailed, or 

geographically specific trends in low-income and minority 

populations could be identified using U.S. Census data as 

part of the socioeconomic assessment to support forest plan 

revisions for NWFP-area national forests. 

Most of the research reported here about how environmental justice populations relate to federal forests comes 

from Washington and Oregon; this literature is more limited 

for the California portion of the NWFP area, except for 

American Indian tribes. Literature for BLM lands is also 

scarce. There is a reasonably substantive literature about 

how minority populations relate to national forests around 

work (e.g., forestry services work, commercial NTFP 

harvesting) and recreation. However, neither the complexity 

of forestry work impacts on forest worker vulnerability, nor 

the relationship between changing agency and contracting 

business employment structures and forest worker vulnerability, are well studied or understood. Also missing in the 

literature are explorations of how and which environmental 

justice populations have input into provisions in the NWFP, 

and associated regulations and management approaches 

regarding NTFPs. Most of the literature on NTFP harvesting 

is from the 1990s or early 2000s, and may not reflect current 

conditions. Little information is available about uses (recreational, subsistence, and cultural) of NTFPs by environmental justice populations apart from American Indians. 

More broadly, apart from recreation, little information 

is available about noneconomic relations between environmental justice populations and federal forests, including 

cultural and spiritual connections, except for American Indians. This gap could potentially be filled through additional 

research, including using methods such as focus groups 

with populations of interest that include participatory values 

mapping exercises to document how different populations 

use and value federal forests (e.g., Biedenweg et al. 2014). 

Regarding the impacts of forest management activities 

on environmental justice populations, research is beginning 

to fill the gap in knowledge about the environmental justice 

implications of Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction 

activities. However, there is a lack of information about 

how fire—managed, prescribed, or wild—and associated 

smoke affect low-income and minority populations in the 

Plan area. There is also a research void regarding how 

other federal forest management activities such as timber 

harvesting, travel management, and watershed management 

affect environmental justice populations. Finally, there is a 

void in the literature about the role of environmental justice 

populations in forest governance, particularly collaborative 

decisionmaking processes associated with federal forest 

management and planning.

It is uncertain whether the research findings presented 

here are relevant locally, and reflect the nature of interactions between environmental justice populations and federal 

forests on specific national forest and BLM units. Research 

pursued at finer scales would help address this uncertainty, 

as would research to better understand the variation within 

minority groups regarding their interactions with federal 

forests in particular places. Another large gap in the 

literature on environmental justice and forests from the 

NWFP area and nationwide is how low-income or minority 

status intersect with subgroup characteristics (i.e., gender, 

age, religion) to influence forest values, uses, and management impacts. The only related research we are aware of 

in this area is a handful of recreation studies conducted in 

urban and rural parks (e.g., Casper et al. 2013, Cronan et 

al. 2008, Larson et al. 2014, Perry et al. 2011). Growth in 

environmental justice populations throughout the NWFP 

area calls for reassessing earlier findings, and ongoing 

research into how these populations relate to federal forests 

and are affected by their management in order to address 

the information gaps and limitations of existing research 

identified in this chapter.
839

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Conclusions and Management 

Considerations 

Environmental justice populations in the NWFP area are 

growing. Census data reflect the changing demographics of 

the region, and research from within and outside the Plan 

area provides insight into how some members of low-income and minority populations interact with federal forests. 

When thinking about these relationships, it is important to 

avoid overgeneralizing and creating stereotypes about the 

values, uses, preferences, and behaviors of specific groups. 

Inevitably, there will be variation within groups, some of 

it influenced by gender, age, length of time in the United 

States, and other factors. The research synthesized here can 

be used to increase awareness and flag potentially relevant 

topics for agency staff to examine more closely at the local 

level. It also raises a number of issues that are relevant to 

federal forest management. 

Management Considerations

The environmental workforce—

As the demographic composition of the NWFP area continues to change, and the forestry workforce is increasingly 

represented by Hispanics or Latinos and other environmental justice populations, it is important that federal forest 

managers address the issue of working conditions for forest 

workers. Doing so means considering contracting markets 

and contract oversight, which include bidding on, awarding, 

and monitoring compliance for projects. Based on the 

literature synthesized in this chapter, the following actions 

might help improve working conditions for forest workers. 

1. The Forest Service and BLM already stipulate in 

service contracts that contractors must comply 

with all relevant labor laws. These agencies have 

the authority to enforce the provisions of their own 

contracts, which includes the labor law provisions, 

and could do so more rigorously.

2. Agencies could examine how the beneficial features of fire-suppression contracting could be 

incorporated into other, non-fire contracts (e.g., 

specific contract requirements and more oversight). 

3. Agencies could strengthen policies to make labor 

law compliance inspection more consistent, combining these inspections with technical specification inspections, and increasing agency inspector 

training (Wilmsen et al. 2015). 

4. The competitive low-cost bid process could be 

changed to reduce contractor incentives for cutting 

costs and explicitly incorporate the costs of safety 

trainings and daily safety briefings into contract 

awards (Moseley et al. 2014, Wilmsen et al. 2015). 

Other considerations that emerge from the literature 

pertain to increasing the ability of forest communities to 

capture contracting opportunities on nearby federal forests, 

which would contribute to local economies. For example, 

agencies might structure contracts in ways that allow local 

communities to benefit by facilitating local training opportunities, or changing contracting guidelines. They might 

also consider using local restoration contracting service providers for fire suppression to support local forest contracting 

capacity, and the ability of local contractors to capture 

contracts during wildfires. Agencies could also identify how 

to address potential obstacles, such as wildfire contracting 

policies, that inhibit local contractors’ participation. Having 

a trained local workforce with the capacity to respond to 

wildfire rapidly and perform forest restoration work could 

help increase community preparedness for wildfire. 

NTFP harvesting—

Despite the long history and continued prevalence of NTFP 

gathering in the Pacific Northwest, federal forest managers 

have been slow to meaningfully consider NTFPs in management (Jones and Lynch 2007). Ballard and Huntsinger 

(2006), Biedenweg et al. (2014), Charnley et al. (2007), 

Jones and Lynch (2007), McLain (2008), McLain and Jones 

(2001), and McLain and Lynch (2010) offered numerous 

insights into how to address issues associated with NTFP 

gathering and management on public forest lands in the 

Pacific Northwest, and how to better engage harvesters in 

management and decisionmaking associated with NTFPs 

in the region. Many of these are relevant to all harvesters, 

regardless of race, ethnicity, or class (see chapter 8). Those 

pertaining specifically to issues raised by environmental 

justice populations, include addressing harvesters’ safety 

concerns associated with NTFP gathering (for example, 
840

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

encouraging harvesters to wear blaze-orange vests during 

hunting season), and examining how policies, including tenure arrangements for NTFP harvesting on federal forests, 

affect the working conditions and earnings of harvesters. 

Consideration of how federal forest management activities 

affect the abundance, distribution, diversity, and quality of 

economically and culturally important NTFP species also 

warrants more attention in the planning process.

Recreation—

The growing ethnic and racial diversity of the American 

population, reflected in NWFP area statistics reported 

in tables 10-4 through 10-6, has important implications 

for recreational uses of federal forests because recreation 

patterns are shaped by cultural norms and preferences 

(Sheffield 2012). Minority and low-income populations are 

currently underrepresented among national forest visitors 

nationwide (Roberts et al. 2009). To ensure that all populations can enjoy federal forests, and to broaden the base of 

support for public lands, finding ways to increase recreation 

use by environmental justice populations is important. However, it is also important to recognize the diversity in values 

within individual ethnic and racial minority groups and to 

not view these groups as homogenous (Li et al. 2007). The 

management considerations discussed here focus on how 

to foster more recreation participation by environmental 

justice populations on federal forests in the Plan area. 

Constraints to recreation participation by these 

populations that are important to address include a lack 

of information about available recreation opportunities; 

improving transportation options to urban national forests; 

and a shortage of recreation opportunities that match these 

users’ preferences (Metcalf et al. 2013). For example, 

Spanish-language materials, developed recreation sites that 

accommodate large groups, and outreach to Hispanic or 

Latino communities related to volunteer and employment 

opportunities could strengthen the relationship between 

federal forests and Hispanic or Latino populations (Chavez 

2008). Burns et al. (2008) make a number of suggestions 

for improving outreach to Latinos, Asian Americans, and 

African Americans to increase their recreation participation on national forests. Key among these are increasing 

information about available opportunities in multiple 

languages, and working with media outlets that target these 

populations in doing so. Improving facilities so that they 

accommodate user preferences is also important. For groups 

concerned about safety, safety concerns could be addressed 

by increasing the visibility of law enforcement officers and 

access to agency and emergency personnel (Ghimire et al. 

2014). However, increasing the presence of law enforcement 

may create an environment in which some racial and ethnic 

minority groups feel threatened. Increasing the presence 

of Forest Service or BLM employees in uniform on federal 

forests could also be helpful.

Several strategies to help alleviate cost barriers to 

recreation participation on national forests by low-income 

visitors have been suggested: (1) offer people who cannot 

afford to pay visitor use fees the opportunity to do volunteer 

work on a national forest in exchange for a fee waiver; (2) 

set aside areas where visitor use fees are not required; (3) 

establish days or times when site fees are waived; and (4) 

provide financial assistance to low-income visitors, for 

example, by giving them free annual recreation passes 

(Burns and Graefe 2006, Scott 2013). Some of these practices are already in place in the Pacific Northwest (Burns 

and Graefe 2006). 

Roberts et al. (2009) provided a resource guide to help 

land management agencies better serve culturally diverse 

populations in California by improving communication 

and outreach, providing appropriate facilities and services, 

developing partnerships and relationships with organizations that promote outdoor experiences for low-income and 

minority groups, and taking advantage of other available 

resources. For example, some specific suggestions include: 

(1) use international symbols for facilities that are easily 

understood across cultures; (2) hire multilingual field 

personnel with strong cultural competency; (3) cultivate 

a partner to sponsor a van or minibus to transport local 

diverse populations to recreation sites; and (4) engage with 

community centers in hard-to-reach communities (Roberts 

et al. 2009). The suggestions contained in the guide are 

relevant to the NWFP area as a whole. 

Nonrecreational camping and homelessness—

U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers surveyed by 

Cerveny and Baur (n.d.) reported that the frequency of 
841

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

homelessness and long-term camping on national forests is 

increasing and that the greater share of responsibility for 

addressing the issue seems to fall on patrol officers. The 

officers typically respond on a case-by-case basis by issuing 

citations for “stay violations,” “illegal residence” violations, 

or other violations (e.g., sanitation, litter, or drug possession). However, the same individuals repeatedly return to 

the forest, often to the same sites, or they may shift between 

national forest land and other nearby public lands. Recognition by agency management of the resource impacts and 

social effects associated with long-term camping would 

spotlight the concerns raised by law enforcement. Treating 

homelessness as a chronic and systemic phenomenon in 

which the agency plays a critical role would potentially 

lead to greater acceptance of responsibility and action. For 

example, law enforcement officers surveyed described 

creative solutions that involved partnerships with public 

health agencies, social services, municipal police, and 

citizen groups to identify safe housing options in local 

communities.

Wildfire management—

Whether reducing hazardous fuels or engaging in other 

forest management activities, managers are required to consider how their actions may adversely affect environmental 

justice populations disproportionately. It is also important 

to consider whether certain populations disproportionately 

benefit from wildfire risk mitigation and wildfire suppression activities and resources so that these benefits may be 

more equitably distributed. Poverty and minority status are 

among the social variables that researchers use as indicators 

of social vulnerability. Research indicates that socially vulnerable populations living in fire-prone forest ecosystems in 

which the fire hazard is high tend to be more vulnerable to 

wildfire than less socially vulnerable populations because 

they often have fewer resources to invest in wildfire 

mitigation actions, have lower participation rates in wildfire 

mitigation assistance programs, and have less access to 

wildfire response resources when a fire ignites. These findings suggest that not only is it important for fuels reduction 

treatments to be proportionately distributed to places where 

low-income and minority populations border or live near 

fire-prone federal forests characterized by high wildfire 

hazard; but treatments might target these locales because of 

higher social vulnerability to wildfire. Furthermore, given 

research that indicates that low-income and minority populations may have less access to assistance programs that 

support wildfire mitigation strategies, directing outreach as 

well as financial and technical assistance to these populations may help them increase fire-safe practices around their 

homes for greater protection from high-severity fire.

Conclusions

This chapter responds to federal forest managers’ request 

for information about trends in the size of environmental 

justice populations in the NWFP area, and the implications 

of these trends for federal forest management. We found that 

poverty rates grew in the Washington, Oregon, and California portions of the Plan area between 1990 and 2012, and 

were most pronounced in northern California and southern 

Oregon. Poverty rates were uniformly higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties in the Plan 

area during the analysis period, and were also higher than 

the national average. Minority populations also increased in 

size and percentage of the regional total, and this increase 

was greatest among the Hispanic or Latino population. 

The percentage of the population identifying as Hispanic 

or Latino doubled in nonmetropolitan counties, and nearly 

tripled in metropolitan counties in the NWFP area. 

The published literature about environmental justice 

populations and their relations with federal forests in 

the Plan area focuses primarily on the environmental 

workforce, commercial NTFP gathering, and recreation. 

Low-income and minority populations are prominent in the 

environmental workforce and in commercial NTFP gathering on federal forest lands. However, as forest workers, 

they often experience low job quality, and they are underrepresented when it comes to developing regulations and 

management guidelines for NTFP harvesting, suggesting a 

need for more oversight and outreach by forest managers. 

In contrast, low-income and minority populations have low 

participation rates in recreation on national forests in the 

Plan area. The literature addresses constraints to their participation and provides suggestions for how forest managers 

can overcome some of these constraints. Two emergent 
842

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

topics that are less well documented but where research is 

ongoing are nonrecreational camping on federal forests, 

particularly homelessness, and the impacts of wildfire management activities on environmental justice populations.

Important information gaps remain, however. There 

is virtually no information about how the NWFP or 

forest management activities more broadly have affected 

low-income or minority populations apart from American Indians. Aside from recreation, research gaps exist 

regarding noneconomic relations between environmental 

justice populations and federal forests. More research is 

needed to increase understanding about variation within 

minority groups regarding their interactions with federal 

forests in particular places, including how low-income or 

minority status intersects with subgroup characteristics (i.e., 

gender, age, religion) to influence forest values, uses, and 

management impacts. The growth in environmental justice 

populations throughout the NWFP area calls for ongoing 

investigation into how these populations relate to federal 

forests and are affected by their management.

References

Adams, M.D.O.; Charnley, S. 2018. Environmental 

justice and Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction: a 

spatial method for impact assessment of federal resource 

management actions. Applied Geography. 90: 257–271.

Alexander, S.J.; Fight, R.D. 2003. Managing access 

to nontimber forest products. In: Monserud, R.A.; 

Haynes, R.W.; Johnson, A.C., eds. Compatible forest 

management. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 

383–400.

Alexander, S.J.; McLain, R.; Blatner, K. 2001. Socioeconomic research on non-timber forest products in the 

Pacific Northwest. In: Emery, M.R.; McLain, R., eds. 

Non-timber forest products: medicinal herbs, fungi, 

edible fruits and nuts, and other natural products from 

the forest. New York: Food Products Press: 95–103.

Asah, S.; Blahna, D.J.; Ryan, C.M. 2012. Involving forest 

communities in identifying and constructing ecosystem 

services: millennium assessment and place specificity. 

Journal of Forestry. 110: 149–156.

Association for Fire Ecology. 2016. Sexual harassment 

and gender discrimination in wildland fire management 

must be addressed. Position paper. http://fireecology.

org/resources/Pictures/AFE%202016%20position%20

paper%20on%20discrimination%20final%2011-25.pdf. 

(May 30, 2017).

Azaroff, L.; Levenstein, C.; Wegman, D. 2002.

Occupational injury and illness surveillance: conceptual 

filters explain underreporting. American Journal of 

Public Health. 92: 1421–1429.

Ballard, H.L.; Huntsinger, L. 2006. Salal harvester local 

ecological knowledge, harvest practices and understory 

management on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. 

Human Ecology. 34: 529–547.

Ballard, H.L.; Sarathy, B. 2008. Inclusion and exclusion: 

immigrant forest workers and participation in natural 

resource management. In: Wilmsen, C.; Elmendorf, 

W.; Fisher, L.; Ross, J.; Sarathy, B.; Wells, G., eds. 

Partnerships for empowerment: participatory research 

for community-based natural resource management. 

London: Earthscan: 167–185.

Biedenweg, K.; Cerveny, L.; McLain, R. 2014. Values 

mapping with Latino forest users: contributing to the 

dialogue on multiple land use conflict management. 

Practicing Anthropology. 36: 33–37.

Bottorff, H.; Campi, T.; Parcell, S.; Sbragia, S. 2012.

Homelessness in the Willamette National Forest: 

a qualitative research project. Eugene, OR: University 

of Oregon. 22 p. M.P.A. thesis. https://scholarsbank.

uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/12633/

Homelessness_MPACapstone_2012.pdf?sequence

=4&isAllowed=y. (24 April 2018).

Bowker, J.M.; Murphey, D.; Cordell, H.K.; English, 

D.B.K.; Bergstrom, J.C.; Starbuck, C.M.; Betz, 

C.J; Green, G.T. 2006. Wilderness and primitive 

area recreation participation and consumption: an 

examination of demographic and spatial factors. Journal 

of Agriculture and Applied Economics. 38: 317–326.
843

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Brown, R.N.K.; Rosenberger, R.S.; Kline, J.D. 2008.

Visitor preferences for managing wilderness recreation 

after wildfire. Journal of Forestry. 1/2: 9–16.

Burns, R.C.; Covelli, E.; Graefe, A.R. 2008. Outdoor 

recreation and nontraditional users: results of focus 

group interviews with racial and ethnic minorities. In: 

Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. Recreation 

visitor research: studies of diversity. Albany, CA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 123–137. Chapter 11.

Burns, R.C.; Graefe, A.R. 2006. Toward understanding 

recreation fees: impacts on people with extremely 

low income levels. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 24: 1–20.

Caldwell N.; Walker, H.; Harland, C.; Knight, L.; 

Zheng, J.; Wakeley, T. 2005. Promoting competitive 

markets: the role of public procurement. Journal of 

Purchasing and Supply Management. 11: 242–251.

Campe, J.; Hoare, L.; Hagopian, A.; Keifer, M. 2011.

Using community-based methods and a social ecological 

framework to explore workplace health and safety of 

bloqueros on the Olympic Peninsula. 54: 438–449.

Casanova, V.; McDaniel, J. 2005. “No sobra y no falta:” 

Recruitment networks and guest workers in southeastern 

U.S. forest industries. Urban Forestry. 34: 45.

Casper, J.M.; Harrolle, M.G.; Kelley, K.E. 2013. Gender 

differences in self-report physical activity and park and 

recreation facility use among Latinos in Wake County, 

North Carolina. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 45: 

S49–S54.

Cerveny, L.K.; Baur, J. [N.d.]. At home in the forest: 

long-term non-recreational camping in national forests 

and grasslands: a national survey of law enforcement 

professionals. Ongoing project. Seattle, WA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, Pacific Wildland Fire 

Sciences Laboratory.

Charnley, S. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 

years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. 

Vol. II: timber and nontimber resources. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 74 p.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating 

traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest 

biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 246: 14–28.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Traditional 

and local ecological knowledge about forest biodiversity 

in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-751. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Charnley, S.; Hummel, S. 2011. People, plants, and 

pollinators: the conservation of beargrass ecosystem 

diversity in the western United States. In: Pujol, J.L., ed. 

The importance of biological interactions in the study of 

biodiversity. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech: 127–154. Chapter 8.

Chavez, D.J. 2008. Serving the needs of Latino recreation 

visitors to urban-proximate natural resource recreation 

areas. In: Chavez, D.J.; Winter, P.L.; Absher, J.D., eds. 

Recreation visitor research: studies of diversity. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station: 53–62.

Chavez, D.J.; Olson, D.D. 2009. Opinions of Latino 

outdoor recreation visitors at four urban national forests. 

Environmental Practice. 11: 263–269.

Cho, S.H.; Bowker, J.M.; English, D.B.K.; Roberts, 

R.K.; Kim. T. 2014. Effects of travel cost and 

participation in national forest visits. Forest Policy and 

Economics. 40: 21–30.

Clinton, W.J. 1994. Executive order 12898: federal actions 

to address environmental justice in minority populations 

and low-income populations. Federal Register. 59: 

7629–7635.
844

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Collins, T.W. 2005. Households, forests, and fire hazard 

vulnerability in the American West: a study of a 

California community. Environmental Hazards. 6: 23–37.

Collins, T.W. 2008. The political ecology of hazard 

vulnerability: marginalization, facilitation and the 

production of differential risk to urban wildfires in 

Arizona’s White Mountains. Journal of Political Ecology. 

15: 21–43.

Cordell, H.K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: 

a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 

RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-150. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, 167 p.

Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. 1997.

Environmental justice guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/2015-02/documents/ej_guidance_nepa_

ceq1297.pdf. (25 May 2017). 

Cronan, M.K.; Shinew, K.J.; Stodolska, M. 2008. Trail 

use among Latinos: recognizing diverse uses among 

a specific population. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 26: 62–86.

Dobkins, R.; Lewis, C.; Hummel, S.; Dickey, E. 

2016. Cultural plant harvests on federal lands: 

perspectives from members of the Northwest Native 

American Basketweavers Association. Res. Pap. PNWRP-608. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p. 

Elliott, M.; Krivo, L.J. 1991. Structural determinants 

of homelessness in the United States. Social Problems. 

38: 113.

Fears, D. 2016. Few women fight wildfires. That’s not 

because they’re afraid of flames. The Washington Post. 

November 20. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/

health-science/few-women-fight-wildfires-thats-notbecause-theyre-afraid-of-flames/2016/11/19/452c6cbaac19-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html?utm_

term=.5cd5ab659b83. (28 September 2017).

Floyd, M.F.; Bocarro, J.N.; Thompson, T.D. 2008.

Research on race and ethnicity in leisure studies: 

a review of five major journals. Journal of Leisure 

Research. 40: 1–22.

Ghimire, R.; Green, G.T.; Poudyal, N.C.; Cordell, 

H.K. 2014. An analysis of perceived constraints to 

outdoor recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 32: 52–67.

Grinspoon, E.; Jaworski, D.; Phillips, R. 2016. Northwest 

Forest Plan—the first 20 years (1994–2013): social and 

economic status and trends. Rep. FS/R6/PNW/2015/0006. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 80 p.

Grinspoon, E.; Schaefers, J.; Periman, R.; Smalls, 

J.; Manning, C.; Porto, T.L. 2014. Striving for 

inclusion: addressing environmental justice for Forest 

Service NEPA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 20 p.

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: non-timber 

forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 

26: 67–86.

Hayford, C. 2013. Oregon forest industry: a comparison of 

occupational safety and health measures, 2012. Salem, 

OR: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business 

Services, Information Management Division. 4 p. http://

www.oregon.gov/DCBS/reports/Documents/oshaactivities/safety-health/12-4840.pdf. (5 September 2017).

Henry, M.; Watt, R.; Rosenthal, L.; Shivji, A.; Abt 

Associates. 2016. The 2016 annual homelessness 

assessment report (AHAR) to Congress, part 1: point-intime estimates of homelessness. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office 

of Community Planning and Development. 92 p. https://

www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2016-

AHAR-Part-1.pdf. (30 May 2017).

Higgins, S.; Blatner, K.; Kerns, B.; Worthington, A. 

2004. Relationship between Xerophyllum tenax and 

canopy density in the southern Cascades of Washington. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 19: 82–87.
845

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Ji, E.-G. 2006. A study of the structural risk factors of 

homelessness in 52 metropolitan areas in the United 

States International. Social Work. 49: 107–117.

Johnson, C.Y.; Bowker, J.M.; Green, G.; Cordell, 

H.K. 2007. “Provide it... but will they come?” A look 

at African American and Hispanic visits to federal 

recreation areas. Journal of Forestry. 105: 257–265.

Johnson Gaither, C.J.; Goodrick, S.; Murphy, B.E.; 

Poudyal, N. 2015. An exploratory spatial analysis of 

social vulnerability and smoke plume dispersion in the 

U.S. South. Forests. 6: 1397–1421.

Johnson Gaither, C.J.; Poudyal, N.C.; Goodrick, S.; 

Bowker, J.M.; Malone, S. 2011. Wildland fire risk and 

social vulnerability in the Southeastern United States: an 

exploratory spatial data analysis approach. Forest Policy 

and Economics. 13: 24–36.

Johnson, K.M.; Stewart, S.I. 2007. Demographic trends 

in national forest, recreational, retirement, and amenity 

areas. In: Kruger, L.E.; Mazza, R.; Lawrence, K.; eds. 

Proceedings: national workshop on recreation research 

management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-698. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 187–199.

Jones, E.T.; Lynch; K.A. 2007. Nontimber forest products 

and biodiversity management in the Pacific Northwest. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 29–37.

Knudson, T.; Amezcua, H. 2005. The pineros: men of 

the pines. Sacramento Bee. November 13–15. http://

www.sethlondon.com/portfolio/sacbee/pineros. (6 

September 2017).

Landry, S.; Chakraborty, J. 2009. Street trees and equity: 

evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban amenity. 

Environment and Planning. A 41: 2651–2670.

Larson, L.R.; Whiting, J.W.; Green, G.T.; Bowker J.M. 

2014. Physical activity of youth in non-urban parks: an 

observation-based assessment. Leisure/Loisir. 38(3–4): 

225–232.

Li, C.L.; Chick, G.E.; Zinn, H.C.; Absher, J.D.; Graefe, 

A.R. 2007. Ethnicity as a variable in leisure research. 

Journal of Leisure Research. 39: 514–545.

Love, T.; Jones, E.; Liegel, L. 1998. Valuing the temperate 

rainforest: wild mushrooming on the Olympic Peninsula. 

Ambio Special Report. 9: 16–25.

Lynch, K.A.; McLain, R. 2003. Access, labor, and wild 

floral greens management in western Washington’s 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-585. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 61 p.

Lynn, K.; Gerlitz, W. 2006. Mapping the relationship 

between wildfire and poverty. In: Andrews, P.L.; Butler, 

B., comps. Fuels management—how to measure success: 

conference proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 401–418.

Lyon, K.M.; Huber-Stearns, H.R.; Moseley, C.; Bone, 

C.; Mosurinjohn, N.A. 2017. Sharing contracted 

resources for fire suppression: engine dispatch in the 

Northwestern United States. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 26: 113–121.

Macartney, S.; Bishaw, A.; Fontenot, K. 2013. Poverty 

rates for selected detailed race and Hispanic groups 

by state and place: 2007–2011. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Economics & Statistics 

Administration. 20 p. https://www.census.gov/

prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf. (6 September 2017).

McLain, R.J. 2000. Controlling the forest understory: 

wild mushroom politics in central Oregon. Seattle, WA: 

University of Washington. 331 p. Ph.D. dissertation. 

McLain, R.J. 2002. Business as usual: the exclusion of 

mushroom pickers in wild mushroom management in 

Oregon’s National Forests. In: Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; 

Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United 

States. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 

375–384. 
846

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

McLain, R.J. 2008. Constructing a wild mushroom 

panopticon: the extension of nation-state control over the 

forest understory in Oregon, USA. Economic Botany. 62: 

343–355.

McLain, R.J.; Jones E.T. 2001. Expanding non-timber 

forest product harvester/buyer participation in Pacific 

Northwest forest policy. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 

13: 147–161.

McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K. 2010. Managing floral greens in 

a globalized economy: resource tenure, labour relations, 

and immigration policy in the Pacific Northwest, USA. 

In: Laird, S.A.; McLain, R.J.; Wynberg, R.P., eds. Wild 

product governance: finding policies that work for nontimber forest products. Washington, DC: Earthscan: 

265–286.

McLain, R.; Poe, M.; Hurley, P.T.; LecompteMastenbrook, J.; Emery, M.R. 2012. Producing edible 

landscapes in Seattle’s urban forest. Urban Forestry & 

Urban Greening. 11(2): 187–194.

Mercer, D.E.; Prestemon, J.P. 2005. Comparing 

production function models for wildfire risk analysis 

in the wildland-urban interface. Forest Policy and 

Economics. 7: 782–795.

Metcalf, E.C.; Burns, R.C.; Graefe, A.R. 2013.

Understanding non-traditional forest recreation: the role 

of constraints and negotiation strategies among racial 

and ethnic minorities. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and 

Tourism: 29–39.

Montgomery, M.C.; Chakraborty, J.; Grineski, 

S.E.; Collins, T.W. 2015. An environmental justice 

assessment of public beach access in Miami, Florida. 

Applied Geography. 62: 147–156.

Moseley, C. 2006. Ethnic differences in job quality among 

contract forest workers on six national forests. Policy 

Sciences. 39: 113.

Moseley, C.; Reyes, Y.E. 2008. Forest restoration 

and forest communities: have local communities 

benefited from forest service contracting of ecosystem 

management? Environmental Management. 42: 327.

Moseley, C.; Sandoval, G.; Davis; E.J. 2014. Comparing 

conditions of labor-intensive forestry and fire suppression 

workers. Society & Natural Resources. 27: 540.

Mylek, M.R.; J. Schirmer, J. 2015. Beyond physical 

health and safety: supporting the wellbeing of workers 

employed in the forest industry. Forestry. 88: 391.

National Law Center for Homelessness & Poverty 

[NLCHP]. 2015. Homelessness in America: overview 

of data and causes. https://www.nlchp.org/documents/

Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet (30 May 2017). 

Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Moseley, C. 2013. The economic and 

employment impacts of forest and watershed restoration. 

Restoration Ecology. 21: 207–214.

Northwest Forest Worker Center. 2015. Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest beargrass harvest program monitoring 

final report. Unpublished report. On file with: Carl 

Wilmsen, Northwest Forest Worker Center, P.O. Box 

6722, Albany, CA 94706.

Ojerio, R.; Moseley, C.; Lynn, K.; Bania, N. 2011.

Limited involvement of socially vulnerable populations 

in federal programs to mitigate wildfire risk in Arizona. 

Natural Hazards Review. 12: 28–36.

Oliver-Smith, A. 1996. Anthropological research on 

hazards and disasters. Annual Review of Anthropology. 

25: 303–328.

Ostergren, D.; Solop, F.I.; Hagen, K.K. 2005. National 

Park Service fees: value for the money or a barrier 

to visitation. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 23: 18–36.

Perry, C.K.; Saelens, B.E.; Thompson, B. 2011. Rural 

Latino youth park use: characteristics, park amenities, 

and physical activity. Journal of Community Health.

36: 389–397.

Poe, M.; LeCompte, J.; McLain, R.; Hurley, P.T. 2014.

Urban foraging and the relational ecologies of belonging. 

Social & Cultural Geography. 15(8): 901–919.
847

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Poe, M.; McLain, R.; Emery, M.R.; Hurley P.T. 2013.

Urban forest justice and the rights to wild foods, 

medicines, and materials in the city. Human Ecology. 

41: 409–422.

Poudyal, N.; Johnson-Gaither, C.; Goodrick, S.; 

Bowker, J.M.; Gan, J. 2012. Locating spatial variation 

in the association between wildland fire risk and social 

vulnerability across six southern states. Environmental 

Management. 49: 625–635.

Radeloff, V.C.; Hammer, R.B.; Stewart, S.I.; Fried, 

J.S.; Holcomb, S.S.; McKeefry, J.F. 2005. The 

wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecological 

Applications. 15: 799–805.

Richards, R.T.; Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, 

resource values, and ecosoystem management: matsutake 

mushroom harvesting in the Klamath bioregion. Society 

and Natural Resources 9: 359–374.

Roberts, J. 2013. “What are we protecting out here?” A 

political ecology of forest, fire, and fuels management 

in Utah’s wildland-urban interface. Capitalism Nature 

Socialism. 24(2): 58–76.

Roberts, N.S.; Chavez, D.J.; Lara, B.M.; Sheffield E.A. 

2009. Serving culturally diverse visitors to forests in 

California: a resource guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-222. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 76 p.

Ruser, J. 2008. Examining evidence on whether BLS 

undercounts workplace injuries and illnesses. Monthly 

Labor Review. 131: 20–32.

Salazar, D.J. 2009. Saving nature and seeking justice: 

environmental activists in the Pacific Northwest. 

Organization & Environment. 22: 230–254.

Sarathy, B. 2006. The Latinization of forest management 

work in southern Oregon: a case from the Rogue Valley. 

Journal of Forestry. 104: 359–365.

Sarathy, B. 2008. The marginalization of pineros in the 

Pacific Northwest. Society and Natural Resources. 21: 671.

Sarathy, B. 2012. Pineros: Latino labour and the changing 

face of forestry in the Pacific Northwest. Vancouver, BC: 

UBC Press. 208 p.

Sarathy, B.; Casanova, V. 2008. Guest workers or 

unauthorized immigrants? The case of forest workers in 

the United States. Policy Sciences. 41: 95–114.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1995. The wild edible 

mushroom industry of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. 

Journal of Forestry. 93: 31–36.

Schwarz, K.; Fragkias, M.; Boone, C.G.; Zhou, 

W.; McHale, M.; Grove, J.M.; O’Neil-Dunne, J.; 

McFadden, J.P.; Buckley, G.L.; Childres, D.; Ogden, 

L.; Pincetl, S.; Pataki, D.; Whitmer, A.; Cadanasso, 

M.L. 2015. Trees grow on money: urban tree canopy 

cover and environmental justice. PLoS ONE. https://

doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051. (5 September 

2017). 17 p.

Scott, D. 2013. Economic inequality, poverty, and park 

and recreation delivery. Journal of Park and Recreation 

Administration. 31: 1–11.

Sheffield, E.A. 2012. Five trends shaping tomorrow today. 

Parks & Recreation. July 2012: 16–17.

Sifuentez, M.J. 2016. Of forests and fields: Mexican labor 

in the Pacific Northwest. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 

University Press. 186 p.

Stevens, T.H.; More, T.A.; Markowski-Lindsay, M. 

2014. Declining national park visitation: an economic 

analysis. Journal of Leisure Research. 46: 153–164.

Tsing, A. 2013a. Dancing the mushroom forest. PAN: 

Philosophy, Activism, Nature. 10: 6–14.

Tsing, A.L. 2013b. Free in the forest: popular neoliberalism 

and the aftermath of war in the US Pacific Northwest. 

In: Gambetti, Z.; Godoy-Anativia, M., eds. Rhetorics of 

insecurity: belonging and violence in the neoliberal era. 

New York: New York University Press: 20–39.

Tsing, A. 2013c. Sorting out commodities: how capitalist 

value is made through gifts. HAU: Journal of 

Ethnographic Theory. 3(1): 21–43.
848

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Tsing, A.L. 2015. The mushroom at the end of the world: 

on the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press. 352 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. 1997. USDA 

Departmental Regulation No. 5600-002: Environmental 

justice. http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/

docs/2012/DR5600-002.pdf. (8 September 2017).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service [USDA ERS]. 2012. Farm labor. https://www.

ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/. (8 

September 2015).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2016. National visitor use monitoring results. http://

apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/. (24 February 2016).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC 

CB]. 1999. Explanation of race and Hispanic origin 

categories. https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/

rho.txt. (11 August 2016). 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau [USDC 

CB]. 2013. How poverty is calculated in the ACS. http://

www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty-cal-in-acs.

pdf. (21 January 2014).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

[USDHHS]. 2013. Annual update of the HHS poverty 

guidelines: a notice by the Health and Human Services 

Department on 01/24/2013. Federal Register 2013-01422: 

5182–5183.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]. 

2013. Environmental justice. http://www.epa.gov/

environmentaljustice/. (10 July 2013).

Wasserman, J.A.; Clair J.M. 2010. At home on the street: 

people, poverty, and a hidden culture of homelessness. 

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 252 p.

Weintraub, M.; Park, A.; Jang, S. 2011. Diversifying 

the environmental workforce: addressing an early 

environmental justice challenge. Environmental Justice. 

4: 27–44.

White, E.M.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Langner, L.L.; 

Arnold, J.R.; English D.B.K. 2014. Federal outdoor 

recreation trends: effects on economic opportunities. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

Wilmsen, C.; Bush, D.; Barton-Antonio, D. 2015.

Working in the shadows: safety and health in forestry 

services in southern Oregon. Journal of Forestry. 113: 

315–324.
849

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Appendix: Counties in the Northwest Forest Plan area (2012 designation)

State, county, designation State, county, designation

California, Colusa County (nonmetropolitan) Oregon, Polk County (metropolitan)

California, Del Norte County (nonmetropolitan) Oregon, Sherman County (nonmetropolitan)

California, Glenn County (nonmetropolitan) Oregon, Tillamook County (nonmetropolitan)

California, Humboldt County (nonmetropolitan) Oregon, Wasco County (nonmetropolitan)

California, Lake County (nonmetropolitan) Oregon, Washington County (metropolitan)

California, Lassen County (nonmetropolitan) Oregon, Yamhill County (metropolitan)

California, Marin County (metropolitan) Washington, Adams County (nonmetropolitan)

California, Mendocino County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Benton County (metropolitan)

California, Modoc County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Chelan County (metropolitan)

California, Napa County (metropolitan) Washington, Clallam County (nonmetropolitan)

California, Shasta County (metropolitan) Washington, Clark County (metropolitan)

California, Siskiyou County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Cowlitz County (metropolitan)

California, Sonoma County (metropolitan) Washington, Douglas County (metropolitan)

California, Sutter County (metropolitan) Washington, Franklin County (metropolitan)

California, Tehama County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Grant County (nonmetropolitan)

California, Trinity County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Grays Harbor County (nonmetropolitan)

California, Yolo County (metropolitan) Washington, Island County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Benton County (metropolitan) Washington, Jefferson County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Clackamas County (metropolitan) Washington, King County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Clatsop County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Kitsap County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Columbia County (metropolitan) Washington, Kittitas County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Coos County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Klickitat County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Crook County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Lewis County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Curry County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Mason County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Deschutes County (metropolitan) Washington, Okanogan County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Douglas County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Pacific County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Hood River County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Pierce County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Jackson County (metropolitan) Washington, San Juan County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Jefferson County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Skagit County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Josephine County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Skamania County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Klamath County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Snohomish County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Lane County (metropolitan) Washington, Thurston County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Lincoln County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Wahkiakum County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Linn County (nonmetropolitan) Washington, Walla Walla County (nonmetropolitan)

Oregon, Marion County (metropolitan) Washington, Whatcom County (metropolitan)

Oregon, Multnomah County (metropolitan) Washington, Yakima County (metropolitan)
850

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Roasting salmon over an open fire. 

Photo by Jon Ivy, Coquille Indian Tribe.
851

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Chapter 11: Tribal Ecocultural Resources 

and Engagement

Jonathan Long, Frank K. Lake, Kathy Lynn, 

and Carson Viles1

Introduction

In this chapter, we review scientific information regarding 

the conservation and restoration of forest ecosystems on 

public lands within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, 

or Plan) area that harbor special value for American 

Indian tribes and individuals. We highlight advances in 

understanding how changes in climate, fire, hydrology, 

vegetation, and resource management regimes have affected 

tribal ecocultural resources and how land management can 

promote ecocultural resources in the future. In particular, 

we examine how distinctive strategies for engaging tribes in 

restoring ecocultural resources can uphold both tribal rights 

and federal responsibilities, while supporting other federal 

land management goals.

An Integrative Perspective on the Term 

“Ecocultural Resources”

A key theme in this chapter is the interconnections among 

tribal communities and their environment within a larger 

socioecological system. When considering socioecological 

systems that have developed with indigenous people over 

millennia, dividing biophysical entities into “ecological” 

and “cultural” categories would be particularly problematic (Burger et al. 2008). Tribal worldviews in the Pacific 

Northwest emphasize that humans are an integral part of the 

natural world and their well-being depends upon maintaining reciprocal relationships with its inhabitants (Anderson 

2005, Heyd and Brooks 2009). Based upon work by others 

who have addressed that issue, we adopt the more integrative term “ecocultural” in this chapter. Rogers-Martinez 

(1992) was an early advocate for recognizing the need for 

ecological and cultural integration in restoration in a tribal 

context: “In other words, what we aim to restore is not only 

the land, but our relationship with it” (p. 69). Similarly, 

Harris and Harper (2000) used the term “eco-cultural 

dependency webs” in characterizing interactions between 

tribal people and their environment. The term “ecocultural” 

has been featured by Tomblin (2009) and the Karuk Tribe 

(Lake et al. 2010) and many others to characterize goals of 

tribal restoration in recent years.

The term “resource” can help to describe physical 

assets for which the U.S. government has a particular 

responsibility to tribes to protect (see “The Federal-Tribal 

Relationship”), but it also suggests an emphasis on material 

uses. Tribes regard many places, waterbodies, animals, 

plants, and fungi for material uses as foods (figs. 11-1 

through 11-3), medicines, and crafts, but also for nonmaterial values, including sense of place, sacredness, and other 

dimensions of cultural significance (Burger et al. 2008). In 

a similar vein, we use the term “ecosystem services” (see 

chapters 1, 9, and 12), but we emphasize the importance of 

“cultural ecosystem services” that encompass both subsistence values and nonmaterial values important to native 

peoples (Burger et al. 2008, Schröter et al. 2014).

Background on Tribes in the Northwest Forest 

Plan Area

Over 70 federally recognized American Indian tribes, and 

many more tribes that are not currently recognized, have 

tribal lands or ancestral territory within the NWFP boundary (Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). Between 1954 and 1964, 

Congress “terminated,” or ended federal acknowledgment, 

for scores of tribes particularly in California and Oregon. 

This chapter uses the term “tribes” when describing the 

collectives recognized as sovereign governments by the 

U.S. government, as well as many tribes that have petitioned 

for such recognition (Koenig and Stein 2008). 

1

 Jonathan W. Long is an ecologist, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

1731 Research Park Drive, Davis, CA 95618; Frank K. Lake is an 

ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 

96002; Kathy Lynn is a faculty researcher and Carson Viles is a 

research assistant, University of Oregon, Environmental Studies 

Program, 5223 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97405.
852

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Figure 11-1—A traditional meal of lamprey 

and Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is prepared on coast 

redwood and western 

redcedar sticks over 

a madrone wood fire 

along the Salmon River, 

California, April 2016. 

Figure 11-2—Tanoak acorns, lion’s mane (Hericium erinaceus) 

mushrooms, and evergreen huckleberries collected on the Six 

Rivers National Forest near Orleans, California, October 2005.

Figure 11-3—Preparing a fall dinner plate of mushrooms (lion’s 

mane, chanterelles, and oyster) with a leg of black-tailed deer, 

served in Orleans, California, October 2005.

Frank K. Lake

Frank K. LakeFrank K. Lake
853

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Much of the ancestral territory of tribes was transferred 

to the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), and National Park Service by the early 20th century; 

however, that process of land transfer continued even into 

the 1960s, when the U.S. government terminated its relationship with the Klamath Tribes and transferred their reservation to form much of the current Fremont-Winema National 

Forest in Oregon (Catton 2016). Many tribes that were 

re-recognized starting in the last quarter of the 20th century 

did not regain control over their former lands (Slagle 1989). 

However, the U.S. government has transferred some public 

lands back to tribal control in recent decades (Catton 2016). 

Several returns were made to correct for survey errors, 

including transferring part of the Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest to the Yakima Indian Reservation, parts of the Mount 

Hood and Willamette National Forests to the Warm Springs 

Reservation, and parts of the Olympic National Forest to 

the Quinault Tribe. Congress also transferred public lands 

to the Coquille Tribe in 1996 after it was re-recognized (see 

“Coquille Indian Tribe” on p. 882).

Each tribe has a unique history and relationship with 

the U.S. government, as well as unique environmental, economic, and cultural ties that influence how they are affected 

by public land management in the NWFP area. Federal 

land management and policy affects tribal ancestral lands 

and resources that remain critical to the well-being of tribal 

communities. The U.S. government has a legal responsibility to consult with federally recognized tribes regarding 

their interests in public lands and potential impacts to 

tribal trust resources and rights (see “The Federal-Tribal 

Relationship” on p. 854), as articulated in the Presidential 

Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal Governments (Clinton 1994). 

The Record of Decision for the NWFP restates that responsibility and calls for resolving conflicts collaboratively 

with affected tribes because of the potential to affect tribal 

activities in areas subject to tribal treaty off-reservation 

rights (USDA and USDI 1994). 

The chapter also uses the term “American Indians” 

to refer to individuals of Native American ancestry and 

especially in a historical context before the United States 

assumed control over the lands of the NWFP. In addition 

to laws and policies that deal with tribes as sovereign 

nations, the U.S. government has policies that deal with 

American Indians as individuals (Catton 2016). For 

example, the new 2012 forest planning rule accords both 

tribes and American Indians special consideration (USDA 

FS 2012). The rule highlights environmental justice, for 

which Executive Order 12898 directs agencies to evaluate 

whether federal activities have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority and low-income populations, which includes 

American Indians (see chapter 10).

Guiding Questions

Managers from the Forest Service requested that the synthesis report address the two-part question of “What is the 

capacity of the Northwest Plan area to provide for Native 

American first foods (e.g., salmon, elk, huckleberry, camas, 

etc.), and is active management called for?” “First foods” is 

a term that some tribes have applied to traditional foods that 

have been and remain very significant in their diet and culture (Lynn et al. 2013). This chapter addresses that question 

as part of a larger examination of opportunities to promote 

tribal ecocultural resources and engagement in management 

of federal forest lands. In particular, we consider the effects 

of historical changes in the relationships between tribes and 

forests in the NWFP area, and how restoring tribal cultural 

practices would affect sustainability of those socioecosystems. After first considering the general context for land 

management and restoration to support values important 

to tribes, we delve into recent science to address several 

questions in more detail:

1. What resources within the NWFP area have special value to tribes, and what factors are influencing the quality and availability of those resources, 

as well as the ecosystems that produce them? In 

particular, how has the reduction in tribal influences since Euro-American colonization affected 

those resources and ecosystems?
854

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The Federal-Tribal Relationship

A brief overview of the distinctive relationship between 

the U.S. government and 567 federally recognized 

American Indian and Alaska Native tribes is important 

to understanding the issues considered in this chapter. 

All federal agencies have a trust responsibility to protect 

tribal rights, lands, assets, and resources, which collectively constitute tribal trust rights and resources (Clinton 

1994, Wood 1995). Federal recognition acknowledges 

tribes as political sovereigns with inherent rights to 

self-governance. When the U.S. government entered 

into treaties with American Indian tribes, it made 

commitments to provide tribes with goods and services 

and to protect their ability to harvest natural resources. 

For example, the Superintendents of Indian Affairs in 

Washington and Oregon, Isaac Stevens and Joel Palmer, 

respectively, negotiated 10 treaties involving tribes in the 

Pacific Northwest between 1853 and 1856. These treaties 

included provisions to protect specific activities on lands 

beyond the reservations such as harvesting fish (fig. 11-4) 

and shellfish, hunting, gathering plants such as roots and 

berries and erecting temporary buildings to cure them, 

and pasturing horses and cattle (Bernholz and Weiner 

2008, Woods 2005). Court decisions have recognized 

that tribes reserved rights to harvest resources in ways 

that encompass trapping, camping, and other activities 

on public lands that are not necessarily referenced in a 

given treaty (Catton 2016, Goodman 2000, Wilkinson 

1997). Figure 11-5A shows the locations of present-day 

reservations and the much larger cessions of lands from 

tribes to the U.S. government under those treaties. The 

U.S. government had negotiated 18 treaties with many 

tribes in California from 1851 to 1852, totaling one 

seventh of its land area, but the Senate refused to ratify 

them (Wood 2008). Instead, through executive orders 

and Congressional authorizations over subsequent 

decades, the U.S. government established a number of 

small reservations across the Pacific Northwest, and even 

smaller “Rancherias” for many tribes in California (fig. 

11-5B) (Wood 2008).

Tribes have other claims that influence off-reservation land management even in the absence of 

ratified treaties of cession. For example, tribes have 

fishing and water rights for their reservations; legal 

defenses of those rights have prompted restrictions on 

upstream water withdrawals, notably in the Klamath 

River basin (Gosnell and Kelly 2010). Some tribes, 

such as the Klamath Tribes, have retained rights in 

former reservation lands that were acquired by the 

United States following termination (Goodman 2000). 

The Forest Service has established agreements with 

many tribes that do not have formal treaty rights that 

allow traditional harvesting within their ancestral lands 

(Catton 2016). Therefore, the cessions mapped in figures 

11-5A and 11-5B present a very incomplete picture of 

tribes’ ancestral connections to lands in the NWFP area, 

but they nevertheless illustrate particular connections 

between tribes and public lands that are enshrined in 

federal law. Given that federal public lands agencies control so much tribal ancestral land, and many tribes have 

only small land areas under their direct control, federal 

land management actions profoundly affect tribal access 

to resources (Dobkins et al. 2016).

The unique status of federally recognized tribes 

requires that U.S. government entities consult directly 

with these tribal governments when addressing issues 

that may affect trust resources and the welfare of their 

tribal members. Consultation is a cornerstone of the 
855

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

government-to-government relationship and clearly 

distinguishes the tribes from other entities (Nie 2008). 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, sets requirements for 

the consultation process to ensure meaningful and timely 

input by tribal officials when federal action may affect 

tribal lands and resources. In addition, consultation obligations are found in numerous statutes (Galanda 2011). 

For example, the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-601) of 1990 imposed requirements 

for consultation with tribal officials or lineal descendants 

when officials anticipate or discover that activities on 

federal lands will affect American Indian burials.

Figure 11-4—Tribal members fishing with dipnets at Celilo Falls, which was submerged by the construction of The Dalles Dam in 

the 1950s. Several tribes have rights to fish associated with this historic location on the Columbia River on the border of Washington and Oregon.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
856

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

^_

^_

^_

Tulalip Reservation

Lummi Reservation

Makah Indian Reservation

Puyallup Reservation

Swinomish Reservation

Nisqually Reservation

Skokomish

Reservation

Chehalis Reservation

Port Madison Reservation

Muckleshoot Reservation

Port Gamble Reservation

Lower Elwha

Reservation

Shoalwater 

Bay Indian 

Reservation

Stillaguamish Reservation Jamestown S'Klallam Reservation

Klamath

Reservation

Upper Skagit Reservation

Snoqualmie Reservation

Coquille Reservation Cow Creek

Reservation

Coos, Lower Umpqua,

and Siuslaw Reservation

Sauk-Suiattle Reservation

Columbia River

Willamette

 River

Modok

Klamath

Yakima

Methow

Okanagan

Calapooia

Dwamish

Klatsop

Chinook

Klikitat

and 

other tribes

Suquamish

Chehalis

Snake Indians, Yahooskin band

Sklallam

Confederated Tribes of

middle Oregon

Squiaitl

Squaxin

Umpqua

Molalla

Scoton

Niskwali

Puyallup

Confederated 

Bands of

Willamette Valley

T'Peeksin

Steilacoom

Steh-chass

S'Homamish

Sa-heh-wamish

Moses-Columbia

Coast 

tribes

of 

Oregon

Rogue River 

Grave Indians

Creek

Makah

Indians on coast of Oregon

Sklallam (Skokomish)

Klamath River

Eugene

Colville 

Reservation*

Yakama Nation

Reservation

Warm Springs

Reservation

Quinault Reservation

Tulalip Reservation

Lummi Reservation

Puyallup Reservation

Swinomish Reservation

Grand Ronde 

Community

Nisqually Reservation

Skokomish

Reservation

Chehalis Reservation

Port Madison Reservation

Muckleshoot Reservation

Port Gamble Reservation

Squaxin Island

Reservation

Quileute Reservation

Hoh Indian Reservation

Siletz Reservation

Shoalwater 

Bay Indian 

Reservation

Nooksack Reservation

Stillaguamish Reservation

Upper Skagit Reservation

Snoqualmie Reservation

Sauk-Suiattle Reservation

Seattle

Portland

0 40 80 20 miles

0 40 80 160 km

OREGON

This map was constructed in 2017 by 

USFS Region 6, DRM, Geospatial

Services using USGS, ESRI, and 

Forest Service corporate data, with 

the tribal lands layer from the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs Indian Lands Dataset, 

which includes historical tribal names 

from the schedule of Indian land 

cessions in the Library of Congress 

(http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/

lwss-ilc.html).

o

WASHINGTON

CANADA

OREGON

CALIFORNIA NEVADA

_^ Major cities

Rivers

Northwest Forest 

Plan boundary

Present-day 

tribal lands

Cessions of 

tribal lands to 

the United 

States as 

recorded 

in the Library 

of Congress, 

with old tribal 

names in italics

Umpqua (Cow

Creek band)

Coast 

tribes

of 

Oregon

Chasta

Qui-nai-elt

Quil-leh-ute

Figure 11-5A—Present-day tribal reservations, and ancestral lands mapped as cessions to the U.S. government in Library 

of Congress records, within the Northwest Forest Plan area in Washington and Oregon. The asterisk denotes the Colville 

Reservation, which lies outside the boundary but belongs to tribes that have ancestral lands and reserved treaty rights 

within the boundary.
857

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Upper Lake Rancheria

Y-lac-ca

E-eh

Cha

Co-lu

Wil-lay

Toc-de

Noi-me-noi-me

I-ka-ruck

Tat-nah

Noe-ma-noe-ma

Ko-se-tah

Doc-duc

O-de-I-lah

Co-ha-ma

Wat-sa-he-wa

Cham-et-ko

Che-com

Mo-al-kai

How-ku-ma

Cha-nel-kai

Hoo-pah or

Trinity River

I-da-kar-I-waka-ha

Ha-bi-na-po

Poh-lik or

Lower Klamath

Peh-tuck or

Upper Klamath

Ca-la-na-po

Da-no-ha-bo

Me-dam-a-rec

Hupa (S. Fork, 

Redwood, and

Grouse Creek 

Bands)

Po-mo

Yu-ki-as

Mas-su-ta-ka-ya

Round Valley Indians

Sai-nell

Dry Creek Rancheria

Stewarts Point Rancheria

Middletown Rancheria

Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria

Hopland Rancheria

Big Valley Rancheria

Sulphur Bank Rancheria

Guidiville Rancheria

Pinoleville Rancheria

Coyote Valley Reservation

Redwood Valley Rancheria

Robinson Rancheria

Sherwood Valley Rancheria

San Francisco

Big Bend Rancheria

Roaring Creek Rancheria

Montgomery Creek Rancheria

Laytonville Rancheria Redding Rancheria

Round Valley Reservation

Rohnerville Rancheria

Table Bluff Reservation

Blue Lake Rancheria

Trinidad Rancheria

Big Lagoon Rancheria

Hoopa Valley Reservation

Yurok Reservation

Quartz Valley Reservation

Resignini Rancheria

Elk Valley Rancheria

Smith River Rancheria

Karuk Reservation

Paskenta Rancheria*

Grindstone Indian Rancheria*

Mooretown Rancheria*

Colusa Rancheria*

Cortina Indian Rancheria*

Sacramento

Klamath River

Sacramento River

A-wall-a-che A-wall-a-che

Aplache

Bat-si

Ca-la-na-po

Cha

Cha-nel-kai

Cham-et-ko

Chap-pah-sim

Che-no

Co-co-noon

Co-ha-ma

Co-lu

Co-to-plan-e-nee

Da-no-ha-bo

Das-pia

Doc-duc

E-eh

Es-ki-un

Ho-lo-lu-pi

Hoo-pah or

Trinity river

How-ku-ma

I-da-kar-I-waka-ha

I-ka-ruck

I-o-no-hum-ne

Klamath

Klamath

Ko-se-tah

Mas-su-ta-ka-ya

Me-dam-a-rec

Mi-chop-da

Modok

Noe-ma-noe-ma

Noi-me-noi-me

O-de-I-lah

Peh-tuck

or Upper

Klamath

Po-mo

Poh-lik

or Lower

Klamath

Rogue River

Indians

Round

valley

Indians

Sage-womnee

Sai-nell

Scoton

Si-yan-te

Sim-sa-wa

Snake Indians,

Yahooskin band

Su-ca-ah

Su-nu

Tat-nah

To-to

Toc-de

Wai-de-pa-can

Wan-nuck

Wat-sa-he-wa

We-chil-la

Wil-lay

Wo-pum-ne

Y-lac-ca

Ya-ma-do

Yas-see

Yol-la-mer

Yu-ki-as

Yut-duc

This map was constructed in 2017 by USFS Region 6, DRM, Geospatial

Services using USGS, ESRI, and Forest Service corporate data, with the 

tribal lands layer from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Lands Dataset, which

includes historical tribal names from the schedule of Indian land cessions in the 

Library of Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwss-ilc.html).

0 20 40 80 Miles

0 35 70 140 Kilometers

OREGON

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

Present-day tribal lands

Cessions of tribal lands to the United States

as recorded in the Library of Congress

o

Lytton Rancheria*

E-eh Peh-tuck or

Upper Klamath

Poh-lik or

Lower Klamath

Hoo-pah or

Trinity River

Hupa (South

Fork, Redwood, and

Grouse Creek 

Bands

Upper Lake Rancheria

Dry Creek Rancheria

Stewarts Point Rancheria

Middletown Rancheria

Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria

Hopland Rancheria

Big Valley Rancheria

Sulphur Bank Rancheria

Guidiville Rancheria

Pinoleville Rancheria

Coyote Valley Reservation

Redwood Valley Rancheria

Robinson Rancheria

Sherwood Valley Rancheria

San Francisco

Roaring Creek Rancheria

Montgomery Creek Rancheria

Laytonville Rancheria Redding Rancheria

Round Valley 

Reservation

Rohnerville Rancheria

Table Bluff Reservation

Blue Lake Rancheria

Trinidad Rancheria

Big Lagoon Rancheria

Hoopa Valley Reservation

Yurok Reservation

Quartz Valley Reservation

Resignini Rancheria

Elk Valley Rancheria

Smith River Rancheria

Karuk Reservation

Colusa Rancheria*

Sacramento

Klamath River

Sacramento River

This map was constructed in 2017 by USFS Region 6, DRM, Geospatial

Services using USGS, ESRI, and Forest Service corporate data, with the 

tribal lands layer from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Indian Lands Dataset, which

includes historical tribal names from the schedule of Indian land cessions in the 

Library of Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwss-ilc.html).

0 20 40 80 Miles

0 35 70 140 Kilometers

OREGON

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

Present-day tribal lands

Cessions of tribal lands to the United 

States as recorded in the Library of 

Congress, with old tribal names in italics

o

Lytton Rancheria*

Paskenta Rancheria*

Grindstone Indian Rancheria*

Cortina Indian Rancheria*

Big Bend 

Rancheria

Mooretown Rancheria*

Co-ha-ma

Cham-et-ko

Doc-duc

Tat-nah

Wil-lay

Co-lu

Cha

Toc-de

Sai-nell

 Po-mo

 Yu-ki-as

 Mas-su-ta-ka-ya

 Round Valley Indians

Noi-me-noi-me

Y-lac-ca

Noe-ma-noe-ma

Ko-se-tah

I-ka-ruck

O-de-l-lah

Wat-sa-he-wa

I-da-kar-I-waka-ha

Ha-bi-na-po

How-ku-ma

Me-dam-a-rec

Mo-al-kai

Che-com

Ca-la-na-po

Da-na-ha-bo

Figure 11-5B— Present-day tribal reservations, and ancestral lands mapped as cessions to the U.S. government 

in Library of Congress records, within the Northwest Forest Plan area in California. Asterisks denote tribal lands 

outside the boundary belonging to tribes that have ancestral lands within the boundary.
858

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

2. What land management strategies can promote 

tribal ecocultural resources, and how do those 

strategies relate to management, research, and 

monitoring for economic, social, cultural, terrestrial and aquatic systems more broadly?

3. What strategies for engaging tribes in forest 

planning and management have been effective in 

addressing tribal concerns over how federal land 

management affects tribal ecocultural resources 

and rights?

This chapter focuses on issues for which federal land 

management entities such as the U.S. Forest Service and 

BLM have primary influence, such as managing vegetation, fire, roads, and trails. Because of that focus, this 

chapter mentions but does not examine in depth many 

other issues that have important effects on tribal ecocultural resources, including reintroduction of extirpated 

species, human population growth, urban development, 

and management of nonfederal lands. The intent of the 

science synthesis is to inform land management planning 

but not to make policy recommendations (see chapter 1). 

However, the periodic monitoring reports under the NWFP 

(Harris 2011, Stuart and Martine 2005, Vinyeta and Lynn 

2015) were guided by a Tribal Monitoring Advisory Group 

to complete tribal surveys and case studies that informed 

recommendations for strengthening federal-tribal relationships under the NWFP.

Source Materials

The current land management planning rule requires 

decisionmakers to use best available science and also to 

request information about tribal traditional ecological 

knowledge (referred to as “native knowledge,” see Glossary), land ethics, cultural issues, and sacred and culturally 

significant sites (USDA FS 2012). This chapter, as do 

others in this science synthesis, draws primarily from 

peer-reviewed scientific publications, focusing on those 

published since the NWFP was adopted. This chapter also 

draws upon findings from related chapters in this report to 

highlight how broader strategies being considered in forest 

management and planning may affect tribal ecocultural 

resources. Because considerable information regarding 

particular tribal resources and federal-tribal relationships 

has been documented in other kinds of publications, 

including theses, dissertations, and agency and tribal 

reports, this chapter refers to some of these publications to 

help fill gaps in peer-reviewed literature. However, tribal 

knowledge is often passed down orally in native languages 

rather than specialized, technical terminology (Ellis 2005). 

Therefore, relying on published information excludes 

traditional tribal knowledge that has not been referenced 

in such publications. Such exclusion risks perpetuating 

long-standing power imbalances (Gavin et al. 2015) as well 

as reinforcing barriers to integrating traditional knowledge 

into land management. Managers may discount traditional 

knowledge that does not seem to fit with their framing 

or understandings of particular issues (Bussey et al. 

2016). Furthermore, tribal knowledge may be distorted or 

diminished as it is “scientized,” or translated into Western 

scientific syntheses written in nonnative English (Agrawal 

2002). Publication and institutionalization of traditional 

knowledge risks transforming it into “non-living knowledge for which no one has specific responsibility to pass 

on” (Gamborg et al. 2012: 542). The section on “Integrating 

traditional ecological knowledge in collaborations” (p. 

900) identifies safeguards that have been recommended to 

avoid such outcomes.

Despite these concerns, it is important to recognize that 

many tribes have become forerunners in producing scientific knowledge in the Western tradition (Breslow 2014), 

and the participatory approaches used with tribes to prepare 

many of the articles, theses, dissertations, and scientific 

reports considered in this synthesis afford some protections 

against misuse. Nevertheless, readers of this synthesis are 

advised to consider the implications of relying exclusively 

on scientific publications. For example, published science 

may not well reflect tribal concerns over practices that are 

widely used in nontribal institutions, such as permitting, 

herbicide use, and burning outside of customary seasons 

(Halpern 2016, LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). Consistent 

with the planning rule, planners can elicit such information 

through a variety of pathways in addition to formal consultation, including collaborative partnerships as discussed 

within this chapter.
859

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Key Findings

Our synthesis starts by considering important concepts that 

help to frame the context for forest management to promote 

tribal well-being. 

What Is the Context for Promoting Tribal 

Well-Being Through Forest Management?

The forest planning rule requires that land management 

plans promote ecological sustainability and contribute to 

social and economic sustainability, in particular by managing areas of tribal importance (USDA FS 2012). Scientific 

research has recognized the deeply interwoven relationships 

between American Indians and the nonhuman elements of 

ecological systems in the Pacific Northwest region. These 

relationships remain critical to sustaining tribal food and 

health security; economic prosperity; recreation and tourism; spiritual and ceremonial practices and observances; 

heritage and cultural identity; and traditional knowledge 

systems, beliefs, and intergenerational exchange (Burger et 

al. 2008, De Groot et al. 2002, Fisher et al. 2008, Tengberg 

et al. 2012). For example, tribal material well-being continues to depend on material from forests for food, water, 

medicines, fuel, crafts, arts, and other creations. Tribal 

well-being also depends upon forest environments for sense 

of place and the ability to practice and pass on cultural 

traditions (Satterfield et al. 2013), including ceremonies for 

world renewal, coming of age, and first foods (Willette et 

al. 2015). Various species represent “cultural keystones” 

because of their prominent roles in maintaining tribal 

economies, identity, and cultural traditions (Garibaldi and 

Turner 2004). For example, first food ceremonies held by 

many tribes feature huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), salmon 

(Oncorhynchus spp.), venison, and edible roots (Mack and 

McClure 2002), while salmon and tanoak (Notholithocarpus densiflorus) may have provided half of the traditional 

diet among members of the Karuk Tribe in California 

(Norgaard 2014a). The inability of many tribal members to 

harvest such foods has been linked to a host of social ills 

(LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016, Norgaard et al. 2017). Many 

tribes are working to increase their access to traditional 

foods (figs. 11-1, 11-2, and 11-3) as part of a food “security” 

or “sovereignty” movement, which is part of broader efforts 

to sustain and enhance the well-being of tribal communities (Daniel et al. 2012, Hernández-Morcillo et al. 2013, 

LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). Researchers have extended 

the cultural keystone concept to “cultural keystone places,” 

where cultural keystone species often occur, and which also 

have particularly great cultural, historical, social, ecological, and economic values (Cuerrier et al. 2015). Tribal 

cultural revitalization efforts depend heavily on having 

influence over management of public lands (MacKendrick 

2009, Turner and Turner 2008).

The new land management planning rule focuses on 

ecosystem services (see chapter 9), encompassing “provisioning services” that support tribal harvesting of wild 

plants, animals, and materials, as well as less tangible “cultural ecosystem services” that are distinctively important to 

tribes and often underaccounted in conventional analyses 

(Asah et al. 2014). However, Raymond et al. (2013) and 

others have criticized the implicit emphasis of ecosystem 

services on economic production and associated markets. 

In contrast, they suggest that other metaphors such as 

“ecocultural community” invoke values that are important 

to indigenous peoples, such as reciprocity and relationships 

with past and future human generations and nonhuman entities. Upholding such values traditionally limited resource 

harvest in ways that promote sustainability, as highlighted 

in studies of harvesting plants and wildlife (Deur 2009, 

Jordan 2015). Such traditional principles are important in 

modulating societal demand for ecosystem services, which 

is a key challenge in applying the concept to public lands 

management (Patterson 2014).

Vulnerability and risk assessments for tribal communities need to be specialized to properly consider risks to 

tribes and their members who have traditionally relied more 

heavily upon wild fish, game, and wild plant foods, medicines, and other natural materials that are processed, stored, 

and used in homes (Burger 2008; Donatuto et al. 2014, 2011; 

Kerns and Ager 2007). For example, in a study of members 

of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation 

(within the Columbia River watershed east of the NWFP 

area), Harris and Harper (1997) reported that exposures 

to various contaminants for an average American Indian 

engaged in a traditional subsistence lifestyle may be 2 to 100 
860

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

times greater than for an average suburban resident owing to 

greater ingestion of fish and other products that could bear 

contaminants. These findings are likely relevant to American Indians throughout the NWFP area who engage in lifestyles that similarly involve high consumption and handling 

of resources from wildlands. These factors increase the need 

for both protective standards and management that account 

for the distinctive characteristics of tribal communities.

Cross-boundary and broad-scale perspectives—

Tribes in the NWFP area are connected to a diverse range 

of ecosystems from the mountains to the sea, encompassing 

marine, estuarine, riverine, valley, wetland, grassland, 

foothill, montane, and alpine environments that collectively 

offer a wide range of places and resources valued by tribes 

(Suttles 1990, Turner et al. 2011). This synthesis focuses on 

forested ecosystems while considering other interconnected 

ecosystems, including grasslands, meadows, wetlands, 

estuaries, bays, and the Pacific Ocean that collectively 

sustain many species of special concern to tribes. Tribal 

well-being is strongly connected to the condition of entire 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems across federal, tribal, 

state, county, and private lands. Development and environmental degradation of areas and waterbodies outside 

of present-day tribal lands has limited the ability of tribal 

communities to access desired resources (Donatuto et al. 

2014, Norgaard et al. 2017). Consequently, working across 

broad scales and boundaries is critical for sustaining tribal 

ecocultural resources. A focus on watershed processes is 

particularly important because many of those resources 

depend on flows from mountain peaks to coastal zones 

and because many tribes in the NWFP area reside in 

coastal areas and river valleys (fig. 11-5A and 5B). Federal 

land management planning emphasizes such a watershed 

perspective, which helps to consider how forest management may affect downstream aquatic systems and related 

uses that are important to tribes. There are also important 

cross-boundary issues involved in terrestrial systems, 

especially because tribes have treaty harvesting rights 

and interests in ancestral lands beyond their present-day 

reservations, opportunities to treat adjacent national forest 

lands under the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004, and 

concerns for transboundary ecological processes such 

as wildfire. There are also complex land management 

situations such as the Quinault Special Management Area, 

which is managed by the Forest Service with 45 percent 

of proceeds from the sale of forest products to be provided 

to the Quinault Indian Nation (Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). 

Tribes that have been displaced from their ancestral 

homelands often have strong interest in lands that are 

distant from their current residences (Cronin and Ostergren 

2007). In particular, some reservations are governed by 

confederated tribes whose members originated from broad 

territories and held a wide range of traditions and cultural 

practices. For example, descendants from the Rogue River 

tribes are now members of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Siletz Indians and the Confederate Tribes of the Grande 

Ronde Community who currently reside in northwestern 

Oregon, but they retain interest in forest management 

activities in their ancestral territory on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest in southwestern Oregon. As another 

example, the Nez Perce Tribe, whose reservation is in 

Idaho, retained rights to fish within the NWFP area. These 

examples demonstrate how maps of both contemporary 

tribal lands and ceded territories, such as in figures 11-5A 

and 11-5B, underrepresent tribal interests across the region.

What Ecocultural Resources and Associated 

Ecosystems Have Special Value to Tribes in the 

NWFP Area?

In this section, we highlight resources and associated 

ecosystems that emerged in our review as particularly 

important to tribes across the NWFP region. Land management agencies have long focused on archaeological sites 

and artifacts as the subjects of cultural resource protection, 

but increasingly there has been a recognition that living 

resources are critical cultural resources (Catton 2016). 

Tribes generally hold that all elements of the natural world 

have cultural significance, or as described by one Pacific 

Northwest tribal leader, “The Creator made all things one. 

All things are related and interconnected. All things are 

sacred. All things are therefore to be respected” (Turner and 

Berkes 2006: 499). The chapter provides only examples of 

the profound and varied relationships between tribes and 

nonhuman entities that have been especially prominent in 
861

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

scientific literature. To characterize the significance of all 

species, ecosystems, and places from the perspective of 

dozens of tribes would require a far more extensive report 

than can be provided here. However, the chapter includes 

citations that offer more breadth and depth.

Water and waterbodies— 

Water has tremendous material value that can be measured 

in terms of quality, quantity, and availability, as well as 

nonmaterial values that are discussed further below. Tribes 

and federal land management agencies have been involved 

in conflicts regarding water rights, dams, diversions and 

instream flows to sustain fisheries (Gosnell and Kelly 2010). 

Because the construction of large dams in river basins of 

the Pacific Northwest has greatly reduced anadromous 

fish populations and availability of traditional fishing sites 

(Gosnell and Kelly 2010, Hamilton et al. 2005, McClure 

et al. 2003), reservoir dam removal is an important issue 

discussed further below.

Ancestral and sacred places— 

Like streams of water, tribal ancestral ties permeate and 

connect the diverse landscapes of the Pacific Northwest. The 

antiquity of resource uses is evident in sites across the NWFP 

area, including camas roasting pits dating to more than 7,000 

years ago, berry processing camps dating back 3,000 years, 

scars in cedar trees that are hundreds of years old, and many 

other features that are discernable to experienced observers 

(Turner 2014). Lands and bodies of water support a variety of 

tribal values beyond their importance as sustenance and habitat for people, plants, and animals, including historical and 

spiritual values (Colombi 2012, Russo 2011, Russo and Zubalik 1992). Such values are recognized as cultural ecosystem 

services under the planning rule (USDA FS 2012). American 

Indians commonly place high priority on the cultural and 

spiritual values of public lands and in maintaining undeveloped conditions, while still recognizing that human activities 

such as maintaining roads and resource management are 

important to sustaining traditional relationships to the land 

(Flood and McAvoy 2007). Many areas considered sacred by 

tribes are likely to have a history of caretaking, productivity, 

and diversity (Hughes and Jim 1986), which could render 

them high priorities for conservation and restoration.

Focus on keystone species—

Several groups of organisms represent prominent tribal 

ecocultural resources across the NWFP area, including 

anadromous fish; ungulates; geophytes; fungi and lichens; 

trees that provide nuts, foliage, bark, and wood; berry-bearing shrubs; and many other plants and animals used for 

food, medicine, regalia, and crafts. Many of the plants and 

animals discussed below are likely to qualify as cultural 

keystone species for multiple tribes (Garibaldi and Turner 

2004) because of their important roles in maintaining 

cultures and because they were widely used and traded by 

tribes in the NWFP area (Turner and Loewen 1998). These 

species can also be ecological keystones owing to their 

importance in maintaining important ecological processes. 

Consequently, many of these species warrant consideration 

as potential focal species under the new forest planning 

rule, and they would also be important to consider as 

keystones in an integrated ecocultural context.

Mammals, including ungulates and furbearers—

Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus 

columbianus), Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus 

virginianus leucurus), elk (Cervus elaphus), and antelope 

(Antilocapra americana) are large animals valued for food, 

hides, and nonmaterial cultural values in the NWFP area. 

These species depend on forest openings and nonforest 

communities that were maintained with former tribal 

burning practices (Anderson 2009, Boyd 1999, Turner et 

al. 2011). Managers of private forest lands have argued 

that populations of elk and black-tailed deer have declined 

without regeneration harvests (Burns et al. 2011). Fuels 

reduction can enhance the quantity and quality of elk forage 

(Long et al. 2008). Deer browse the new shoots or branchtip growth of many of the berry-producing shrubs that are 

also important to tribes, including salal (Gaultheria shallon)

(Stockton et al. 2005). In some areas within the NWFP, such 

as the Gulf and San Juan Islands, black-tailed deer have 

increased, leading to declines in many understory plants 

as well as birds (Martin et al. 2011). However, in many 

other parts of the NWFP area, a decline in elk and deer 

populations associated with fire exclusion and suppression 

and forest succession has reduced hunting opportunities and 

diminished tribal food security (LeCompte-Mastenbrook 
862

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

2016, MacDougall 2008, MacKendrick 2009). Collaborative 

landscape efforts designed to restore habitats (e.g., winter 

range associated with lower elevation oak woodlands, or 

higher elevation forests) can help address tribal interests in 

increasing these wild ungulate populations. For example, 

under a settlement of a lawsuit by the Muckleshoot Indian 

Tribe, the Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest 

designated two special management areas for elk forage 

(LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). That action was in part a 

response to impacts of late-successional reserve designations under the NWFP on elk habitat, which has also been 

highlighted as a tribal concern in NWFP monitoring reports 

(Stuart and Martine 2005).

Tribes use many mammals such as river otter (Lontra canadensis), American beaver (Castor canadensis), 

mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa), Pacific marten (Martes 

caurina), fisher (Pekania pennanti), mink (Neovison vison), 

and porcupine (Erethizon dorsatus) in making regalia and 

other cultural items (Dobkins 2009, Matthews et al. 2013). 

Many of these species have prominent symbolic roles in 

tribal cultural traditions as well. Ecological implications 

of the decline or extirpation of some species, such as wolf 

(Canis lupus) and beaver, are discussed further below under 

“Species losses,” while chapter 6 provides additional discussion of ecology and management of wildlife.

Birds important for food, regalia, and ceremonies—

Various birds are important as sources of food and materials 

for tribal regalia, and many species have special cultural 

significance in ceremonies, stories, and songs. Turner and 

Bhattacharyya (2016) provide an extensive review of the 

cultural significance of birds from the Pacific Northwest, 

recounting the deeply rooted connections among tribal 

people, plants, and birds in both corporeal and spiritual 

realms. They reported common connections among important bird species and plants harvested for fruits and roots. For 

example, they noted that many tribes identify the Swainson’s 

thrush (Catharus ustulatus) as the “salmonberry bird,” an 

important indicator of the ripening of salmonberries (Rubus 

spectabilis) in coastal forests of the Pacific Northwest. Jordan 

(2015) provides a detailed examination of how the Hupa 

people have woven the pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus 

pileatus) into their material and spiritual culture by using the 

feathered scalps to make dance regalia (figs. 11-6 through 

11-8) and maintaining a reciprocal relationship with the bird. 

For example, the Hoopa Valley Tribe has engaged in research 

to study how forest disturbances influence the species 

(see “Tribal Ecosystem Services From Dead Trees and 

Forest Gaps” on p. 864). Other birds that are prominently 

featured in tribal featherwork include mallard duck (Anas 

platyrynchos), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), golden 

eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus), 

California quail (Callipepla californica), band-tailed pigeon 

(Patagioenas fasciata), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) (Gleeson 

et al. 2012). Some species, such as various owls, have cultural 

Figure 11-6—A pileated woodpecker head mounted on a handle 

made of madrone “curly” wood (with disfigured growth from a 

honeysuckle [Lonicera hispidula] vine) and adorned with woodpecker tail feathers and shells from dentalium (Dentalium sp.) and 

abalone (Haliotis sp.). This regalia item, photographed June 2007, 

was made and used in contemporary tribal (Karuk and Yurok) 

brush dance and war dance ceremonies.

Frank K. Lake
863

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

significance even though members of some tribes in the 

NWFP area avoid physically interacting with them and their 

feathers (Gleeson et al. 2012). California condor (Gymnogyps 

californianus) was historically significant, with feathers used 

in regalia items, and it remains a species of interest for some 

tribes in the NWFP area (Gleeson et al. 2012).

Forest management and fires affect bird habitat in complex ways, but, in general, increasing forest heterogeneity to 

include a variety of successional stages can increase avian 

diversity (Burger et al. 2013). Tribes often emphasize the 

importance of food webs and habitat to support the range of 

species on which they depend (Turner and Bhattacharyya 

2016). For example, they call attention to the importance of 

tree cavities and production of nuts, berries, and other foods 

not only for their own use, but also for wildlife (Long et al. 

2016a). Riparian areas are particularly important as harbors for many bird species of special importance to tribes 

(Turner and Bhattacharyya 2016). Turner and Bhattacharyya (2016) suggested that traditional tribal practices helped 

to sustain the diversity and productivity of habitats for many 

important bird species.

Anadromous fish—

Many tribes in the NWFP area value anadromous fish such 

as salmon and trout (Oncorhynchus spp.) (fig. 11-1) and 

sturgeon (Acipenser spp.) as cultural keystones (Benson 

et al. 2007, Crozier and Zabel 2006, Richter and Kolmes 

2005). Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) is another anadromous fish of special value to tribes (figs. 11-1, 11-10, and 

11-11) (Close et al. 2002, Larson and Belchik 1998, Petersen 

Lewis 2009, Sheoships 2014). Eulachon or candlefish 

(Thaleicthys pacificus) (fig. 11-11) is an important traditional food and trade good when smoke-dried or processed 

Frank K. Lake

Figure 11-7—Lake family regalia photographed August 2016, 

including a quiver made from fisher adorned with red abalone 

shells surrounded by men’s ceremonial headbands composed of 

acorn woodpecker scalps sewn on tanned deer hide. 

Figure 11-8—Hupa men dressed in brush dance regalia in 2015, 

adorned with pileated woodpecker scalps along with a variety of 

other products derived from forest and ocean wildlife. 

© Dawn Blake, who granted permission for one-time use of this photo in this report
864

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Tribal Ecosystem Services From Dead Trees 

and Forest Gaps

The Hoopa Valley Tribe recently partnered with Humboldt State University researchers to examine the effects 

of tree damage caused by black bears (Ursus americanus) (Mendia 2016). They found that bear damage in 

40- to 60-year-old stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga 

menziesii var. menziesii) was significantly correlated 

with dead and decaying trees larger than 10 in (25.4 cm) 

diameter at breast height. While the damage to trees 

negatively affected the lumber value of the stand, it 

created dead wood that would normally be found in older 

stands and was associated with increased observations of 

pileated woodpecker, a culturally important species used 

by tribal members for regalia, as well as red-breasted 

sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) and other cavity-nesting 

birds. The researcher also observed deer browse on new 

growth of western swordfern (Polystichum munitum) in 

the canopy gaps resulting from killed trees (fig. 11-9). 

Consequently, this study found that the small-scale 

disturbance caused by bears promoted provisioning and 

cultural ecosystem services associated with biodiversity 

and tribal spiritual values.

Figure 11-9—Canopy gap resulting from black bear damage to trees in a second-growth redwood stand on the Hoopa Valley 

Indian Reservation.

Shannon Mendia
865

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

into oil (Larson and Belchik 1998, Mitchell and Donald 

2001); the species was listed as threatened in the NWFP 

area in 2010 (chapter 7). These anadromous species, and 

their safety for human consumption, have been affected by 

increasing freshwater temperatures, drought, parasites, and 

toxins (Benson et al. 2007, Crozier and Zabel 2006, Richter 

and Kolmes 2005). Norgaard et al. (2013) studied trace metals in three species used by the Karuk Tribe in the Klamath 

River (salmon, steelhead trout, and freshwater mussels) 

and found that the foods were deemed safe even at the 

comparatively higher levels of consumption in traditional 

tribal diets. A recent Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) study found that 91 percent of lakes in Washington, 

Oregon, and Idaho had mercury levels in fish tissue that 

were dangerous to people who consumed high levels of fish 

(about six fish meals/week) (Herger and Edmond 2012). 

An earlier EPA study (USEPA, n.d.) conducted with the 

Columbia Intertribal Fisheries Commission also found 

high levels of toxins. They found that levels were higher 

in resident fish than many of the anadromous fish species 

listed above, except for white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), which had some of the most hazardous levels 

of contamination. They also reported that health risks were 

far greater to American Indians than to the general public 

because their fish consumption was 6 to 11 times greater. 

This study demonstrated the importance in tailoring risk 

assessments to particular tribal contexts, as well as to consider the potential impacts of releases of toxic substances in 

sediments stored behind reservoir dams.

Amphibians and mollusks—

Frogs have tribal cultural significance, as portrayed on 

totem poles and in traditional stories, where they are often 

represented as supernatural beings that carry important 

messages and should not be harmed (Barbeau 1930, Turner 

and Berkes 2006, Wassen 1934). Freshwater mussels (e.g., 

Margaritifera falcata, Gonidea angulata, and Anodonta 

californiensis) are important tribal sources of food (Davis 

et al. 2013), and they provide other important ecosystem 

services, including sustaining water quality and food webs 

(Vaughn et al. 2008). They have a very patchy and reduced 

abundance in the region particularly resulting from declines 

Figure 11-10—Alme Allen (left) and Eugene Coleman hold 

lampreys caught with a modern wire and rim basket trap along the 

Klamath River, near Orleans, California, May 2005.

Frank K. Lake Frank K. Lake

Figure 11-11—Lamprey (top), candlefish (bottom), and night 

smelt (Spirinchus starksi) (center) harvested by Yurok Tribal 

members on a basket tray made from sandbar willow (Salix 

exigua), March 2014.
866

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in host fish species associated with degraded physical habitats, nonnative fishes, and reduced connectivity resulting 

from dams on the Klamath, Columbia, and other large 

rivers (Box et al. 2006, Davis et al. 2013, Howard 2010). 

Other mollusks, including terrestrial snails and slugs (see 

chapter 6), have special values to tribes. 

Nut-bearing trees—

Tree species that were traditionally valued for nut production include hardwood species such as tanoak (figs. 11-2 

and 11-12) (Bowcutt 2013), California black oak (Quercus 

kelloggii) (Long et al. 2016a), Oregon white oak (Q. garryana) (Hosten et al. 2006), and California hazel (Corylus 

cornuta var. californica) as well as conifer species such 

as sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) (Anderson 2005) and 

whitebark pine (P. albicaulis) (Mack and McClure 2002). 

Many of the hardwood species are capable of resprouting 

following fires, but the loss of mature crowns retards nut 

production for long periods in several species (see chapter 

3). There is greater potential for lost nut production in 

many of these species because fire exclusion, conifer 

encroachment, and increased fuel loading have increased 

the potential for high-severity fire (Cocking et al. 2012, 

Devine and Harrington 2006). However, Sadler’s oak (Q. 

sadleriana) is a shrubby oak also valued for nut production, but which can respond to fire with vigorous acorn 

production. Sudden oak death is a fungal disease that 

threatens many of the hardwood species (Cobb et al. 2012, 

Ortiz 2008) (see chapter 3), while white pine blister rust 

threatens sugar pine and other white pines (Samman et al. 

2003). Strategies to promote forests that are more resilient 

to mortality agents, especially in more frequent-fire forest 

types, include reducing fuel loads, restoring fire regimes, 

reducing tree density, and shifting composition toward 

more fire-adapted native plants (see chapter 3 and Long et 

al. 2014a).

Trees used for material and medicine—

Many other tree species have special values to tribes 

for materials, medicines, and other traditional cultural 

purposes, including various pines (Pinus spp.), spruces 

(Picea spp.) (fig. 11-13), Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), 

Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), coast 

redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Alaska yellow-cedar 

(Callitropsis nootkatensis), red alder (Alnus rubra), 

bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), bitter cherry (Prunus 

emarginata), cascara (Rhamnus purshiana), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa ssp. trichocarpa), and 

many other species (Turner and Hebda 1990, Turner and 

Loewen 1998). The Pacific crabapple (Malus fusca) is a 

native pome-bearing tree that grows in riparian wetlands 

and was an important traditional source of food, medicine, 

and wood for tribes across the coastal range of the NWFP 

area (Turner and Turner 2008). Western redcedar (Thuja 

plicata Donn ex D. Don) has been particularly highlighted 

as a cultural keystone species, reflecting its many uses, 

Figure 11-12—Chris Peters harvesting acorns, near Orleans, including canoes (fig. 11-14), totem poles, hats, clothing, 

California, November 2012.

Frank K. Lake
867

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

baskets, and other crafts (Barbeau 1930, Garibaldi and 

Turner 2004, Stewart 1995). Western redcedar has been 

the subject of restoration partnerships involving the Forest 

Service and tribes (Smith and Farque 2001). The use of 

some conifers for material, such as cedar trees peeled for 

bark, have produced culturally modified trees that retain 

evidence of intentional alteration by American Indians. 

Because such trees have scientific and cultural value as 

records of activity by past generations of American Indians, they are important to consider when planning harvest 

and fire management (Eldridge 1997, Turner et al. 2009). 

Populations of both hardwoods and conifers are threatened 

by diseases, a rapidly changing climate, and associated 

disturbances (see “Climate change” on p. 873).

Understory plants for material items, floral greens, 

medicines, berries, and other foods—

A wide variety of understory plants are important for maintaining the health, diet, lifeways, and cultural traditions 

of tribal communities (Lynn et al. 2013, Rogers-Martinez 

1992, Turner 2014). Many of these plants produce berries, 

including huckleberries (fig. 11-2), cane fruits and brambles 

(Rubus spp.), elderberries (Sambucus spp.), buffaloberries

(Shepherdia spp.), strawberries (Fragaria spp.), and 

serviceberry/saskatoon berries (Amelanchier alnifolia) 

(Kellogg et al. 2009, Turner and Turner 2007).

Frank K. Lake

Figure 11-13—Deanna Marshall (right) with her mother Laverne 

Glaze, harvesting Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) roots for basketry material, July 2006. This rain forest species is used by tribes 

in the coastal zone of the Northwest Forest Plan area.

Figure 11-14—Carvers Frank Harlow and his nephew Ben Harlow 

carved four canoes from a large western redcedar tree near 

Queets, Washington, circa 1932. 

Dale Northup
868

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Several species of huckleberries, especially Vaccinium 

membranaceum, V. deliciosum, and V. ovatum, have historically been and today remain a prominent first food and 

trade item for many tribes across the NWFP area (Deur 

2009, LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016, Mack and McClure 

2002). Some of these huckleberry species have yielded 

substantial market values for their berries or foliage. The 

production of huckleberries from a good site near Mount 

Adams in Washington state was reported to be as much 

as 100 gal/ac (935 L/ha), with a value of $11/gal ($2.90/L) 

suggesting an estimated value of $1,100/ac ($2,700/ha) in 

1977 (Minore and Dubrasich 1978). Arnette and Crawford 

(2007) reported that wholesale prices in 2007 were about 

$18/gal ($4.76/L) (which is within the range of prices in 

the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest (Region 6) 

special forest products appraisal system database). These 

figures indicate that huckleberry production can be valued 

at several thousand dollars per acre or hectare. For many 

decades, the high socioeconomic value of these berries 

to tribal members has been recognized, along with conflict with commercial harvest by non-American Indians 

(Carroll et al. 2003, Hansis 1998, Richards and Alexander 

2006). However, there has been untapped potential for land 

management to enhance the productivity of such resources 

to support multiple benefits (Von Hagen and Fight 1999), 

including enhanced suitability for tribal harvest.

A variety of understory plants provide important material for making baskets and many other traditional items, 

including willows (Salix spp.), sedges (Carex barbarae and 

C. obnupta), cattails (Typha latifolia), tule (Schoenoplectus 

spp.), dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum), and many others. 

Salal is an important shrub harvested by tribal members for 

edible berries and medicine, and workers from many ethnic 

groups also harvest it commercially for the floral greens 

industry (Ballard et al. 2008). Many geophytes, including 

camas (Camassia spp.), cluster-lilies (Brodiaea spp.) (fig. 

11-15), biscuit roots (Lomatium spp.), onions (Allium spp.), 

and lilies (Lilium spp.), are important traditional foods. 

Improving camas production was the goal for prescribed 

burning as part of the Camas Prairie Restoration Project in 

prairie habitat on the Willamette National Forest, Oregon 

(Nabhan et al. 2010, Smith and Farque 2001). Tribal harvesters use the leaves of another important geophyte, beargrass 

(Xerophyllum tenax) (fig. 11-16), to make baskets and tribal 

regalia items; treatments to promote those uses have been 

the subject of joint Forest Service and tribal partnerships 

(Hummel et al. 2012, Shebitz et al. 2009a).

Many understory plants are associated with disturbances, such as fire, that create or maintain canopy gaps 

and open understory environments. Canopy gaps allow 

light to reach the understory, and burning often promotes 

characteristics desired by harvesters, such as long, supple 

stems, larger roots, and increased fruit production, as well 

as ease of access for harvesting. For example, research 

indicates that tribal harvesters prefer beargrass from stands 

with fewer, larger trees and less down wood, which are 

conditions that can be promoted through thinning and 

frequent fire (Hummel and Lake 2015). However, such 

Figure 11-15—Lillian Rentz (left) harvesting cluster-lilies 

(Brodiaea coronaria) with LaVerne Glaze near Somes Bar, 

California, July 2006.

Frank K. Lake
869

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

relationships can vary greatly among closely related species. 

For example, Kerns et al. (2004) found that red huckleberry 

(Vaccinium parvifolium) foliage growth (not necessarily 

fruiting) would likely benefit from thinning young conifer 

stands. Similarly, Keyes and Teraoka (2014) found red 

huckleberry to be more dominant in second-growth than 

old-growth redwood stands in northern California. On the 

other hand, the more shade-tolerant evergreen huckleberry 

(V. ovatum) appeared more abundant in closed-canopy 

forests along the Oregon coast in a study by Kerns et al. 

(2004). In addition, Halpern and Spies (1995) had found that 

cover and frequency of big huckleberry (V. membranaceum) 

were greater in old-growth or mature forest stands in the 

Cascade Range of Washington. While speculating that 

thinning in such stands might cause declines in vegetative 

growth, Kerns et al. (2004) cautioned that they were unable 

to determine a relationship between stand condition and 

fruiting patterns, and they concluded that more site-specific 

investigations informed by tribal harvesters would improve 

understanding of favorable management practices. While 

forestry and botanical research typically evaluate vegetative 

abundance, tribal harvesters evaluate additional characteristics that affect harvest suitability, such as fruit abundance, 

size, and taste, when recommending management strategies 

for particular stands.

Wetland plants—

Tribes have valued and tended several kinds of plants found 

in wetlands, including tules, cattails, sedges, willows, and 

wapato (Sagittaria spp.). Tribes in Oregon and on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington have long harvested small 

cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) from bogs and used fires 

to deter encroaching trees and shrubs and to stimulate the 

plants to produce more fruit (Anderson 2009). Bog Labrador tea (Rhododendron groenlandicum) is another species 

used for tea and medicine that has a similar history of tribal 

burning; the plant resprouts from stems following low-intensity fires and from deep rhizomes following more severe 

fires (Anderson 2009). Klamath tribal members cultivated 

marsh edge areas to harvest seeds from the yellow pond lily 

(Nuphar polysepala) (Deur 2009). Another example is the 

rare western lily (Lilium occidentale), a threatened species. 

As described in a 5-year status report (USFWS 2009), this 

plant is endemic to the coast of northern California and 

southern Oregon, where it occupies freshwater wetlands, 

coastal prairie and scrub, and the edges of Sitka spruce 

forests. Declines in habitat quality for the species have been 

linked to reductions in tribal burning and ungulate grazing, 

which historically was provided by elk but for which cattle 

can be a useful surrogate (USFWS 2009). Imper (2016) 

asserted that within the coastal region, disturbances such as 

grazing and burning are important to deter encroachment 

by sedges and conifers into open wetland habitats that 

support populations of the rare lily, along with many other 

rare plants.

Fungi and lichens—

Many species of fungi are important sources of food, 

medicine, and income for tribal members, including 

matsutake (Tricholoma magnivelare), morels (Morchella 

Frank K. Lake

Figure 11-16—LaVerne Glaze holding harvested beargrass 

(Xerophyllum tenax), July 2005. 
870

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

spp.), chanterelles (Cantharellus spp.); hedgehogs (Hydnum spp.), boletes (Boletus spp.), Hericium spp., and 

oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus spp.) (fig. 11-3) (Anderson 

and Lake 2013). Many of these species produce fruiting 

bodies following fire and other disturbances to trees and 

soils (Anderson and Lake 2013). For example, recent 

research outside the NWFP area found that profuse morel 

production in the first year following the Rim Fire in 

the Sierra Nevada mountains could sustainably support 

“relatively liberal harvest limits” (more than 4 L/day) 

by recreational and subsistence harvesters (Larson et 

al. 2016). Wila or horsehair lichen (Bryoria fremontii), 

which scientists recently described as a “macrolichen 

symbiosis” of a fungus, algae, and yeast (Spribille et al. 

2016) is a “first food” for tribes particularly in the interior 

of the Pacific Northwest, where edible varieties have been 

harvested from forests and distinguished from the inedible 

ones using tribal traditional knowledge (Crawford 2007). 

Chapter 6 includes more information about responses of 

fungi and lichens to fire and management. 

Tribal ecological knowledge systems—

Tribal cultures across the NWFP area constitute a great 

diversity of languages, knowledge systems, practices, 

and traditions that reflect the ecological diversity of their 

ancestral territorial homelands (Kroeber 1920, Suttles 

1990, Turner 2014). Many parts of the region, such as the 

Klamath Mountains, have distinctive mixes of species and 

ecosystems that also occur in the Coast Range, Cascade 

Range, and California provinces. Tribal knowledges reflect 

similar mixes, as tribes of northern California have cultural 

knowledge and practices of species that extend from the 

Great Basin, Pacific Northwest, and California floristic 

biomes (Kroeber 1920). Meanwhile, tribes along the lower 

Columbia River depend upon and have knowledge of plants 

and animals found both in the Pacific Northwest and on the 

Columbia Plateau. Tribal knowledge systems have evolved 

with an understanding of conditions across bioregions 

and habitats, which makes them particularly valuable 

for informing adaptation. Maintaining these knowledge 

systems requires managing resource conditions and accessibility through applications across large geographic areas 

(Dobkins et al. 2016, Trosper 2003, Turner et al. 2003).

Although tribes living in similar environments may 

represent different language groups, they tend to exhibit 

similarities in cultural practices. For example, tribes along 

the coast from British Columbia to northern California used 

and still depend upon many similar resources (Suttles 1990). 

Although many tribes use the same species for similar purposes, their stewardship methods differ based on culturally 

specific knowledge and customs, as illustrated in the case 

of Pacific lamprey (Close et al. 2004, Petersen Lewis 2009). 

Similarly, all the tribes have rich basket weaving traditions, 

and many use primarily the same few species, such as hazel 

and beargrass as central components. However, just as 

tribes have distinctive weaving techniques and designs, they 

also have distinctive cultivation and harvesting practices 

(Hummel et al. 2012, Hummel and Lake 2015). The distinctions in how tribes use and manage forest resources 

are important for planning, prioritizing, and implementing 

strategies for managing large landscapes (Stumpff 2006), as 

each interested tribe may have specific values attributed to 

particular places. Tribal knowledge can guide and inform 

resource management for a suite of similar habitats and 

species, but specific prescriptions and treatments may be 

needed to promote desired conditions for specific sites. For 

example, many tribes may want to use fire within a landscape, but they may have different approaches regarding the 

timing of burning in particular habitats (see “Reestablishing 

fire regimes” on p. 885). Consequently, consultation, 

coordination, and communication by federal agencies 

with individual tribes is important to address landscapes, 

habitats, and species of interest, rather than expecting that 

generalized prescriptions will serve the needs of all tribes in 

an area (Raish et al. 2007).

What Factors Are Influencing the Quality and 

Availability of Tribal Ecocultural Resources?

Factors influencing the availability of ecocultural resources 

range from harvesting rights to biophysical factors that 

influence the quality and quantity of production. The 

periodic monitoring reports under the NWFP (Harris 

2011, Stuart and Martine 2005, Vinyeta and Lynn 2015) 

considered how tribes evaluated the accessibility and 

condition of important resources and places on public 
871

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

lands. While devoting much attention to legal and bureaucratic constraints, the reports also discuss how competition 

with non-Indians affects their capacity to obtain desired 

resources. While those reports note that some tribal 

respondents regard the NWFP as having improved the 

condition of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems by providing protections for old-growth forest and aquatic habitats, 

many also note that fire suppression and strict preservation 

approaches linked to the NWFP have inhibited restoration 

of conditions desired by tribes. Similarly, research by 

LeCompte-Mastenbrook (2016) recounts how members 

of the Muckleshoot Tribe regard the institutionalization 

of “minimal disturbance” under the NWFP as having had 

negative effects on tribal ecocultural resources such as 

huckleberries and elk. Such perceptions are consistent with 

trends discussed in chapter 12, namely, that the Plan has 

encouraged managers to limit intentional disturbance while 

extending the legacy of fire suppression, which has led to 

reduced composition and productivity of many resources 

that are not favored by dense conifer forests. Beyond the 

accessibility and productivity of ecocultural resources, 

tribal members are also concerned about obstacles to 

applying tribal stewardship practices themselves on their 

ancestral lands. Having such opportunities enables them to 

enhance not only resources, but also traditional ecological 

knowledge and community capacity.

Changes in tribal socioeconomic conditions and 

resulting effects—

A broad historical perspective is helpful for understanding 

how changes in the lands and waters are associated with 

changes in the well-being of the indigenous peoples of the 

Pacific Northwest. While tribes throughout the region have 

maintained close connections to land, many of them underwent a shift from subsistence to market-based economies 

by the start of the 20th century. During that shift, many 

tribal members sought employment in regional fisheries as 

well as agriculture- and timber-based industries (Mondou 

1997). Tribes and their members have long faced challenges in attempting to maintain both economic security 

and traditional cultural practices. Many tribal economies 

remain strongly linked to forest industries and management through activities such as harvesting timber and 

nontimber forest products, firefighting, and positions with 

land management agencies. As employment in timber and 

fishing industries have declined, tribal members have relied 

on more restoration-based jobs or harvesting of nontimber 

forest products (MacKendrick 2009). The Jobs in the Woods 

Program, set up to mitigate socioeconomic impacts of the 

NWFP by providing restoration-based jobs for workers 

from timber-based communities, appeared particularly 

effective in tribal contexts by supporting effective retraining, valuable jobs, increased economic security, aquatic 

habitat improvement, and cultural capacity through projects 

on tribal lands (Harris 2011, Middleton and Kusel 2007).

During much of the 20th century, local tribes had little 

influence over resource management on federally managed 

lands for a variety of reasons, including less developed 

tribal institutions, dismissal of tribal traditional knowledge 

and concerns, and inconsistent federal recognition and 

policies (Catton 2016, Record 2008). As noted by many 

tribes, public lands management during that era, including 

suppression and punishment for tribal burning and harvesting, engendered considerable distrust of land management 

agencies, while degrading the quality and quantity of 

important tribal ecocultural resources (Dobkins et al. 2016, 

Lake 2013, Norgaard 2014a). Various land management policies, including removal of tribal stewardship, fire exclusion, 

commercial timber harvest, and protections for threatened 

species and wilderness areas, have contributed to denying 

tribes the benefits they derived from ancestral lands, 

which in turn has depressed tribal community well-being 

and engagement in forest management (Freedman 2002, 

LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016, Norgaard 2014b).

Access for harvesting forest products— 

As discussed in the “Federal-Tribal Relationship” on p. 

854, some tribes have legal rights to harvest various forest 

products from public land areas. More generally, the Farm 

Bill of 2008 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to provide any trees, portions of trees, or forest products to Indian 

tribes free of charge for “traditional and cultural purposes,” 

for which the Forest Service adopted a final rule on September 26, 2016 (USDA FS 2016). Previously, the requirements for such collections widely varied through time 

and across the different national forest districts and other 
872

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

jurisdictions in the NWFP area (Catton 2016). A recent 

study of the Northwest Native American Basketweavers 

Association found that American Indian harvesters of 

special forest products encountered a range of obstacles to 

harvest on public lands, including gates, closed or poorly 

maintained roads, requirements for obtaining permits, fees 

for access, and insufficient support in agreements (Dobkins 

et al. 2016). Similarly, access to suitable logs to construct 

river- and ocean-going canoes (fig. 11-14) has been a 

limiting factor for larger contemporary tribal traditions and 

celebrations (Johansen 2012). The Quinault Indian Nation 

reported difficulty in procuring logs from adjacent national 

forest lands to use in river restoration efforts (Harris 

2011). Tribes have faced obstacles in obtaining logs from 

national forests across the NWFP area owing to limited 

availability, constraints associated with late-successional 

reserves and special status and sensitive species, disputes 

over fees, and other procedural hurdles (Catton 2016, Harris 

2011, Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). Some tribal members have 

criticized various bureaucratic processes associated with 

obtaining information and approvals or permits to harvest 

forest products as being unduly burdensome, and some 

have described the expectation of having to obtain permits 

as an affront to religious freedom, tribal rights, and other 

values (Dobkins et al. 2016, Flood and McAvoy 2007). 

The economic impacts of fees on low-income and minority 

populations are also discussed in chapter 10. Strategies to 

address tribal concerns over policies that constrain resource 

access are discussed further below.

Competition for harvesting nontimber forest products—

Harvesting of nontimber forest products (also known as 

special forest products) represents a substantial socioeconomic activity in the Pacific Northwest (see chapter 10), 

with commercial harvest of products such as floral greens 

and mushrooms valued in hundreds of millions of dollars 

(Alexander et al. 2011, Von Hagen and Fight 1999). An 

important practical constraint on tribal resource use has 

been a limited supply to meet tribal needs (Findley et al. 

2001), which reflects environmental degradation as well as 

competition for that production especially from nontribal 

commercial harvesters (Dobkins et al. 2016). Competition 

and outright conflict over nontimber forest products on 

public lands has occurred between tribal members and 

nonlocal groups from nontribal minority and low-income 

populations, especially immigrants from Southeast Asia 

and Latin America (Charnley et al. 2008a, Hansis 1998). 

During the early 1990s, tribal concerns over non-American 

Indian harvest of matsutake mushrooms, particularly by 

Southeast Asian immigrants from distant urban areas, triggered protests of national forest management of commercial 

harvest on the Happy Camp district (Richards and Creasy 

1996). The researchers explained that such groups had 

strong incentives to overharvest the resource as they were 

not likely to recoup the benefit of leaving it, while the tribal 

harvesters had cultural practices that were more likely to 

favor sustainability. Hansis (1998) similarly reported that 

nontribal itinerant groups had disincentives to harvest 

various resources sustainably across other parts of the 

NWFP area. As noted in chapter 10, management designed 

to support commercial harvest and tribal cultural harvest 

may differ for a number of resources, including beargrass, 

as the qualities preferred by those groups may differ. 

Furthermore, the fact that some tribal members harvest 

products for sale as well as subsistence adds complexity to 

issues regarding permits and competition. In addition to 

impacts of nontribal harvesters, recreationalists can also 

affect tribal hunting, fishing, trapping, plant harvesting, 

and ceremonies. Various strategies to address nontribal 

impacts to tribal resource use through seasonal closures or 

special-use areas are discussed below. 

Illegal marijuana cultivation—

Marijuana cultivation on national forests and other public 

lands has proliferated since the 1990s, especially in northwestern California (Bauer et al. 2015), but increases have 

also occurred in Oregon and Washington (National Drug 

Intelligence Center 2007). This activity is merely a subset 

of a larger problem of illegal activities on public lands that 

poses concerns for public safety, access, and resources; 

for example, methamphetamine labs and dump sites also 

significantly increased since the late 1990s (Tynon et al. 

2001). However, the particularly rapid and extensive growth 

of marijuana cultivation has had widespread social and 

ecological impacts, including harm to culturally important 

wildlife species. For example, illness and deaths in fisher 
873

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

populations in southern Oregon and northern California, 

including on and around the Hoopa Valley Reservation, 

have recently been linked to the use of rodenticides in marijuana cultivation (Gabriel et al. 2012). Other researchers 

found that the rodenticides cause direct or indirect mortality 

to wildlife species of cultural significance such as black 

bear, fisher, bobcat (Serieys et al. 2015), owls, and other 

predators or scavengers that consume rodents laced with the 

toxic compounds (Hosea 2000, Stone et al. 1999). Additionally, Bauer et al. (2015) found that water diversion associated with illegal marijuana cultivation in several California 

watersheds negatively affected the health of salmonids and 

amphibians. Finally, these operations pose safety concerns 

for forest users and land managers responsible for treating, 

monitoring, and protecting forests (Tynon and Chavez 

2006). Some tribes have expressed safety concerns for tribal 

harvesters who encounter illegal marijuana cultivation sites 

on federal and tribal lands. 

Climate change—

Changes in climate can potentially jeopardize tribal 

ecocultural resources, and the well-being of tribal communities more generally, by exacerbating droughts, extreme 

storms and runoff events, wildfires, and outbreaks of 

insect pests and plant pathogens (see chapter 2). In 

addition, rising seas, melting glaciers, and associated flood 

hazards are affecting tribes in low-lying and coastal areas 

(Papiez 2009), which increases the importance of federal 

lands for sustaining tribal communities. As discussed in 

chapter 2, there is considerable uncertainty regarding how 

climate, fire, invasive species, and other influences will 

affect species composition and habitat at fine scales, but 

climate trends such as reduced water availability in soils 

and streams are expected to have greater impacts within 

inland and southern portions of the Pacific Northwest 

region. Such changes threaten the availability of traditional foods, medicines, and materials to tribes, which in 

turn can harm diets, health, and other important dimensions of community well-being (Bennett et al. 2014, Lynn 

et al. 2013). Because tribal communities in the Pacific 

Northwest are so strongly associated with large rivers and 

the Pacific Ocean, they can be affected by climate change 

even well outside of their current lands. Impacts of changing climate are compounded by other stressors, including 

insect pests, plant pathogens, hydrologic alterations, 

changes in fire regimes, and increases in tree densities and 

fuel loads (Pfeiffer and Voeks 2008, Spies et al. 2010). For 

example, Turner and Clifton (2009) identified examples 

of declines in amphibians, fishes, forest health, and tribal 

ecosystem services in British Columbia, adjacent to the 

NWFP area, which they attributed to changes in climate, 

intensifying droughts, and outbreaks of insect pests and 

plant diseases.

When assessing vulnerability to climate change and 

other stressors, focusing attention on tribal values helps to 

evaluate threats and identify stressors and needs for adaptation. Tribes have been engaged in a number of initiatives to 

evaluate vulnerability to climate change and support adaptation actions (see “Tribal Engagement in Climate Change 

Initiatives” on p. 885). MacKendrick (2009) worked with 

the Hoopa Valley and Coquille Indian Tribes to evaluate 

priority concerns regarding vulnerability to climate change, 

many of which involve transboundary issues with public 

lands such as wildfire hazard and water quality in shared 

streams. In cases where Western scientific knowledge of 

climate-habitat-species relationships is available for species 

of significance to tribes, they can be crosslinked with tribal 

knowledge to better forecast and anticipate threats to tribal 

uses (Turner et al. 2011) and to identify possible refugia 

(Carroll et al. 2010a, Olson et al. 2012). Various tree species 

that have special tribal importance have been studied to 

assess their vulnerability to projected changes in climate. 

For example, Alaska yellow-cedar and Oregon white oak 

both rank as particularly vulnerable species (Case and 

Lawler 2016, Coops and Waring 2011, Hennon et al. 2012). 

Conversely, California black oak, tanoak, bigleaf maple, and 

western redcedar appear highly adapted and more likely to 

expand their ranges under the warmer and more fire-prone 

conditions that have been commonly predicted (Case and 

Lawler 2016, Coops and Waring 2011). Tribal members 

often depend upon large, long-lived trees with particular 

characteristics to obtain nuts and special wood products. 

Consequently, predictions of range expansion for important species do not sufficiently gauge the sustainability of 

ecosystem services for tribal communities.
874

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Species invasions—

Invasive species are affecting the condition of ecosystems 

within the NWFP area (see chapter 3), and they are also 

degrading the ability of American Indians to harvest 

ecocultural resources. Although there are too many to list 

in this report, specific examples of invasive plants that 

have degraded tribal gathering areas include Scotch broom 

(Cytisus scoparius), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) 

(Pfeiffer and Ortiz 2007, Pfeiffer and Voeks 2008, Senos 

et al. 2006). Tribes have undertaken restoration efforts to 

combat exotic knotweeds (Fallopia spp.) (Harris 2011); 

those invasive plants can have profound and persistent 

effects on the structure, functioning, and diversity of 

riparian forests by displacing native species (Urgenson et 

al. 2009). Furthermore, legions of invasive fishes, snails, 

and plants such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) 

also negatively affect native salmonids and other native 

aquatic resources (Sanderson et al. 2009).

The spread of the sudden oak death pathogen (Phytophthora ramorum) is having profound implications for 

ecological processes (see chapter 3) and tribal ecocultural 

resources in the northern California and western Oregon 

coastal region. The disease has killed many large tanoak 

and black oak trees, and it infects many other species of 

special value to tribes, including California bay laurel 

(Umbellularia californica), California hazel (Corylus 

cornuta), huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), and salmonberry 

(Rubus spectabilis) (Cobb et al. 2012, Ortiz 2008). Although 

infection does not necessarily kill those understory plants, 

it reduces their suitability for tribal use owing to lesions 

and may prompt land managers to remove infected plants, 

especially California bay laurel, to protect tanoak stands 

(Swiecki and Bernhardt 2013).

The spread of a closely related pathogen, Phytophthora 

lateralis, has affected populations of the Port-Orford cedar 

within its range in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. This riparian species not only holds special 

ecocultural value but also has high market values and plays 

an important ecological role, especially on ultramafic soil 

areas (Hansen 2008). Because roads are an important vector 

for the spread of the pathogen, road closures have been 

used to restrict its spread (Hansen et al. 2000). Although 

intended to benefit forest sustainability, such closures can 

also affect tribes’ ability to access resources.

Species losses—

When cultural keystone species are reduced or eliminated 

from a tribe’s ancestral territory, then the associated 

cultural traditions, knowledge systems, and material 

well-being of tribal communities suffer in turn (Colombi 

2012). California condor is a tribally important species for 

which reintroduction within the Pacific Northwest has been 

considered (Walters et al. 2010). In general, federal land 

management agencies such as the Forest Service and BLM 

do not have primary roles in wildlife reintroductions, but 

they are often cooperators in such efforts by addressing 

habitat needs for those species.

Some species losses have altered ecosystem functions 

in ways that land managers consider in designing treatments. For example, recent decades have seen growing 

interest in the reintroduction of beaver. Ponds formed by 

beavers provide important habitat for coho salmon (Pollock et al. 2004). Structural treatments designed to mimic 

beaver dams and facilitate beaver recolonization known as 

“beaver dam analogues” have been undertaken within the 

three states of the NWFP area (Pollock et al. 2015). One 

recent study from Oregon’s John Day watershed reported 

enhancements in steelhead habitat and juvenile growth following placement of such structures (Bouwes et al. 2016). 

Another example of the potential impacts of species losses 

and reintroductions involves top predators such as wolves. 

The gray wolf was extirpated in the Pacific Northwest, but 

populations have returned to parts of the region owing to 

efforts led by the Nez Perce Tribe (Donoghue et al. 2010). 

Beschta and Ripple (2008) suggested that reintroduction 

of wolves could have cascading influences on ecosystems 

in the Pacific Northwest. Their work built upon extensive 

research in Yellowstone National Park’s Lamar Valley, 

where they contend that removal of wolves triggered 

an increase in elk herbivory on woody riparian plants, 

which in turn contributed to streambank erosion, channel 

incision and widening, and loss of wetlands and beaver 
875

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

habitat (Ripple and Beschta 2004). Along several rivers of 

Olympic National Park, where elk hunting is prohibited, 

they found reduced recruitment of black cottonwood and 

bigleaf maple, as well as greater channel braiding and bank 

erosion, as compared to riverine sites within the Quinault 

Indian Reservation where humans have continued to hunt 

elk. As a result, their analysis not only suggests possible 

ecological effects of removing or reestablishing wolves, 

but also suggests that predation by American Indians 

had important effects on the dynamics of those riverine 

systems. Reinforcing that point, Hutchings and Campbell 

(2005) contended that American Indian hunters influenced the vegetation and morphology of riparian-aquatic 

environments such as deltas of large rivers such as the 

Nooksack in Washington by altering ungulate and beaver 

populations. While hunting and management of wildlife 

populations are generally not under the purview of national 

forest managers, an understanding of these dynamics is 

important for understanding historical conditions and 

restoration strategies. 

Alterations of hydrologic regimes—

Changes in hydrologic regimes resulting from past land 

use practices include decreases in low flow, increases in 

peak flow, and increases in water temperature (Beechie 

et al. 2013). Under warming climates, reduced snowpack, 

loss of glaciers, and increased rain-on-snow are expected 

to intensify those impacts, with negative consequences for 

coldwater fishes such as salmon and trout (Abdul-Aziz et al. 

2011). Habitat fragmentation and elevated water temperatures have had a great impact on salmon fisheries (Coates 

2012). Tribes are concerned about the threats such impacts 

pose to anadromous fishes that are critically important to 

many tribes’ traditions and livelihoods (Dittmer 2013). 

Because reservoir dams are a leading cause of altered 

hydrology throughout the NWFP area, removal of such 

dams has become an important restoration strategy and subject of research (see “Removing reservoir dams” section on 

p. 890). Other hydrological alterations include intentional 

draining of wetlands that formerly sustained important 

ecocultural resources (Deur 2009).

Alterations of fire regimes—

Wildland fire affects the physical, biological, and sociocultural components of landscapes in ways that can benefit 

or damage tribal ecocultural resources. Fire has cascading 

effects, beginning with direct combustion and heating that 

can damage sites or resources, and extending to secondorder physical effects such as soil erosion following severe 

fires, as well as third-order impacts to cultural values, which 

can result from tangible and intangible resource change, 

loss, or damage (Ryan et al. 2012). Tribal members often 

have strong concerns about the threat of wildfire to their 

lands (MacKendrick 2009). Fire management activities 

themselves, such as fireline construction (mechanically and 

manually) that results in physical removal or modification 

of vegetation and soil, can also degrade tribally valued 

resources (Timmons et al. 2012, Welch 2012). Tribal members have also cited instances when fire retardant applied 

aerially during wildfire fighting has affected harvesting 

areas (Norgaard 2014a). Retardants contain fertilizing 

chemicals that can cause eutrophication and fish toxicity 

when entering waterbodies; studies have suggested that 

they have very low toxicity to human firefighters and birds 

but can irritate eyes, skin, and respiratory tracts (Giménez 

et al. 2004, Kalabokidis 2000, Vyas et al. 2009). Although 

impacts from fire management are important concerns to 

tribes, advance planning in consultation and collaboration 

with tribes to prevent and manage wildfires can reduce the 

potential for harm to tribal ecocultural values by identifying 

favorable control strategies and tactics within particular 

landscapes (Ryan et al. 2012). Such efforts are currently the 

focus of the Western Klamath Restoration Partnership (see 

box on p. 888) in the southern portion of the NWFP area.

Fire regimes in many regions, especially dry forests 

but also in some wetter coastal environments, have been 

altered by frequent suppression of lightning fires and 

reductions in aboriginal burning (Boyd 1999, Kimmerer 

and Lake 2001, Skinner et al. 2009) (see also chapter 

3). Tribal members also have stated that their ability to 

harvest forest products such as acorns, berries, beargrass, 

and hazel has declined owing to reduced resource quality, 

quantity, and accessibility, which they often attribute to 
876

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

lack of frequent fire and tribal stewardship as well as other 

changes in forest management, such as establishment of 

tree plantations (Charnley et al. 2008a, Dobkins et al. 

2016, Halpern 2016, Long et al. 2016a). Lack of fire-associated forest products has reduced the quality of life for 

American Indians who depend on those resources (Norgaard 2014a).

Fire exclusion along with changing climate appears 

to be increasing the likelihood of very large fires (Stavros 

et al. 2014), which tend to have large stand-replacing burn 

patches (Miller et al. 2012, Reilly et al. 2017). Severe burns 

in turn threaten tribal ecocultural resources associated 

with mature trees and archaeological sites (such as rock art 

and obsidian artifacts) that can be particularly sensitive to 

high-intensity fire (Ryan et al. 2012). Fuel accumulations 

under fire exclusion have complicated efforts to reintroduce 

fire without risking such losses.

Changes in stewardship regimes—

Historical tribal stewardship practices that include plant 

harvesting, tilling, weeding, pruning, moving plant 

propagules, burning, raking debris, removing fuels, 

and hunting have been displaced and altered throughout 

ancestral tribal lands of the NWFP area (Anderson 2005, 

2009; Deur 2009, LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). These 

practices affected ecosystems from patches to landscapes, 

and they evolved into a complex agroforestry system that 

tribes have used to maintain the quality and availability of 

ecocultural resources (Anderson 2005, Rossier and Lake 

2014, Turner and Bhattacharyya 2016, Turner et al. 2013). 

Consequently, the disruption of traditional practices has 

perpetuated a cycle of degradation with various elements:

• Displacement of tribes from ancestral lands through 

confinement onto reservations was followed by land 

allotment and termination, which limited tribes’ ability to practice land-tending traditions such as burning.

• Resource quality and quantity has declined.

• Areas are no longer suitable for harvesting 

desired foods.

• Community members suffer poorer health as well as 

food and economic insecurities.

• Intergenerational transmission of traditional ecological knowledge is impeded as elders have fewer 

opportunities to practice the traditions and teach 

them to youth, as well as reduced incentive to do so. 

• Lands become feral and inhospitable “wilderness” 

(Anderson 2005).

• People’s understanding of reference conditions 

becomes distorted as experience with past conditions is replaced by exposure to present degraded 

conditions, or “shifting baseline syndrome” 

(Papworth et al. 2009).

These effects further deter tribal members from reestablishing traditional practices. The elements of this cycle of 

degradation are described in several published studies that 

refer in particular to public lands within various parts of the 

NWFP area (Anderson 2005, Deur 2009, LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016, MacKendrick 2009, Norgaard 2014c, 

Richards and Alexander 2006, Shebitz 2005, Wray and 

Anderson 2003). Understanding these patterns is important 

to avoid falsely assuming that a lack of present-day attempts 

to harvest resources indicates a lack of interest. All the other 

stressors discussed in this section have exacerbated this 

cycle by reducing the availability of ecocultural resources 

or constraining access by tribal members, as noted in tribal 

vulnerability assessments across the NWFP area (Donatuto 

et al. 2014, MacKendrick 2009, Sloan and Hostler 2014). 

Implementation of policies since the Northwest 

Forest Plan—

During the initial development of the NWFP, many tribes did 

not contribute directly to the preparation of the alternatives, 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) represented tribal 

interests to the Forest Service. However, federal-tribal collaboration on land and resource management has evolved considerably in recent decades as laws and policies have developed; 

as tribes’ political, economic, and sociocultural capacity has 

burgeoned; as agencies have increasingly appreciated tribes’ 

knowledge about forest management; and as agencies have 

invested more in tribal liaison positions (Breslow 2014, Catton 2016, Record 2008). Tribes have increased the capacity 

of their natural resource institutions, in many cases using 

authorities provided by the 1975 Indian Self-Determination 
877

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638) and the Tribal 

Self-Governance Act of 1994 to assume control over natural 

resource programs that were previously overseen by the BIA 

(Catton 2016, Strommer and Osborne 2014). In addition, 

significant progress has been made in developing institutional 

platforms to address sensitive issues regarding resource 

management on federal lands (Jurney and Hoagland 2015). 

Despite such advances, tribes have criticized some federal attempts at consultation since the NWFP as little more 

than notification of planned federal actions, followed by unilateral decisionmaking and inadequate attention to resolving 

disputes (Harris 2011, Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). In addition, 

tribes have expressed concerns that special designations have 

limited forest thinning, and that public lands management 

has inhibited use of fire more generally. Tribal members have 

contended that management under the NWFP has allowed 

declines in important tribal ecocultural resources (e.g., elk, 

huckleberries, beargrass, and black oaks) as a consequence of 

measures to avoid possible harm to late-successional forests, 

riparian reserves, the northern spotted owl, and various 

survey and manage species (Harris 2011, LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016, Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). That concern appears 

generally consistent with findings described in chapter 12 

and elsewhere in this report. Researchers studying public 

lands management in the United States have noted the 

tensions between addressing specific statutory requirements 

under the Endangered Species Act with strategies designed 

to promote landscape-scale resilience (Benson and Garmestani 2011) or tribal self-determination (Schmidt and Peterson 

2009). A special case of this general issue is the Quinault 

Special Management Area, a 5,460-ac (2210 ha) area of forest 

land managed by the Forest Service that was established 

as partial compensation for the loss of territory that was 

supposed to have been included in the Quinault Reservation. 

The tribe has a right to 45 percent of the revenue generated 

in this special area, but constraints for Survey and Manage 

species have reduced harvests and revenues below what the 

tribe expected under this arrangement (Vinyeta and Lynn 

2015). Another special case is the Coquille Indian Tribe, to 

whom Congress transferred lands but with the requirement 

that NWFP rules be applied to forest management (see 

“Coquille Indian Tribe” on p. 882).

How Has the Diminishment of Tribal 

Influence Affected Ecocultural Resources 

and Associated Ecosystems?

Understanding historical tribal practices for stewarding 

ecosystems is important for restoring conditions that sustain 

biophysical and cultural ecological services important to 

American Indians and tribes (Turner et al. 2013). In the 

sections below, we highlight how diminishment of tribal 

influences within the NWFP area has reduced the frequency 

and extent of low-intensity fire and, consequently, the 

availability of many species of high cultural-use value. Such 

shifts have far-reaching implications, yet we must also consider uncertainties in our understanding. Complex dynamics 

within coupled human-ecological systems make it difficult 

to understand and study the myriad potential effects of 

these influences over millennia. Much past research relied 

upon single-disciplinary approaches in ecology or ethnography, with or without tribal perspectives or information, 

which can lead to findings that appear inconsistent or 

conflicting. Interdisciplinary approaches that integrated 

multiple lines of evidence have led to greater consilience 

about where indigenous influences were most profound and 

where current conditions have deviated most sharply from 

conditions prior to Euro-American colonization (Crawford 

et al. 2015, Lightfoot et al. 2013). Furthermore, engaging 

tribes in research efforts has helped in our understanding of 

historical cultural influences on ecosystems (Lepofsky and 

Lertzman 2008).

Broad-scale fire history studies in the Pacific Northwest region have found American Indian influence on 

fire to be associated with climate and population density. 

For example, Agee (1993) concluded that evidence for 

large-scale American Indian burning was greater in 

inland areas, with much patchier burning in wetter coastal 

environments. Perry et al. (2011) found that American 

Indian burning likely shifted mixed-severity fire regimes 

to more frequent, low-severity fire regimes in areas with 

dense populations of American Indians, such as northern 

California and the Umpqua National Forest. Many sampling methodologies lack the resolution to recognize or 

distinguish human influence on fire regimes (Conedera et 

al. 2009). Consequently, studies of fire history sometimes 
878

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

subsume American Indian influences under the natural 

regime (e.g., Halofsky et al. 2011). The analysis used to 

develop the map of fire regimes in chapter 3 revealed 

that the fire frequencies in coastal forests of northern 

California before Euro-American settlement were higher 

than expected based upon temperature and moisture 

factors across the NWFP area. This finding indicated that 

historical American Indian influence on fire regimes was 

particularly significant within that region.

Scientists have published extensive evidence regarding 

how tribal burning and other practices modified vegetation 

within small patches; however, larger scale, longer term 

effects are more difficult to elucidate (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2008, Turner et al. 2013). Lewis and Ferguson (1988) 

described both areal “yards” burned by American Indians 

as well as linear “corridors” associated with streams, 

trails, and ridges. The maintenance of such corridors and 

yards would have promoted heterogeneity and connectivity 

for access by humans, ungulates, and other species at multiple scales (Lake 2013, Storm and Shebitz 2006, Turner et 

al. 2011). However, there remain questions regarding how 

much human influence modified fire regimes and vegetative communities beyond areas of intensive activity such as 

village sites, camps, harvesting and processing sites, and 

major trails (Lake 2007, 2013). Evidence of past caretaking 

by American Indians, including fire scars, culturally 

modified trees with bark selectively removed for use, and 

artifacts and features associated with resource processing 

serves to identify culturally modified landscapes (Turner 

et al. 2009). However, many decades of displacement 

and land use by Euro-Americans have obscured much 

of the evidence of such activities (Turner et al. 2013), in 

particular by developing the areas of greatest influence 

by American Indians. For example, Zybach (2003) in his 

dissertation concluded that areas of the Oregon Coast 

Range that were most likely subjected to regular burning 

by American Indians have been extensively developed, 

while areas that burned less frequently and more intensely 

have been maintained as forests by corporations, states, 

and federal agencies. 

Hardwood communities and old trees— 

American Indians have cultivated a variety of hardwood 

communities, including California black oak (Long et al. 

2016a), Oregon white oak (Lepofsky and Lertzman 2008), 

Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and tanoak (Bowcutt 

2013). Areas near hardwood woodlands have long been 

favored for human settlements in the Pacific Northwest, 

but these areas have been reduced in extent and degraded 

in quality by fire exclusion, land development, conifer 

encroachment, and exotic invasive species, in addition to 

reductions in tending and burning by American Indians 

(Hosten et al. 2006). Stands of old-growth hardwoods have 

similarly declined within conifer-dominated forests, owing 

especially to the lack of low-intensity fire (see chapter 

3) (Cocking et al. 2012, Devine and Harrington 2006). 

Traditional tribal activities in many woodlands and forests 

include frequent use of low-intensity fire to support harvest 

of nuts and desired understory species (Huntsinger and 

McCaffrey 1995, Long et al. 2016a). By reducing fuels and 

stand densities, such practices may have extended the longevity of trees, especially oaks and sugar pines, which were 

key resources (Anderson 2005). Genetic study of the Pacific 

crabapple suggests that American Indians may have had a 

key role in distributing it across the region (Routson et al. 

2012), and tribal elders have recounted how Euro-American 

colonization reduced tribal orchards of the species (Turner 

and Turner 2008).

Grasslands, meadows, wetlands, and forest gaps—

Nonforest communities that are dependent on fire to persist 

are important to sustaining tribal ecocultural resources. 

Even regions dominated by wet forests with an infrequent, 

high-severity fire regime had areas that were burned 

by American Indians more frequently than what occurs 

today (Boyd 1999). For example, burning by American 

Indians maintained bogs, prairies, and balds within areas 

otherwise dominated by high- and mixed-severity fire 

regimes, including the northwestern (Anderson 2009, Wray 

and Anderson 2003) and southeastern parts of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington (Peter and Shebitz 2006), 

redwood forests in northwestern California (Underwood 

et al. 2003), and the Coast Range in Oregon (Zald 2009). 
879

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Similarly, within the Willamette Valley, researchers have 

found that evidence of increased fire was positively associated with periods and areas of greater American Indian 

habitation, including more open environments that support 

key resources such as oaks, berries, and camas (Walsh et 

al. 2010). Grasslands and meadows have been declining 

across the region owing to reduction of aboriginal burning, 

changing climate, and other factors (Zald 2009) (also see 

chapter 3). Evidence such as a lack of biological legacies 

(i.e., large woody debris, stumps, snags, and remnant trees), 

dominance by graminoids rather than shrubs, and presence 

of disjunct and endemic plant species suggests that many 

of these communities were persistent, not an ephemeral, 

early-successional stage (Zald 2009). A description of 

practices by the Tolowa, Yurok, Karuk, Tututni, and Wiyot 

within redwood-dominated forests in northern California 

and southern Oregon indicated that human-created forest 

clearings were small, with the largest being only 0.25 

mi (0.4 km) wide, and located in resource-poor parts of 

the landscape (Lewis and Ferguson 1988). Similarly, the 

abstract for Wills and Stuart (1994) summarized pre-Euro-American conditions in Douglas-fir-dominated stands 

within the Klamath National Forest as “exceptionally 

patchy, containing complex mosaics of different age and 

size.” This patchy configuration was actively maintained 

through frequent fire. One forest surveyor described the 

entire Klamath River reservation belonging to the Yurok 

Tribe as being “over-run by fire” in 1912, when the U.S. 

government authorized rewards for stopping “incendiarists” responsible for setting those fires (Huntsinger and 

McCaffrey 1995). The ensuing era of fire suppression has 

reduced the occurrence of high-severity, stand-replacing 

fire, especially in moist forests, as well as low-severity 

fires, especially in dry forests (Miller et al. 2012, Reilly et 

al. 2017); these changes in fire regime have inhibited both 

the establishment and maintenance of early-successional or 

nonforest communities (see also chapter 3). For example, 

research by Peter and Shebitz (2006) within the southeastern Olympic Peninsula (Skokomish River Basin) indicated 

that ecosystems there had openings ranging from about 0.1 

ha to many hectares, with few snags or down logs, in aerial 

photos from 1929, prior to any timber harvest. These conditions suggested that these openings had been maintained 

by tribal burning, and that lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) 

and Douglas-fir had encroached into them starting over a 

century ago as a result of fire exclusion. Anzinger (2002) 

similarly described lodgepole pine encroachment into 

huckleberry meadows that had previously been maintained 

by tribal burning on the Mount Hood National Forest in the 

Oregon Cascade Range.

These nonforest communities support a range of 

tribally valued resources, including elk (Cervus elaphus) 

and deer (Odocoileus spp.); berries; edible geophytes; 

brackenfern (Pteridium aquilinum); and many other plant, 

fungi, and wildlife species (Huntsinger and McCaffrey 

1995, Lepofsky and Lertzman 2008, Lewis and Ferguson 

1988, Norton 1979). Wildfire and tribal burning have 

supported biodiversity by deterring homogenization 

through encroachment by dominant species, facilitating 

reproduction and vegetative persistence of rarer species, 

and maintaining hydrologic and nutrient cycling (Anderson 

2009, Turner et al. 2011, Wray and Anderson 2003, Zald 

2009). For example, tribal burning deterred trees from 

encroaching on open bog habitat that support cranberries 

and swamp gentian (Gentiana douglasiana); those plants 

in turn are key foods for the rare Makah copper butterfly 

(Lycaena mariposa charlottensis) (Larsen et al. 1995, Wray 

and Anderson 2003). Similarly, the range of the Puget blue 

butterfly (Icaricia icarioides blackmorei) has declined 

with losses of forest gaps and lowland prairies that support 

its host, sickle-keeled lupine (Lupinus albicaulis) (Larsen 

et al. 1995). Regular burning of meadows maintained the 

abundance and desired qualities of culturally important 

species, including various berries (Vaccinium spp., Rubus 

spp., etc.) and beargrass for traditional food and basketry 

uses (Peter and Shebitz 2006, Turner et al. 2011). The steep 

reduction in burning has caused conversion of grasslands to 

forested environments (Peter and Shebitz 2006, Zald 2009). 

The combined losses of former grassland areas owing to 

forest encroachment and land development have greatly 

diminished their socioecological benefits to tribal communities (Breslow 2014).
880

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

What Strategies Can Promote Tribal Ecocultural 

Resources and Effectively Engage Tribes in 

Forest Planning and Management?

Developing institutional capacity and agreements—

Tribes have had increased opportunities to influence 

management on national forests through agreements, compacts, and stewardship contracts under the Tribal Forest 

Protection Act and related authorities (McAvoy et al. 2005, 

Murphy et al. 2007). Examples of some of these agreements are featured in the “Promoting collaboration” section 

below. Donoghue et al. (2010) characterized different types 

of tribal-federal collaborative agreements, ranging from 

less formal working agreements to mutually dependent 

comanagement in which tribes participate in management 

decisions. Through these institutional arrangements, many 

tribes have greater capacity to actively engage in research, 

planning, and management to support collaborative 

landscape restoration efforts (Catton 2016, Vinyeta and 

Lynn 2015). 

Addressing sacred sites protection and access—

Progress in federal-tribal relations has occurred despite 

several major disputes in recent decades in which federal 

land and water management decisions supported roads, 

mountaintop developments, and reservoirs. Such decisions 

were made despite tribal protests and lawsuits under the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 

95-341) regarding the impacts of such developments on 

tribal sacred sites and religious values (Erickson 2009, 

Welch 1997). In 1996, Executive Order 13007, “Indian 

Sacred Sites,” directed federal agencies to accommodate 

tribal access to and ceremonial use of sacred sites. Since 

then, Congress has passed legislation for specific areas to 

protect tribal access for traditional religious and cultural 

purposes through measures such as temporary closures to 

exclude nontribal visitors and restrictions on land use (Nie 

2008). An example is the Northern California Coastal Wild 

Heritage Wilderness Act (P.L. 109–362) of 2006, which designated wilderness areas on the Mendocino and Six Rivers 

National Forests within the NWFP area with such stipulations. In addition, the departments of Agriculture, Energy, 

the Interior, and Defense, along with the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, jointly adopted a memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) in December 2012 to improve the 

protection of and tribal access to American Indian sacred 

sites (USDA Office of Communications 2012).

Ensuring meaningful consultation—

The NWFP federal-tribal monitoring reports illustrate the 

importance of MOUs and memorandums of agreement 

(MOAs) to formalize consultation protocols and strengthen 

government-to-government relationships. For example, 

Vinyeta and Lynn (2015) found that such agreements clarify 

expectations and result in greater accountability in consultations by specifying how often federal-tribal meetings 

would occur, and who is to be involved in the meetings. 

They also found that such agreements provide opportunities 

for greater tribal participation in agency planning and 

decisions. Drawing on interviews with 27 tribal natural 

resources staff from within the NWFP boundary, they 

found that consultation is more effective when it includes 

formal protocols that are individualized to each tribe’s 

unique needs, laws, practices, policies, and responsibilities 

to membership. That report includes recommendations for 

strengthening consultation, addressing tribal rights and 

access to cultural resources, and improving the compatibility of federal and tribal approaches to forest management, 

including the development of protocols for projects that 

involve traditional knowledge.

Promoting collaboration—

National forest planning has increasingly emphasized 

collaborative approaches, and experts have emphasized 

the value of participatory approaches throughout the life of 

projects, including research, monitoring, planning, implementation, maintenance, and review (Charnley et al. 2014). 

These trends generally complement tribal interests, while 

recognizing that tribes have a unique relationship with 

federal land management agencies. Intentions to promote 

collaborative relationships between federal agencies and 

communities that have been historically marginalized, 

including tribes, need to consider legacies of mistrust 

and inequity (Cronin and Ostergren 2007). Encouraging 

tribal participation in the full life cycle of projects can 

facilitate cooperation, trust, knowledge reciprocity, and 
881

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

accountability. Facilitating development and retention of 

staff with good understandings of tribal relations is also 

important, because staff turnover is commonly cited as an 

obstacle to encouraging vibrant partnerships (Bussey et 

al. 2016, Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). The success of several 

tribal programs supported by Jobs in the Woods funding 

demonstrates the opportunities to jointly address social, 

ecological, cultural, and institutional objectives in forest 

and watershed restoration (Middleton and Kusel 2007).

Tribes have expanded efforts to influence ecosystem 

conditions through a variety of formal partnerships to 

address climate change, watershed and fisheries restoration, 

hazardous fuels reduction/forest thinning, and landscape 

forest restoration (Senos et al. 2006). Federal policies, 

authorities and directives, including the National Fire Plan 

(2000), Tribal Forest Protection Act (2004), Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act (2005), and Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act (2010), have encouraged 

tribal participation in Forest Service land management 

activities. Concurrently, several notable community-based 

efforts, such as watershed and fire safe councils in northern California and southern Oregon (Senos et al. 2006), 

and nongovernmental organizational programs (e.g., The 

Natural Conservancy’s Fire Learning Network), have 

supported tribal participation in restoration- and conservation-based efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Many of these 

efforts started as habitat or species-specific projects but 

grew into larger collaborative restoration partnerships with 

tribes as co-leaders (Cronin and Ostergren 2007). Some 

collaborative efforts have guided management and policy 

based upon the integration of tribal traditional knowledge 

and Western science (see “Coquille Indian Tribe” on p. 

882). Another example is the Tapash Sustainable Forest 

Collaborative, in which the Yakama Nation has collaborated with the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and The Nature Conservancy. The collaborative has planned and undertaken 

a variety of restoration projects on portions of forest land 

within 1.63 million ac (660 000 ha) managed by various 

entities (including tribes) in central Washington (Schultz et 

al. 2012, Urgenson et al. 2017).

Fostering cooperative management—

An important pathway for upholding and respecting tribal 

sovereignty, treaty rights, and culture is cooperative 

management of off-reservation lands and resources, which 

may also be described as “concurrent” or “collaborative” 

management or “co-management” (Diver 2016). These 

terms apply to varying degrees of tribal and federal influence on land management in an area (Nie 2008); however, 

a recent definition of co-management adopted by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (see “Glossary”) requires each 

entity to have legally established management responsibilities. For example, treaties that reserve the right to manage 

or control access to natural resources constitute a legal 

authority for co-management (Goodman 2000). A strong 

legal basis has been important in making co-management 

initiatives between tribes and state agencies focused on 

salmon particularly successful in conserving resources in 

the Pacific Northwest (Kellert et al. 2000).

Proposals for co-management between the Forest 

Service and tribes have had to address legal requirements 

for federal agencies to have final decisionmaking power over 

federal lands (Nie 2008). Federal decisionmakers have been 

concerned about creating expectations that collaborators will 

have a say in management decisions while retaining responsibility for those decisions, as well as in negotiating procedural 

requirements associated with advisory groups (Butler 2013). 

In Canada, and especially in British Columbia, there have 

been examples of devolving some management authority 

over public lands to local communities under the umbrella of 

“community forestry,” and many of those involved co-management with indigenous communities (Charnley and Poe 

2007, McCarthy 2006). There are also examples of community forests established by tribes through acquisition of 

private lands, such as the Yurok Tribe’s acquisition of ancestral tribal lands along Blue Creek from the Green Diamond 

Resource Company in 2011. However, such designations have 

not been adopted for Forest Service lands (Charnley and Poe 

2007, McCarthy 2006). Some environmental groups have 

resisted community forestry initiatives on public lands in the 

United States over concerns that such efforts would favor 

local timber industries, undermine environmental protections, and limit public input (McCarthy 2006). 
882

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Coquille Indian Tribe

The Coquille Indian Tribe has reacquired forest lands 

that were originally reserved for them and other tribes 

in an 1855 treaty that was never ratified. Following 

termination in 1954 and rerecognition in 1989, the tribe 

sought the return of its ancestral lands. They received 

5,400 ac (2185 ha) of forested land from the BLM, which 

were placed into trust status in 1989 with the requirement that the lands meet the standards and guidelines of 

adjacent federal forests under the NWFP (MacKendrick 

2009). The tribe (fig. 11-17) has adopted a forest management plan that upholds traditional values through the 

conservation of large trees, snags, and nesting sites of 

culturally important birds, and management practices 

that regenerate habitat for culturally significant wildlife 

following timber harvest (Vinyeta and Lynn 2013). The 

tribe proposed to extend approaches applied on its tribal 

lands through its Coos Bay Wagon Road Lands proposal, 

a collaborative effort with the BLM that incorporated 

silvicultural principles recommended by forestry 

experts Jerry Franklin and Norm Johnson (Franklin and 

Johnson 2012). For this coastal wet-forest environment, 

the proposed plan included provisions for new riparian 

management approaches; harvesting biofuels; retention 

of biological legacies such as large trees, coarse woody 

debris, and snags; variable-density thinning; long 

rotations; and regeneration harvest to maintain earlysuccessional conditions (USDI BLM 2012).

Figure 11-17—Coquille tribal members at Euphoria Ridge near North Bend, Oregon, spring 2003. Chief Don Ivy (left, with hat) 

addresses the group on a field trip to discuss tribal forest management and restoration strategies.

Frank K. Lake
883

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

United States government policies, including the 

government-to-government relationship, constitute a 

distinctive legal basis for cooperation with tribes that 

recognizes their unique relationships to their ancestral 

lands. The U.S. Congress and presidents have established 

important laws and policies authorizing tribes to provide 

specific guidance to public lands management, which 

undergird some of the most substantive co-management 

arrangements on federal lands (Nie 2008). For example, the 

Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument 

Act of 2000 stipulated that the U.S. Secretaries of the 

Interior and Agriculture “shall make a special effort to 

consult with representatives of the Agua Caliente Band of 

Cahuilla Indians regarding the management plan during the 

preparation and implementation of the plan” and authorized 

the use of “cooperative agreements and shared management 

arrangements with any person, including the Agua Caliente 

Band of Cahuilla Indians, for the purposes of management, 

interpretation, and research and education regarding the 

resources of the National Monument” (114 Stat. 1362 Public 

law 106-351). The Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 

advanced such distinctive efforts by authorizing the U.S. 

Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to give special 

consideration to tribally proposed stewardship contracts, 

agreements, compacts or other arrangements on Forest 

Service or BLM land bordering or adjacent to Indian trust 

land to protect tribal trust resources from fire, disease, or 

other threats. A recent presidential proclamation established 

the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah to be managed 

jointly by the Forest Service and BLM while considering 

and integrating formal guidance and recommendations, 

which may be based upon tribal traditional and historical 

knowledge, from a commission made up of elected officers 

from five tribes (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/28/proclamation-establishment-bears-ears-national-monument).

In accordance with laws and policies cited above, the 

Forest Service has entered into landmark agreements that 

embody important principles of cooperative management 

and have recognized the unique stewardship role of tribes 

on their ancestral lands:

• In the late 1990s, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management 

Unit established various agreements with and issued 

special-use permits to the Washoe Tribe of Nevada 

and California to address tribal interests in managing ancestral lands at Lake Tahoe (Adelzadeh 2006).

• In 2004, the Plumas National Forest awarded a 

10-year stewardship contract to the Maidu Culture 

and Development Group, a native nonprofit dedicated to strengthening Maidu culture and people, 

to apply traditional land management practices to 

2,100 ac (850 ha) of national forest land in the Sierra 

Nevada (Donoghue et al. 2010).

• The Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National Forest 

entered into a MOA with the Tulalip Tribes in 2007 

that supported cooperative efforts to sustain and 

enhance areas for treaty harvesting and other cultural practices, focusing on redcedar and huckleberries (LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). One particular 

outcome was establishment of a 1,280-ac (518-ha) 

“co-stewardship” area in the Skykomish watershed 

in 2011 to support mountain meadow restoration 

and huckleberry enhancement. The project has 

involved (1) removal of small conifers, (2) tribal 

youth involvement, and (3) maintenance of a road to 

provide tribal access.

• In 2011, the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

entered into a master stewardship agreement with 

the Klamath Tribes of Oregon, along with The 

Nature Conservancy and the Lomakatsi Restoration 

Project, in an effort to restore forests, reduce risks 

of severe wildfires, train the tribal workforce, and 

enhance wood product processing capacity (Hatcher 

et al. 2017).

• In 2015, the Forest Service entered into a 10-year 

master stewardship agreement with the Pit River 

Tribe and Lomakatsi Restoration Project to conduct treatments on more than 2 million ac within 

the Lassen, Modoc, and Shasta-Trinity National 

Forests in northern California (https://www.

fs.fed.us/spf/tribalrelations/documents/agreements/15-SA-11052000-056.pdf).
884

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Such cooperative arrangements have not only helped 

serve tribal communities, but they also can bring added 

expertise to public land management efforts, including better 

understanding of reference conditions and financial resources.

Integrating traditional ecological knowledge in 

collaborations—

Collaborative projects involving traditional ecological 

knowledge or native knowledge provide unique opportunities to enhance research and management, while also posing 

unique challenges for tribes and tribal-knowledge holders 

(Mason et al. 2012). There are many examples in which 

tribes and their members have seen benefits from working 

with researchers and land managers to inform restoration 

with traditional ecological knowledge, including burning 

to promote beargrass (Shebitz 2005) and land management 

planning (Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel 1995). It is 

important to recognize also that tribal capacities and 

interest in conventional Western science have been critical 

in protecting vital resources such as salmon (Breslow 

2014). Some tribes have suggested that agencies pursue 

collaborations that facilitate tribal application of traditional 

ecological knowledge to off-reservation lands within the 

respective tribes’ ancestral territories without seeking to 

transfer or relinquish such knowledge (Norgaard 2014c). 

The latter is particularly important because many tribal 

knowledge specialists have expressed concerns that sharing 

cultural knowledge with nontribal entities could lead to its 

cooptation or misuse, such as loss of control by tribes or 

profiting by nontribal entities, as explained by Brewer II and 

Warner (2014) and the CTKW or Climate and Traditional 

Knowledges Workgroup (CTKW 2014). These authors, 

along with tribal representatives contributing to the NWFP 

20-year monitoring report (Vinyeta and Lynn 2015), recommended taking steps to ensure that collaboration with tribes 

provides reciprocal benefits, minimizes risks to tribes, and 

recognizes inherent tribal rights and responsibilities to their 

communities. In particular, they suggested adopting agreements and principles such as “cause-no-harm;” ensuring 

“free-prior-and-informed-consent;” and protecting sacred, 

sensitive, or confidential information such as the locations 

of particular sacred sites, or specialized uses of fungi, plant, 

and animal species. Another approach is to establish stewardship agreements or compacts in which tribes can apply 

traditional ecological knowledge and applicable cultural 

practices on federal lands, such as the agreements between 

the Klamath Tribes and the Fremont-Winema National 

Forest (Hatcher et al. 2017).

Promoting tribal adaptive capacity—

Forest planning presents opportunities to support the 

continuity of traditional ecological knowledge across 

generations by maintaining culturally vital resources and 

tribal communities. In turn, tribal knowledge of historical 

and current ecological processes (Colombi and Smith 

2012), and the seasonality of natural patterns, can help 

predict and prepare for future changes in habitats and 

species’ distributions. Because traditional tribal cultures 

emphasize the interconnected nature of the human and 

nonhuman systems of the Earth, they are particularly 

well-adapted for addressing climate change (Heyd and 

Brooks 2009). Maintaining cultural keystone species such 

as salmon and safeguarding cultural keystone places are 

important for maintaining adaptive capacity, including 

memory and practices (Colombi 2012, Cuerrier et al. 

2015). Maintaining cultural diversity in the form of tribal 

worldviews and languages regarding the natural world 

is also important for sustaining ecosystems and human 

communities (Pretty et al. 2009). Tribes continue to rely 

on historical intertribal networks that facilitate exchange 

of resources, cultural practices, and knowledge systems 

as a source of adaptive capacity (Papiez 2009, Trosper 

2003, Turner and Cocksedge 2001). Many tribes across the 

region maintain such networks through summits, ceremonies, conferences, intertribal councils, and annual “canoe 

journeys” that support environmental governance and 

ecocultural revitalization (Norman 2012, Tveskov 2007). 

Federal land management agencies can support adaptive 

capacity by forming partnerships with tribes that value 

traditional tribal knowledge (see “Promoting collaboration” on p. 880), supporting monitoring and restoration 

of ecocultural resources, and engaging with intertribal 

resource management organizations (Whyte 2013). 
885

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Promoting multiscale temporal and spatial diversity 

in terrestrial habitats—

From stand to landscape scales, maintaining a diversity of 

plant communities that support tribal ecocultural resources 

is important for increasing resilience to wildfire, drought, 

pathogens, and insect pests (Churchill et al. 2013, Kauffman 

and Jules 2006). Efforts to promote heterogeneity within 

stands and across larger landscapes are likely to promote 

ecological diversity (see chapter 12), which in turn is 

important for maintaining traditional tribal livelihoods and 

lifeways (Lake 2013, Turner and Cocksedge 2001, Turner et 

al. 2011, Underwood et al. 2003). Traditional tribal burning 

practices that maintained nonforested habitats in both areal 

and linear arrangements were important for promoting 

diversity at different scales (Lewis 1982, Underwood et al. 

2003). Tribal management has long accentuated transitional 

habitats, such as the edges between forest and nonforest 

habitats (Turner et al. 2003), to promote opportunities to 

obtain diverse resources. Although early-successional and 

nonforest communities are highly valued, maintaining large 

areas of old-growth forest is also important for sustaining 

tribal ecocultural values (Russo 2011, Yazzie 2007). Some 

wildlife species of special tribal value, including marten 

and pileated woodpecker, are associated with older forests, 

large decadent or dead trees, and dense tree canopies (Aubry 

and Raley 2002) (see chapter 6). Others are associated with 

young forests and more open forests that support vibrant 

understory plant communities and associated animals 

(e.g., porcupine and many Neotropical birds) (Carey 1996). 

Furthermore, arranging early successional patches in 

proximity to mature or old-growth patches is also important 

to promoting tribal uses (Rogers-Martinez 1992, Swanson et 

al. 2011). Thomas et al. (2006) recognized the importance of 

maintaining all structural stages across the landscapes of the 

NWFP area, which is a theme featured in chapters 3 and 12. 

Reestablishing fire regimes—

A key principle for restoring landscapes in the NWFP area 

is the reestablishment of fire regimes in fire-adapted forest 

types through burns to accomplish resource objectives 

(Odion and Sarr 2007, Ryan et al. 2013) (see chapters 3 

and 12). This approach reflects the strategy of managing or 

Tribal Engagement in Climate Change Initiatives

In 2009, the Secretary of the Interior issued Order 3289, 

“Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s 

Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources,” 

which established climate science centers (CSCs) and 

landscape conservation cooperatives (LCCs). The CSCs 

provide scientific information, tools, and techniques 

that resource managers and others can use to anticipate, 

monitor, and adapt to climate change impacts. The LCCs 

are landscape-scale conservation science partnerships 

that disseminate applied science, tools, and resources that 

support the management of cultural and natural resources. 

Within the NWFP area, the Northwest CSC, the North 

Pacific (NP) LCC and the Great Northern LCC have taken 

steps to facilitate tribal involvement. The Northwest CSC 

has a Tribal Engagement Strategy that provides opportunities for tribal engagement in each of its five core elements: 

executive services, science services, data services, communication services, and education and training services. 

The North Pacific Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

has tribal participation on the NPLCC steering committee, 

a tribal/first nation committee, and a subcommittee on 

science and traditional knowledge. The U.S. Department 

of Agriculture has also established regional climate hubs 

(https://www.climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/) to develop and 

deliver scientific information and technologies regarding 

climate to natural resource managers, including tribes. 

The science and resources developed by the LCCs, CSCs, 

and climate hubs can inform the management of culturally 

important tribal resources. Through funding support from 

Northwest CSC and the North Pacific LCC, tribes are 

fostering partnerships to bridge traditional knowledges 

and Western scientific knowledge (a complete list of tribal 

engagement projects is included on the Northwest CSC 

website and the NPLCC website). An example from within 

the NWFP is “Utilizing Yurok traditional ecological 

knowledge to inform climate change priorities” (Sloan and 

Hostler 2014).
886

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

emulating “natural” disturbance regimes to promote ecological resilience (North and Keeton 2008, Odion and Sarr 2007). 

Restoration of fire regimes also remains one of the central 

elements of a strategy to promote tribal ecocultural resources 

and opportunities for ecocultural revitalization across the 

NWFP area. The importance of restoring fire is particularly 

prominent in the large areas marked by a frequent fire regime 

from northern California to central Washington (see chapter 

3), but it is also important for sustaining woodlands, forests, 

prairies, and wetlands within regions characterized by less 

frequent fire regimes (Boyd 1999, Hamman et al. 2011). 

Because treatments to maintain tribal ecocultural resources 

often require more frequent and targeted applications of fire 

than would be expected through lightning ignitions alone, 

they depend on intentional burning (Turner 2014, Turner et 

al. 2011). Alterations of fire regime can be somewhat mitigated through harvest disturbances that emulate some fire 

effects (Anzinger 2002), but those surrogates cannot replicate 

all of the beneficial effects (see “Beneficial Effects of Fire for 

Ecocultural Resources” on next page).

In particular, frequent fires combined with other 

tending practices perpetuate ecocultural resources such as 

large hardwoods, camas, beargrass, and huckleberries in 

conditions that support tribal use (Hummel et al. 2015, Long 

et al. 2016a, Minore and Dubrasich 1978). More severe, 

stand-replacing fires also create or rejuvenate tribally ecoculturally important hardwood stands (Cocking et al. 2012), 

huckleberry fields (Anzinger 2002), riparian areas (chapter 

7), and other early-successional plant communities. Such 

severe burns therefore provide opportunities to reinitiate 

tribal caretaking regimes; however, for many decades they 

also reduce important ecosystem services such as providing 

nuts and habitat for many species (Long et al. 2016a). Large 

and severe burns also pose serious threats to human lives, 

health, and property, and they can negatively affect downstream aquatic resources (see chapter 7). Applying managed 

fire for resource objectives in concert with other silvicultural treatments helps to promote the desired fine-scale 

patchwork of successional conditions rather than a handsoff strategy that relies on unmanaged wildfires for disturbance. For example, treatments that reduce the likelihood 

of high-severity fire can mitigate threats to riparian areas 

and their associated fauna (Stephens and Alexander 2011). 

Efforts to maintain and restore tribal ecocultural resources 

will depend upon understanding how different spatial 

arrangements, frequencies, seasonalities, and severities of 

fire are likely to produce a favorable range of resources and 

ecosystem services (Storm and Shebitz 2006). Furthermore, 

understanding those fire effect patterns can help to predict 

which tribally valued resources will occur at specific places 

on the landscape over time (Lake 2013).

Strategies that involve greater use of fire will have 

to overcome a range of constraints, including air quality 

constraints, concerns for wildlife impacts, funding, crew 

availability, cross-boundary management, and public 

acceptance (Ryan et al. 2013). Chapter 12 considers these 

challenges given their relevance throughout this report. 

Weisshaupt et al. (2005) found that tribal members from 

central and eastern Washington were more likely to support 

prescribed burning than several nontribal groups because 

of their experience and cultural traditions of using fire. 

However, some tribal members and leaders share concerns 

about the risks of wildland fire with the general public. Such 

attitudes in part likely reflect lack of exposure to its traditional use (Carroll et al. 2010b, Norgaard 2014a). In addition, 

tribes with large reservations and extensive forestry operations have incentives to treat forests using harvest, which has 

historically supported jobs and other economic benefits.

Incorporating cultural burning—

Many tribes emphasize distinctions between cultural burning and prescribed burning, the latter of which is often practiced by public land management agencies. Cultural burning 

is planned to promote an array of ecocultural resources over 

time, often through relatively frequent applications (Burr 

2013). Agency prescribed burning has often had a strong 

emphasis on reducing fuels, including residues from timber 

harvest or thinning, with frequent use of pile burning, cooler 

out-of-season burning, and other deviations from traditional 

fire regimes (Ryan et al. 2013). Such strategies can support 

restoration by phasing such fuels reduction activities prior 

to reintroducing more traditional use of fire (Lake and Long 

2014, Long et al. 2016a); however, nontraditional treatments, 

which may include spring burning, may conflict with some 

tribal values and concerns for wildlife, as documented in 

the Klamath region of northern California (Halpern 2016). 

Furthermore, Anzinger (2002) suggested that restoring 
887

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

huckleberry patches on the Mount Hood National Forest 

would require stand-replacing disturbance, such as high-severity burns or large patch cuts applied in conjunction with 

broadcast burns. Such examples demonstrate how strategies 

to promote ecocultural resources using fire will differ across 

the diverse array of tribal ancestral lands.

Many tribes desire a more active role in the implementation of cultural prescribed burns rather than leaving stewardship solely to the federal agencies and nontribal organizations 

(Eriksen and Hankins 2014). In 2003 and 2004, the Skokomish 

Indian Tribe worked with Olympic National Forest to restore 

beargrass and other native species using thinning and burning 

(Shebitz et al. 2009a). In 2006, the Quinault Indian Nation 

performed its own burn modeled after this project (Charnley 

et al. 2008b). Within the area of the Western Klamath Restoration Project (see box on p. 888), Karuk and Yurok tribal 

members and employees conducted prescribed burns in 2014 

through the Klamath River Prescribed Fire Training Exchange 

(TREX) program (which was initiated by The Nature Conservancy and several federal agencies in 2002), in order to reduce 

hazardous fuels along an important road in the wildland-urban 

interface, increase tribal access to traditional food resources 

(e.g., acorns), and support research treatments; however, the 

project was limited to private and tribal lands rather than 

including Forest Service lands owing to a temporary agency 

ban on burning that summer (Harling 2015). Other projects 

have continued in the area (fig. 11-18), representing contemporary applications of traditional burning to achieve multiple 

tribal resource objectives (Lake et al. 2017).

Managing fires across jurisdictions—

To plan and implement fire-focused restoration treatments 

at the landscape scale requires cross-jurisdictional coordination (Lake et al. 2017). Revision of national forest plans 

provide new opportunities to coordinate with tribal communities developing community wildfire protection plans 

(often through Fire Safe Councils) and tribes developing 

integrated resource management plans. Fire management 

policy is allowing land managers to pursue more flexible 

approaches to use fire for resource objectives through managed natural ignitions and prescribed fire, including cultural 

burns. The U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 

and The Nature Conservancy established an MOU to facilitate burning across public and private boundaries to achieve 

goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 

Strategy (Harling 2015). Building upon such cooperative 

instruments, tribal groups are leading efforts to restore fire 

regimes through coordinated, landscape-scale burning, such 

as the Western Klamath Restoration Partnership. Such proactive coordination is important when allowing or curbing 

the spread of wildland fires across boundaries to meet the 

resource objectives of different landowners. 

Beneficial Effects of Fire for 

Ecocultural Resources

• Reducing the accumulation of forest fuels, which 

in turn can moderate the effects of stand-replacing wildfires without damaging large and old 

trees (Stevens et al. 2014, Waltz et al. 2014) (see 

chapter 12 for further discussion).

• Promoting understory diversity (Perry et al. 2011).

• Smoke-induced germination of species such as 

beargrass (Shebitz et al. 2009b).

• Reduction of pests such as filbert worms and 

weevils (Halpern 2016).

• Stimulation of fire-following fungi such as some 

morels to produce mushrooms (Larson et al. 

2016, Pilz et al. 2004).

• Curbing the encroachment of conifers (Engber et 

al. 2011) and other more shade-tolerant or dominant plants into other desired and diverse vegetative communities.

• Producing plant structures and ground conditions 

that facilitate tribal harvesting and use (Lake and 

Long 2014).

• Lowering summer stream temperatures to sustain 

salmonids in particular areas through shading by smoke during critical summer periods 

(Lake and Long 2014). Robock (1991) previously 

demonstrated that smoke from wildfires lowered 

summer surface temperatures in the valley of the 

Klamath River.
888

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Western Klamath Restoration Partnership

The Orleans-Somes Bar Fire Safe Council, Karuk Indigenous Basketweavers, and Karuk Tribe initially partnered 

in 2001 (with funding through the National Fire Plan) to 

integrate tribal knowledge with hazardous fuels reduction 

and prescribed fire treatments on private and tribal lands 

between portions of the Six Rivers and Klamath National 

Forests in northern California (Senos et al. 2006). Building upon that foundation in recent years, the Karuk Tribe 

and Mid-Klamath Watershed Council have co-led the 

Western Klamath Restoration Partnership in designing 

and implementing landscape-scale integrated restoration 

strategies to reduce vulnerability of the environment 

and human communities to climate change, as well as 

to support tribal ecocultural revitalization efforts. The 

project area encompasses approximately 1.2 million ac 

(480 000 ha). Since 2013, the partnership has brought 

together tribes (Yurok and Karuk), tribal community 

groups (e.g., Indigenous Peoples Burning Network, 

Karuk Indigenous Basketweavers, Yurok Cultural Fire 

Management Council, and California Indian Basketweavers Association), The Nature Conservancy, federal and 

state agencies, and local fire safe/watershed councils to 

conduct hazardous fuels treatments and prescribed burns 

in and around several communities. As a demonstration 

project under the National Cohesive Wildland Fire 

Management Strategy, treatments have been designed 

to reduce fuel loading around homes, along critical 

emergency road routes, and ridges to facilitate use of fire 

across larger landscapes, as well as to enhance access to 

tribal basketry and food resources (Harling 2015, Senos 

et al. 2006). These projects have featured tribal workforce training and incorporated traditional ecological 

knowledge into prescriptions to promote tribal values. 

Early implementation steps for the partnership include 

prescribed burns under the TREX program (fig. 11-18) 

and the “Roots and Shoots” burn on September 29, 2016, 

to promote ecocultural resources, which was authorized 

under a fire management agreement between the Six 

Rivers National Forest and the Karuk Tribe.

Figure 11-18—Klamath River Training Exchange prescribed burn on a privately owned area for experimental research and tribal harvesting near Orleans, California, October 2015. Yurok and Karuk tribal members ignited an area under tanoak trees that had previously been 

treated (manually thinned in 2011, pile burned in 2012, and prescribed burned in spring 2013) to reduce hazardous fuels and improve 

acorn accessibility and quality (by reducing pests).

Frank K. Lake
889

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Integrating tribal objectives into 

silvicultural approaches—

Many tribes harvest trees on their own lands as an 

economic activity and as a means of promoting desired 

resources, as a complement to fire to create canopy gaps 

and shift fuel conditions that facilitate the return of a 

more natural fire regime (Healey et al. 2008). Naturally 

formed canopy gaps from tree mortality create distinctive 

heterogeneity by forming pit and mound topography, 

broken tops and branches, and downed logs, which in 

turn stimulate understory diversity (Pollock and Beechie 

2014) and associated wildlife communities (see “Tribal 

Ecosystem Services From Dead Trees and Forest Gaps” 

on p. 864). Various silvicultural approaches, including 

variable-density thinning treatments, can be important 

for recreating such natural stand heterogeneity and 

facilitating return of fire when restoring and maintaining 

woodlands and other nonforest areas encroached by trees 

(Carey 2003a, Devine and Harrington 2006, Hummel 

and Lake 2015). Chapter 3 features more discussion of 

restoration silviculture.

Many tribal silvicultural and related forest management 

approaches address sociocultural, economic, and ecological 

values with integrated management plans (Gordon et al. 

2013), and these contribute to landscape diversity (see 

“Coquille Indian Tribe” on p. 882). The Pacific Northwest 

is particularly fertile ground for placing greater emphasis on 

the joint production of forest products in order to enhance 

community well-being, while also supporting biological 

diversity, recreation value, and aesthetic appeal (Von Hagen 

and Fight 1999). However, it is important to reconsider how 

constraints on harvest and thinning treatments imposed 

under the NWFP on forests over 80 years old in late-successional reserves, in addition to other restricted areas, have 

limited the opportunities for such treatments (Nelson 2015, 

Vinyeta and Lynn 2015).

Across many national forests of the NWFP area, 

historical logging has replaced mature forests with plantations (Healey et al. 2008). Many tribes have concerns over 

the effects of such plantings in terms of effects of chemical 

herbicides and alteration of successional pathways away 

from valued early-successional plant communities. Strategies for managing plantations have often focused on growth 

of commercial tree species, but strategies are increasingly 

directed toward promoting resilience to climate change, fire 

and pests, while concurrently providing services, including 

wildlife habitat, forest products, and tribal subsistence 

(Carey 2003b, Charnley et al. 2007, Franklin and Johnson 

2012). Chapter 3 discusses these strategies for postfire management in more detail; Long et al. (2014b) also discussed 

reseeding for emergency erosion control, which could 

potentially affect understory plants used by tribes.

Proactively addressing use of chemicals in 

forest management—

National forest management uses herbicides, pesticides, 

fire retardant, and other chemicals for forest and resource 

management objectives, including accelerating growth of 

planted conifers and control of invasive species (Shepard 

et al. 2004). Many American Indians and tribes have 

registered concern over such use of chemicals because 

tribal harvesters are profoundly concerned about potential 

for exposure to environmental toxins (Huntsinger and 

McCaffrey 1995, Norgaard 2007, Segawa et al. 1997). 

These concerns are particularly strong for terrestrial and 

aquatic food resources and nonforest products such as 

foods and basketry materials that people place in their 

mouths. Researchers collaborated with the California 

Indian Basketweavers Association to study potential 

exposure to several common herbicides (glyphosate, 

hexazinone, and triclopyr) used to promote conifer growth 

on four national forests in the Sierra Nevada region of 

California (Ando et al. 2003, Segawa et al. 1997). They 

found that herbicides were detectable on several plant 

species that are likely to be gathered by American Indians 

for many months (a range of 4 to 130 weeks), and in 

some cases beyond the targeted treatment areas owing 

to drift or precipitation. In addition to ensuring that risk 

assessments properly consider the special vulnerabilities 

of tribal members (Burger et al. 2008), strong working 

relationships, including effective consultation, with tribes 

and harvesters are important to proactively understand 

and avoid potential for exposure of tribal members to 

harmful chemicals.
890

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Actively managing riparian areas—

Promotion of tribal ecocultural resources within riparian 

areas depends on periodic disturbance to maintain gaps and 

understory production. Especially in drier areas with more 

frequent fire regimes, disturbances such as managed fire 

and removal of trees can be important for restoring desired 

conditions. Streams in mid-successional forests often can 

be more productive than those in old-growth forests under 

certain circumstances; therefore, active management may 

be important to sustain productivity of aquatic ecocultural 

resources such as fish (Reeves et al. 2006). On the other 

hand, researchers have suggested that removing trees from 

riparian areas could reduce suitability of associated streams 

for coldwater fishes (McClure et al. 2013). Considering 

regional and site-specific contexts, such as current temperature regimes, can often reconcile such potential tradeoffs, as 

discussed further in chapter 7.

Some tribes have expressed concern that restrictions 

in riparian reserves, which were intended to protect 

those sensitive areas adjacent to streams (Naiman et al. 

2000), would impede their ability to maintain traditional 

harvesting and burning practices. For example, members 

of the Karuk Tribe expressed concerns that the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy of the NWFP would impose 

restrictions on cutting willows in riparian reserves (Charnley et al. 2008a). However, several projects have included 

cutting and burning willows in riparian zones along the 

Klamath River (Lake 2007). Nevertheless, the tendency to 

leave riparian areas untreated, as discussed in chapter 7, 

can chafe tribal interests in promoting understory plants 

or shade-intolerant trees, such as large oaks and pines 

growing on river terraces adjacent to historic village sites 

(Hosten et al. 2006).

Restoring aquatic systems—

Given the importance of anadromous fish species such 

as salmon, lamprey, and sturgeon to tribes, a very broad 

approach is important to address their complex life stages 

that depend on diverse and interconnected habitats (Close et 

al. 2002, Miller 2012, Wang and Schaller 2015). Free-flowing stream networks from forested headwaters are also 

important for supplying driftwood to tribal riverine and 

coastal communities (Lepofsky et al. 2003). Recovery of 

tribally valued fish, waterfowl, and aquatic plant species 

heavily depends on restoration of hydrologic regimes and 

physical habitats through removal of reservoir dams that 

impede fish migration; restoration of degraded meadows; 

removal or relocation of roads, levees, and diversions; and 

other actions to restore the eco-hydrological system through 

more natural flows of water, sediment, wood, and organisms 

(Beechie et al. 2013, Nehlsen et al. 1991) (see chapter 7). 

Treatment of invasive exotic plants in wetlands and riparian 

areas may also be a priority for restoration of ecocultural 

resources. Such active measures can help to ameliorate the 

predicted effects of climate change (Wade et al. 2013). In 

particular, enhancing connectivity among native fish populations is important for increasing the potential for wildfire 

to benefit them rather than cause extirpations (Falke et al. 

2014, Flitcroft et al. 2016).

Removing reservoir dams—

Although large reservoirs are an important part of infrastructure in the Pacific Northwest, removal of dams that 

form such reservoirs has become increasingly common as 

many aging dams require expensive modifications. In the 

last decade, several major dams have been intentionally 

breached within the NWFP area, notably the Elwha and 

Glines Canyon Dams in the ancestral lands of the Lower 

Elwha Klallam Tribe on the Olympic Peninsula (Pess et 

al. 2008), and the Condit Dam on the White Salmon River. 

More removals are anticipated, with the 2016 Klamath 

Power and Facilities Agreement set to remove four dams on 

the Klamath River. Such efforts will affect national forest 

lands and tribal ecocultural resources, and they are likely to 

increase the importance of upstream watershed conditions 

as stream reaches are reopened to migratory fish (Pess et 

al. 2008). Existing research points to a variety of anticipated benefits for migratory fish and associated mollusks; 

however, dam removals can also release accumulated 

sediments, nutrients, toxins, and other pollutants (Pess et al. 

2008, Poff and Hart 2002, Stanley and Doyle 2003), which 

can temporarily disrupt downstream habitats of sensitive 

organisms such as freshwater mussels. An additional 

concern is the potential spread of invasive species upstream 

(Hart et al. 2002). Dam removal could also affect tribal 

concerns by exposing traditional sites, burials, and artifacts. 
891

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Therefore, although dam removal is expected to be critically 

important in restoring aquatic organisms of special significance, its potential for both beneficial and harmful effects 

should be considered. Because of the diversity of watershed 

settings, the recency of large dam removal, and short 

duration of post-removal studies, scientists are working to 

understand the longer term benefits and possible impacts of 

such actions (Hart et al. 2002, Poff and Hart 2002). In the 

meantime, large dam removal provides opportunities for 

integrated restoration of tribally valued riparian plants such 

as willows, berry plants (e.g., Rubus parviflorus) (Michel 

et al. 2011), and birds (Gelarden and McLaughlin 2013). As 

one example of how forest management can complement 

dam removal, McLaughlin (2013) recommended maintaining or increasing large woody debris within the riparian 

zones to encourage use by birds, which in turn disperses 

seeds across the bare sediments.

Managing roads—

Roads and associated water crossings can degrade aquatic 

resources by increasing erosion and creating barriers to 

movement as discussed in chapter 7. Tribes have successfully sued the state of Washington to demand remediation 

of culvert impacts on fish passage to support their treaty 

fishing rights (Breslow 2014). This lawsuit not only 

demonstrated the legal power of tribal treaty rights to shape 

environmental management across jurisdictions, but it also 

highlighted the importance of road management on tribal 

ecocultural resources. Tribes have partnered with national 

forests and BLM districts to implement and study road 

decommissioning to restore habitat for native salmonids 

(Burnson and Chapman 2000). One study that involved the 

Nez Perce Tribe found that road recontouring, rather than 

passive recovery following road abandonment, accelerated 

recovery of ecological and hydrological properties, including carbon storage (Lloyd et al. 2013).

Although roads can exact a toll on terrestrial and 

aquatic resources, aesthetics, and other values, they also 

provide access for tending forests, managing fire, hunting, 

fishing, plant harvesting, and other activities that are 

important to tribal members. Tribes have emphasized 

their interests in both access and watershed management 

(Vinyeta and Lynn 2015), so consultation is particularly 

important when making plans regarding roads. In particular, tribal members have noted that a lack of road 

maintenance and road closures can limit access to desired 

resources, especially for many elders and families with 

young children who rely upon vehicle access (Dobkins 

et al. 2016, LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). Consequently, intergenerational transmission of knowledge in 

part depends on suitable road systems. Because roads 

also offer access to nontribal members, they also have 

potential to exacerbate resource competition in preferred 

gathering areas.

Facilitating tribal access to forest products—

National forests have adopted various policies regarding 

regulation of harvesting by tribal members on ancestral 

lands (Catton 2016). Within the Sawtooth Berry Fields on 

the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Hansis (1998) stated 

that “American Indians do not need to obtain permits to 

harvest huckleberries as part of their treaty rights” (Hansis 1998: 78). In a northern California example, the Six 

Rivers and Klamath National Forests established an MOU 

with the Karuk Tribe under which tribal members were 

not required to obtain permits from the Forest Service 

to harvest special forest products for subsistence (Stuart 

and Martine 2005). Many national forests provide fee 

waivers for tribal members to gather firewood on national 

forests; for example, the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

established an MOA with the Klamath Tribe that allowed 

tribal members to camp and gather firewood within former 

reservation lands (Catton 2016). Other remedies proposed 

to lessen the burden from permitting requirements include 

using tribal identification cards in lieu of permits (Wrobel 

2015) or having tribal organizations rather than the Forest 

Service issue the permits (Dobkins et al. 2016). For example, as outlined in an MOU with several national forests 

in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the Great Lakes 

Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission has issued permits 

to members of several tribes to harvest wild plants and 

nontimber forest products, as well as to camp, on national 

forests (Wrobel 2015). The permitting system allows the 

commission to monitor and report on tribal harvest of 

various forest products.
892

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Addressing conflicts with nontribal communities over 

access and use—

Public managers have implemented various strategies to 

address conflicts between tribal members and nontribal 

people, including recreationists and nontribal harvesters of 

forest products, regarding impacts to ecocultural resources. 

Forest Service policy (FSH 2409.18.80) restricts issuance 

of commercial permits when there are shortages to ensure 

that tribal use can be accommodated. As Alexander et al. 

(2011) pointed out, most collectors of nontimber forest 

products gather for personal or subsistence use, so records 

from commercial permits provide a very incomplete picture 

of demand. The Forest Service’s National Tribal Relations 

Program Task Force recommended a variety of measures 

to improve tribal management of lands under federal care, 

including providing the Forest Service with the authority to 

close federal lands to the public for tribal traditional uses 

(Nie 2008). When supplies of desired resources are limited, 

land managers can regulate access through seasonal area 

closures that do not restrict access and harvest by tribal 

members. Numerous examples suggest that successful 

resolution of conflicts over access depends upon a strong 

and proactive working relationship between land managers 

and tribes that recognizes their unique status (Catton 2016). 

In an important precedent, the Gifford Pinchot National 

Forest designated a long-standing berry-harvesting area for 

exclusive use by American Indians under its land management plan (see box on next page). A similar approach 

was formalized under an MOU between the Mount Hood 

National Forest and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation (Catton 2016, Wang et al. 2002).

Sustaining timber harvest and mill capacity—

Tribes with interest in commercial timber harvest from their 

lands, such as the Quinault Indian Nation, have expressed 

concern that cutbacks in harvest on federal lands have 

caused declines in mill capacity and other resources needed 

to allow them to manage and receive income from their 

working forest lands, as well as to protect their homelands 

from hazardous buildup of fuels (Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). 

In some parts of the NWFP area, such as the mid-Klamath 

region, declines in the timber industry have been partially 

offset by tribal leadership in economic development 

(Charnley et al. 2008a). These examples demonstrate 

interconnections among federal forest management and 

tribal and local economies, as well as opportunities for 

federal-tribal partnerships to promote mutual interests 

(Corrao and Andringa 2017, Mason et al. 2012). For example, the Yakama Nation’s milling facility has processed logs 

resulting from the Tapash Sustainable Forest Collaborative 

forest restoration project.

Considering effects of special designations—

A variety of special designations, such as experimental 

forests, research natural areas, wild and scenic rivers, and 

wilderness areas can constrain activities on federal lands. 

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, sites recommended 

for special designations based upon distinctive qualities 

and limited degradation are likely to be significant to tribes 

(Hughes and Jim 1986). Consequently, proposals for special 

land management designations, including reserves, can 

impede tribal access to important resources and culturally 

important places (Freedman 2002) as well as the use of 

tools that could aid restoration. Past efforts to impose designations such a wilderness areas without tribal support have 

been a source of much consternation to the affected tribes 

(Catton 2016). Recent wilderness legislation has included 

special provisions to protect tribal religious concerns (see 

“Addressing sacred sites protection and access” on p. 880). 

Nevertheless, concerns persist among tribal communities 

that special designations for conservation purposes may 

limit their access and use (Baldy 2013, Nie 2008, Papiez 

2009). For example, an analysis reported by Nelson (2015) 

noted that 47 percent of Mount Baker–Snoqualmie National 

Forest lands have wilderness status, 5 percent more are 

administratively withdrawn, and 36 percent are allocated to 

late-successional and riparian reserves, so only 10 percent 

remain as matrix or adaptive management areas where 

timber harvest is less constrained. These designations 

could limit active silvicultural management to enhance 
893

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Forest Service-Yakama Nation Handshake 

Agreement to Access Huckleberries

An important historical instance of federal-tribal collaboration is the 1932 Handshake Agreement between the 

Yakama Nation and the U.S. Forest Service. In response 

to growing pressure on wild huckleberries from the 

unemployed migrant workers during the Great Depression, J.R Burkhardt, then Gifford Pinchot National Forest 

supervisor, met with tribal representatives and agreed to 

reserve 2,800 ac (1130 ha) of off-reservation huckleberry 

patches for exclusive use by the Yakama Nation during 

huckleberry season (Richards and Alexander 2006). This 

agreement has been honored since, although it was only 

put into writing as recently as 1990, prior to the adoption 

of the Northwest Forest Plan (Fisher 1997, Richards and 

Alexander 2006). This case set an important precedent 

for upholding the federal trust responsibility and the 

rights of the Yakama Nation to harvest on public lands. 

However, there have still been conflicts when non-Indians have harvested in the exclusive area, which is signed 

and bounded by a road (fig. 11-19) (Hansis 1998).

Figure 11-19—The Handshake Agreement sign denoting area set aside for tribal harvest of huckleberries in the Indian Heaven 

Wilderness, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Washington, August 2012.

Leslie Seaton
894

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

huckleberry, elk, and other tribal ecocultural resources 

to a very small percentage of their potential habitats 

(LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). Excluding wilderness and 

reserve areas from harvest both constrains and increases the 

importance of fire to sustain these resources. 

An alternative type of special designation is contemporary tribal use or stewardship areas. Several national 

forests have designated landscape areas as tribal heritage 

districts, zones, or areas. These areas have a documented 

history of tribal uses and are conceptually similar to 

traditional cultural properties designated under the authority of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Such 

tribal landscape area designations are linked to federal 

policies that facilitate consultation and coordination for 

heritage management (Wang et al. 2002). Agreements can 

guide permissible management actions, protect heritage 

or cultural resources, and foster tribal care and use of 

ecocultural resources for traditional and cultural purposes. 

As explained above, these approaches can address not only 

the ecological condition of forests, but also help to sustain 

tribal knowledge and social capacity. The concept of tribal 

stewardship areas bears some resemblance to previously 

mentioned “community forests,” which are managed for the 

benefit of particular communities (see “Fostering cooperative management” on p. 881). There have been several 

examples of such designations in the NWFP area:

• Nearly two decades ago, the Mount Baker–

Snoqualmie National Forest settled a dispute 

with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe regarding its 

exchange of culturally significant tribal ancestral 

territory to a private corporation, by designating “special management areas” for protection of 

cultural and historical features and for promotion 

of elk forage, portions of which were subsequently 

targeted for huckleberry enhancement (LeCompteMastenbrook 2016).

• In recent decades, the Mount Hood National Forest 

has set aside huckleberry tracts for exclusive tribal 

use and cooperatively managed the areas with 

the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde 

Community of Oregon and Confederated Tribes of 

the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon using prescribed fire and thinning on competing vegetation 

(Anzinger 2002, Gerwing 2011, Wang et al. 2002).

• A 2012 agreement between the Klamath and 

Six Rivers National Forests and the Karuk Tribe 

supported restoration of the Katimiin Cultural 

Management Area through application of cultural 

practices, including reintroduction of fire (Lake 

and Long 2014). Revisions to the Klamath National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan had 

provided for such special designations (Diver 2016).

Supporting adaptive management—

Researchers have recommended greater use of adaptive 

management frameworks as a way to better understand the 

complex responses of socio-ecological systems to management strategies (Franklin and Johnson 2012, Gray 2000). 

The NWFP called for using adaptive management areas 

(AMAs) to allow land managers the flexibility to try new and 

innovative management strategies and treatment practices as 

experiments to reduce uncertainty of subsequent management 

actions (Bormann et al. 2007, McClure et al. 2013). Many 

tribal practitioners believed that such approaches shared a 

common perspective with traditional tribal systems (Catton 

2016), which have been described as an aboriginal form of 

adaptive management (Berkes et al. 2000). Adaptive management efforts can support tribal engagement in monitoring, 

assessment, implementation, and evaluation of treatments to 

promote desired conditions (Stein et al. 2013). Such efforts can 

complement and propel larger landscape restoration strategies 

(Berkes 2009), as well as build capacity among tribes, stakeholders, and agencies (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008). In 

an example from the NWFP, land managers of the Northern 

Coast Range AMA established agreements with the Confederated Tribes of the Grande Ronde Community of Oregon to 

facilitate cohesive management of a watershed that included 

10,900 ac (4400 ha) of federal land (Gray 2000). Some projects 

in AMAs specifically addressed tribal ecocultural resources; 

for example, the Cispus AMA in Washington included a 

project to study beargrass production under different forest 

canopy levels (Blatner et al. 2004). However, many of the 

bureaucratic challenges that appear to have limited implementation of adaptive management, including limited staff and 
895

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

funds, cumbersome environmental reviews, and institutional 

momentum (Gray 2000), have frustrated tribal partnerships 

as well (Catton 2016). Such challenges, including reduced 

support for monitoring and review of proposed management 

changes, were specifically cited by tribal respondents in the 

20-year monitoring report as inhibiting adaptive management 

(Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). The challenges in making formal 

adaptive management projects successful have encouraged 

less formal approaches that emphasize observation, communication, and explicit review of ecological changes and 

adaptation actions (Peterson et al. 2011).

Research Needs

There are many topics regarding tribal ecocultural resources 

and engagement that warrant research, and collaborating 

with tribes to identify cultural keystones could be especially 

helpful in setting priorities. There are valuable examples of 

collaborative research regarding tribal ecocultural resources 

in the NWFP area (e.g., beargrass, pileated woodpecker, 

huckleberries, and black oaks as mentioned previously), 

but more studies and expanded monitoring are needed to 

address the many interests of diverse tribal communities. 

Although many of these species have been studied, research 

designed by ecologists may not target the conditions used 

by harvesters, as explained by Kerns et al. (2004) in a study 

of huckleberries. Beatty and Leighton (2012) highlighted 

several common themes in tribal research priorities based 

upon a survey of tribal forest resource managers and decisionmakers, including (1) research related to water, fisheries, 

and other nontimber values from forests; (2) collaboration 

and cooperation, especially concerning the integration of 

traditional knowledge with Western science; and (3) adaptation of research projects to address local tribal concerns. 

More specifically, there is considerable need for monitoring 

and research in cooperation with tribes on the suitability and 

availability of ecocultural resources for tribal use. Norton-Smith et al. (2016) identified a need to research whether 

and why cultural keystone species are moving beyond tribal 

access. Research on reintroducing possible cultural and 

ecological keystone species such as condors, wolves, and 

beavers can evaluate not only the ecological effects within 

the NWFP area but also the effects on tribal cultural values.

A particularly important need is for research that is collaborative and integrative in evaluating the benefits of active 

forest management (Hummel and Lake 2015). In a report 

by the Karuk Tribe, Norgaard (2014b) prioritized the need 

for such socioeconomic research, in addition to research on 

the effects of climate change on tribal sovereignty, identification of effective contracting and agreement mechanisms, and study of carbon implications of tribal burning. 

Considering vulnerability and developing adaptation 

strategies in cooperation with tribal entities is important 

for understanding the effects of ecological change on tribal 

communities (Dittmer 2013, Norgaard 2014c, Petersen et al. 

2014). Chapter 3 discusses the need to better understand the 

effects of applying ecological forestry strategies designed 

to reestablish or emulate natural disturbance regimes. It 

is particularly important to consider how a lack of active 

management is likely to affect tribes given current and 

expected future disturbances, including forest densification, 

dieback, and wildfire (Norton-Smith et al. 2016). Although 

this synthesis demonstrates such impact in qualitative 

terms, more precise understanding of the magnitude of 

those impacts would help to make better investments.

In many cases, information to quantify reference 

conditions, such as the abundance of particular resources 

and forest structure in pre-Euro-American times, is lacking, particularly at fine scales. Expected declines in both 

ecocultural resources and harvester knowledge of those 

resources increases the likelihood of “shifting baselines 

syndrome,” mentioned above, under which current generations of harvesters and decisionmakers may no longer have 

an accurate understanding of past conditions. Collaborative 

partnerships in planning, research, and monitoring provide 

opportunities to better quantify and achieve appropriate 

desired conditions (Hummel et al. 2015, Long et al. 2016a).

Research is also needed on the socioeconomic, cultural, 

and ecological effects of resource harvests (potentially both 

recreational and commercial), road closures, and permitting 

systems on tribal ecocultural resources and the communities that harvest them (LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). 

Monitoring is important to help answer these questions. 

For example, Nelson (2015) suggested that a nonobstructive 

permit system would be useful in quantifying recreational 
896

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

harvest of huckleberries, while monitoring of resources 

such as cedar logs on public lands would help track inventories and supply tribal needs (Vinyeta and Lynn 2015). 

Attention to the ethics of participatory research, including consideration of appropriate roles and relationships, 

open and transparent communication and decisionmaking, 

and facilitating opportunities for engagement in all stages 

of an effort, is important in encouraging community 

participation and promoting the likelihood of mutually 

beneficial outcomes that build capacity to solve problems 

(Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2006, Long et al. 2016b, Walker 

et al. 2002). Tribes may support collaborative efforts that 

engage members, from youth to long-term harvesters, in 

monitoring, research, and restoration (LeCompte-Mastenbrook 2016). Through such efforts, tribal practices based 

upon traditional knowledge, such as cultural burning, can 

be studied, implemented, and evaluated for their effects on 

valued species, ecological integrity, and ecosystem services.

Conclusions and Management 

Considerations

Based upon the literature reviewed in response to the 

guiding questions for this chapter, including the original 

question posed by managers regarding the sustaining of first 

foods, we found the following conclusions for consideration 

by land managers:

1. Ecocultural resources and causes of degradation

• Ecosystems of the NWFP area support a wide 

array of tribal ecocultural resources, including 

various foods, medicines, materials, and nonmaterial values.

• Both social and biophysical factors detract 

from the ability of tribes to obtain ecocultural 

resources from public lands in the desired quality and quantity.

• Degradation of important tribal resources, 

including a variety of “first foods,” is attributable to shifts in fire regimes away from frequent 

fire, conifer encroachment and densification, 

invasions by exotic species, alterations of hydrologic systems, species extirpations, reductions 

in tribal tending, and other historical legacies.

• Examples of highly desired biological resources 

that depend on restoration of disturbance 

regimes include numerous trees and shrubs that 

produce edible nuts and fruits, geophytes that 

produce edible roots, fungi that produce edible 

mushrooms, and grasses that produce nutritious 

seeds and forage for ungulates. Many important 

plants and fungi used for medicine, foods, and 

crafts are associated with nonforest communities and forest gaps, some of which constitute 

short phases of succession, and others which 

can be persistent. Other important resources 

came from woodlands and forests that were 

dominated by old trees but often maintained 

with fire.

• Historical displacement of tribal influence in 

the region has contributed to the reduction in 

frequency of fire in many parts of the region, 

particularly in relatively drier inland areas and 

locations near historical tribal settlements, trade 

and travel routes, and harvesting and hunting 

areas. Many of these locations were in ecological transition areas, such as edges between 

forests and grasslands or wetlands, which were 

maintained by tribal use.

2. Land management approaches to promote tribal 

ecocultural resources

• In general, ideas to promote tribal ecocultural 

resources are consistent with emerging directions in forest management, including seven 

core principles for restoring fire-prone inland 

Pacific landscapes suggested by Hessburg et al. 

(2015).

• Restoring large landscape areas that span traditional areas still used by tribes can help to 

ensure long-term sustainability and availability 

of resources, with important socioeconomic 

benefits such as food security and restoration-related work opportunities (see “Western Klamath 

Restoration Partnership” on p. 888).
897

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

• Remediation of forest road systems and 

culverts constitutes a priority for restoring 

aquatic systems where forest management 

activities have impeded fish passage and flows 

of wood, water, and sediment. However, road 

systems are important for maintaining tribal 

access to resources and intergenerational 

transmission of knowledge.

• Active forest management, including understory 

and variable overstory thinning and greater use 

of fire, is vital to improve the productivity and 

availability of many tribal ecocultural resources. 

Active management strategies can be integrated 

with efforts to conserve large, old trees, cultural 

sites, and other ecocultural resources that might 

be vulnerable to severe disturbances.

• Reintroduction of ecocultural keystone species 

that have been extirpated, in conjunction with 

restoration of their habitat, is also important for 

sustaining tribal material uses, cultural values, 

biological diversity, and ecological processes. 

• Development of burn strategies and prescriptions in cooperation with tribes can help to 

reestablish traditional cultural burning and 

produce desired fire effects. Such an emphasis 

is a greater need in drier ecosystem types that 

evolved with more frequent fire, but it is also 

important at fine scales within wetter ecosystem types. This finding is consistent with the 

principals suggested by Hessburg et al. (2015) to 

emulate disturbance regimes.

3. Engaging tribes in forest planning and management

• Given the widespread interests of tribal communities in forest ecosystems of the NWFP area, 

tribal engagement, including formal consultation as well as broader partnerships, is important to achieve land management objectives 

set forth in the forest planning rule, to uphold 

tribal rights and federal responsibilities, and to 

recognize the importance of tribal ecocultural 

resources on ancestral lands.

• The concepts and principles of adaptive management and restoration forestry are consistent 

with efforts to promote tribal interests.

• Collaborative partnerships with tribes, encompassing consideration of native knowledge, in 

planning, researching, implementing, and monitoring treatments within an adaptive ecosystem 

management framework fosters adaptive capacity of tribes and the partnering institutions.

• Such partnerships can build upon the legal foundations that provide for explicit tribal engagement and cooperative management.

• In particular, designation of special tribal stewardship areas of cultural importance to tribes 

can achieve both social and ecological objectives of both tribes and federal land management agencies.

Literature Cited

Abdul-Aziz, O.I.; Mantua, N.J.; Myers, K.W.; Bradford, 

M. 2011. Potential climate change impacts on thermal 

habitats of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the 

North Pacific Ocean and adjacent seas. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 68(9): 1660–1680.

Adelzadeh, M. 2006. Empowerment in an era of selfdetermination: the case of the Washoe Tribe and US 

Forest Service co-management agreement. Ann Arbor, 

MI: University of Michigan. 118 p. M.S. thesis.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 p.

Agrawal, A. 2002. Indigenous knowledge and the politics 

of classification. International Social Science Journal. 

54(173): 287–297.

Alexander, S.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011.

Nontimber forest products in the United States: Montreal 

Process indicators as measures of current conditions and 

sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.
898

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Anderson, M.K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native 

American knowledge and the management of 

California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press. 555 p.

Anderson, M.K. 2009. The Ozette prairies of Olympic 

National Park: their former indigenous uses and 

management. Final report. Port Angeles, WA: Olympic 

National Park. 158 p.

Anderson, M.K.; Lake, F.K. 2013. California Indian 

ethnomycology and associated forest management. 

Journal of Ethnobiology. 33(1): 33–85.

Ando, C.; Segawa, R.; Gana, C.; Li, L.; Walters, J.; 

Sava, R.; Barry, T.; Goh, K.; Lee, P.; Tran, D. 

2003. Dissipation and offsite movement of forestry 

herbicides in plants of importance to Native Americans 

in California national forests. Bulletin of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology. 71(2): 354–361.

Anzinger, D. 2002. Big huckleberry (Vaccinium 

membranaceum Dougl.) ecology and forest succession, 

Mt. Hood National Forest and Warm Springs Indian 

Reservation, Oregon. Corvallis, OR: University of 

Oregon. 121 p. M.S. thesis.

Arnette, J.; Crawford, R. 2007. The status of 

huckleberries in Washington state, a report prepared for 

the Specialized Forest Products Work Group. Natural 

Heritage Report 2007-7. Seattle, WA: Washington 

Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage 

Program. 68 p.

Asah, S.T.; Guerry, A.D.; Blahna, D.J.; Lawler, J.J. 2014.

Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: 

human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy 

implications. Ecosystem Services. 10: 180–186.

Aubry, K.B.; Raley, C.M. 2002. Selection of nest and 

roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of 

Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 

66(2): 392–406.

Baldy, C.R. 2013. Why we gather: traditional gathering in 

native northwest California and the future of bio-cultural 

sovereignty. Ecological Processes. 2(1): 1–10.

Ballard, H.L.; Trettevick, J.A.; Collins, D. 2008.

Comparing participatory ecological research in two 

contexts: an immigrant community and a Native 

American community on Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington. In: Wilmsen, C.; Elmendorf, W.; Fisher, 

L.; Ross, J.; Sarathy, B.; Wells, G., eds. Partnerships for 

empowerment: participatory research for communitybased natural resource management. London: Earthscan: 

187–215.

Barbeau, M. 1930. Totem poles: a recent native art of the 

northwest coast of America. Geographical Review. 

20(2): 258–272.

Bauer, S.; Olson, J.; Cockrill, A.; van Hattem, M.; 

Miller, L.; Tauzer, M.; Leppig, G. 2015. Impacts 

of surface water diversions for marijuana cultivation 

on aquatic habitat in four northwestern California 

watersheds. PLoS One. 10(3): e0120016.

Beatty, C.; Leighton, A. 2012. Intertribal Timber Council 

survey of tribal research needs. The Forestry Chronicle. 

88(5): 565–570.

Beechie, T.; Imaki, H.; Greene, J.; Wade, A.; Wu, H.; 

Pess, G.; Roni, P.; Kimball, J.; Stanford, J.; Kiffney, 

P. 2013. Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. 

River Research and Applications. 29(8): 939–960.

Bennett, T.; Maynard, N.; Cochran, P.; Gough, R.; 

Lynn, K.; Maldonado, J.; Voggesser, G.; Wotkyns, 

S.; Cozzetto, K. 2014. Indigenous peoples, lands, and 

resources. In: Melillo, J.; Richmond, T.; Yohe, G., eds. 

Climate change impacts in the United States: the third 

national climate assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Global Change Research Program: 297–317. Chapter 12.

Benson, M.H.; Garmestani, A.S. 2011. Can we manage 

for resilience? The integration of resilience thinking 

into natural resource management in the United States. 

Environmental Management. 48(3): 392–399.
899

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Benson, R.L.; Turo, S.; McCovey B.W., Jr. 2007.

Migration and movement patterns of green sturgeon 

(Acipenser medirostris) in the Klamath and Trinity 

Rivers, California, USA. Environmental Biology of 

Fishes. 79(3-4): 269–279.

Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of 

knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social 

learning. Journal of Environmental Management. 90(5): 

1692–1702.

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery 

of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive 

management. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1251–1262.

Bernholz, C.D.; Weiner, R.J. 2008. The Palmer and 

Stevens “Usual and Accustomed Places” treaties in 

the opinions of the courts. Government Information 

Quarterly. 25(4): 778–795.

Beschta, R.L.; Ripple, W.J. 2008. Wolves, trophic 

cascades, and rivers in the Olympic National Park, USA. 

Ecohydrology. 1(2): 118–130.

Blatner, K.; Higgins, S.; Kerns, B.K.; Worthington, 

A. 2004. Relationship between Xerophyllum tenax and 

canopy density in the southern Cascades of Washington. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 19(2): 82–87.

Bormann, B.T.; Haynes, R.W.; Martin, J.R. 2007.

Adaptive management of forest ecosystems: did some 

rubber hit the road? BioScience. 57(2): 186–191.

Bouwes, N.; Weber, N.; Jordan, C.E.; Saunders, W.C.; 

Tattam, I.A.; Volk, C.; Wheaton, J.M.; Pollock, 

M.M. 2016. Ecosystem experiment reveals benefits 

of natural and simulated beaver dams to a threatened 

population of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 

Scientific Reports. 6: 28581.

Bowcutt, F. 2013. Tanoak landscapes: tending a Native 

American nut tree. Madroño. 60(2): 64–86.

Box, J.B.; Howard, J.; Wolf, D.; O’Brien, C.; Nez, 

D.; Close, D. 2006. Freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: 

Unionoida) of the Umatilla and Middle Fork John Day 

Rivers in eastern Oregon. Northwest Science. 80(2): 95.

Boyd, R. 1999. Indians, fire and the land. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press. 313 p.

Breslow, S.J. 2014. Tribal science and farmers’ resistance: 

a political ecology of salmon habitat restoration in the 

American Northwest. Anthropological Quarterly. 87(3): 

727–758.

Brewer, J.P., II; Warner, E.A.K. 2014. Protecting 

indigenous knowledge in the age of climate change. 

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review. 

27: 585–628.

Burger, J. 2008. Environmental management: integrating 

ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, 

natural resource damage assessment and long-term 

stewardship on contaminated lands. Science of the Total 

Environment. 400(1–3): 6–19.

Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Pletnikoff, K.; Snigaroff, R.; 

Snigaroff, D.; Stamm, T. 2008. Ecocultural attributes: 

evaluating ecological degradation in terms of ecological 

goods and services versus subsistence and tribal values. 

Risk Analysis. 28(5): 1261–1272.

Burger, J.; Gochfeld, M.; Powers, C.W.; Clarke, J.H.; 

Brown, K.; Kosson, D.; Niles, L.; Dey, A.; Jeitner, C.; 

Pittfield, T. 2013. Determining environmental impacts 

for sensitive species: using iconic species as bioindicators 

for management and policy. Journal of Environmental 

Protection. 4(8): 87–95.

Burns, A.F.; Horngren, S.; Mickey, R.; Partin, T. 2011.

Judging the effectiveness of the Northwest Forest Plan: 

year eighteen. Northwest Science. 85(3): 504–505.

Burnson, W.; Chapman, B. 2000. Building 

partnerships: training Native American tribes for road 

decommissioning on United States national forest lands. 

Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. 

2000(6): 1083–1096.

Burr, J.L. 2013. Burning across boundaries: comparing 

effective strategies for collaboration between fire 

management agencies and indigenous communities. 

Occasion (Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities). 

5: 1–16.
900

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Bussey, J.; Davenport, M.A.; Emery, M.R.; Carroll, 

C. 2016. “A lot of it comes from the heart”: the nature 

and integration of ecological knowledge in tribal and 

nontribal forest management. Journal of Forestry. 

114(2): 97–107.

Butler, W.H. 2013. Collaboration at arm’s length: 

navigating agency engagement in landscape-scale 

ecological restoration collaboratives. Journal of Forestry. 

111(6): 395–403.

Carey, A.B. 1996. Interactions of Northwest forest canopies 

and arboreal mammals. Northwest Science. 70: 72–79.

Carey, A.B. 2003a. Biocomplexity and restoration of 

biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing 

spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. 

Forestry. 76(2): 127–136.

Carey, A.B. 2003b. Restoration of landscape function: 

reserves or active management? Forestry. 76(2): 221–230.

Carroll, C.; Dunk, J.R.; Moilanen, A. 2010a. Optimizing 

resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: 

multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific 

Northwest, USA. Global Change Biology. 16(3): 

891–904.

Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; Cohn, P.J. 2003.

Somewhere between: social embeddedness and the 

spectrum of wild edible huckleberry harvest and use. 

Rural Sociology. 68(3): 319–342.

Carroll, M.S.; Cohn, P.J.; Paveglio, T.B.; Drader, D.R.; 

Jakes, P.J. 2010b. Fire burners to firefighters: the Nez 

Perce and fire. Journal of Forestry. 108(2): 71–76.

Case, M.J.; Lawler, J.J. 2016. Relative vulnerability 

to climate change of trees in western North America. 

Climatic Change. 136(2): 367–379.

Catton, T. 2016. American Indians and national forests. 

Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 373 p.

Charnley, S.; Dillingham, C.; Stuart, C.; Moseley, C.; 

Donoghue, E.M. 2008a. Northwest Forest Plan—the 

first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring 

of the Klamath National Forest and three local 

communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-764. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 111 p.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating 

traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest 

biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 246(1): 14–28.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2008b. Traditional 

and local ecological knowledge about forest biodiversity 

in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-751. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Charnley, S.; Long, J.W.; Lake, F.K. 2014. Collaboration 

in national forest management. In: Long, J.W.; QuinnDavidson, L.; Skinner, C.N., eds. Science synthesis to 

support socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada 

and southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

663–704.

Charnley, S.; Poe, M.R. 2007. Community forestry in 

theory and practice: where are we now? Annual Review 

of Anthropology. 36(1): 301–336.

Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C.; 

Franklin, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lutz, J.A. 2013.

Restoring forest resilience: from reference spatial 

patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 442–457.

Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel. 1995. First Nations’ 

perspectives relating to forest practices standards in 

Clayoquot Sound. Victoria, BC: Ministry of Sustainable 

Resource Management, British Columbia. 74 p.
901

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup 

[CTKW]. 2014. Guidelines for considering traditional 

knowledges in climate change initiatives. Report 

prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior Advisory 

Committee on Climate Change and Natural Resource 

Science (ACCCNRS). https://climatetkw.wordpress.com. 

(15 September 2017).

Clinton, W.J. 1994. Government-to-government relations 

with Native American tribal governments. Federal 

Register. 59(85): Doc No: 94-10877.

Close, D.; Jackson, A.; Conner, B.; Li, H. 2004.

Traditional ecological knowledge of Pacific lamprey 

(Entosphenus tridentatus) in northeastern Oregon and 

southeastern Washington from indigenous peoples of the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

Journal of Northwest Anthropology. 38(2): 141–162.

Close, D.A.; Fitzpatrick, M.S.; Li, H.W. 2002. The 

ecological and cultural importance of a species at risk 

of extinction, Pacific lamprey. Fisheries. 27(7): 19–25.

Coates, K.C. 2012. History, ecology and restoration 

potential of salmonid fishes in the Umpqua River, 

Oregon. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 70 p. 

M.S. thesis.

Cobb, R.C.; Filipe, J.A.; Meentemeyer, R.K.; Gilligan, 

C.A.; Rizzo, D.M. 2012. Ecosystem transformation by 

emerging infectious disease: loss of large tanoak from 

California forests. Journal of Ecology. 100(3): 712–722.

Cocking, M.I.; Varner, J.M.; Sherriff, R.L. 2012.

California black oak responses to fire severity and native 

conifer encroachment in the Klamath Mountains. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 270: 25–34.

Colombi, B.J. 2012. Salmon and the adaptive capacity of 

Nimiipuu (Nez Perce) culture to cope with change. The 

American Indian Quarterly. 36(1): 75–97.

Colombi, B.J.; Smith, C.L. 2012. Adaptive capacity as 

cultural practice. Ecology and Society. 17(4): 13.

Conedera, M.; Tinner, W.; Neff, C.; Meurer, M.; 

Dickens, A.F.; Krebs, P. 2009. Reconstructing past 

fire regimes: methods, applications, and relevance to 

fire management and conservation. Quaternary Science 

Reviews. 28(5–6): 555–576.

Coops, N.C.; Waring, R.H. 2011. Estimating the 

vulnerability of fifteen tree species under changing 

climate in Northwest North America. Ecological 

Modelling. 222(13): 2119–2129.

Corrao, M.V.; Andringa, S. 2017. Anchor forests and tribal 

lifeways to improve ecosystem resilience and maintain 

working forests. Journal of Forestry. 115(5): 341–342.

Crawford, J.N.; Mensing, S.A.; Lake, F.K.; 

Zimmerman, S.R. 2015. Late Holocene fire and 

vegetation reconstruction from the western Klamath 

Mountains, California, USA: a multi-disciplinary 

approach for examining potential human land-use 

impacts. The Holocene. 25(8): 1341–1357.

Crawford, S. 2007. Ethnolichenology of Bryoria fremontii: 

wisdom of elders, population ecology, and nutritional 

chemistry. Victoria, British Columbia: University of 

Victoria. 354 p. M.S. thesis.

Cronin, A.; Ostergren, D. 2007. Tribal watershed 

management: culture, science, capacity and 

collaboration. The American Indian Quarterly. 

31(1): 87–109.

Crozier, L.G.; Zabel, R.W. 2006. Climate impacts at 

multiple scales: evidence for differential population 

responses in juvenile Chinook salmon. Journal of 

Animal Ecology. 75(5): 1100–1109.

Cuerrier, A.; Turner, N.J.; Gomes, T.C.; Garibaldi, 

A.; Downing, A. 2015. Cultural keystone places: 

conservation and restoration in cultural landscapes. 

Journal of Ethnobiology. 35(3): 427–448.
902

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Daniel, T.C.; Muhar, A.; Arnberger, A.; Aznar, 

O.; Boyd, J.W.; Chan, K.M.A.; Costanza, R.; 

Elmqvist, T.; Flint, C.G.; Gobster, P.H.; GretRegamey, A.; Lave, R.; Muhar, S.; Penker, M.; Ribe, 

R.G.; Schauppenlehner, T.; Sikor, T.; Soloviy, I.; 

Spierenburg, M.; Taczanowska, K.; Tam, J.; von der 

Dunk, A. 2012. Contributions of cultural services to the 

ecosystem services agenda. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 

109(23): 8812–8819.

Davis, E.A.; David, A.T.; Norgaard, K.M.; Parker, T.H.; 

McKay, K.; Tennant, C.; Soto, T.; Rowe, K.; Reed, R. 

2013. Distribution and abundance of freshwater mussels 

in the mid Klamath subbasin, California. Northwest 

Science. 87(3): 189–206.

De Groot, R.S.; Wilson, M.A.; Boumans, R.M. 2002. A 

typology for the classification, description and valuation 

of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological 

Economics. 41(3): 393–408.

Deur, D. 2009. “A caretaker responsibility”: Revisiting 

Klamath and Modoc traditions of plant community 

management. Journal of Ethnobiology. 29(2): 296–322.

Devine, W.D.; Harrington, C.A. 2006. Changes in 

Oregon white oak (Quercus garryana Dougl. ex Hook.) 

following release from overtopping conifers. Trees. 

20(6): 747–756.

Dittmer, K. 2013. Changing streamflow on Columbia 

basin tribal lands—climate change and salmon. Climatic 

Change. 120(3): 627–641.

Diver, S. 2016. Co-management as a catalyst: pathways to 

post-colonial forestry in the Klamath Basin, California. 

Human Ecology. 44(5): 533–546.

Dobkins, R.; Lewis, C.; Hummel, S.; Dickey, E. 2016.

Cultural plant harvest on federal lands: perspectives 

from members of the Northwest Native American 

Basketweavers Association. Res. Pap. PNWRP-608. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 34 p.

Dobkins, R.J. 2009. Exhibit essay: life stories for new 

generations: the living art of Oregon tribal regalia. 

Oregon Historical Quarterly. 110(3): 420–439.

Donatuto, J.; Grossman, E.E.; Konovsky, J.; Grossman, 

S.; Campbell, L.W. 2014. Indigenous community health 

and climate change: integrating biophysical and social 

science indicators. Coastal Management. 42(4): 355–373.

Donatuto, J.L.; Satterfield, T.A.; Gregory, R. 2011.

Poisoning the body to nourish the soul: prioritising 

health risks and impacts in a Native American 

community. Health, Risk & Society. 13(2): 103–127.

Donoghue, E.; Thompson, S.; Bliss, J.C. 2010. Tribalfederal collaboration in resource management. Journal of 

Ecological Anthropology. 14(1): 22–38.

Eldridge, M. 1997. The significance and management 

of culturally modified trees. Final report. Vancouver, 

British Columbia: Vancouver Forest Region and CMT 

Standards Steering Committee. 33 p.

Ellis, S.C. 2005. Meaningful consideration? A review of 

traditional knowledge in environmental decision making. 

Arctic. 58(1): 66–77.

Engber, E.A.; Varner, J.M.; Arguello, L.A.; Sugihara, 

N.G. 2011. The effects of conifer encroachment and 

overstory structure on fuels and fire in an oak woodland 

landscape. Fire Ecology. 7(2): 32–50.

Erickson, J.M. 2009. Making live and letting die: the 

biopolitical effect of Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service. 

Seattle University Law Review. 33(2): 463–488.

Eriksen, C.; Hankins, D.L. 2014. The retention, revival, 

and subjugation of indigenous fire knowledge through 

agency fire fighting in eastern Australia and California. 

Society & Natural Resources. 27(12): 1288–1303.

Falke, J.A.; Flitcroft, R.L.; Dunham, J.B.; McNyset, 

K.M.; Hessburg, P.F.; Reeves, G.H. 2014. Climate 

change and vulnerability of bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) in a fire-prone landscape. Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 72(2): 304–318.
903

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Ballard, H.L.; Sturtevant, 

V.E. 2008. Adaptive management and social learning in 

collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study 

of five community-based forestry organizations in the 

western USA. Ecology and Society. 13(2): 4.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Huntington, H.P.; Frost, K.J. 

2006. Integration or co-optation? Traditional knowledge 

and science in the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee. 

Environmental Conservation. 33(4): 306–315.

Findley, A.J.; Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A. 2001. Social 

complexity and the management of small-diameter 

stands. Journal of Forestry. 99(12): 18–27.

Fisher, A.H. 1997. The 1932 Handshake Agreement: 

Yakama Indian treaty rights and Forest Service policy 

in the Pacific Northwest. Western Historical Quarterly. 

28(2): 186–217.

Fisher, B.; Turner, K.; Zylstra, M.; Brouwer, R.; Groot, 

R.D.; Farber, S.; Ferraro, P.; Green, R.; Hadley, D.; 

Harlow, J. 2008. Ecosystem services and economic 

theory: integration for policy-relevant research. 

Ecological Applications. 18(8): 2050–2067.

Flitcroft, R.L.; Falke, J.A.; Reeves, G.H.; Hessburg, 

P.F.; McNyset, K.M.; Benda, L.E. 2016. Wildfire may 

increase habitat quality for spring Chinook salmon in the 

Wenatchee River subbasin, WA, USA. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 359: 126–140.

Flood, J.P.; McAvoy, L.H. 2007. Voices of my ancestors, 

their bones talk to me: how to balance US Forest Service 

rules and regulations with traditional values and culture 

of American Indians. Research in Human Ecology. 

14(1): 76–89.

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N. 2012. A restoration 

framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Forestry. 110(8): 429–439.

Freedman, E. 2002. When indigenous rights and wilderness 

collide: prosecution of Native Americans for using motors 

in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area. 

The American Indian Quarterly. 26(3): 378–392.

Gabriel, M.W.; Woods, L.W.; Poppenga, R.; Sweitzer, 

R.A.; Thompson, C.; Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; 

Keller, S.M.; Purcell, K.; Barrett, R.H.; Wengert, 

G.M.; Sacks, B.N.; Clifford, D.L. 2012. Anticoagulant 

rodenticides on our public and community lands: spatial 

distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest 

carnivore. PLoS One. 7(7): e40163.

Galanda, G. 2011. The federal Indian consultation right: 

a frontline defense against tribal sovereignty incursion. 

American Business Law Government Affairs Practice 

Committee Newsletter. 2(1): 14.

Gamborg, C.; Parsons, R.; Puri, R.K.; Sandøe, P. 2012.

Ethics and research methodologies for the study of 

traditional forest-related knowledge. In: Parrotta, J.A.; 

Trosper, R.L., eds. Traditional forest-related Knowledge. 

London: Springer: 12: 535–562. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-

2144-9.

Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N. 2004. Cultural keystone species: 

implications for ecological conservation and restoration. 

Ecology and Society. 9(3): 1.

Gavin, M.C.; McCarter, J.; Mead, A.; Berkes, F.; Stepp, 

J.R.; Peterson, D.; Tang, R. 2015. Defining biocultural 

approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution. 30(3): 140–145.

Gelarden, C.J.; McLaughlin, J.F. 2013. Forecasting 

avian responses to Elwha River restoration. Ecological 

Restoration. 31(1): 31–45.

Gerwing, J. 2011. Assessing the effectiveness of stand 

management for increased huckleberry production. 

Monitoring report. Portland, OR: Portland State 

University. 5 p.

Giménez, A.; Pastor, E.; Zárate, L.; Planas, E.; 

Arnaldos, J. 2004. Long-term forest fire retardants: 

a review of quality, effectiveness, application and 

environmental considerations. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire. 13(1): 1–15.
904

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Gleeson, M.; Pearlstein, E.; Marshall, B.; Riedler, 

R. 2012. California featherwork: considerations for 

examination and preservation. Museum Anthropology. 

35(2): 101–114.

Goodman, E. 2000. Protecting habitat for off-reservation 

tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as 

a reserved right. Environmental Law. 30: 279–362.

Gosnell, H.; Kelly, E.C. 2010. Peace on the river? Socialecological restoration and large dam removal in the 

Klamath basin, USA. Water Alternatives. 3(2): 362–383.

Gray, A.N. 2000. Adaptive ecosystem management in the 

Pacific Northwest: a case study from coastal Oregon. 

Conservation Ecology. 4(2): 6.

Halofsky, J.E.; Donato, D.C.; Hibbs, D.E.; Campbell, 

J.L.; Cannon, M.D.; Fontaine, J.B.; Thompson, J.R.; 

Anthony, R.G.; Bormann, B.T.; Kayes, L.J.; Law, 

B.E.; Peterson, D.L.; Spies, T.A. 2011. Mixed-severity 

fire regimes: lessons and hypotheses from the KlamathSiskiyou ecoregion. Ecosphere. 2(4): 1–19.

Halpern, A.A. 2016. Prescribed fire and tanoak 

(Notholithocarpus densifolius) associated cultural plant 

resources of the Karuk and Yurok people of California. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley. 90 p. 

Ph.D. dissertation.

Halpern, C.B.; Spies, T.A. 1995. Plant species diversity 

in natural and managed forests of the Pacific Northwest. 

Ecological Applications. 5(4): 913–934.

Hamilton, J.B.; Curtis, G.L.; Snedaker, S.M.; White, 

D.K. 2005. Distribution of anadromous fishes in the 

upper Klamath River watershed prior to hydropower 

dams—a synthesis of the historical evidence. Fisheries. 

30(4): 10–20.

Hamman, S.T.; Dunwiddie, P.W.; Nuckols, J.L.; 

McKinley, M. 2011. Fire as a restoration tool in Pacific 

Northwest prairies and oak woodlands: challenges, 

successes, and future directions. Northwest Science. 

85(2): 317–328.

Hansen, E.M. 2008. Alien forest pathogens: Phytophthora

species are changing world forests. Boreal Environment 

Research. 13: 33–41.

Hansen, E.M.; Goheen, D.J.; Jules, E.S.; Ullian, B. 

2000. Managing Port-Orford-cedar and the introduced 

pathogen Phytophthora lateralis. Plant Disease. 84(1): 

4–14.

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: non-timber 

forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 

26(1): 67–86.

Harling, W. 2015. Learning together, burning together. 

Wildfire Magazine. 24(1): 26–30.

Harris, G. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 15 

years [1994–2008]: effectiveness of the federal-tribal 

relationship. Tech. Pap. R6-RPM-TP-01-2011. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. 136 p.

Harris, S.G.; Harper, B.L. 1997. A Native American 

exposure scenario. Risk Analysis. 17(6): 789–795.

Harris, S.G.; Harper, B.L. 2000. Using eco-cultural 

dependency webs in risk assessment and characterization 

of risks to tribal health and cultures. Environmental 

Science and Pollution Research. 2: 91–100.

Hart, D.D.; Johnson, T.E.; Bushaw-Newton, K.L.; 

Horwitz, R.J.; Bednarek, A.T.; Charles, D.F.; 

Kreeger, D.A.; Velinsky, D.J. 2002. Dam removal: 

challenges and opportunities for ecological research and 

river restoration. BioScience. 52(8): 669–682.

Hatcher, W.; Rondeau, S.; Johnson, D.L.; Johnson, 

K.N.; Franklin, J.F. 2017. Klamath Tribes—managing 

their homeland forests in partnership with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Journal of 

Forestry. 115(5): 447–455.

Healey, S.P.; Cohen, W.B.; Spies, T.A.; Moeur, M.; 

Pflugmacher, D.; Whitley, M.G.; Lefsky, M. 2008. The 

relative impact of harvest and fire upon landscape-level 

dynamics of older forests: lessons from the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Ecosystems. 11(7): 1106–1119.
905

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Hennon, P.E.; D’Amore, D.V.; Schaberg, P.G.; Wittwer, 

D.T.; Shanley, C.S. 2012. Shifting climate, altered 

niche, and a dynamic conservation strategy for yellowcedar in the North Pacific coastal rainforest. BioScience. 

62(2): 147–158.

Herger, L.; Edmond, L. 2012. Assessment of mercury 

in fish tissue from select lakes of northeastern Oregon. 

Tech. Rep. EPA-910-R-12-001. Seattle, WA: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 19 p.

Hernández-Morcillo, M.; Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C. 

2013. An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service 

indicators. Ecological Indicators. 29: 434–444.

Hessburg, P.F.; Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Haugo, 

R.D.; Miller, C.; Spies, T.A.; North, M.P.; Povak, 

N.A.; Belote, R.T.; Singleton, P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; 

Keane, R.E.; Aplet, G.H.; Stephens, S.L.; Morgan, P.; 

Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Salter, R.B.; Reeves, G.H. 

2015. Restoring fire-prone inland Pacific landscapes: 

seven core principles. Landscape Ecology. 30(10): 

1805–1835.

Heyd, T.; Brooks, N. 2009. Exploring cultural dimensions 

of adaptation to climate change. In: Adger, W.N.; 

Lorenzoni, I.; O’Brien, K.L., eds. Adapting to climate 

change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 269–282.

Hosea, R.C. 2000. Exposure of non-target wildlife to 

anticoagulant rodenticides in California. In: Salmon, 

T.P.; Crabb, A.C., eds. Proceedings of the 19th Vertebrate 

Pest Conference. Davis, CA: University of California at 

Davis: 236–244.

Hosten, P.E.; Hickman, O.E.; Lake, F.K.; Lang, F.A.; 

Vesely, D. 2006. Oak woodlands and savannas. In: 

Higgs, E.; Apostol, D.; Sinclair, M., eds. Restoring the 

Pacific Northwest: the art and science of ecological 

restoration in Cascadia. Washington, DC: Island Press: 

63–96.

Howard, J.K. 2010. Sensitive freshwater mussel surveys 

in the Pacific Southwest region: an assessment of 

conservation status. Final report prepared by for the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Regional Office. San Francisco, CA: 

The Nature Conservancy. 60 p.

Hughes, J.D.; Jim, S. 1986. How much of the Earth is 

sacred space? Environmental Review. 10(4): 247–259.

Hummel, S.; Foltz-Jordan, S.; Polasky, S. 2012. Natural 

and cultural history of beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-864. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

Hummel, S.; Lake, F. 2015. Forest site classification for 

cultural plant harvest by tribal weavers can inform 

management. Journal of Forestry. 113(1): 30–39.

Hummel, S.; Lake, F.K.; Watts, A. 2015. Using forest 

knowledge: how silviculture can benefit from ecological 

knowledge systems about beargrass harvesting sites. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-912. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 9 p.

Huntsinger, L.; McCaffrey, S. 1995. A forest for the trees: 

forest management and the Yurok environment, 1850 to 

1994. American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 

19(4): 155–192.

Hutchings, R.M.; Campbell, S.K. 2005. The importance 

of deltaic wetland resources: a perspective from the 

Nooksack River delta, Washington State, USA. Journal 

of Wetland Archaeology. 5(1): 17–34.

Imper, D. 2016. Declining species diversity on the North 

Coast: the role of disturbance. Fremontia. 44(3): 27–33.

Johansen, B. 2012. Canoe journeys and cultural revival. 

American Indian Culture and Research Journal. 36(2): 

131–142.

Jordan, T. 2015. Reciprocity & Hupa woodpeckers. 

[Updated]. http://www.californiacultures.org. (8 

August 2016).
906

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Jurney, D.H.; Hoagland, S. 2015. Bridging the gaps that 

divide. Journal of Forestry. 113(2): 271–272.

Kalabokidis, K.D. 2000. Effects of wildfire suppression 

chemicals on people and the environment—a review. 

Global Nest: The International Journal. 2(2): 129–137.

Kauffman, M.J.; Jules, E.S. 2006. Heterogeneity 

shapes invasion: host size and environment influence 

susceptibility to a nonnative pathogen. Ecological 

Applications. 16(1): 166–175.

Kellert, S.R.; Mehta, J.N.; Ebbin, S.A.; Lichtenfeld, 

L.L. 2000. Community natural resource management: 

promise, rhetoric, and reality. Society and Natural 

Resources. 13(8): 705–715.

Kellogg, J.; Wang, J.; Flint, C.; Ribnicky, D.; Kuhn, P.; 

De Mejia, E.G.l.; Raskin, I.; Lila, M.A. 2009. Alaskan 

wild berry resources and human health under the cloud 

of climate change. Journal of Agricultural and Food 

Chemistry. 58(7): 3884–3900.

Kerns, B.K.; Ager, A. 2007. Risk assessment for 

biodiversity conservation planning in Pacific Northwest 

forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 38–44.

Kerns, B.K.; Alexander, S.J.; Bailey, J.D. 2004.

Huckleberry abundance, stand conditions, and use 

in western Oregon: evaluating the role of forest 

management. Economic Botany. 58(4): 668–678.

Keyes, C.R.; Teraoka, E.K. 2014. Structure and 

composition of old-growth and unmanaged secondgrowth riparian forests at Redwood National Park, 

USA. Forests. 5(2): 256–268.

Kimmerer, R.W.; Lake, F.K. 2001. The role of indigenous 

burning in land management. Journal of Forestry. 99(11): 

36–41.

Koenig, A.; Stein, J. 2008. Federalism and the state 

recognition of Native American tribes: a survey of 

state-recognized tribes and state recognition processes 

across the United States. Santa Clara Law Review. 

48(1): 79–153.

Kroeber, A.L. 1920. California culture provinces. 

University of California Publications in American 

Archaeology and Ethnology. 17(2): 151–169.

Lake, F.K. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledge to 

develop and maintain fire regimes in northwestern 

California, Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion: management 

and restoration of culturally significant habitats. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 732 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Lake, F.K. 2013. Trails, fires and tribulations: tribal 

resource management and research issues in northern 

California. Occasion: Interdisciplinary Studies in the 

Humanities. 5(March): 22 p.

Lake, F.K.; Long, J.W. 2014. Fire and tribal cultural 

resources. In: Long, J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, L.N.; 

Skinner, C.N., eds. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and 

southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

173–185.

Lake, F.K.; Tripp, W.; Reed, R. 2010. The Karuk Tribe, 

planetary stewardship, and world renewal on the middle 

Klamath River, California. In Power, M.E.; Chapin, F.S. 

(eds.), Planetary Stewardship, Bulletin of the Ecological 

Society of America. 91: 147–149.

Lake, F.K.; Wright, V.; Morgan, P.; McFadzen, M.; 

McWethy, D.; Stevens-Rumann, C. 2017. Returning 

fire to the land—celebrating traditional knowledge and 

fire. Journal of Forestry. 115(5): 343–353.

Larsen, E.; Rodrick, E.; Milner, R. 1995. Management 

recommendations for Washington’s priority habitats 

and species, Volume 1: Invertebrates. Olympia, WA: 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 87 p.

Larson, A.J.; Cansler, C.A.; Cowdery, S.G.; Hiebert, S.; 

Furniss, T.J.; Swanson, M.E.; Lutz, J.A. 2016. Postfire morel (Morchella) mushroom abundance, spatial 

structure, and harvest sustainability. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 377: 16–25.
907

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Larson, Z.S.; Belchik, M.R. 1998. A preliminary status 

review of eulachon and Pacific lamprey in the Klamath 

River basin. Klamath, CA: Yurok Tribal Fisheries 

Program. 24 p.

LeCompte-Mastenbrook, J.K. 2016. Restoring coast 

Salish foods and landscapes: a more-than-human politics 

of place, history and becoming. Seattle, WA: University 

of Washington. 258 p. + appendices. Ph.D. dissertation.

Lepofsky, D.; Lertzman, K. 2008. Documenting ancient 

plant management in the northwest of North America. 

Botany. 86(2): 129–145.

Lepofsky, D.; Lyons, N.; Moss, M.L. 2003. The use 

of driftwood on the North Pacific Coast: an example 

from southeast Alaska. Journal of Ethnobiology. 23(1): 

125–142.

Lewis, H.T. 1982. Fire technology and resource 

management in aboriginal North America and Australia. 

In: Williams, N.M.; Hunn, E., eds. Resource managers: 

North American and Australian hunter-gatherers. 

Australian Studies Press: 45–67.

Lewis, H.T.; Ferguson, T.A. 1988. Yards, corridors, and 

mosaics: how to burn a boreal forest. Human Ecology. 

16(1): 57–77.

Lightfoot, K.G.; Cuthrell, R.Q.; Striplen, C.J.; 

Hylkema, M.G. 2013. Rethinking the study of landscape 

management practices among hunter-gatherers in North 

America. American Antiquity. 78(2): 285–301.

Lloyd, R.A.; Lohse, K.A.; Ferré, T.P.A. 2013. Influence 

of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem 

recovery. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

11(2): 75–81.

Long, J.W.; Anderson, M.K.; Quinn-Davidson, L.N.; 

Goode, R.W.; Lake, F.K.; Skinner, C.N. 2016a.

Restoring California black oak ecosystems to promote 

tribal values and wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-252. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 111 p.

Long, J.W.; Ballard, H.L.; Fisher, L.A.; Belsky, J.M. 

2016b. Questions that won’t go away in participatory 

research. Society and Natural Resources. 29(2): 250–263.

Long, J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, L.; Skinner, C.N. 2014a.

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience 

in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 723 p.

Long, J.W.; Skinner, C.; Charnley, S.; Hubbert, K.; 

Quinn-Davidson, L.; Meyer, M. 2014b. Post-wildfire 

management. In: Long, J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, L.N.; 

Skinner, C.N., eds. Science synthesis to support 

socioecological resilience in the Sierra Nevada and 

southern Cascade Range. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

187–220.

Long, R.A.; Rachlow, J.L.; Kie, J.G.; Vavra, M. 2008.

Fuels reduction in a western coniferous forest: Effects 

on quantity and quality of forage for elk. Rangeland 

Ecology and Management. 61(3): 302–313.

Lynn, K.; Daigle, J.; Hoffman, J.; Lake, F.; Michelle, 

N.; Ranco, D.; Viles, C.; Voggesser, G.; Williams, P. 

2013. The impacts of climate change on tribal traditional 

foods. Climatic Change. 120(3): 545–556.

MacDougall, A.S. 2008. Herbivory, hunting, and longterm vegetation change in degraded savanna. Biological 

Conservation. 141(9): 2174–2183.

Mack, C.A.; McClure, R.H. 2002. Vaccinium processing 

in the Washington Cascades. Journal of Ethnobiology. 

22(1): 35–60.

MacKendrick, K. 2009. Climate change adaptation 

planning for cultural and natural resource resilience: a 

look at planning for climate change in two Native nations 

in the Pacific Northwest US. Eugene, OR: University of 

Oregon. 170 p. M.S. thesis.
908

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Martin, T.G.; Arcese, P.; Scheerder, N. 2011. Browsing 

down our natural heritage: deer impacts on vegetation 

structure and songbird populations across an island 

archipelago. Biological Conservation. 144(1): 459–469.

Mason, L.; White, G.; Morishima, G.; Alvarado, E.; 

Andrew, L.; Clark, F.; Durglo, M.; Durglo, J.; Eneas, 

J.; Erickson, J. 2012. Listening and learning from 

traditional knowledge and Western science: a dialogue 

on contemporary challenges of forest health and wildfire. 

Journal of Forestry. 110(4): 187–193.

Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; Rennie, K.M.; Green, 

R.E.; Goddard, C.A.; Wengert, G.M.; Gabriel, 

M.W.; Fuller, T.K. 2013. Reproduction, recruitment, 

and dispersal of fishers (Martes pennanti) in a managed 

Douglas-fir forest in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 

94(1): 100–108.

McAvoy, L.; Shirilla, P.; Flood, J. 2005. American Indian 

gathering and recreation uses of national forests. In: 

Bricker, K., ed. Proceedings of the 2004 northeastern 

recreation research symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NE-326. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research 

Station: 81–87.

McCarthy, J. 2006. Neoliberalism and the politics of 

alternatives: community forestry in British Columbia and 

the United States. Annals of the Association of American 

Geographers. 96(1): 84–104.

McClure, M.M.; Alexander, M.; Borggaard, D.; 

Boughton, D.; Crozier, L.; Griffis, R.; Jorgensen, 

J.C.; Lindley, S.T.; Nye, J.; Rowland, M.J. 2013.

Incorporating climate science in applications of the 

US Endangered Species Act for aquatic species. 

Conservation Biology. 27(6): 1222–1233.

McClure, M.M.; Holmes, E.E.; Sanderson, B.L.; Jordan, 

C.E. 2003. A large-scale, multispecies status assessment: 

anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River basin. 

Ecological Applications. 13(4): 964–989.

McLaughlin, J.F. 2013. Engaging birds in vegetation 

restoration after Elwha Dam removal. Ecological 

Restoration. 31(1): 46–56.

Mendia, S. 2016. Examining ecosystem services 

and disservices of bear damage on Hoopa Valley 

Reservation. Arcata, CA: Humboldt State University. 

62 p. M.S. thesis.

Michel, J.T.; Helfield, J.M.; Hooper, D.U. 2011. Seed rain 

and revegetation of exposed substrates following dam 

removal on the Elwha River. Northwest Science. 85(1): 

15–29.

Middleton, B.R.; Kusel, J. 2007. Northwest economic 

adjustment initiative assessment: lessons learned 

for American Indian community and economic 

development. Economic Development Quarterly. 

21(2): 165–178.

Miller, J. 2012. Lamprey “eels” in the Greater Northwest: 

a survey of tribal sources, experiences, and sciences. 

Journal of Northwest Anthropology. 46(1): 65–84.

Miller, J.D.; Skinner, C.N.; Safford, H.D.; Knapp, E.E.; 

Ramirez, C.M. 2012. Trends and causes of severity, 

size, and number of fires in northwestern California, 

USA. Ecological Applications. 22(1): 184–203.

Minore, D.; Dubrasich, M.E. 1978. Big huckleberry 

abundance as related to environment and associated 

vegetation near Mount Adams, Washington. Res. Note 

PNW-RN-322. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 8 p.

Mitchell, D.; Donald, L. 2001. Sharing resources on the 

North Pacific coast of North America: the case of the 

eulachon fishery. Anthropologica. 43(1): 19–35.

Mondou, D.J. 1997. Our land is what makes us who we 

are: timber harvesting on tribal reservations after the 

NIFRMA. American Indian Law Review. 21(2): 259–296.

Murphy, A.; Abrams, J.; Daniel, T.; Yazzie, V. 2007.

Living among frequent-fire forests: human history and 

cultural perspectives. Ecology and Society. 12(2): 17.
909

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Nabhan, G.P.; Walker, D.; Moreno, A.M. 2010.

Biocultural and ecogastronomic restoration: the 

Renewing America’s Food Traditions Alliance. 

Ecological Restoration. 28(3): 266–279.

Naiman, R.J.; Bilby, R.E.; Bisson, P.A. 2000. Riparian 

ecology and management in the Pacific coastal rain 

forest. BioScience. 50(11): 996–1011.

National Drug Intelligence Center 2007. Domestic 

cannabis cultivation assessment 2007, Appendix 

A, primary cannabis cultivation regions. [Updated 

February 2007]. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/

pubs22/22486/appa.htm. (22 May 2017).

Nehlsen, W.; Williams, J.E.; Lichatowich, J.A. 1991.

Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from 

California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries. 

16(2): 4–21.

Nelson, L.H. 2015. Distribution and recreational harvest of 

mountain huckleberry “swədaxˇali” in the Mount Baker–

Snoqualmie National Forest. Marysville, WA: Tulalip 

Tribes Natural Resources Department. 178 p.

Nie, M. 2008. The use of co-management and protected 

land-use designations to protect tribal cultural resources 

and reserved treaty rights on federal lands. Natural 

Resources Journal. 48: 585–647.

Norgaard, K.M. 2007. The politics of invasive weed 

management: gender, race, and risk perception in rural 

California. Rural Sociology. 72(3): 450–477.

Norgaard, K.M. 2014a. The politics of fire and the social 

impacts of fire exclusion on the Klamath. Humboldt 

Journal of Social Relations. 36: 77–101.

Norgaard, K.M. 2014b. Retaining knowledge sovereignty: 

expanding the application of tribal traditional knowledge 

on forest lands in the face of climate change. Orleans, 

CA: Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources. 80 p.

Norgaard, K.M. 2014c. Karuk traditional ecological 

knowledge and the need for knowledge sovereignty: 

social, cultural and economic impacts of denied access 

to traditional management. Orleans, CA: Karuk Tribe 

Department of Natural Resources. 62 p.

Norgaard, K.M.; Meeks, S.; Crayne, B.; Dunnivant, F. 

2013. Trace metal analysis of Karuk traditional foods in 

the Klamath River. Journal of Environmental Protection. 

4(4): 319–328.

Norgaard, K.M.; Reed, R.; Bacon, J. 2018. How 

environmental decline restructures indigenous gender 

practices: what happens to Karuk masculinity when 

there are no fish? Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 

doi:10.1177/2332649217706518.

Norman, E. 2012. Cultural politics and transboundary 

resource governance in the Salish Sea. Water 

Alternatives. 5(1): 138–160.

North, M.P.; Keeton, W.S. 2008. Emulating natural 

disturbance regimes: an emerging approach for 

sustainable forest management. In: Lafortezza, R.; Chen, 

J.Q.; Sanesi, G.; Crow, T., eds. Patterns and processes 

in forest landscapes: sustainable management of forest 

landscapes. New York: Springer-Verlag Press: 341–

372. Chapter 17.

Norton, H.H. 1979. The association between anthropogenic 

prairies and important food plants in western 

Washington. Journal of Northwest Anthropology. 

13(2): 175–200.

Norton-Smith, K.; Lynn, K.; Chief, K.; Cozzetto, 

K.; Donatuto, J.; Redsteer, M.H.; Kruger, L.E.; 

Maldonado, J.; Viles, C.; Whyte, K.P. 2016. Climate 

change and indigenous peoples: a synthesis of current 

impacts and experiences. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-944. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 136 p.

Odion, D.C.; Sarr, D.A. 2007. Managing disturbance 

regimes to maintain biological diversity in forested 

ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 246(1): 57–65.
910

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Olson, D.; DellaSala, D.A.; Noss, R.F.; Strittholt, J.R.; 

Kass, J.; Koopman, M.E.; Allnutt, T.F. 2012. Climate 

change refugia for biodiversity in the KlamathSiskiyou ecoregion. Natural Areas Journal. 32(1): 

65–74. doi:10.3375/043.032.0108.

Ortiz, B.R. 2008. Contemporary California Indians, 

oaks, and sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum). 

In: Merenlender, A.; McCreary, D.; Purcell, K.L., eds. 

Proceedings of the sixth California oak symposium: 

today’s challenges, tomorrow’s opportunities. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-217. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research 

Station: 39–56.

Papiez, C. 2009. Climate change implications for the 

Quileute and Hoh tribes of coastal Washington: a 

multidisciplinary approach to assessing climatic 

disruptions to coastal indigenous communities. Olympia, 

WA: The Evergreen State College. 119 p. M.S. thesis 

Papworth, S.K.; Rist, J.; Coad, L.; Milner-Gulland, 

E.J. 2009. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome 

in conservation. Conservation Letters. 2(2): 93–

100. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00049.x.

Patterson, T. 2014. Ecosystem services. In: Long, J.W.; 

Quinn-Davidson, L.N.; Skinner, C.N., eds. Science 

synthesis to support socioecological resilience in the 

Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. PSWGTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 

543–568.

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, 

T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; 

McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed 

severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and 

northern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 

262(5): 703–717. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

foreco.2011.05.004.

Pess, G.R.; McHenry, M.L.; Beechie, T.J.; Davies, J. 

2008. Biological impacts of the Elwha River dams and 

potential salmonid responses to dam removal. Northwest 

Science. 82(Supplement): 72–90. doi:10.3955/0029-344X82.S.I.72.

Peter, D.; Shebitz, D. 2006. Historic anthropogenically 

maintained bear grass savannas of the southeastern 

Olympic Peninsula. Restoration Ecology. 14(4): 605–615.

Petersen, A.; Hals, H.; Rot, B.; Bell, J.; Miller, I.; Parks, 

J.; Stults, M. 2014. Climate change and the Jamestown 

S’Klallam Tribe: a customized approach to climate 

vulnerability and adaptation planning. Michigan Journal 

of Sustainability. 2. doi:10.3998/mjs.12333712.0002.003.

Peterson, D.L.; Millar, C.I.; Joyce, L.A.; Furniss, M.J.; 

Halofsky, J.E.; Neilson, R.P.; Morelli, T.L. 2011.

Responding to climate change in national forests: a 

guidebook for developing adaptation options. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-855. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 109 p.

Petersen Lewis, R.S. 2009. Yurok and Karuk traditional 

ecological knowledge: insights into Pacific lamprey 

populations of the lower Klamath Basin. In: Brown, L.; 

Chase, S.D.; Mesa, M.G.; Beamish, R.J.; Moyle, P., eds. 

Biology, management, and conservation of lampreys in 

North America. Proceedings of the American Fisheries 

Society symposium 72. Bethesda, MD: American 

Fisheries Society: 1–39.

Pfeiffer, J.M.; Ortiz, E.H. 2007. Invasive plants impact 

California native plants used in traditional basketry. 

Fremontia. 35(1): 7–13.

Pfeiffer, J.M.; Voeks, R.A. 2008. Biological invasions and 

biocultural diversity: linking ecological and cultural 

systems. Environmental Conservation. 35(04): 281–293.

Pilz, D.; Weber, N.S.; Carter, M.C.; Parks, C.G.; 

Molina, R. 2004. Productivity and diversity of morel 

mushrooms in healthy, burned, and insect-damaged 

forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 198(1–3): 367–386.
911

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Poff, N.L.; Hart, D.D. 2002. How dams vary and why 

it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. 

BioScience. 52(8): 659–668. doi:10.1641/0006-

3568(2002)052[0659:hdvawi]2.0.co;2.

Pollock, M.; Lewallen, G.; Woodruff, K.; Jordan, C.; 

Castro, J. 2015. The beaver restoration guidebook: 

working with beaver to restore streams, wetlands, and 

floodplains. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Portland State University, and U.S. Forest Service. 190 

p. https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/

RiverScience/Documents/BRG%20v.1.0%20final%20

reduced.pdf. (15 August 2017).

Pollock, M.M.; Beechie, T.J. 2014. Does riparian 

forest restoration thinning enhance biodiversity? The 

ecological importance of large wood. JAWRA Journal 

of the American Water Resources Association. 50(3): 

543–559. doi:10.1111/jawr.12206.

Pollock, M.M.; Pess, G.R.; Beechie, T.J.; Montgomery, 

D.R. 2004. The importance of beaver ponds to coho 

salmon production in the Stillaguamish River basin, 

Washington, USA. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management. 24(3): 749–760. doi:10.1577/M03-156.1.

Pretty, J.; Adams, B.; Berkes, F.; de Athayde, S.F.; 

Dudley, N.; Hunn, E.; Maffi, L.; Milton, K.; Rapport, 

D.; Robbins, P.; Sterling, E.; Stolton, S.; Tsing, A.; 

Vintinnerk, E.; Pilgrim, S. 2009. The intersections 

of biological diversity and cultural diversity: towards 

integration. Conservation and Society. 7(2): 100–

112. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.58642.

Raish, C.; Gonzalez-Caban, A.; Martin, W.; Martin, 

I.; Bender, H. 2007. Cultural variation in public 

perceptions concerning fire use and management. In: 

Daniel, T.C.; Carroll, M.S.; Moseley, C., eds. People, 

fire, and forests: a synthesis of wildfire social science. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 70–88.

Raymond, C.M.; Singh, G.G.; Benessaiah, K.; 

Bernhardt, J.R.; Levine, J.; Nelson, H.; Turner, N.J.; 

Norton, B.; Tam, J.; Chan, K.M. 2013. Ecosystem 

services and beyond: using multiple metaphors 

to understand human-environment relationships. 

BioScience. 63(7): 536–546.

Record, I.W. 2008. We are the stewards: Indigenous-led 

fisheries innovation in North America. In: Cornell, S.; 

Jorgensen, M.; Kalt, J.P., eds. Joint occasional papers 

on Native affairs. Tucson: Native Nations Institute for 

Leadership, Management, and Policy, University of 

Arizona, and the Harvard Project on American Indian 

Economic Development, Harvard University. 62 p.

Reeves, G.H.; Williams, J.E.; Burnett, K.M.; Gallo, K. 

2006. The aquatic conservation strategy of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 319–329.

Reilly, M.J.; Dunn, C.J.; Meigs, G.W.; Spies, T.A.; 

Kennedy, R.E.; Bailey, J.D.; Briggs, K. 2017.

Contemporary patterns of fire extent and severity in 

forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA (1985–2010). 

Ecosphere. 8(3): e01695.

Richards, R.T.; Alexander, S.J. 2006. A social history of 

wild huckleberry harvesting in the Pacific Northwest. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-657. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 113 p.

Richards, R.T.; Creasy, M. 1996. Ethnic diversity, 

resource values, and ecosystem management: matsutake 

mushroom harvesting in the Klamath bioregion. 

Society and Natural Resources. 9(4): 359–374. 

doi:10.1080/08941929609380980.

Richter, A.; Kolmes, S.A. 2005. Maximum temperature 

limits for Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and 

steelhead trout in the Pacific Northwest. Reviews in 

Fisheries Science. 13(1): 23–49.

Ripple, W.J.; Beschta, R.L. 2004. Wolves and the ecology 

of fear: can predation risk structure ecosystems? 

BioScience. 54(8): 755–766.
912

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Robock, A. 1991. Surface cooling due to forest fire smoke. 

Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 96(D11): 

20869–20878. doi:10.1029/91JD02043.

Rogers-Martinez, D. 1992. Northwestern coastal forests: 

The Sinkyone Intertribal Park Project. Ecological 

Restoration. 10(1): 64–69. doi:10.3368/er.10.1.64.

Rossier, C.; Lake, F.K. 2014. Indigenous traditional 

ecological knowledge in agroforestry. Agroforestry Note. 

Lincoln, NE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington Office Research and Development. 

8 p. Vol. 14.

Routson, K.J.; Volk, G.M.; Richards, C.M.; Smith, 

S.E.; Nabhan, G.P.; de Echeverria, V.W. 2012. Genetic 

variation and distribution of pacific crabapple. Journal of 

the American Society for Horticultural Science. 137(5): 

325–332.

Russo, K. 2011. Sqw’adilic, board feet, and the 

cedar tree. http://nativecases.evergreen.edu/docs/

RussoBoardFeet82311.pdf. (5 May 2017).

Russo, K.; Zubalik, S. 1992. The Values Project 

Northwest: board feet, Sqw’adilic, and the cedar tree. In: 

Lyden, F.J.; Legters, L.H., eds. Native Americans and 

public policy. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh 

Press: 285–294.

Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M. 

2012. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 224 p. Vol. 3.

Ryan, K.C.; Knapp, E.E.; Varner, J.M. 2013. Prescribed 

fire in North American forests and woodlands: history, 

current practice, and challenges. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment. 11(s1): e15-e24.

Samman, S.; Schwandt, J.W.; Wilson, J.L. 2003.

Managing for healthy white pine ecosystems in the 

United States to reduce the impacts of white pine blister 

rust. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 10 p.

Sanderson, B.L.; Barnas, K.A.; Michelle Wargo Rub, A. 

2009. Nonindigenous species of the Pacific Northwest: 

an overlooked risk to endangered salmon? BioScience. 

59(3): 245–256. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.3.9.

Satterfield, T.; Gregory, R.; Klain, S.; Roberts, M.; 

Chan, K.M. 2013. Culture, intangibles and metrics in 

environmental management. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 117: 103–114.

Schmidt, P.M.; Peterson, M.J. 2009. Biodiversity 

conservation and indigenous land management in the 

era of self-determination. Conservation Biology. 23(6): 

1458–1466. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01262.x.

Schröter, M.; van der Zanden, E.H.; van Oudenhoven, 

A.P.E.; Remme, R.P.; Serna-Chavez, H.M.; de 

Groot, R.S.; Opdam, P. 2014. Ecosystem services 

as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and 

counter-arguments. Conservation Letters. 7(6): 514–

523. doi:10.1111/conl.12091.

Schultz, C.A.; Jedd, T.; Beam, R.D. 2012. The 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program: 

a history and overview of the first projects. Journal of 

Forestry. 110(7): 381–391.

Segawa, R.; Bradley, A.; Lee, P.; Tran, D.; Hsu, J.; 

White, J.; Goh, K. 1997. Residues of forestry herbicides 

in plants of importance to California Native Americans. 

Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and 

Toxicology. 59(4): 556–563.

Senos, R.; Lake, F.; Turner, N.; Martinez, D. 2006.

Traditional ecological knowledge and restoration practice 

in the Pacific Northwest. In: Apostol, D.; Sinclair, M., 

eds. Restoring the Pacific Northwest: the art and science 

of ecological restoration in Cascadia. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 393–426. Chapter 17.
913

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Serieys, L.E.K.; Armenta, T.C.; Moriarty, J.G.; 

Boydston, E.E.; Lyren, L.M.; Poppenga, R.H.; 

Crooks, K.R.; Wayne, R.K.; Riley, S.P.D. 2015.

Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, 

risk factors and potential effects based on a 

16-year study. Ecotoxicology. 24(4): 844–862. 

doi:10.1007/s10646-015-1429-5.

Shebitz, D. 2005. Weaving traditional ecological 

knowledge into the restoration of basketry plants. 

Journal of Ecological Anthropology. 9(1): 51–68.

Shebitz, D.J.; Ewing, K.; Gutierrez, J. 2009a.

Preliminary observations of using smoke-water to 

increase low-elevation beargrass Xerophyllum tenax 

germination. Native Plants Journal. 10(1): 13–20.

Shebitz, D.J.; Reichard, S.H.; Dunwiddie, P.W. 2009b.

Ecological and cultural significance of burning 

beargrass habitat on the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological 

Restoration. 27(3): 306-319.

Sheoships, G. 2014. Pacific lamprey Entosphenus 

tridentatus: integrating traditional ecological knowledge 

and contemporary values into conservation planning, 

and stream substrate associations with larval abundance 

in the Willamette River basin, Oregon, USA. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University. 101 p. M.S. thesis.

Shepard, J.P.; Creighton, J.; Duzan, H. 2004. Forestry 

herbicides in the United States: an overview. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 32(4): 1020–1027. doi:10.2193/0091-

7648(2004)032[1020:FHITUS]2.0.CO;2.

Skinner, C.N.; Abbott, C.S.; Fry, D.L.; Stephens, S.L.; 

Taylor, A.H.; Trouet, V. 2009. Human and climatic 

influences on fire occurrence in California’s North Coast 

Range, USA. Fire Ecology. 5(3): 73–96.

Slagle, A. 1989. Unfinished justice: completing the 

restoration and acknowledgement of California Indian 

tribes. American Indian Quarterly. 13(4): 

325–345. doi:10.2307/1184519.

Sloan, K.; Hostler, J. 2014. Utilizing Yurok traditional 

ecological knowledge to inform climate change 

priorities. Klamath, CA: Yurok Tribe. 29 p. https://nplcc.

blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/2012_Documents/

Utilizing_Yurok_traditional/Yurok%20Final%20

Report%20TEK%20and%20CC%20to%20NPLCC%20

%20w%20NWCSC.pdf. (21 August 2017).

Smith, A.; Farque, T. 2001. The Camas Prairie restoration 

project re-establishes an indigenous cultural landscape 

(Oregon). Ecological Restoration. 19: 107–108.

Spies, T.A.; Giesen, T.W.; Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, 

J.F.; Lach, D.; Johnson, K.N. 2010. Climate change 

adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific 

Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic 

perspectives. Landscape Ecology. 25(8): 1185–1199.

Spribille, T.; Tuovinen, V.; Resl, P.; Vanderpool, 

D.; Wolinski, H.; Aime, M.C.; Schneider, K.; 

Stabentheiner, E.; Toome-Heller, M.; Thor, G.; 

Mayrhofer, H.; Johannesson, H.; McCutcheon, J.P. 

2016. Basidiomycete yeasts in the cortex of ascomycete 

macrolichens. Science. 353(6298): 488–492. doi:10.1126/

science.aaf8287.

Stanley, E.H.; Doyle, M.W. 2003. Trading off: the 

ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment. 1(1): 15–22.

Stavros, E.N.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; McKenzie, D.; Larkin, 

N.K. 2014. Regional projections of the likelihood of 

very large wildland fires under a changing climate in 

the contiguous Western United States. Climatic Change. 

126(3–4): 455–468.

Stein, B.A.; Staudt, A.; Cross, M.S.; Dubois, N.S.; 

Enquist, C.; Griffis, R.; Hansen, L.J.; Hellmann, 

J.J.; Lawler, J.J.; Nelson, E.J. 2013. Preparing for and 

managing change: climate adaptation for biodiversity and 

ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

11(9): 502–510.
914

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Stephens, J.L.; Alexander, J.D. 2011. Effects of fuel 

reduction on bird density and reproductive success 

in riparian areas of mixed-conifer forest in southwest 

Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 261(1): 43–49.

Stevens, J.T.; Safford, H.D.; Latimer, A.M. 2014.

Wildfire-contingent effects of fuel treatments can 

promote ecological resilience in seasonally dry conifer 

forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 44(8): 

843–854.

Stewart, H. 1995. Cedar: tree of life to the Northwest Coast 

Indians. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 192 p.

Stockton, S.A.; Allombert, S.; Gaston, A.J.; Martin, J.-

L. 2005. A natural experiment on the effects of high deer 

densities on the native flora of coastal temperate rain 

forests. Biological Conservation. 126(1): 118–128. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.06.006.

Stone, W.B.; Okoniewski, J.C.; Stedelin, J.R. 1999.

Poisoning of wildlife with anticoagulant rodenticides in 

New York. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. 35(2): 187–193.

Storm, L.; Shebitz, D. 2006. Evaluating the purpose, 

extent, and ecological restoration applications 

of indigenous burning practices in southwestern 

Washington. Ecological Restoration. 24(4): 256–268.

Strommer, G.D.; Osborne, S.D. 2014. The history, status, 

and future of tribal self-governance under the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. 

American Indian Law Review. 39(1): 1–75.

Stuart, C.; Martine, K. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the 

first 10 years (1994–2003): effectiveness of the federaltribal relationship. Report R6-RPM-TP-02-2006. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Region. 124 p.

Suttles, W. 1990. Environment. Northwest coast. In: 

Sturtevant, W.C. ed. Handbook of North American 

Indians. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution: 

16–29. Vol. 7.

Swanson, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Beschta, R.L.; Crisafulli, 

C.M.; DellaSala, D.A.; Hutto, R.L.; Lindenmayer, 

D.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest 

succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2): 117–125.

Swiecki, T.J.; Bernhardt, E.A. 2013. A reference manual 

for managing sudden oak death in California. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-242. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 129 p.

Tengberg, A.; Fredholm, S.; Eliasson, I.; Knez, I.; 

Saltzman, K.; Wetterberg, O. 2012. Cultural ecosystem 

services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage 

values and identity. Ecosystem Services. 2: 14–26.

Thomas, J.W.; Franklin, J.F.; Gordon, J.; Johnson, K.N. 

2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: origins, components, 

implementation experience, and suggestions for change. 

Conservation Biology. 20(2): 277–287.

Timmons, R.S.; deBano, L.; Ryan, K.C. 2012.

Implications of fire management on cultural resources 

In: Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M., 

eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 171–191. Vol. 3.

Tomblin, D.C. 2009. The ecological restoration 

movement: diverse cultures of practice and 

place. Organization & Environment. 22(2): 185–

207. doi:10.1177/1086026609338165.

Trosper, R.L. 2003. Resilience in pre-contact Pacific 

Northwest social ecological systems. Conservation 

Ecology. 7(3): 6.

Turner, N. 2014. Ancient pathways, ancestral knowledge: 

ethnobotany and ecological wisdom of indigenous 

peoples of northwestern North America. Montreal: 

McGill-Queen’s University Press. 1056 p.
915

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Turner, N.J.; Ari, Y.; Berkes, F.; Davidson-Hunt, I.; 

Ertug, Z.F.; Miller, A. 2009. Cultural management 

of living trees: an international perspective. Journal of 

Ethnobiology. 29(2): 237–270. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-

29.2.237.

Turner, N.J.; Berkes, F. 2006. Coming to understanding: 

developing conservation through incremental learning in 

the Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 34(4): 495–513. 

doi:10.1007/s10745-006-9042-0.

Turner, N.J.; Bhattacharyya, J. 2016. Salmonberry 

Bird and Goose Woman: birds, plants, and people 

in indigenous peoples’ lifeways in northwestern 

North America. Journal of Ethnobiology. 36(4): 717–

745. doi:10.2993/0278-0771-36.4.717.

Turner, N.J.; Clifton, H. 2009. “It’s so different 

today”: climate change and indigenous lifeways in 

British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental 

Change. 19(2): 180–190. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2009.01.005.

Turner, N.J.; Cocksedge, W. 2001. Aboriginal use of 

non-timber forest products in northwestern North 

America. Journal of Sustainable Forestry. 13(3–4): 

31–58. doi:10.1300/J091v13n03_04.

Turner, N.J.; Davidson-Hunt, I.J.; O’Flaherty, M. 

2003. Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edges 

as sources of diversity for social-ecological resilience. 

Human Ecology. 31(3): 439–461.

Turner, N.J.; Deur, D.; Lepofsky, D. 2013. Plant 

management systems of British Columbia’s first peoples. 

BC Studies. 179: 107–133.

Turner, N.J.; Deur, D.; Mellot, C.R. 2011. “Up on the 

mountain”: ethnobotanical importance of montane 

sites in Pacific coastal North America. Journal of 

Ethnobiology. 31(1): 4–43.

Turner, N.J.; Hebda, R.J. 1990. Contemporary use 

of bark for medicine by two salishan native elders 

of Southeast Vancouver Island, Canada. Journal of 

Ethnopharmacology. 29(1): 59–72. doi:http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/0378-8741(90)90098-E.

Turner, N.J.; Loewen, D.C. 1998. The original “free 

trade”: exchange of botanical products and associated 

plant knowledge in northwestern North America. 

Anthropologica. 40(1): 49–70.

Turner, N.J.; Turner, K.L. 2008. “Where our women 

used to get the food”: cumulative effects and loss of 

ethnobotanical knowledge and practice; case study from 

coastal British Columbia. Botany. 86(2): 103–115.

Tveskov, M.A. 2007. Social identity and culture change on 

the southern Northwest Coast. American Anthropologist. 

109(3): 431–441.

Tynon, J.F.; Chavez, D.J. 2006. Crime in national forests: 

a call for research. Journal of Forestry. 104(3): 154–157.

Tynon, J.F.; Chavez, D.J.; Kakoyannis, C. 2001. If you go 

down to the woods today, you’re sure of a big surprise: 

it’s no teddy bear’s picnic. Women in Natural Resources. 

22(1): 6–17.

Underwood, S.; Arguello, L.; Siefkin, N. 2003. Restoring 

ethnographic landscapes and natural elements in 

Redwood National Park. Ecological Restoration. 21(4): 

278–283.

Urgenson, L.S.; Reichard, S.H.; Halpern, C.B. 2009.

Community and ecosystem consequences of giant 

knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) invasion into 

riparian forests of western Washington, USA. Biological 

Conservation. 142(7): 1536–1541. doi:https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.023.

Urgenson, L.S.; Ryan, C.M.; Halpern, C.B.; Bakker, 

J.D.; Belote, R.T.; Franklin, J.F.; Haugo, R.D.; 

Nelson, C.R.; Waltz, A.E.M. 2017. Visions of 

restoration in fire-adapted forest landscapes: Lessons 

from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program. Environmental Management. 59(2): 338–

353. doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0791-2.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2012. National Forest System Land Management 

Planning. Subpart A. 36 CFR Part 219.
916

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2016. Sale and disposal of National Forest System 

timber; forest products for traditional and cultural 

purposes; 36 CFR Part 223.

U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA], Office of 

Communications. 2012. Departments of Agriculture, 

Defense, Energy, and Interior sign memorandum 

to collaborate to protect Indian sacred sites. 

Washington, DC. https://www.usda.gov/media/pressreleases/2012/12/06/departments-agriculture-defenseenergy-and-interior-sign-memorandum. (15 August 2016).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI BLM]. 2012. Coos Bay Wagon 

Road pilot. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/coosbay/

forestrypilot/. (24 June 2016).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS]. 2009. 5-year review: Lilium 

occidentale (western lily). Arcata, CA: Arcata Field 

Office. 48 p. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/

doc2408.pdf. (15 September 2017).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]. [No 

date]. Columbia River basin fish contaminant survey 

1996-1998. Seattle: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region X. 246 p. https://www.epa.gov/sites/

production/files/documents/columbia_fish_contaminant_

survey_1996-1998.pdf. (16 August 2016).

Vaughn, C.C.; Nichols, S.J.; Spooner, D.E. 2008.

Community and foodweb ecology of freshwater mussels. 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 

27(2): 409–423. doi:10.1899/07-058.1.

Vinyeta, K.; Lynn, K. 2013. Exploring the role of 

traditional ecological knowledge in climate change 

initiatives. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-879. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 37 p.

Vinyeta, K.; Lynn, K. 2015. Strengthening the federaltribal relationship: a report on monitoring consultation 

under the Northwest Forest Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 74 p.

Von Hagen, B.; Fight, R.D. 1999. Opportunities for 

conservation-based development of nontimber forest 

products in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-473. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Vyas, N.B.; Spann, J.W.; Hill, E.F. 2009. Acute oral 

toxicities of wildland fire control chemicals to birds. 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 72(3): 862–865.

Wade, A.A.; Beechie, T.J.; Fleishman, E.; Mantua, N.J.; 

Wu, H.; Kimball, J.S.; Stoms, D.M.; Stanford, J.A. 

2013. Steelhead vulnerability to climate change in the 

Pacific Northwest. Journal of Applied Ecology. 50(5): 

1093–1104.

Walker, B.; Carpenter, S.; Anderies, J.; Abel, N.; 

Cumming, G.; Janssen, M.; Lebel, L.; Norberg, 

J.; Peterson, G.D.; Pritchard, R. 2002. Resilience 

management in social-ecological systems: a working 

hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation 

Ecology. 6(1): 14.

Walsh, M.K.; Whitlock, C.; Bartlein, P.J. 2010. 1200 

years of fire and vegetation history in the Willamette 

Valley, Oregon and Washington, reconstructed using 

high-resolution macroscopic charcoal and pollen 

analysis. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, 

Palaeoecology. 297(2): 273–289.

Walters, J.R.; Derrickson, S.R.; Michael Fry, D.; Haig, 

S.M.; Marzluff, J.M.; Wunderle, J.M. 2010. Status of 

the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) and 

efforts to achieve its recovery. The Auk. 127(4): 969–

1001. doi:10.1525/auk.2010.127.4.969.

Waltz, A.E.M.; Stoddard, M.T.; Kalies, E.L.; Springer, 

J.D.; Huffman, D.W.; Meador, A.S. 2014. Effectiveness 

of fuel reduction treatments: assessing metrics of 

forest resiliency and wildfire severity after the Wallow 

Fire, AZ. Forest Ecology and Management. 334: 43–

52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.026.

Wang, C.; Schaller, H. 2015. Conserving Pacific lamprey 

through collaborative efforts. Fisheries. 40(2): 72–79.
917

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Wang, G.A.; Anderson, D.H.; Jakes, P.J. 2002. Heritage 

management in the US Forest Service: a Mount Hood 

National Forest case study. Society and Natural 

Resources. 15(4): 359–369.

Wassen, H. 1934. The frog in Indian mythology and 

imaginative world. Anthropos. 29(5/6): 613–658.

Weisshaupt, B.R.; Carroll, M.S.; Blatner, K.A.; 

Robinson, W.D.; Jakes, P.J. 2005. Acceptability of 

smoke from prescribed forest burning in the northern 

inland West: a focus group approach. Journal of Forestry. 

103(4): 189–193.

Welch, J.R. 1997. White eyes’ lies and the battle for Dzil 

Nchaa Si’an. American Indian Quarterly. 21(1): 75–109.

Welch, J.R. 2012. Effects of fire on intangible cultural 

resources: moving toward a landscape approach. In: 

Ryan, K.C.; Jones, A.T.; Koerner, C.L.; Lee, K.M., 

eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on 

cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

RMRS-GTR-42. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station: 157–170. Chapter 3.

Whyte, K.P. 2013. Justice forward: tribes, climate 

adaptation and responsibility. Climatic Change. 120(3): 

517–530. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0743-2.

Wilkinson, C.F. 1997. Indian tribal rights and the national 

forests: the case of the aboriginal lands of the Nez Perce 

Tribe. Idaho Law Review. 34(435): 450–461.

Willette, M.; Norgaard, K.; Reed, R.; Tribe, K. 2015.

You got to have fish: families, environmental decline 

and cultural reproduction. Families, Relationships and 

Societies. 5(3): 375–392.

Wills, R.D.; Stuart, J.D. 1994. Fire history and stand 

development of a Douglas-fir/hardwood forest in 

northern California. Northwest Science. 68(3): 205–212.

Wood, M.C. 1995. Fulfilling the executive’s trust 

responsibility toward the native nations on environmental 

issues: a partial critique of the Clinton administration’s 

promises and performance. Environmental Law. 25(3): 

733–800.

Wood, W. 2008. The trajectory of Indian Country in 

California: rancherías, villages, pueblos, missions, 

ranchos, reservations, colonies, and rancherias. Tulsa 

Law Review. 44(2): 317–364.

Woods, F. 2005. Who’s in charge of fishing? Oregon 

Historical Quarterly. 106(3): 412–441.

Wray, J.; Anderson, M.K. 2003. Restoring Indian-set 

fires to prairie ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula. 

Ecological Restoration. 21(4): 296–301.

Wrobel, A. 2015. Tribal wild plant gathering on national 

forests and Wisconsin state lands during the 2014–

2015 seasons. Odana, WI: Great Lakes Indian Fish & 

Wildlife Commission. https://data.glifwc.org/archive.bio/

Administrative%20Report%2015-11.pdf. (25 June 2016).

Yazzie, V. 2007. The tribal perspective of old growth in 

frequent-fire forests—its history. Ecology and Society. 

12(2): 21.

Zald, H.S. 2009. Extent and spatial patterns of grass bald 

land cover change (1948–2000), Oregon Coast Range, 

USA. Plant Ecology. 201(2): 517–529.

Zybach, B. 2003. The great fires: Indian burning and 

catastrophic forest fire patterns of the Oregon Coast 

Range, 1491–1951. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University. 451 p. Ph.D. dissertation.
918

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

A field tour with the Lakeview 

Forest Landscape Collaborative 

in the Fremont-Winema National Forest..

Photo by Tom Spies, USDA Forest Service.
919

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Chapter 12: Integrating Ecological and Social Science 

to Inform Land Management in the Area of the 

Northwest Forest Plan

Thomas A. Spies, Jonathan W. Long, Peter Stine, Susan 

Charnley, Lee Cerveny, Bruce G. Marcot, Gordon Reeves, 

Paul F. Hessburg, Damon Lesmeister, Matthew J. Reilly, 

Martin G. Raphael, and Raymond J. Davis1

“We are drowning in information, while starving 

for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by 

synthesizers, people able to put together the right 

information at the right time, think critically about 

it, and make important choices wisely.” 

—E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of 

Knowledge (1988)

Introduction

Long-term monitoring programs and research related to 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) goals, strategies, 

and outcomes provide an unprecedented opportunity 

to examine how the scientific basis and socioecological 

context of the Plan may have changed during the 23 years 

since its implementation. We also have a prime opportunity 

to reassess how well the goals and strategies of the Plan are 

positioned to address new issues. 

The NWFP was developed in 1993 through a political 

process involving scientists in an unusual and controversial 

role: assessing conditions and developing plan options 

directly for President Bill Clinton to consider with little 

involvement of senior Forest Service managers. The role of 

Forest Service scientists in this planning effort is different—scientists are now limited to producing a state-of-thescience report in support of plan revision and management 

(USDA FS 2012a), and managers will conduct the assessments and develop plan alternatives. 

Implementation of the NWFP was followed by monitoring, research, and expectations for learning and adaptive 

management; however, little formal adaptive management 

actually occurred, and the program was defunded after a few 

years. The goals of the NWFP were daunting and set within 

the policy and ecological context of the time. President Clinton’s question to the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) was “How can we achieve a balanced 

and comprehensive policy that recognizes the importance 

of the forest and timber to the economy and jobs in this 

region, and how can we preserve our precious old-growth 

forests, which are part of our national heritage and that, once 

destroyed, can never be replaced?” (FEMAT 1993). The 1982 

planning rule guided land management planning on National 

Forest System lands, emphasizing conservation based in part 

on maintaining population viability of native species. 

Although many conservation concerns have not 

changed, new science and challenges have emerged. For 

example, since the Plan was developed in the early 1990s, 

the invasive barred owl (Strix varia) has become a major 

threat to populations of the northern spotted owl (S. 

occidentalis caurina) (chapter 4), the number of Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)-listed fish species has gone from 3 to 

more than 20, and the frequency and extent of wildfires in 

dry forest portions of the Plan area have increased substantially in response to climate warming (chapter 2) (Reilly et 

al. 2017a, Westerling et al. 2006). 

1

 Thomas A. Spies and Gordon Reeves are senior scientists, and 

Damon Lesmeister is a research wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Jonathan 

W. Long is an ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park 

Drive, Davis, CA 95618; Peter Stine was director of partnerships 

and collaboration (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park 

Drive, Davis, CA 95618; Susan Charnley is a research social 

scientist and Bruce G. Marcot is a research wildlife biologist, 

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

Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Suite 400, Portland, OR 97205; 

Lee Cerveny is a research social scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 

North 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103; Paul F. Hessburg

is a research landscape ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1133 N Western 

Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801; Matthew J. Reilly is a postdoctoral 

researcher, Humboldt State University, Department of Biological 

Sciences, 1 Harpst Street, Arcata, CA 95521; Martin G. Raphael is 

a senior scientist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd Ave. SW, 

Olympia, WA 98512; and Raymond J. Davis is a wildlife biologist, 

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

Region, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.
920

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The policy context and social dimensions of the NWFP 

have also changed. For example, the 2012 planning rule 

(USDA FS 2012a) places more weight on managing for 

ecological integrity (an ecosystem or coarse-filter approach) 

and less weight on population viability of individual species 

(a species or “fine-filter approach) (Schultz et al. 2013) 

than did the 1982 rule. The Plan’s evaluation of societal 

influences did not address the emergence and expansion 

of collaborative processes throughout the NWFP region 

(Skillen 2015), and the FEMAT assessment itself (1994) 

largely focused on commodity-based economic development and support for maintaining stability of local and 

regional economies (Charnley 2006a). In addition, many but 

not all local economies of the region have diversified away 

from dependence on federal timber, and the forest products 

industry has largely moved away from using and valuing 

large logs, favoring instead the use of small-diameter trees 

(Haynes 2009). 

Scientists in the Plan region also now more fully 

understand that the social and political context of the 

NWFP had a strong influence on the setting and attaining 

of the ecological goals of the Plan—opinions and debates 

about federal forest management in the region were as much 

about social values and conflict resolution as they were 

about science (Lange 2016, Spies and Duncan 2009). Given 

this context, it is important to have realistic expectations for 

how this science synthesis might contribute to the assessments and subsequent revision of individual forest plans 

and forest management. Scientific findings alone will not 

resolve political debates about the use of natural resources. 

Reducing scientific uncertainty will not necessarily reduce 

political uncertainty; and politics will always outweigh 

science because “science does not compel action” (Pielke 

2007). However, providing the latest scientific information 

and reducing scientific uncertainty are expected to lead to 

better management decisions within the context of social 

and political constraints. 

There is also an increased emphasis on the social 

dimension of planning today compared to when the NWFP 

was developed. Federal managers increasingly use collaboratives, stewardship contracts, and local participation in 

decisionmaking (Leach 2006, Urgenson et al. 2017). The 

2012 planning rule also emphasized that plans must provide 

for “social, economic and ecological sustainability.” This 

increased emphasis on integrating social and ecological 

aspects of forest planning coincides with the developing science of coupled human and natural systems or “social-ecological systems” (Liu et al. 2007) (fig. 12-1). 

This socioecological perspective goes well beyond the 

ecosystem management framework that guided development of the NWFP by accounting for interactions between 

social and ecological systems to help deal with system complexity (fig. 12-1), surprises, and unintended outcomes from 

policies (Spies et al. 2014). For example, the relationship of 

federal forests to community well-being has changed since 

initiation of the Plan. Many communities no longer depend 

on the economic contributions of wood products as they 

once did (Charnley 2006a). There is growing recognition of 

the economic benefits of public lands to communities from 

recreation and tourism (White et al. 2016a) and nontimber 

forest products (Alexander et al. 2011), and recognition that 

ecosystems provide many benefits to human communities 

beyond timber and nontimber resources. Many studies 

indicate that the impact of humans on the environment 

in the NWFP area is much broader than the effects of 

natural resource extraction. Furthermore, it is clear that the 

timber industry has also experienced changes throughout 

the NWFP region, many of which are independent of 

management decisions on federal lands (e.g., fluctuations 

in national and global markets for wood products, transformations in how forest products companies are structured, 

and adoption of new technologies for wood processing) 

(chapter 8). At the same time, researchers and managers 

better understand connections between the organizational 

capacity of agencies, mill infrastructure, and business 

capacity in the private sector (e.g., a skilled workforce) in 

achieving forest restoration goals (chapter 8). 

The fundamental assumption of the NWFP was that 

the breadth of the biological and socioeconomic strategies 

would achieve its biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic goals, and that those goals were also compatible 

with each other. Scientists and managers now have the 

perspective afforded by 23 years of research, monitoring, 

and field experience to suggest that these assumptions were 
921

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

only partially correct. In this chapter, we explore these 

assumptions in depth, using the lens of socialecological 

systems, and we identify new issues and concerns. We have 

four major objectives in this chapter: 

1. Set the broader context of the NWFP goals and 

conservation approaches in terms of the science of 

socialecological systems.

2. Increase awareness of the diversity of ways that 

humans have influenced forest ecosystems, landscapes, and species of the Pacific Northwest. 

3. Characterize how the conservation, restoration, 

and socioeconomic strategies of the NWFP interact, and how well they meet the original goals and 

new issues that have arisen since the Plan was 

established.

4. Identify key scientific uncertainties, research 

needs, and management considerations. 

Climate

Ecosystem Species

Laws/policies

Economics

Management/use

Social, cultural

values

Social Interactions Ecological

Social Component

Social-Ecological System

Ecological Component

Altered Ecosystems

Ecosystem Services 

Figure 12-1—Major components and interactions in the Northwest Forest Plan social-ecological system. 
922

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Guiding Questions

The guiding questions for this chapter are partly based on 

the questions from the managers (chapter 1), which are 

addressed more directly in individual chapters, and on 

cross-cutting questions and issues identified by the authors. 

The guiding questions for this chapter are: 

1. What are the latest findings and perspectives on 

how global environmental change (including climate, land use, and invasive species changes) is 

altering forest and aquatic-riparian ecosystems, 

and their disturbance processes, and how relevant 

is this science to the NWFP area? 

2. What are the latest scientific perspectives on 

reserve management for species conservation, 

given new understanding of ecosystem dynamics, 

and the influences of global environmental change? 

3. What are key social components and drivers of the 

social-ecological systems in the NWFP area?

4. How compatible are the goals and strategies of the 

NWFP, and how well have the goals been met? 

5. How compatible are coarse- and fine-filter 

approaches that simultaneously guide management 

for forest ecological resilience and single species 

viability across the range of disturbance regimes in 

the NWFP area?

6. What are new concerns within the social-ecological system of the NWFP area, and how well are the 

original Plan goals and strategies positioned to deal 

with them? 

7. What is known about the tradeoffs of restoration 

actions across a range of conservation and community socioeconomic well-being goals? 

8. What are the current and projected regional-scale 

issues and challenges associated with the goals of 

the NWFP? 

9. What planning and management approaches are 

available for dealing with uncertainty in complex-social-ecological systems?

10. What are uncertainties, research needs, and management considerations related to plan revision in 

the area of the NWFP? 

Key Findings

Perspectives on Conservation in an Era of 

Global Environmental Change

Overview of human influences on Northwest Forest 

Plan forests and aquatic-riparian ecosystems—

The effects of humans on forest ecosystems in the Plan 

area go well beyond timber management impacts and often 

originate from Earth system processes outside the region. 

The impacts of human activity to the global environment 

have become so pervasive that many scientists are beginning to argue that we are in a new geological epoch called 

the “Anthropocene” (Crutzen 2006, Steffen et al. 2007). 

Beginning in the early 1800s, this period of rapid industrialization, population growth, and global trade and transportation led to dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon, land 

use change, altered disturbance regimes, and introduction 

of nonnative species. (Carey 2016, Corlett 2015, Creed et 

al. 2016, Lewis and Maslin 2015, Lugo 2015, Sun and Vose 

2016, Wohl 2013). 

Americans Indians had managed landscapes in the 

NWFP area for 10,000 years to create conditions that 

favored food resources and other cultural values; fire was 

their most important environmental management tool 

(Charnley et al. 2007, Robbins 1999, White 1993). However, 

human activity since development of industrial society in 

the 19th century has brought many additional large changes 

to species, forests, streams, and landscapes of the Plan area. 

Although the ecosystems of the NWFP area are relatively 

unaltered by recent human activity compared to much of 

the United States, little if any area of the Plan area could be 

considered uninfluenced by humans. Forests and landscapes 

have been altered from pre-Euro-American conditions by 

human activity including logging, plantation management, 

building roads and trails, dam and levee construction, and 

fire exclusion. Even forests and watersheds in designated 

wilderness areas and in large unroaded areas (Strittholt and 

DellaSala 2001) have been influenced by humans, climate 

change, introduced diseases, fire suppression, and other 

factors (chapter 3) (Hessburg et al. 2016). 

Nearly all forests within the NWFP area depend on fire 

to different degrees. Fire exclusion in dry forests, which 

occupy 43 percent of the Plan area, has had a profound 
923

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

effect on forest structure and composition, native biodiversity, and resilience to fire and climate change (chapter 3). 

Although fire activity has increased since the NWFP was 

implemented, most fire-prone forest landscapes are still 

running a fire deficit in comparison with conditions prior to 

the mid to late 1800s when fire frequency declined across 

the dry-forest zone (chapter 3) (Parks et al. 2015, Reilly et 

al. 2017a). Burned area is also less than would be expected 

under the current warming climate (chapter 2), for both 

moist and dry forests, as a result of fire suppression (chapter 3). The decline or elimination of intentional burning 

by American Indians is also part of altered disturbance 

regimes and ecosystems in many areas (chapter 11). The 

wildland-urban interface is also expanding rapidly in the 

Plan area. This expansion creates challenges to conservation 

and management including balancing fire protection and fire 

restoration goals (Hammer et al. 2007, Paveglio et al. 2009), 

both of which have implications for biodiversity conservation (McKinney 2002).

Biotic changes are also altering the ecosystems of 

the NWFP area. The extirpation of top predators and 

invasions by other species have altered food webs and the 

trophic structure and dynamics of terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems (Beschta and Ripple 2008, 2009; Wallach et al. 

2015) across the region. Invasive species such as the barred 

owl are having significant effects on the northern spotted 

owl, and the sudden oak death pathogen (Phytophthora 

ramorum) is altering community structure and fire behavior 

across large areas of northern California and southern 

Oregon (Metz et al. 2011). Many of these biotic changes are 

challenging to deal with in a forest-management context 

because they are rooted in biological processes (e.g., demography, dispersal, and competition), whose control is often 

beyond the scope of federal forest land managers.

Finally, climate change is increasingly warming all 

parts of the NWFP region to levels that may exceed climate 

conditions experienced in the past 1,000 years (chapter 2). 

These conditions will continue to alter disturbances, ecological processes, plant and animal community structure, 

and biotic diversity (chapter 2) (Watts et al. 2016), and they 

will change the expected outcomes of NWFP conservation 

strategies (chapters 2, 3, 6, and 7). 

In summary, forests, watersheds, and biotic communities in the Plan area have been influenced by native peoples 

for millennia, while human activities during the past 

150 years have not merely altered them but reduced their 

resilience to natural disturbances. This reality has at least 

three major implications: 

1. Some ecological conditions, even in old-growth

forests, that are perceived as “natural” have been

influenced by human activity.

2. Restorative actions may be needed to achieve goals

for desired species and levels of resilience of forests and aquatic ecosystems to climate change and

disturbances.

3. Knowledge of historical ecology can help guide

us to the future, but management cannot recreate

historical conditions.

Conservation in the Anthropocene

Unprecedented ecological shifts or alterations that have 

occurred across the globe are also described by an emerging 

concept of “novel” ecosystems, which describes systems 

that have “departed entirely and irreversibly from their 

historical analogs” (Hobbs et al. 2009, 2014; Radeloff et al. 

2015). One implication of this perspective is that society 

may have to accept and manage for some of these novel 

or “hybrid” (seminatural) states, where it is impractical to 

change existing conditions. Pressures to maintain the status 

quo of altered conditions will most likely occur where current conditions provide values (supporting local livelihoods, 

quality of life, or habitats of desired species) that may not 

have occurred there historically.2

 This perspective does not 

mean that maintenance or restoration of native communities 

or historical dynamics could not be a goal—only that many 

scientists increasingly recognize that restoring and maintaining ecosystem integrity based on the historical range 

of variation of ecosystem attributes may not be attainable 

in some places, for ecological or social reasons. Sayer et al. 

2

 There is a precedent for this in the National Forest Management 

Act: “...fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate 

species in the planning area” (36 Code of Federal Regulations, sec. 

219.19, app. 13).
924

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

(2013) and Hobbs et al. (2014) recommended using landscape approaches (e.g., spatially based planning over large 

and heterogeneous areas and long time frames) that recognize the social dimensions of the problem (e.g., see Cissel et 

al. 1999, Hessburg et al. 2015, 2016) to identify where it is 

possible to retain or restore native biodiversity, and where 

acceptance or management for some novel or “hybrid” 

(seminatural) qualities or ecosystems might be desirable. 

Recognizing the realities of altered ecosystems in the 

current era has implications for using the 2012 planning 

rule (USDA FS 2012a). The rule is based on managing for 

ecological integrity—ecosystems that “...occur within their 

“natural range of variation3 and can withstand and recover 

from most perturbations.” The rule also includes the concept 

of resilience4 as related to ecological integrity, in the sense 

that ecosystems with integrity are resilient and able to 

recover from disturbances (Bone et al. 2016). Given the pace 

and scale of environmental change, it may be tempting to 

assume that history or the historical range of variation are no 

longer relevant to conservation and management; however, 

this is not necessarily the case (Higgs et al. 2014, Keane et al. 

2009, Safford et al. 2012). In conservation and management, 

the question is not the fundamental value of history, but how 

it is used (Keane et al. 2009, Safford et al. 2012). Knowledge 

of the past can inform management in several ways: (1) 

history as information for how ecosystems function, or as 

a reference, (2) enriching cultural connections to the land, 

and (3) revealing possible futures (Higgs et al. 2014). Using 

history to set precise reference information and targets may 

become less important and even have negative consequences 

(in the case of precise targets) as climate and landscape 

changes continue, but other types of historical information 

may become more valuable (Hiers et al. 2016, Higgs et al. 

2014). Information about the historical range of variation 

may be derived from simulation and statistical models and 

from empirical reconstructions of ecological history and its 

variations (Hessburg and Povak 2015). Safford et al. (2012) 

provided several recommendations on the use of history in 

restoration and conservation including the following:

• Do not ignore history; to understand where an 

ecosystem is going, you must understand where it 

has been.

• Do not uncritically set management objectives based 

on historical conditions and avoid aiming for a single, static target.

• Historical conditions may be a useful short-term or 

medium-term “waypoint” for management, but they 

will rarely suffice to prepare an ecosystem for an 

altered future.

• Plan for the future, but do not forget that the past 

provides our only empirical glimpse into the range 

of possible futures. 

Our advances in understanding the role of ecological 

history in a time of global change, notwithstanding the 

development of guiding principles, clear ecological goals, 

and metrics, is still a significant challenge and must 

increasingly consider the social dimensions of environmental problems. Managing for ecological integrity 

rather than more narrowly for the historical range of 

variation is considered a more realistic approach, but it is 

not without its own limitations. Managing for ecological 

integrity includes significant effort to conserve native 

biodiversity and promote resilience of species and ecosystems to climate change and invasive species (chapter 

3) (Hessburg et al. 2016, Wurtzebach and Schultz 2016). 

But more importantly, managing for ecological integrity 

recognizes the importance of ecological processes such 

as natural disturbance agents that control the dynamics of 

ecosystems. Managing for ecological integrity and using it 

to guide monitoring and restoration efforts is a relatively 

new idea that has yet to be widely applied and evaluated 

in a land management context (Wurtzebach and Schultz 

2016). Ecological integrity also includes managing for 

ecological resilience, which is the capacity to “reorganize 

3

 For our purposes in this chapter, we use “historical range of 

variability” and consider it synonymous with “natural range 

of variability.” See Romme et al. 2012 for comparisons of the 

definitions of historical range of variability and natural range of 

variability. 

4

 Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance 

and reorganize (or return to its previous organization) so as to 

still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and 

feedbacks (see Forest Service Manual Chapter 2020 and see also 

“socioecological resilience” in the glossary). Broad conceptions 

of resilience may encompass “resistance” (see glossary), while 

narrower definitions emphasize the capacity of a system or its 

constituent entities to respond or regrow after mortality induced 

by a disturbance event.
925

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

while undergoing change so as to essentially maintain 

the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” 

(Walker et al. 2004). The concept of ecological resilience 

is increasingly used by the Forest Service, but its use has 

been ambiguous and open to local interpretation (Bone et 

al. 2016). “Resilience” can be a useful term and goal only 

when clarified in terms of “resilience of what, to what?” 

(Carpenter et al. 2001). A major challenge of managing for 

ecological integrity or resilience, which are both based on 

understanding ecological history, is the lack of historical 

knowledge of ecosystems and their variability in many 

ecological components and processes. A second challenge 

is knowing future states: there may be multiple possible 

alternative states of ecological integrity based on certain 

realities of climate change, invasive species, and changing 

social values (Duncan et al. 2010, Romme et al. 2012). 

Given changing anthropogenic climate change, land 

use changes, and changes in societal preferences, it is 

necessary to acknowledge the critical importance of social 

systems as both drivers of ecological change and as drivers 

of policy goals and expectations for forests. The importance 

of the social system suggests that the concept of resilience 

or integrity should be broadened to focus on managing for 

social-ecological resilience to global changes within the 

inherent capacities of earth life-support systems (Carpenter 

et al. 2001, Folke 2006). Managing for a broader concept of 

resilience may be more realistic than managing for a specific 

range of historical variation (Safford et al. 2012, Stine et al. 

2014, Wurtzebach and Schultz 2016) or only a biophysical 

condition. It means focusing on both ecological and social 

systems and their interactions, and defining resilience not just 

in terms of recovery of desired ecological or social conditions 

(which may not be possible) but also adaptation, transformation, learning, and innovation that may lead to new systems 

that are better adapted to the current biophysical and social 

environments. Using social-ecological systems frameworks 

may provide a pathway toward better recognition of how 

federal forest management is influenced by the interplay of 

these two systems and where opportunities and barriers lie 

to reaching federal land management goals, which typically 

include both ecological and social outcomes. However, managing specifically with social-ecological resilience in mind is 

still in an exploratory, conceptual stage (Folke 2006), and it 

remains to be seen how using this framework could improve 

the effectiveness of federal management. 

Fire exclusion— 

Although clearcutting of moist old forests had a major 

effect on ecosystems in the area of the NWFP, altered fire 

regimes have also affected species and ecosystems. Fire 

is a critical ecological process in most of the forests of the 

Plan area, and this chapter devotes considerable attention 

to complex and sometimes controversial (see chapter 3) 

fire-related issues. This emphasis on fire is motivated by 

several factors: (1) fire is a fundamental process that affects 

most forest ecosystems, species, and human communities 

of the region; (2) the scientific understanding of the role of 

fire in both moist and dry forests has increased significantly 

since the Plan was developed; (3) the 2012 planning rule 

emphasized ecological integrity and restoration, which are 

grounded in disturbance ecology—and fire is generally the 

most significant and altered disturbance in the region; (4) 

managers have relatively more influence on fire, through 

suppression policies and management of vegetation, than 

do most other disturbance processes (e.g., wind or diseases) 

in the Plan area, and (5) prescribed fire and fire suppression 

have become a major component of federal land management efforts in policy and budgets in recent years. 

The area of the NWFP encompasses a wide range 

of forest environments and can be broken into two major 

forest zones (dry and moist) and four different historical fire 

regimes (chapter 3; fig. 12-2). 

One of the most pervasive anthropogenic effects within 

the drier forest zone, which makes up almost half of the 

NWFP area, is a major shift in fire regimes as a consequence of fire exclusion and suppression5

 (chapter 3). Lack 

of fire in dry forests and moist mixed-conifer forests, which 

historically experienced frequent to moderately frequent 

wildfire, altered forest structure and composition, and had 

cascading ecological effects on ecosystems and species. 

5

 Fire exclusion is the minimizing or removal of wildfire as a keystone ecological process, either indirectly as a result of livestock 

grazing, roads, railroads, agriculture, and development, or directly 

via intentional fire suppression and prevention activities. Fire 

suppression is the act of putting out wildfires.
926

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

These effects include: 

• Increased forest density and abundance of shadetolerant tree species.

• Loss of early-successional, open-canopy young, and 

open old-growth forest types, and altered successional pathways. 

• Increased area of dense, young, multistoried forest 

vegetation that is used by the northern spotted owl 

and other late-successional species.

• Decline in habitats for species that use open, firefrequent forests or early-successional vegetation.

• Less frequent fire, but when fires occur under extreme 

weather conditions, they can result in uncharacteristically large, high-severity patches of fire. 

Figure 12-2—Idealized spatial patterns of forest successional stages in the two major forest zones and the four historical disturbance 

regimes of the Northwest Forest Plan area at three arbitrary points in time. Time 1 and 2 are separated by about 100 years; time 3 is at least 

400 years later so that patterns from time 1 and 2 are not evident. See chapter 3 for more information. Illustration adapted from Agee 1998. 
927

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Larger patches of high-severity fire in this historical 

regime may have undesirable short- and long-term effects 

in terms of accelerated upland erosion, loss of forest 

cover to continuous shrubfields, chronic stream sedimentation, chronically elevated bark beetle populations, 

and reduction of services from forests of all seral stages 

(chapter 3). Large patches of high-severity fire in forest 

ecosystems that historically burned with frequent but 

low-severity fire can kill many of the large, old, fire-resistant trees that survived fires in the past. Such trees are 

considered a regionally and globally significant “keystone 

ecological structure” in a wide range of ecosystem types 

(Lindenmayer et al. 2014). Extremely large and unusually 

severe fires also have major social and economic impacts 

through heavy smoke, evacuations, greenhouse gas 

emissions, costs of firefighting, lost productivity, and 

threats to and loss of lives, income, and property. Such 

social and economic impacts are expected to increase, 

particularly in the NWFP area, as climate change results 

in more hazardous fire and smoke conditions (Liu et al. 

2016). The landscapes left following extremely large 

and uncharacteristically severe fires can pose significant 

management challenges too, as reforestation treatments 

can be costly and often dangerous in many burned areas. 

Planting may be needed to avoid persistent loss of forest 

cover in some areas, yet reintroducing fires while protecting the investment in young, fire-susceptible trees is 

particularly challenging. 

Fire exclusion has also had an effect in moist forests 

that historically experienced long fire-return intervals. The 

effects are different than in dry forests, and relate mainly 

to decreased occurrence of diverse early and mid-successional and nonforest (meadow) vegetation. High levels of 

fuel accumulation at stand scales and landscape connectivity of fuels are characteristic of moist productive forests 

that grow for many decades or centuries without fire. 

However, lack of fire in drier parts of moist forests may 

lead to more homogeneous stand structures and fuel beds 

than occurred historically, when infrequent fire created 

a mosaic of seral stages. The broader ecological implications (e.g., ecosystem function and fire behavior) of these 

changes are not clear and are in need of further research 

(Tepley et al. 2013). 

Social perspectives on altered forests—

The challenges to managing for ecological integrity, 

resilience, and desired species in the NWFP area are both 

ecological and social. In moist forests, where fire was and 

continues to occur infrequently, uniform plantations, the 

time required for succession to old growth (centuries), and 

fragmentation of older forests are key ecological concerns. 

In dry forests, which historically experienced very frequent 

and moderately frequent fire-regimes (chapter 3), the 

ecological constraints on management include the fact that, 

with build-up of fuels in historical fire frequent regimes, fire 

often cannot be reintroduced as prescribed fire without first 

reducing fuels via mechanical means. And, more significantly, climate change and invasive species will continue to 

alter fire regimes and vegetation dynamics, making these 

increases in fuels even more consequential. 

The social and economic constraints to widespread 

restoration of fire in fire-frequent ecosystems are large and 

include agency budgets, limited workforce capacity, air 

quality regulations, social acceptability of prescribed fire, lack 

of markets for restoration byproducts, and the risk of losing 

other values (Charnley et al. 2015; Collins et al. 2010; North 

et al. 2012, 2015; Ryan et al. 2013) (chapter 8). Public support 

for restoring fire to the landscape will be required to make 

progress (North et al. 2015). In addition, the costs of restoring 

fire through mechanical treatments and prescribed fire are 

high (Houtman et al. 2013), and to be fully funded by Congress would require significant re-investment in public forest 

lands at levels beyond current annual wildfire suppression and 

preparedness funding. For example, the recent Forest Service 

budget appropriations for hazardous fuels reduction are less 

than one-fifth what they are for fire suppression (Charnley et 

al. 2015), and current rates of restoration treatments in many 

areas of the Western United States are well below what is 

needed for restoration (North et al. 2012, Reilly et al. 2017a, 

Spies et al. 2017, Vaillant and Reinhardt 2017). This deficit 

has led some to call for more use of managed natural ignitions 

(North et al. 2012). Some initial studies indicate that managed 

and some unmanaged wildfires have the potential to increase 

the scale of restoration benefits (Meyer 2015, Reilly et al. 

2017b), though the relative benefits and costs of this approach 

(table 12-1) are not yet fully understood and will likely differ 

across the fire regimes of the Plan area (chapter 3). 
928Table 12-1—Summary of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current managemen

and socioeconomic goals (continued)Management activity

Closed-canopy old-growth structure and function 

Northern spotted owls Marbled murrelets

Other latesuccessional oldgrowth species Aquatic habitats Timber and nontimber supply 

Suppression of 

wildfire 

Increases shadetolerant tree species 

and canopy cover

Protects existing oldgrowth trees from 

loss 

Reduces open oldgrowth types and 

landscape diversity

Reduces area of 

diverse earlysuccessional forest 

Reduces resiliency in 

some fire regimes 

Protects habitat in 

northern part of range

Increases area of 

nesting and roosting habitat in fire- prone areas

Can increase 

landscape-scale risk to owl habitat by promoting larger high-severity patches of wildfire

Can reduce habitat 

quality in southern part of range where habitat includes smaller patches of early-successional and nonforest vegetation

Protects habitat Protects habitat for 

species that prefer dense multilayered canopies

Variable and poorly 

understood effects 

Increases density of 

trees in riparian areas

Can increase shade on 

streams

Protects forests 

scheduled for timber harvest

Can increase risk 

of loss of timber resources where forest fuels accumulate 

Encourages growth 

of nontimber forest products that favor closed, mature forest conditions

Variable thinning 

plantations in uplands and riparian areas

Accelerate development of large treesIncreases vegetation 

heterogeneity, diversity, and understory layers 

Can reduce dead 

wood if trees removed

Accelerate 

development of large nest trees and multiple canopy layers

May reduce populations of red tree 

voles, a prey species, in the short term 

Accelerates 

development of crowns with thick limbs

May create habitat 

for predator species

Variable effects; some 

positive and negative short-term and longer term effects 

Accelerate large trees Increases vegetation 

heterogeneity, diversity, and understory layers 

Effects likely variable 

with location in stream network

Can reduce dead 

wood inputs to streams if trees removed

Can reduce 

shading and increase stream temperatures

Can provide wood 

products and bioenergy and help support local processing infrastructure 

May favor nontimber 

forest products (NTFPs) associated with less dense forests

Not sustainable in 

long run because plantations may become too old or no longer benefit from restoration management
929

Table 12-1—Summary of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current managemenand socioeconomic goals (continued)Management activity

Closed-canopy old-growth structure and function 

Northern spotted owls Marbled murrelets

Other latesuccessional oldgrowth species Aquatic habitats Timber and nontimber supply 

Thinning to restore 

resilience to firesuppressed forests

Can help to maintain 

large, old, fireresistant trees

Can increase oldforest diversity 

in fire-dependent disturbance regimes

Can reduce fire spread 

rates and reduce sizes of highseverity fire patches 

Can protect patches 

of nesting and roosting habitat from large fires 

Reduces habitat 

quality at site level

May reduce loss of 

large nest trees to wildfire

May create habitat for 

predator species 

Same as variabledensity thinning Same as variable- density thinning Can provide wood for local communities

May not be 

sustainable in long run because restoration may shift toward prescribed fire as stands are repeatedly treated 

Prescribed fire Same as above Same as above Unknown Unknown Unknown 

Early-seral creation 

in closed-canopy forests over 80 years in matrix to mimic wildfire effects 

Can increase habitat 

diversity and provide habitat for species dependent on open, habitats and dead trees. 

Not compatible with 

dense old-growth forest structure at stand scales 

Cannot fully replace 

wildfire effects if does not include prescribed fire or occur in older stands

May not be compatible 

with habitat in part of the range 

Can be compatible at 

landscape scales in southern parts of range

Not compatible with 

habitat at any scale

Likely reduces habitat, 

but some species may benefit from juxtaposition of old and young habitats 

Can increase light to 

streams and stream productivity

Can increase habitat 

diversity and promote longer term integrity of stream ecosystems 

Can decrease 

shade and increase stream temperatures in some contexts

Can provide wood 

products and help support local mill infrastructure 

Favors NTFPs 

associated with early-seral forest 
930Table 12-1—Summary of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current managemen

and socioeconomic goals (continued)Management activity

Closed-canopy old-growth structure and function 

Northern spotted owls Marbled murrelets

Other latesuccessional oldgrowth species Aquatic habitats Timber and nontimber supply 

Early-seral creation 

in closed-canopy plantations to mimic wildfire effects 

Can increase habitat 

diversity and provide habitat for species dependent on open habitats and dead trees 

Does not reduce 

current area of old growth

Will reduce future 

amounts of dense old-growth forest structure at stand scales and landscape scales 

Cannot fully replace 

wildfire effects if does not include prescribed fire or occur in older stands 

Could have some 

negative effects on dispersal habitat 

May be compatible 

at landscape scales in southern parts of range

Does not affect 

current habitat although it could increase edge and occurrence of nest predators at landscape scale 

Does not likely affect 

habitat for these species, and some species may benefit from juxtaposition of old and open canopy conditions 

Can increase light to 

streams and stream productivity

Can increase habitat 

diversity and promote longer term integrity of stream ecosystems 

Can decrease shade 

and increase stream temperatures in some contexts

Can provide wood 

products and help support local mill infrastructure 

Favors NTFPs 

associated with early-seral vegetation 

Planting after 

wildfire 

Planting of key tree 

species may benefit forest recovery

Planting of key tree 

species may benefit longer term recovery of habitat 

May benefit long-term 

recovery of habitat

May benefit long-term 

recovery of habitat

Planting of key tree 

species may benefit longer term recovery of habitat 

Can benefit long-term 

recovery of forest resources 

Salvage after 

wildfire 

Removal of large 

dead wood reduces habitat for many wildlife species 

Logging of dead 

trees can kill regeneration and increase erosion 

Removal of small 

dead trees in fireexcluded forests may reduce impacts on soil if reburn occurs 

Removal of dead 

trees likely not compatible with habitat

NA (does not 

use postfire environments or dead trees)

Removal of dead 

wood likely not compatible with habitat for some of these species

Removal of dead 

trees (especially large ones) may work against natural riparan/aquatic recovery processes

Can provide timber 

and support local mills 
931

Table 12-1—Summary of possible (known and hypothesized) major tradeoffs (effects) associated with current managemenand socioeconomic goals (continued)Management activity

Closed-canopy old-growth structure and function 

Northern spotted owls Marbled murrelets

Other latesuccessional oldgrowth species Aquatic habitats Timber and nontimber supply 

Road removal Can reduce spread of 

invasive species to older forest blocks 

Can reduce edge 

effects

Can reduce access 

for restoration management 

Unknown May reduce corvid 

populations that prey on nests

Unknown Reduces erosion 

potential

Reduces risk of 

landslides and debris flows

Increases fish 

passages through stream networks 

Can reduce access 

for timber management and NTFP gathering

Managing wildfire 

for ecological benefits

Can increase diversity 

of old-forest types 

Can increase 

landscape resilience to future fire 

Can destroy oldgrowth forests and 

large old trees 

May reduce risk of 

loss from fire to surviving patches of habitat

Can eliminate 

habitat

May reduce risk of 

loss from fire to surviving patches of habitat

Can eliminate 

habitat

Not well known, but 

likely similar to spotted owl response 

Can increase habitat 

diversity and promote longer term integrity of stream ecosystems 

Can decrease 

shade and increase stream temperatures 

May damage and 

reduce value of trees that were scheduled for wood production

Can reduce fuels and 

lower risk of loss of unburned forests 

NA = not applicable.Note: Effects in regular type are generally consistent with a goal; effects in boldfaced type are generally not consistent with a goal or have negative effects on other goals nNorthwest Forest Plan. Effects may differ with spatial and temporal scale and with geography. The effects are generalized, so they may not apply in all contexts and there uncertainty, especially regarding the effects of extreme fires. For detailed discussions of these effects, see individual chapters of this synthesis. 
932

Another social challenge is that some altered conditions of ecosystems in the NWFP area may be desirable to 

some people, despite being highly departed from historical conditions, and at greater risk to loss from wildfire 

and drought. For example, the denser forests that have 

developed in forests with very frequent and moderately 

frequent fire regimes now support more area of habitat for 

northern spotted owls and other dense forest species such 

as goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) (chapters 3 and 4) than 

they did under the historical fire regime. Some groups may 

favor maintaining some dense stands; for example, the 

Klamath Tribes expressed a concern for promoting mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) habitat by retaining dense tree 

patches as deer hiding cover within ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa) forests that were historically open in their 

ancestral lands on the Fremont-Winema National Forest 

(Johnson et al. 2008). Based on discussions with stakeholders who participate in central Oregon forest collaborative groups, we have observed that some stakeholders 

value the aesthetic and wildlife values of the fire-excluded, 

multilayered grand fir (Abies grandis) and white fir (A. 

Concolor) forests, which appear to fit an idealized oldgrowth forest based on wetter old-growth types. A study 

from moist forests (moderately frequent, mixed-severity 

fire regime) in the western Cascade Range of Oregon 

indicates that tall, multilayered forests that develop in the 

absence of fire may buffer climate change effects on the 

microclimate for wildlife (Frey et al. 2016a, 2016b). It is 

unknown if that finding applies to fire-excluded dry forests. Finally, such forests may be more desirable to some 

people simply because they occur without active management (except for suppression), which may be simply 

mistrusted (e.g., see DellaSala et al. 2013 and “Trust and 

collaboration” section below). 

Although some people see benefits in dense fire-excluded forests, many see the risks (see discussion in Brown 

2009). For example, many stakeholders who participate in 

the central Oregon forest collaboratives mentioned above 

are concerned about the increased risk of widespread tree 

mortality resulting from severe fire, drought, and insects, 

and some see opportunity for economically feasible 

restoration treatments that would remove established grand 

fir/white fir established over the past 100 years in favor of 

fire-tolerant and drought-tolerant tree species.6

Invasive species—

Species invasions or range-expansion species native to North 

America have also affected the native biota of the NWFP 

region (chapter 6). Invasive species are widespread—more 

than 50 percent of inventory plots in almost all physiographic provinces of the Plan area contain nonnative plant 

species (Gray 2008), but most of them do not get much attention. An exception is the barred owl, which is an example of 

an invasive species (Peterson and Robins 2003) (some have 

called it a “native invader species”) (Carey et al. 2012) that 

has become a major threat to the viability of northern spotted 

owl populations (chapter 4). Although the barred owl may be 

the most prominent example, there are many other examples 

in the NWFP area of species that may have been exotic or 

native to the region but are having undesirable effects on 

other species and ecosystems as a result of landscape and 

other anthropogenic changes. For example, native corvid (the 

crow/raven family) populations have expanded as a result 

of human food waste and human disturbance of vegetation 

(Marzluff and Neatherlin 2006, Peterson and Colwell 2014), 

and corvids prey on the nests of marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus) (chapter 5). 

The widespread expansion of true firs into pine forests, 

where fire has been excluded, could also be termed “native 

invader” (Carey et al. 2012, Simberloff 2011) species that were 

once rare or uncommon in a landscape, but now have become 

so abundant that they are altering community (e.g., through 

competition) and ecosystem dynamics (disturbance regimes) 

in undesirable ways. In the case of true firs in dry forests, 

their expansion has altered forest composition, structure, and 

fire regimes, and they are difficult to control by virtue of their 

copious seed rain (Hessburg et al. 2016, Stine et al. 2014), 

which can lead to rapid recolonization of disturbed areas. 

The impact of barred owls on northern spotted owl 

populations is profound; it is not known if this impact 

can be reversed or at least stabilized across the spotted 

6

 Merschel, A. 2017. Personal communication. Graduate student, 

Oregon State University, Department of Forest Ecosystems and 

Society, 321 Richardson Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331.
933

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

owl’s range through efforts to remove them. An ongoing, 

large-scale experiment will shed more light on this future 

(USFWS 2013, Wiens et al. 2016). A proposal to remove an 

established species to protect another is a major challenge to 

society from ecological, economic, and ethical perspectives 

(Carey et al. 2012, Livezey 2010), but it is not unprecedented 

(e.g., Wilsey et al. 2014). Multiple approaches to northern 

spotted owl conservation, including large-scale experiments 

and landscape-scale forest restoration experiments, can provide more learning opportunities and more understanding 

of ways to promote resilience of the subspecies. In the long 

run, the northern spotted owl may be locally or completely 

displaced by the barred owl. From an ecosystem perspective 

(e.g., productivity, food webs, trophic cascades), the effect 

of loss of northern spotted owls on the forests and vertebrate 

communities is unknown, but it is hypothesized that prey 

species and other competing native predators may experience changes in behavior, abundance, and distribution as a 

result of predation by the barred owls, which has a broader 

prey base and occurs at higher densities than the northern 

spotted owl (Wiens et al. 2014). 

Invasive species occur in aquatic and riparian ecosystems as well. Across the Plan area, 63 nonnative species and 

species groups are identified as regional aquatic-riparian 

invasive or nuisance species priorities (chapter 7). Of these, 

31 (49 percent) species or species groups were designated 

as “high concern” and inventoried by the NWFP’s Aquatic 

Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Program (AREMP) in 

2016. Nonnative species are not always harmful to native 

fishes or their habitats, but in many instances they can (1) 

compete with, prey upon, hybridize with, or infect native 

species with novel pathogens; (2) greatly alter the structure 

of food webs; or (3) cause habitat changes that reduce the 

productivity of desirable aquatic organisms. Climate change 

will likely influence the expansion of nonnative plant and 

animal species in the NWFP area, while at the same time 

either reducing or even extirpating native species (Dale et 

al. 2001, Garcia et al. 2014, Urban 2015).

Other disturbance agents—

Novel ecological conditions are also a concern where 

ecosystems are subject to multiple disturbance agents. For 

example, stands infested by the sudden oak death pathogen 

have increased potential for high burn severity (chapter 3), 

while rodenticides used in illegal marijuana cultivation and 

the spread of barred owls may tax populations of sensitive 

fishers (Martes pennanti) and northern spotted owls, 

respectively, so that they become more sensitive to other 

disturbances (Gabriel et al. 2012, 2013) (chapter 6). As an 

example from aquatic systems, the combination of climate 

change, severe fire, tree mortality, and floods may increase 

the potential for debris flows (Cannon and DeGraff 2009) 

and ensuing debris jams at culverts and bridges. Such flood 

impacts can threaten life, property, and access; damage 

expensive infrastructure; and impair stream functions by 

causing stream bank erosion and channel incision. The 

challenges to restoring fire and geomorphic disturbances to 

these ecosystems are daunting. Landscape and social-ecological systems perspectives are needed to meet the broad 

Forest Service goal (http://www.fs.fed.us/strategicplan) of 

increasing the resilience of forests and aquatic ecosystems 

to fire and climate change while meeting the specific 

late-successional forest goals of the NWFP (Fischer et al. 

2016, Hessburg et al. 2015, 2016; Reeves et al. 1995, 2016; 

Stephens et al. 2013).

Perspectives on Reserves in an Era of Global 

Environmental Change 

Views of the conservation community—

The scientific community’s response to the cumulative 

effects of climate change, land use change, and invasive 

species has led some to call for new approaches to conservation (Millar et al. 2007, Wiens 2016). Some researchers 

have affirmed that “tomorrow’s landscapes may become so 

altered by human actions that current management philosophies and policies of managing for healthy ecosystems, 

wilderness conditions, or historical analogs will no longer 

be feasible” and will require a new land ethic (Keane et al. 

2009). Others have advocated for a new science of conservation rooted in the integrated nature of social-ecological 

systems (as mentioned above) and designed to promote 

human well-being as well as biodiversity conservation, particularly where poverty is pervasive, through judicious and 

sustainable use of ecosystems rather than strict preservation 

(Kareiva and Marvier 2012). In the conservation ethics 
934

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

literature, the contrast is often made between humanism, 

emphasizing the importance of productive human use of 

natural resources, and biocentrism, emphasizing a primary 

goal of maintaining ecological integrity (Stanley 1995). 

These new perspectives have received pushback from some 

conservation biologists. For example, Miller et al. (2014) 

and Doak et al. (2014) argued that conservation centering on 

human values, now often organized using the framework of 

ecosystem services, is an “ideology” that (1) is not new (e.g., 

it reflects ideas advocated by Gifford Pinchot a century ago), 

and (2) does not address the root causes of lost biodiversity, which they described as “unabated consumption and 

increasing human populations.” Instead, they emphasized 

preservation of biodiversity through large networks of 

protected lands arranged to foster connectivity and some 

sense of permanence. They devoted little attention, however, 

to what such protection means in disturbance-dependent 

and highly dynamic systems with a strong history of human 

impacts, or in systems in which invasive species are widespread, or where permanence of certain vegetation, habitat 

conditions, or biotic communities is simply unattainable. 

These debates notwithstanding, nature reserves (also 

termed “protected areas”) including wilderness areas, 

remain key components of conservation strategies and forest 

planning around the world (Simončič et al. 2015, Watson et 

al. 2014). E.O. Wilson, in his book Half-Earth, Our Planet’s 

Fight for Life (Wilson 2016), challenged society to set aside 

half of the Earth’s lands and seas to conserve biodiversity 

in reserves equivalent to World Heritage sites. Other 

scientists have echoed a similar call in advocating for an 

extensive reserve network focused on riparian areas across 

the United States (Fremier et al. 2015). Although we are a 

long way from these goals (e.g., 10 percent of U.S. land is in 

a protected area (Aycrigg et al. 2013), the area of wildland 

reserves or protected areas is growing (Götmark 2013) and 

have made essential contributions to maintaining populations of threatened species, or have slowed their rate of loss. 

In the NWFP area, reserves7

 on federal lands constitute 

about 80 percent of the federal forest area and 28 percent of 

the total forest area on public and private forest lands (chapter 3). Conservation biologists have argued that protected 

areas are necessary but not sufficient to meet conservation 

objectives (Margules and Pressey 2000, Noss et al. 1997, 

Rayner et al. 2014). Governance and management of reserves 

are as important as the designation of the reserve on a map. 

For example, ineffective governance of protected areas in 

many countries has not kept out detrimental land uses such 

as development, intensive logging for timber, degradation 

from invasive species, and illegal hunting (Watson et al. 

2014). In addition, reserves may need active management to 

meet biodiversity goals (Lemieux et al. 2011, Lindenmayer 

et al. 2000) or to meet needs of local communities that are 

compatible with biodiversity goals (Watson et al. 2014). 

Pressey et al. (2007) suggested that appropriate actions 

within or outside reserves may include “control of invasive 

species, management of disturbance regimes, quarantine 

against disease, restrictions on harvesting, and restoration.” 

In summary, the literature provides overwhelming support 

for the idea that reserves have an essential role to play in 

conservation (e.g., slowing rates of losses of native biodiversity), if they are effectively managed (Watson et al. 2014). 

Many types of reserves—

Globally, there are many types of reserves, depending on a 

variety of existing conditions and long-term intentions. For 

example, the International Union for the Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) defines seven categories that encapsulate the 

variety of purposes and specific contexts for a reserve (Spies 

2006) (chapter 3). These range from category 1a, “strict 

nature reserve,” which still allows some light human uses, to 

category 6, which allows sustainable use of natural resources, 

such as agroforestry. Biosphere reserves defined by the 

IUCN can include “core areas” or sanctum sanctorum

which are open only to those with special scientific permits, 

and are bordered or surrounded by buffer zones with various 

allowances for ingression and resource use and extraction 

(e.g., Cumming et al. 2015, Peine 1998, Taylor 2004). These 

categories of reserve designs differ depending on the amount 

of human activity and use that is considered compatible with 

the primary conservation objectives of the reserve (Lausche 

and Burhenne-Guilmin 2011), although many of the IUCN 

reserve design architectures, including the core/buffer 

design, are not implemented as such in the United States. 

7

 Designated wilderness areas account for about 42 percent of 

federal reserves, not including riparian reserves, and encompass 

roughly 7.1 million ac (including some national parks like Olympic 

and Mount Rainier National Parks).
935

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

In general, reserves are defined in terms of objectives 

and management actions that are needed or allowed, and in 

terms of actions that cannot be allowed in order to achieve 

primary conservation objectives, that is, by specifying human 

activities that are permitted or excluded. As a result, reserves 

exhibit a hierarchy of conservation goals, as demonstrated 

in the NWFP area, in which conservation of functional older 

forest and northern spotted owl habitat are the top priorities 

in late-successional reserves (LSRs), at least in the wetter 

provinces. In the drier provinces, according to the latest U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plan for the northern 

spotted owl, restoration becomes an “overlapping goal” with 

northern spotted owl habitat that must be reconciled (USFWS 

2011). In addition, the 2012 planning rule emphasizes 

managing forests for ecological integrity and resilience to 

climate change, a goal that is not mentioned in the standards 

and guidelines for the LSRs (USDA and USDI 1994b). Thus, 

reserves as they have been conceived and implemented 

globally and regionally exist along a continuum of uses and 

management approaches, based on goals and cultural context. 

Social controversies around reserves—

Although reserves are a cornerstone of conservation biology, they exist in a larger social context in which they may 

not be viewed so favorably. The idea of a nature “reserve” is 

a cultural construct associated with Euro-American notions 

of humans as distinct from nature (Cronon 1996) (see chapter 11). Rules governing permissible activities in protected 

areas or reserves differ across the globe (Simončič et al. 

2014) and can be controversial (Brockington and Wilkie 

2015). Reserves, with strict rules concerning management 

or resource extraction, have been criticized for threatening 

livelihoods by denying access to resources, and for not 

recognizing that nature changes as a result of disturbance 

and succession (Bengtsson et al. 2003); tribes, in particular, 

have expressed such concerns about NWFP reserves (see 

chapter 11). Often, the costs of reserves are experienced 

by local people, while benefits disproportionately accrue 

to people some distance away (Brockington et al. 2008). 

Controversies about reserves have several dimensions: 

1. They are often written into the founding stories of 

a nation or culture (e.g., old-growth forests in the 

Pacific Northwest (Spies and Duncan 2009) and 

therefore touch deep emotions. 

2. The local effects on people can be beneficial (e.g., 

amenity values) (Hjerpe et al. 2017, Holmes et al. 

2016) or negative (e.g., reserves that restrict access 

to commodities or subsistence goods and can 

increase poverty in rural areas (Adams 2004, West 

et al. 2006). 

3. The goals for nature in the reserves can be ambiguous or difficult to achieve given that nature is 

multidimensional, dynamic, and often influenced 

directly or indirectly by human activity. 

4. Achieving biodiversity goals often requires management, especially given effects of past land use 

change, invasive species, and climate change, 

which can be controversial if stakeholders hold 

different values for reserves. 

5. Reserves, which typically occupy a small part 

of most landscapes, are not sufficient by themselves to provide for biodiversity (Franklin and 

Lindemayer 2009).

6. They are flash points for politics of conservation related to land use and national and regional 

debates about values expressed through different 

interest groups (Brockington and Wilkie 2015). 

Reserves in dynamic ecosystems— 

Some conservation biologists and legal experts (e.g., see 

Craig 2010) recognize the problem of conserving biodiversity in fixed reserves, where vegetation structure and 

composition, disturbances, climatic influences, and plant 

and animal communities are highly dynamic. Approaches 

to reserves in dynamic systems fall along a gradient in 

terms of size and objectives. At one end of this gradient 

are relatively small fine-filter or coarse-filter (e.g., static 

vegetation states) reserves that some (Alagador et al. 2014, 

Bengtsson et al. 2003, Bisson et al. 2003, Lemieux et al. 

2011) suggest could be moved in response to changing 

environmental conditions (e.g., disturbance, invasive 

species, climate change). Some of the late-successional 

reserves (LSRs) in the Plan area are small and would fit into 

this category in terms of size and objective. At the other 

end of the gradient are large (coarse-filter) reserves that are 

managed to accommodate dynamic ecosystem processes 

(e.g., disturbance and succession) (Bengtsson et al. 2003, 
936

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Pickett and Thompson 1978). Some of the large LSRs may 

meet this size criterion relative to fire sizes (chapter 3), but 

are primarily focused on maintaining or increasing one 

successional state—dense old-growth forests. The first 

type of reserve approach—in which new protected areas 

are established and old ones decommissioned in response 

to changing environmental conditions—has received little 

formal evaluation, and we are not aware of any publications 

that document where a reserve was decommissioned and 

replaced with a new one or an alternative approach in the 

United States. However, dynamic habitat conservation 

approaches (which do not use the term “reserve”) are being 

used for two endangered forest species in fire-prone forests: 

the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), which 

depends on fire to maintain old-growth pine (Pinus sp.) 

forests of the Southeastern United States, and the Kirtland’s 

warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii), which depends on dense 

young jack pine (Pinus banksiana) forests that regenerate 

following wildfire or logging in Michigan (Moore and 

Conroy 2006, Spaulding and Rothstein 2009). These cases 

indicate that alternatives to fixed no-management reserves 

for conservation of listed species of fire-prone landscapes 

exist, but examples do not exist for old-growth forests and 

northern spotted owls. 

A simulation study in Quebec (Rayfield et al. 2008) 

evaluated static and dynamic habitat reserve strategies for 

American marten (Martes americana), a species that uses 

mature coniferous forests. The results indicated that the 

dynamic reserve strategy supported more high-quality habitat over a 200-year simulation than did static reserves. The 

locations of new reserves were constrained by fragmented 

forest patterns created through logging and wildfires in 

surrounding non-reserve areas. These findings have two 

major implications: (1) if reserves are focused on just one 

successional stage or habitat for a single species, they may 

not be effective in the long run in fire-prone landscapes; 

(2) if dynamic conservation strategies are to be successful 

in the long term, the surrounding nonreserved areas must 

be managed in a way such that habitat replacement options 

for target species are available when reserved areas are no 

longer functioning as intended. They also highlight the 

importance of investing in and supporting private lands 

conservation to enable possible future replacement options 

associated with private lands, and to provide habitat functions for species that are not restricted to reserves, or other 

species that were not the focus of the reserve. 

In contrast to the above species-centric reserves or 

conservation areas, large reserves based on dynamic coarsefilter objectives (e.g., ecosystem patterns and processes) 

will more likely meet conservation goals than fixed-area 

reserves for particular species or vegetation conditions. 

Large protected areas (e.g., larger than 25,000 ac) (more 

than 100 of the existing LSRs are larger than 25,000 ac) 

could better support the full range of natural disturbances 

within their boundaries than could small reserves (see chapter 3 for evaluation of the dynamics of LSRs as a function of 

their size). In such cases, it may be more possible to capture 

inherent ecosystems dynamics—natural and intentional 

management disturbances used to change the vegetation in 

ways that match the biophysical and topographic template 

and contribute to overall successional diversity and resilience. Management may still be needed to achieve specific 

goals (e.g., creation of fire-resistant forest structures and 

heterogeneous fuel beds) and could promote resilience of 

some components of ecosystems components to climate 

change, drought, and fire. 

Challenges to management of small and large reserves 

are significant. For small reserves with a narrow species or 

vegetation state objectives, moving reserves dynamically to 

deal with climate change, disturbance, and other changes 

may be more effective at maintaining biodiversity than 

fixed reserves (Bengtsson et al. 2003). However, a dynamic 

reserve in which adjustments to standards, guidelines, and 

reserve boundaries would be more difficult to implement, 

monitor, and govern than one in which reserves are fixed in 

perpetuity in location and management guidelines. Moving 

reserves would likely require an ongoing and robust decisionmaking process that involved diverse stakeholders and 

a high level of trust. In large reserves, with both ecosystem 

and species goals, there would likely be less need or motivation to move reserve boundaries because there would be 

fewer options for reserve placement in the larger landscape 

and because overall vegetation conditions in large reserves 

would be less likely to change as a result of disturbances. 
937

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

The management of large reserves for ecological integrity 

and species goals would require development of standards 

and guidelines for dealing with natural disturbance events 

and restoration activities intended to restore ecological 

processes (e.g., fire and hydrological disturbances) while 

providing for any other goals (e.g., particular species or 

vegetation states). In addition, standards and guidelines 

would need to be flexible enough to deal with unforeseen 

future issues, such as invasive species or climate change 

effects that might require different types of intervention to 

meet ecological goals. Changes to reserve boundaries or to 

standards and guidelines in both large and small reserves 

would also involve consideration of environmental justice 

and equity, especially for people living and working near 

the reserve. 

Although the idea of dynamic reserves, or reserves for 

dynamic ecosystems, may be relatively new in the literature (e.g., Harrison et al. 2008), the literature also lacks 

studies of the conservation of late-successional forests (i.e., 

dense older forests) in reserves within dynamic fire-prone 

ecosystems, which is the situation in the dry forests of 

the NWFP area. The NWFP was meant to be adaptive, 

and changes to reserve standards and guidelines might be 

considered given climate change, fire occurrence, invasive 

species, and species movements or other relatively new 

ecological concerns. See “Reserves” on p. 952 for more 

discussion of NWFP reserves and challenges of implementing reserves in dynamic ecosystems. 

Key Social Components of the Social-Ecological 

Systems of the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Ecosystem services—

The ecosystem services concept, largely developed since the 

NWFP was initiated, recognizes that forests and other natural systems support many benefits to human communities 

beyond timber and water supply that were emphasized at the 

creation of national forests. The recognition of these diverse 

benefits is not new (Kline et al. 2013); however, efforts to 

explicitly recognize them within a broader “ecosystem 

services” framework is somewhat new, and in the process of 

being incorporated into federal forest management (Brandt 

et al. 2014; Bruins et al. 2017; Deal et al. 2017a, 2017b; Long 

et al. 2014; Moore et al. 2017; Penaluna et al. 2017; Smith et 

al. 2011). Categories of ecosystem services recognized by 

the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment are provisioning 

services (e.g., food and fiber), supporting services (e.g., 

pollination, soil formation, and nutrient cycling), regulating 

services (e.g., carbon sequestration and water purification), 

and cultural services (e.g., spiritual, symbolic, educational, 

heritage, and recreational services) (Wallace 2007). Many 

resource management systems in the United States took 

such services for granted until relatively recently, as the 

limits and vulnerabilities of ecosystems in supporting these 

benefits have become more apparent. However, ecosystem 

valuation is often difficult owing to the lack of markets for 

many collective goods. Forest managers often have difficulty assigning value to many features of the forests they 

manage in ways that appropriately inform decisionmaking 

(Smith et al. 2011). Kline et al. (2013) indicated that full 

development of ecosystem services frameworks for public 

lands will be constrained by lack of ecological data for 

planning units and economic capacity in terms of models 

and staffing. They argue that, given these limitations, 

efforts to apply ecosystem services concepts should include 

qualitative methods that can be used with stakeholders even 

without more detailed quantitative information. 

Critics of the ecosystem service concept have argued 

that it has constrained thought and conservation of nature 

by focusing on “monetization and financialization of 

nature” that actually devalues nature by ignoring other 

values that cannot be monetized, and it creates “make-believe markets” that are not effective in conserving nature 

(Silvertown 2015). These other values include aesthetic, 

spiritual values and intrinsic values that might come 

under the title of “cultural services” but are not suited to 

an instrumental thinking approach (Batavia and Nelson 

2017, Cooper et al. 2016, Winthrop 2014). Others have 

responded by saying that the ecosystem services concept 

has value beyond market and monetization, can take 

many forms (Schröter and van Oudenhoven 2016, Wilson 

and Law 2016), and is strongly rooted in intrinsic values 

that include spiritual fulfillment and sacred natural sites. 

Chapter 11 briefly discusses some of these issues, while 

Winthrop (2014) reflects on tribal contexts in proposing 
938

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

“culturally reflexive stewardship” as a useful framework 

for understanding motivations for conservation based upon 

knowledge of local ecosystems, a world view that humans 

are a part of nature, and cultural practices that reflect 

residence and use over many generations. 

Deal et al. (2017b) suggested that the Forest Service 

is well positioned to make ecosystem services the “central 

and unifying concept in federal land management.” A 

2015 presidential memorandum (OMB 2015) directed all 

federal agencies to develop and institutionalize policies to 

promote consideration of ecosystem services in planning, 

investments, and regulatory policy (table 12-2). However, 

it has been challenging for the Forest Service to describe 

and value all the potential ecosystem services that public 

lands provide. No published full accounting of ecosystem 

services has been conducted for the NWFP area, but some 

localized efforts have been made (Deal et al. 2017a, 2017b; 

Kline et al. 2016; Smith et al. 2011,) (see also chapter 9), 

and a framework as has been proposed (Deal et al. 2017b). 

This framework includes describing the ecosystem services 

provided by forest landscapes, examining the potential 

tradeoffs among services associated with proposed management activities, and attracting and building partnerships 

with stakeholders who benefit from particular services 

that the forest provides. According to Deal et al. (2017a), 

the common needs for advancing ecosystem services as a 

central framework for the Forest Service include: 

• Building staff capacity for the concept and application of ecosystem services.

• Creating and publishing ecosystem service resource 

and reference materials.

• Aligning agency staffing, funding, and program 

structures with ecosystem service priorities.

• Integrating and managing data.

• Identifying inventory metrics; defining outcomebased performance indicators; and organizing and 

linking data.

• Valuing and mapping ecosystem services using 

current tools and methodologies.

• Communication.

• Policy including leadership support of using ecosystem services as part of a governance framework. 

A review of several project-level applications of ecosystem services in Oregon found that place-based applications 

can highlight the connections between ecosystem conditions and public benefits (Deal et al. 2017b). The review 

hypothesized that using this approach could help transform 

the agency into a more effective and relevant organization 

and will strengthen public investment in Forest Service 

activities. Key ecosystem services provided by federal 

forests in the Plan area include water, recreation, wildlife 

and plant habitat, wood products, and carbon sequestration. 

The contribution of Forest Service lands to water yield in 

streams differs regionally and is especially significant in 

streams that originate in the western Cascade Range and 

northern California (fig. 12-3). The water supply from many 

watersheds in the Plan area originates on national forests 

(Watts et al. 2016), and water from undisturbed old-growth 

forests can be especially high in quality as a result of high 

nutrient retention and low erosion (Franklin and Spies 

1991). Streamflow in summer, which is typically quite low, 

is nevertheless higher from old-growth forest watersheds in 

the western Oregon Cascades than in watersheds dominated 

by maturing forest plantations (Perry and Jones 2016). 

Forested streamside buffers have been shown to protect 

water quality in many parts of the world (Sweeney and 

Newbold 2014). 

The carbon sequestration potential of old-growth 

forest ecosystems in the NWFP area has received special 

attention (DellaSala et al. 2015, Hudiburg et al. 2009, Kline 

et al. 2016, Smith et al. 2013, Wilson et al. 2013). When 

the forests and soils of this region develop for long periods 

(hundreds of years) without natural or human disturbances, 

they can store some of the highest levels of carbon of any 

region in the United States and the world (fig. 12-4). 

The expanded understanding of ecosystem services 

also reveals that synergies and tradeoffs can occur 

between and among biocentric and anthropocentric values 

(Hunter et al. 2014, Kline et al. 2016). For example, certain conservation approaches (e.g., protecting old growth 

and restoring watersheds) may have the added benefits 

of increasing carbon sequestration and water quality and 

providing economic benefits in the form of scenic quality/

aesthetics, recreation, or restoration jobs (Brandt et al. 
939

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Table 12-2—U.S. natural resource legislation with examples of federal agency responses and applications of 

ecosystem services for agencies

Legislation Intent of legislation Examples of U.S. federal agency responses

Multiple Use–Sustained Yield 

Act (1960)

Promote sustainable management of natural 

resources to meet the growing needs of an 

increasing population and expanding economy

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) directed to manage timber, 

range, water, recreation and wildlife with equal 

importance

National Environmental Policy 

Act (1969)

Encourage harmony between people and the 

environment, enrich the understanding of 

the ecological systems and natural resources 

important to the Nation, and establish a Council 

on Environmental Quality

Any federal, state, or local project that involves 

federal funding, work performed by the federal 

government, or permits issued by a federal 

agency must take a multidisciplinary approach 

to decisionmaking, including consideration of 

alternatives

Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (1976) and 

National Forest Management 

Act 

Establish policy of inventory and planning in 

accordance with the Multiple-Use Sustainable 

Yield Act

USFS and BLM develop land management plans 

in collaboration with the public to determine 

appropriate multiple uses, develop strategies 

for resource management and protection, and 

establish systems for inventory and monitoring 

to evaluate the status of resources and 

management effectiveness

National Forest System Land 

Management Planning Rule 

2012

Regulation developed by the USFS to implement 

planning required by the National Forest 

Management Act

Rule explicitly requires USFS managers to 

address ecosystem services in planning to 

ensure that forests have the capacity to provide 

people and communities with a range of social, 

economic, and ecological benefits for the present 

and into the future. Staff across the agency 

develop and apply tools to address ecosystem 

services in land-management efforts.

Presidential Memorandum: 

Incorporating Ecosystem 

Services into Federal 

Decision-Making 

(OMB2015)

Directs federal agencies to incorporate natural 

infrastructure and ecosystem services into 

decision frameworks

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

uses ecosystem service valuation to assess benefits 

of dam removal and coastal rehabilitation, among 

other projects

Natural Resources Conservation Service applies 

ecosystem service quantification tools to its 

programs, including watershed rehabilitation and 

flood mitigation 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorporates 

consideration of ecosystem services into wildlife 

refuge management

Environmental Protection Agency makes ecosystem 

services the focus of determining adversity to 

public welfare in review of air quality standards 

BLM and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively 

assess alternative methods and quantification tools 

for evaluating ecosystem services through a case 

study in the San Pedro River watershed

Source: Deal et al. 2017b.
940

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Figure 12-3—Percentage of annual streamflow from U.S. Forest Service lands in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. Data 

from Luce et al. 2017 (https://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/archive/Product/RDS-2017-0046/.) and https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/nationalforest-contributions-streamflow-pacific-northwest-region-region-6. 
941

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

2014). In some cases, recreation and restoration benefits 

may help to offset job losses associated with declines in 

timber production. However, the economic systems and 

accounting for federal lands do not yet fully consider 

the values of carbon sequestration and water supply, 

and newer economies based on amenity values may not 

make up for job losses associated with protection of 

late-successional old-growth habitats and other economic 

factors in the timber industry (Charnley 2006a) (chapter 

8). These variable effects and measures make it difficult 

to generalize about the ecosystem service impacts of the 

NWFP or conservation approaches in general. In addition, 

market forces external to NWFP communities and wood 

products manufacturing have also transformed since the 

NWFP was implemented, making it difficult to tease apart 

the role of federal lands management from other drivers 

of economic change in influencing community socioeconomic well-being. 

Despite its limitations, many scientists consider the ecosystem services framework useful for managing the broad 

array of benefits that forests provide to people (Deal et al. 

2017a, 2017b). Although there are challenges in operationalizing and measuring the entire set of ecosystem services 

outlined by the Millennium Assessment, the framework 

gives managers a more diverse set of possible objectives, 

including managing forests and rangelands for water, pollination potential, carbon, firewood/fuel, cultural heritage, 

spirituality, solitude, scenery, and many other values. 

Figure 12-4—Total forest ecosystem carbon density in the United States, 2000–2009. Includes above- and belowground live trees, downed 

dead wood, forest floor, soil organic carbon, standing dead trees, and understory above- and belowground pools. From Wilson et al. 2013. 
942

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Institutional capacity—

A key interaction in the social-ecological system lies 

between the desire to restore forest dynamics and create 

more resilient forests and the limited capacity of human 

communities and federal agencies for active management. Although forest management on federal lands was 

often seen in the past (and still is by some) as a threat 

to native biodiversity, it is now seen by many ecologists 

and managers as critical to restoration and conservation 

of terrestrial ecosystems (Johnson and Swanson 2009). 

Interestingly, this view is not widely held for aquatic 

ecosystems (chapter 7). In the past, revenues from timber 

harvest often subsidized forest management, yet those 

revenues have declined with reductions in harvesting 

(chapter 8). Trends of declining agency budgets, increased 

fire suppression costs, and reduced agency staffing pose 

challenges to achieving forest management objectives 

such as ecological restoration, reducing wildfire risk to 

human communities, promoting habitat for wildlife (chapter 8), and providing diverse opportunities and settings 

for recreation (chapter 9). Federal agencies lacked the 

institutional capacity (staff with the required skills, financial resources, management flexibility, and incentives) 

to fully implement the NWFP’s ecosystem management 

goals (Charnley 2006a). Efforts to maintain species and 

habitats and restore desired ecological conditions (e.g., old 

growth) and processes (e.g., succession fire and natural 

flows) require funding, forest management capacity (e.g., 

workforce and wood products infrastructure), and public 

support. The budgets for restoration and the annual rates 

of treatment are well below what is needed to restore fire 

to the historical levels found in frequent-fire landscapes 

(North et al. 2012, Reilly et al. 2017b, Spies et al. 2017). 

Limited budget and agency capacity has led to innovative 

approaches to accomplishing restoration, such as stewardship contracting and partnerships with nongovernmental 

organizations or other government agencies (chapter 8). 

However, wood processing mills needed to support forest 

restoration are closing in some regions (especially in 

less-productive dry forests), where timber supply from 

both private and public lands is insufficient to keep them 

in business (chapter 8). 

The NWFP represented a dramatic shift in social 

priorities, from commodity production toward biodiversity 

conservation, which has been part of a larger national 

process that has been called “green drift” (Klyza and Sousa 

2010) in environmental policymaking in the United States. 

However, the idea that “working forest landscapes” or 

“anchor forests” (multi-ownership landscapes that support 

sustainable timber and biomass production) can provide 

conservation values, funding for restoration, and support 

for rural communities has also gained much traction in 

recent years (Charnley et al. 2014, Corrao and Andringa 

2017). Nevertheless, working forest landscapes are subject 

to the same concerns that have been raised about the 

balance between conservation and incorporation of human 

needs—how to reconcile different world views and values. 

This tension can only be resolved through social processes 

including public engagement and collaborative efforts that 

take into account social, ecological, and economic considerations and legislative actions (chapter 9).

Trust and collaboration— 

Trust among federal land management agencies and the 

public is key to restoration and landscape-scale management 

for multiple goals, but trust is often lacking and difficult 

to cultivate (chapter 9). Trust among interested parties is 

essential for developing adaptive management strategies 

that can nimbly and effectively respond to changing 

climate, species, disturbances, human values, and markets. 

Trust can be lost in many ways on federal lands, especially 

when local-level agreements or collaborative processes are 

overridden by national-level political decisions (Daniels 

and Walker 1995), or when local decisions are seen as 

circumventing federal laws or policies. Researchers and 

practitioners have characterized public trust as integral 

to effective natural resources decisionmaking and implementation (Davenport et al. 2007, Pretty and Ward 2001, 

Shindler and Cramer 1999, Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). 

Meanwhile, distrust can be a precursor for natural resource 

conflict (Nie 2003). Trust and distrust are not inversely 

related, but rather, trust is multidimensional and can coexist 

with distrust. Moreover, trust is contextual (depending on 

the setting or issue) and dynamic (changing based on each 

encounter or experience) (Lewicki et al. 1998). Trust in 
943

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

natural resource institutions stems from creating trust in 

both processes and outcomes, whereas interpersonal trust 

depends on promoting trusting relationships between the 

public and agency personnel. For natural resource agencies, 

some factors shown to constrain the development of trust 

include unclear communication, limited public involvement 

opportunities, historical resentments, conflicting values, 

lack of progress in meeting objectives, lack of community 

awareness, and high turnover of personnel (Davenport 

et al. 2007). Trust among conflicting parties in resource 

management can be elusive, but it can be positively influenced through transparency, having clear processes, stated 

objectives, clarity of roles, and commitment to engagement 

(see chapter 9). A desire to build or expand trust is an 

important motivator for collaboration and conflict resolution 

(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000), but “common ground will 

be elusive in conflicts involving fundamental value differences” (Wondolleck 2009). Frequent turnover among local 

forest management staff has been cited as a constraint on 

productive collaborations, particularly within tribal communities (see chapter 11). 

Current efforts to enhance trust and generate social 

learning around restoration and other efforts to meet NWFP 

and other ecological goals are focused on collaboration 

among multiple agencies, and stakeholders around projects 

at various scales, from the watershed level to entire landscapes (chapter 9). Collaboration is touted as a means to 

achieve ecological goals as well as social benefits, which 

include conflict resolution, trust, and improved decisionmaking (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Many of these 

collaborations are occurring in the fire-prone regions of 

the Western United States, and they are supported by 

funding related to forest restoration and fire-risk reduction 

programs. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program is having some success in encouraging stakeholders to work together to help plan and implement forest 

restoration treatments, particularly in dry forests at the 

landscape scale (Butler et al. 2015, Urgenson et al. 2017). 

Two well-established collaboratives fall within or immediately adjacent to the NWFP area: the Deschutes Forest Collaborative in central Oregon and Tapash Forest Sustainable 

Collaborative in eastern Washington. The Western Klamath 

Restoration Partnership is another example that builds upon 

years of collaboration in northern California. In addition to 

large-scale collaboration, there has been a proliferation of 

community-based collaborative groups in the Plan area that 

are engaged in National Environmental Policy Act planning, 

stewardship contracting, and multiparty monitoring, on both 

sides of the Cascades (Davis et al. 2015a) and in northern 

California. Other types of collaboratives in the NWFP area 

have formed around specific resource concerns, such as California Fire-Safe Councils (Everett and Fuller 2011) and the 

U.S. Fire Learning Networks (Butler and Goldstein 2010). 

Collaborative processes are viewed by natural resource 

agencies as an effective way to engage stakeholders, 

provide an opportunity for dialogue and deliberation, 

and build trust and foster relations among groups that 

historically have worked in opposition (Butler et al. 2015, 

Urgenson et al. 2017). For example, the threat of high-severity wildfire in forests of the NWFP area that historically 

burned frequently may be a “common enemy” that can 

enable environmental and timber groups to work together 

with the Forest Service to advance restoration projects 

on the ground (Urgenson et al. 2017). This approach has 

emerged in some places such as the Western Klamath 

Restoration Project on the Klamath and Six Rivers National 

Forests in northwestern California, where a broad partnership of interests, including tribal communities (chapter 11) 

are coalescing around landscape-level restoration efforts 

rooted in returning fire to the system. Efforts like this will 

potentially be a model in some forest types for making 

meaningful progress on large-scale forest restoration. 

Collaboration appears promising, and studies to date 

have identified positive outcomes associated with social 

interactional concepts such as trust, social capital, learning, and process (Davis et al. 2017). There has been less 

emphasis on evaluating outcomes such as improved social 

and ecological conditions. The tremendous investment 

in collaborative processes may yield enhanced trust and 

improved ecological and social conditions. Although the 

landscape collaborative program in the United States has 

provided better community engagement in decisionmaking, 

the long-term benefits of the program have not yet been 

documented (Butler et al. 2015). 
944

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Team Hymas

Forest collaboratives have been designed to distinguish 

the roles of agency staff as decisionmakers who consider 

input from stakeholder collaborators, rather than devolving 

decisionmaking to local communities or coopting the 

process to meet predetermined objectives (Butler 2013) (fig. 

12-5). In other words, collaboratives are not engaged in true 

power sharing, because ultimately the federal agency’s line 

officer makes the final decision. Agency participation in collaborative efforts often takes place at an “arm’s length” with 

agency participants playing the role of “technical advisor” 

and often not holding roles as voting members of collaborative groups (Butler 2013). In fact, agency (Forest Service) 

participants in collaborative groups are more often motivated by the need to build social trust, whereas non-agency 

participants are motivated by the desire to achieve social and 

ecological outcomes (Davis et al. 2017). Greater decentralization of authority has arisen through co-management or 

community-based natural resource management efforts, 

particularly outside of the United States; however, there have 

been relatively few examples of such efforts in which both 

resource utilization and biodiversity conservation goals have 

been achieved (Kellert et al. 2000). Strong legal foundations, institutions, and investments in monitoring may have 

contributed to these successes, as demonstrated in some 

examples of tribes and state governments conserving salmon 

in the Pacific Northwest (Kellert et al. 2000) (chapter 11).

Figure 12-5—The Forest Service has built upon precedents such as the Handshake Agreement of 1932 by establishing areas that are specially managed to support resources important to tribes within ancestral lands that are now national forests. Many of these approaches 

embody principles of cooperative management that go beyond collaboration, yet maintain the agency’s decisionmaking authority. An 

area in the Sawtooth Berry Fields was reserved in 1932 by a handshake agreement between Yakama Indian Chief William Yallup and 

Gifford Pinchot National Forest Supervisor J.R. Bruckart for use by Indians.
945

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Tribal perspectives—

Chapter 11, which addresses American Indian tribal 

values, vividly describes the integrated social and ecological values of ecosystems in the NWFP area. Tribes 

value a vast diversity of animals and plants for utilitarian 

values that include the use of timber, as well as intangible 

cultural values. The perspectives held by native peoples 

of the Pacific Northwest, informed by thousands of years 

of place-based experience, help to internalize many of the 

tradeoffs between use and preservation, as well as provide a long-term, broad spatial perspective about system 

dynamics. For example, many tribes want to sustain the 

legacy of old trees and associated biological diversity 

while also promoting the productivity and diversity of 

early-successional communities, nonforest communities, 

and hardwood communities, and also generating timber 

and nontimber forest products (fig. 12-6). To achieve such 

multifaceted goals, some tribes have developed innovative 

forest management plans that many consider to be fulfilling the promise of the NWFP for addressing both social 

and ecological goals (e.g., Baker 2003, Hatcher et al. 2017, 

Johnson et al. 2008). Chapter 11 highlights the critical role 

of fire in dry and some moist forest types for maintaining 

desired ecosystem conditions. 

Figure 12-6—Clarence Hostler gathering matsutake mushrooms under tanoak trees on the Six Rivers National Forest, near Orleans, 

California, November 2013.

Thomas Dunklin
946

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

What Have We Learned About the 

Components of the Northwest Forest Plan 

and Their Compatibilities?

Coarse- and fine-filter approaches to conservation—

Both coarse- and fine-filter strategies for conserving 

biodiversity (Hunter 2005, Noss 1987) are a part of the 

NWFP and the 2012 planning rule, and the relative importance of the two appears to have shifted toward coarse-filter 

approaches under the current planning rule. Earlier scientific 

debate on the pros and cons of single species (e.g., fine-filter) 

vs. ecosystem (coarse-filter) approaches to management 

(Casazza et al. 2016, Simberloff 1998, White et al. 2013) 

have been replaced by recognition that these approaches are 

complementary, and both are a valuable part of conservation 

strategies (chapter 6) (DellaSala et al. 2015, Hunter 2005, 

Noon et al. 2009, Reilly and Spies 2015, Simberloff 1998, 

Tingley et al. 2014). Meso-filter approaches (e.g., habitat elements like snags and large old trees) also have been included 

in a conservation approach hierarchy (Hunter 2005). The 

challenge now, and the source of some debate, is to find an 

appropriate level or balance of coarse-, meso-, and fine-filter 

approaches (Schultz et al. 2013). If a plan is weighted too 

much toward single species, or a particular successional 

stage, the strategy may succeed “in protecting a few of the 

actors at the expense of the majority of the cast” (Tingley et 

al. 2014). If weighted too much to the overarching ecosystem 

goals, the “stage” may be conserved but the “star actors may 

not show up” (Tingley et al. 2014). 

Although the NWFP was based on coarse- and fine-filter strategies, the “star actor,” i.e., providing enough suitable 

habitat to sustain northern spotted owl populations, had 

a very large influence on the Plan. The approach of using 

the northern spotted owl as a surrogate or umbrella for 

old-forest ecosystems developed “unintentionally,” driven 

mainly by the need to meet the mandates of the ESA and 

other federal policies (Meslow 1993). The emphasis on the 

northern spotted owl carried through the development of 

the Plan, despite the fact that the NWFP was intended to be 

an “ecosystem management” plan. The single-species focus 

had unintended consequences for other biodiversity conservation and for management of resilience to fire and climate 

change across an ecologically diverse region. For example, 

in dry forests within the range of the northern spotted owl, 

large portions of the forest conditions that support this 

species are the result of 100 or more years of fire exclusion 

that has altered forest ecosystems and their resilience to 

drought and fire (chapter 3). The emphasis on the fine-filter 

aspect of the Plan—focusing on the northern spotted owl—

challenges the Plan’s ability to meet other ecosystem goals 

under the 2012 planning rule, including ecosystem integrity 

and resilience to climate change and other stressors. 

The congruence of coarse- and fine-filter goals and 

management approaches varies by disturbance regime 

(chapter 3). The most congruence between managing for 

historical range of variation or ecological resilience (i.e., a 

coarse-filter approach based on ecosystem dynamics) and 

for species that use dense older forests is in moist forests, 

where fire was infrequent (frequencies of 200 to >1,000 

years), and forests would often grow for centuries without 

major disturbance. However, in regimes where fire was frequent or very frequent (less than 50 years) and landscapes 

were dominated by open-canopy forests, it is challenging to 

manage for both a coarse-filter approach based on landscape-scale ecological integrity, and the fine-filter approach 

of the NWFP based on maintaining or increasing the area of 

dense older forests. That is not to say that the two goals cannot be integrated in dry forests, only that the current NWFP 

strategy in dry forests does not guide management toward 

ecological integrity, which would emphasize management 

for the ecosystem-regulating role of fire. 

Congruence between the two approaches (ecological 

integrity and coarse filter based on prioritizing dense, 

multilayered forests) is intermediate in moderately frequent 

to somewhat infrequent fire regimes (50 to 200 years) of 

the drier part of the moist forests where fire exclusion has 

had somewhat less effect. Here, historical fire regimes 

created a highly dynamic mosaic of high-, moderate-, and 

low-severity fire and higher diversity of early, mid- and 

late-successional stages than in the infrequent fire regime 

areas (fig. 12-2) (chapter 3). The relative abundances and 

spatial patterns of different forest states in the fire regimes 

of the NWFP area create inherently different biodiversity 

and ecosystem process conditions in the NWFP region. This 
947

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

ecological and geographic variability means that weighting 

the plan too much in favor of a single successional stage 

(e.g., dense older forest) will not likely succeed in maintaining a broader set of goals related to ecological integrity or 

resilience to climate change and drought. 

Northern spotted owl—

The northern spotted owl was listed as threatened under the 

ESA in 1990. Despite extensive efforts of federal agencies to 

protect northern spotted owls, conserve remaining habitat, 

and set aside areas as future habitat, populations have continued to decline (chapter 4). When the NWFP was implemented, northern spotted owl populations were predicted to 

continue declining for as long as 50 years owing to lingering 

impacts of previous habitat loss before populations would 

recover while sufficient area of younger forests grew into 

conditions that supported the owl (chapter 4). Unknown at 

the time were the effects that competitive pressure by barred 

owls would have on spotted owl populations, which have further compounded the challenges faced by northern spotted 

owls and accelerated their rate of population decline. Without 

the protections afforded by the NWFP and ESA, northern 

spotted owl populations would likely have experienced even 

steeper declines (chapter 4). Clearly, efforts to recover the 

subspecies are facing multiple challenges related to both 

habitat management and the barred owl invasion (USFWS 

2011). With the continued population expansion of the barred 

owl within the range of spotted owls, the long-term prospects 

for spotted owls are not good and remain uncertain.

Although structural definitions of old-growth forests 

and northern spotted owl habitat are similar in many ways, 

they are not synonymous (Davis et al. 2016), and strategies 

to conserve them may differ (fig. 12-7). Additionally, 

northern spotted owls do not function as an umbrella for all

or even most other species within the full range of vegetation conditions in the NWFP area (Burnett and Roberts 

2015, Carroll et al. 2010), a fact that was recognized at the 

time of the development of the NWFP and which led to the 

development of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) 

and additional species protections in the form of the Survey 

and Manage program (chapter 6) (Carroll 2010, Molina et al. 

2006, Raphael and Marcot 1994, Thomas et al. 2006). 

Marbled murrelet—

The marbled murrelet has habitat needs that overlap those 

of the northern spotted owl and that are compatible with 

many definitions of old-growth forests (fig. 12-7). Thus, 

plans and strategies that focus on northern spotted owls and 

old-growth forests are likely to benefit to a large degree the 

marbled murrelet within its range. However, there are some 

distinctive habitat differences between marbled murrelets 

and northern spotted owls that require special conservation 

considerations (chapter 5). The most obvious difference 

is that the murrelet is a diving seabird whose foraging 

habitat is in the coastal marine environment, thus marine 

conditions must be considered in murrelet habitat needs. 

Murrelet nesting habitat occurs in coastal forests that typically experienced infrequent, high-severity fire regimes. 

Within that environment, marbled murrelets preferentially 

select larger, more contiguous patches of forest throughout 

their range and tend to avoid edge habitats where risk of 

nest depredation is greater (Raphael et al. 2015) (chapter 

5); therefore, unlike for the northern spotted owl, proximity of early-seral forest is undesirable because it can 

increase abundance of birds that prey on murrelet nests. 

Extensive efforts to restore fire-resilient open old-growth 

forests in the somewhat infrequent to moderately frequent, 

mixed-severity regimes in the range of the murrelet may 

reduce habitat quality by increasing the exposure of nests 

to predators. 

Aquatic ecosystems— 

Goals of aquatic ecosystems partly overlap with characteristics of old-growth forests, and with habitats for 

northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets (fig. 12-7). For 

example, large dead trees and shading from dense patches 

of streamside conifer forests contribute to habitat quality in 

stream channels and cool stream temperatures that support 

salmonid populations (chapter 7). In coastal areas, tall, 

multilayered conifer canopies can intercept fog and deliver 

more moisture to streams than can shorter dense forests, 

mitigating some of the effects of climate change (chapter 7). 

However, the absence of disturbance for extended periods 

can result in the decrease in suitable substrates, reducing 

habitat quality (Reeves et al. 1995) (chapter 7). Riparian and 

stream environments are also dependent on geomorphic and 
948

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Figure 12-7—Distribution of habitat (dotted line ellipses) in relation to (A) tree canopy closure and tree size and (B) tree canopy closure 

and dead wood for different biodiversity components in the area of the Northwest Forest Plan. Northern spotted owl habitat refers to 

forests that are suitable for nesting and roosting. Gray ellipses refer to selected vegetation structure classes: COG—closed-canopy old 

growth; OOG—open-canopy old growth; YNG—young forest; MAT—mature forest; O/E—early successional with old live trees; 

O/Y—young forest with old trees; WDL—woodland; ESL/NF—early-seral/nonforest (shrubland, grassland). Conserving and restoring 

aquatic ecosystems requires a range of vegetation states, including older forest through time, but is not restricted to old growth (chapter 

7). Many terrestrial species, including some tribal ecocultural resources, require early-successional and nonforest vegetation. Similarly, 

salmonid community assemblages differ between recently disturbed streams and undisturbed streams in old-growth forests. Tree size/age Dead wood Seedlings/young Large/old

Original focus

of Northwest 

Forest Plan

conservation

Original focus

of Northwest 

Forest Plan

conservation

OOG

COG

ESL

WDL YNG

MAT

Low High

NF

Tree canopy closure/layering Open/nonforest High

Tree canopy closure/layering Open/nonforest High

Marbled murrelet

Northern spotted owl

Aquatic habitat

Other species

Marbled murrelet

Northern spotted owl

Aquatic habitat

Other species

OOG

COG

ESL/NF

WDL

YNG

MAT

O/E

O/Y

A

B
949

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

hydrological disturbances that make many riparian areas a 

mosaic of older conifers, younger conifers, hardwoods, and 

shrubfields. This mosaic and the disturbance and successional dynamics that drive it means that the range of variation in riparian vegetation habitats may include conditions 

that do not qualify as old-growth forests (e.g., a lack of old 

conifer trees) or meet the habitat needs for northern spotted 

owls and marbled murrelets (fig. 12-8). 

Fires burning through riparian areas and surrounding 

uplands may have reduced some stream qualities in the 

short term, but these events often improve conditions as 

large dead trees fall into streams, and as postfire floods, 

landslides, and debris torrents reorganize streams into 

more complex habitats (chapter 7) (Bisson et al. 2003). 

The absence of fire results in the lack of large influxes of 

sediments and wood, the basic building blocks of habitat 

for native fish, to the valley floors (Bisson et al. 2003, 

Flitcroft et al. 2016, Reeves et al. 1995) (chapter 7). Active 

management will continue to be used to reduce fuels and 

vegetation that make the forests susceptible to uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires. Such management often 

strives to prevent disturbances to streams, which can reduce 

or eliminate the occurrence of periodic disturbances that 

deliver sediment to the valley bottoms and stream channels. 

The lack of these disturbances and sediment can have serious unintended consequences to riparian-dependent wildlife 

and aquatic organisms (chapter 7). 

Disturbances such as floods, landslides, and debris 

flows, which are essential for aquatic ecosystem functions, 

can be affected by roads that alter disturbance flow pathways and disconnect streams from uplands (Jones et al. 

2000). These changes can reduce the resilience of these 

Figure 12-8—Mosaic of vegetation and substrate conditions along the North Fork of the Elk River, which occurs in an unlogged and 

largely unroaded watershed on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest in coastal Oregon.

Tom Spies
950

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

ecosystems to these natural disturbance events. Decommissioning of roads can also improve passage for fish and other 

species and help reconnect streams and floodplains and 

improve water quality. Not all roads are the same, however, 

in terms of their ecological effects, and knowledge of how 

road networks are distributed relative to geomorphic processes can aid in the design of more effective road systems 

and restoration of watershed processes. 

The potential of federal lands to contribute to the 

recovery of listed fish, particularly Pacific salmon, in 

many parts of the NWFP area is likely more limited than 

was recognized when the ACS was developed (chapter 

7). The primary reason for this difference is that, in many 

situations, federal lands have a limited capacity to provide 

high-quality habitat for some of the listed fish. Federally 

managed lands are generally located in the middle to upper 

portions of watersheds, which tend to have steeper gradients 

and more confined valleys and floodplains, making them 

inherently less productive for some fish (Burnett et al. 2007, 

Lunetta et al. 1997, Reeves et al. 2016). Federal lands may, 

however, be major sources of wood, sediment (Reeves et 

al. 2016), and water (Brown and Froemke 2010, 2012) for 

downstream nonfederal lands, and will be important for the 

potential recovery of most populations. Nevertheless, their 

contribution to recovery may in many cases be insufficient 

without parallel contributions from nonfederal land ownerships elsewhere in the basin (Grantham et al. 2017). 

Other species of late-successional and old-growth forest—

The Survey and Manage program (chapter 6) identified 

and listed many fungi, lichens, bryophytes, invertebrates, 

and other species groups that were deemed to require 

specific surveying to help ensure their conservation under 

the NWFP. Although the NWFP protects 80 percent of 

the remaining old-growth forest in the region, this amount 

of old growth may represent only about 15 percent of the 

historical amounts of old growth that occurred in the moist 

forests across all lands in the NWFP area (chapter 3). The 

Survey and Manage program helped reduce the number of 

species on the list that were originally ranked as having low 

potential for persistence. The program also helped evaluate 

other species for potential addition to the lists and to make 

adjustments to surveys and site protection as needed for 

conservation of those species. Reduction in survey status or 

removal from the Survey and Manage species lists resulted 

from efforts to locate species during “predisturbance 

surveys” before harvests or other management activities. 

Since the 2006 synthesis (Haynes et al. 2006), no species 

have been added to the Survey and Manage species list; any 

additions would occur through a renewed annual species 

review process, and none was added the last three times the 

review process took place in 2001, 2002, and 2003. 

The approach of the Survey and Manage program 

represented a fine-filter strategy applied to hundreds of 

species, which created a nearly impossible administrative and 

financial challenge to land management agencies (Molina 

2006). This approach may not be consistent with the goal 

of having “a few species of special concern” under the new 

planning rule, although the rule also calls for creating lists of 

“species of conservation concern.” At present, we recognize 

that alternative strategies to applying a fine-filter approach to 

large numbers of species include a meso-filter approach that is 

based on functional groups and habitat elements (chapter 6). 

As levels of intensive timber management from late-successional and old-growth forests continue to be low, as has been 

the case in recent years (fig. 12-9), and all such forests are 

excluded from timber management, the original motivation 

for the program—logging of unreserved older forest in the 

matrix (Molina et al. 2006)—would seem to have weakened. 

Most of the logging that has occurred under the NWFP 

appears to have been associated with restoration in plantations 

in moist forests and fuel reduction activities in dry fire-excluded late-successional and old-growth forests. The situation 

in dry forests raises the question of how to reconcile the goals 

of dense-forest species with those of ecological integrity 

and species that use more open fire-dependent forests? Fire 

exclusion has dramatically altered the habitats of both types 

of native species in these regimes (chapter 3) (Dodson et al. 

2008; Keane et al. 2002, 2009); however, effects on biodiversity have received little empirical study in the NWFP area 

(Lehmkuhl et al. 2007), and broader evaluations of other 

dimensions of biodiversity (e.g., population genetics, food 

webs, and ecological functions) have generally not been made.

Forest carnivores, particularly those associated with old 

forest conditions, were not a primary focus of the original 
951

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

NWFP. Fishers, marten, and lynx (Lynx canadensis) were 

addressed in the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report (FEMAT 1993) to a limited degree, with 

suggestions for conservation actions including closure to 

trapping of marten on federal land, evaluation of the effects 

of poisoning porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), completion 

and implementation of habitat capability models for fishers 

and martens in California, and conducting more thorough 

surveys for both marten and fisher. Concern for the status 

of these species and for the wolverine (Gulo gulo) (which 

uses higher elevation, alpine, and subalpine habitats) has 

increased significantly in the past 23 years, and recent 

findings have identified new populations, new threats, and 

even new taxonomic species (see chapter 6). The Forest 

Service has increased measures to conserve habitat for 

these species, particularly in northwest California, where 

an extant population of fisher remains at risk. Increases in 

populations of carnivores would potentially have benefits 

to these ecosystems that cascade through trophic levels 

(Beschta and Ripple 2009), but the broader ecological 

effects of the further reduction or loss of these carnivores or 

their return in the NWFP area are not well understood. 

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1994199519961997

19981999

2000200120022003

2004

20052006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Percentage of area harvested

Year 

10

20

30

40

50

60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Percentage of area harvested

Acres harvested (thousands)

Acres harvested (thousands)

A

C

High

Moderate

Low

Year 

High

Moderate

Low

B

D

Figure 12-9—Trends in area of (A) old-growth structure index (OGSI) 80 harvested and (B) OGSI 200 harvested by intensity class (low, 

medium, and high) and percentage of harvest of (C) OGSI 80 and (D) OGSI 200 by intensity class on all federal lands between 1994 and 

2011. OGSI is an index of stand structure based on live and dead tree characteristics that can be used to map the degree of old-growth 

development across a landscape as an alternative to classifications that simply define forests as old-growth or not. OGSI 80 and OGSI 

200 represent the index at 80 and 200 years, respectively. Low = 0 to 33 percent loss of vegetation cover (all life forms); moderate = 33 to 

66 percent loss, high = >66 percent loss. Note difference in scale between acres harvested in OGSI 80 and OGSI 200. Based on analysis 

of annual thematic mapper satellite imagery. Data are from Davis et al. 2015b. See Davis et al. 2015b for more information about OSGI.
952

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Old-growth forest ecosystems—

The goal of the NWFP was to create “a functional, interactive, late-successional and old-growth ecosystem” (USDA 

and USDI 1994b: 6). As mentioned above, the congruence 

of the old-growth forest with the other conservation goals 

varies by location within the NWFP region, and by the 

definitions of old growth, and objectives. In general, the 

NWFP goals, which are yet to be fully achieved (e.g., in 

terms of area) (chapter 3) (Davis et al. 2015b), will provide 

a foundation for reaching many of the biodiversity goals 

of moist forests. But these goals are not consistent with 

managing for native biodiversity of dry forests and will not 

lead to long-term resilience of those ecosystems to wildfires 

and drought, or the broad diversity of successional and fuel 

patterns that support the natural fire regime (chapter 3) (fig. 

12-7). Moreover, meeting NWFP goals has consequences 

for other components of forest biodiversity (e.g., early-seral 

species) not considered in the original NWFP (chapter 3) 

(Hessburg et al. 2016), especially those dependent on fire of 

different frequencies and severities, including aquatic ecosystems (chapter 7). In addition, new studies and increased 

recognition of the historical role of moderately frequent fire 

in drier parts of the moist forest zone, suggest that the Plan 

goal of conserving biodiversity associated with older forests 

may need to be revisited even in these relatively moist forests (chapter 3). Management for ecological integrity in this 

fire regime likely would seek to have a range of old-forest 

structural types (e.g., with and without tree age cohorts 

created by partial stand-replacement fires) and other successional conditions across landscapes. Fire in the moist forest 

zone sustains old forests and other successional stages, and 

contributes to hillslope processes (e.g., landslides and debris 

flows) that are fundamental to creating diverse and essential 

fish habitats (see below). 

Reserves—

Late-successional forest and riparian reserves were major 

and controversial components of the NWFP. Based on the 

monitoring results and the original goals of the NWFP, the 

reserve strategy can be considered a success from the standpoint of halting old-growth logging (Davis et al. 2015b, 

2016; Raphael et al. 2015). In addition, although late-successional and old-growth forests have continued to decline 

across the NWFP area owing to wildfire and logging (in 

the first few years of the NWFP), trends are in line with the 

Plan’s expectation of losses (Davis et al. 2015b, 2016), but 

new concerns have emerged about fire and climate change. 

Similarly, clearcutting of riparian forests on federal lands 

has also come to a halt, contributing to improvements in 

watershed health (chapter 7). 

Although trends in the amount of dense old growth 

are in line with expectations at a regional scale, there are 

reasons for concern (chapter 3). First, as mentioned above, 

maintaining or increasing current amounts of dense older 

forests in the dry forest zone is not consistent with managing for ecological integrity, as defined under the 2012 planning rule. Second, the Plan did not consider climate change 

effects that are already significant in dry forests (chapters 2 

and 3). Managing for large areas of dense older forest (e.g., 

current LSR design) will not promote resilience to fire and 

drought, both of which are increasing under climate change. 

We explore these concerns in more depth below. 

The standards and guidelines for the reserves 

specifically called out a need for active management to 

restore ecological diversity to plantations in both moist 

and dry forest types. Restoration activity has occurred 

in plantations in LSRs in moist forests, where innovative 

approaches to thinning have been developed and widely 

applied (chapter 3). The standards and guidelines for 

dry, fire-frequent forests (east of the Cascades and in the 

Oregon and California Klamath provinces) were different 

(USDA and USDI 1994b). There, the focus of management 

was on accelerating older forest development in younger 

forests and reducing risk of loss to high-severity fire in 

older forests. This concern was the impetus for designating 

some LSRs under the NWFP as “managed LSRs,” in which 

silvicultural treatments were permitted to reduce risk of 

loss of stands around some northern spotted owl activity 

centers. However, the area of this type of LSR was small 

(about 102,000 ac) compared to the millions of acres of 

LSRs in dry forests (USDA and USDI 1994a). It is not clear 

how much restoration activity has actually occurred in 

older forests in LSR’s or in riparian reserves in fire-prone 

forests because the implementation monitoring program 

was not continued. However, indications are that between 
953

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

1993 and 2012 (20 years) less than 2 percent of older forest 

(OGSI 80) in the dry forest zone had treatments (Davis et 

al. 2015b) that would reduce total canopy cover, and surface 

and ladder fuels and risk of loss of older forest to large 

high-severity fires. 

The issue of the need for restoration management also 

applies to riparian reserves, where relatively few restoration 

treatments have occurred (chapter 7). Primary reasons for 

the limited amount of restoration activity include (1) differing perspectives about the characterization of reference 

conditions, conservation, and management; (2) concerns 

about the potential effects of mechanical treatments on 

stream temperature and wood recruitment; (3) concerns 

about rare and little-known organisms (Reeves 2006); and 

(4) lack of trust in managers to undertake actions primarily 

for ecological benefits (chapter 7). 

The LSR strategy of the NWFP was not designed or 

implemented in a way that promotes or restores ecological 

integrity or resilience in frequent or moderately frequent 

fire regimes (Spies et al. 2006, 2012). The initial identification of LSRs used a triage-based methodology that identified remaining concentrations of dense older forests after a 

history of fire suppression and aggressive harvesting. These 

areas were intended to provide habitat for northern spotted 

owls with adequate size and spacing of late-successional 

and old-growth forests to support the owl’s recolonization. 

But this delineation was done without consideration for 

topographic and environmental setting and historical fire 

regimes of the forests. The standards and guidelines for 

silviculture in fire-prone forests (USDA and USDI 1994b) 

place many restrictions on restoration in dry forests in 

LSRs, and emphasize stand-level treatments to accelerate 

development of late-successional (i.e., dense multilayered) 

forests in younger forests that do not “degenerate suitable 

[northern spotted] owl habitat.” They also suggest that 

treatment in older forests “may be considered” where they 

“will clearly result” in reduced risks. The standards and 

guidelines also lack a landscape perspective for fire and dry 

forest dynamics (e.g., see Hessburg et al. 2015, 2016; Stine 

et al. 2014) that is now understood to be critical to achieving a mix of ecological goals in fire-prone landscapes. The 

main reason for the low level of restoration in older forests 

in LSRs mentioned above may be lack of social license 

including the threat of litigation (Charnley et al. 2015), 

which occurs much more frequently in the Forest Service’s 

Pacific Northwest Region (Oregon and Washington) than 

any other region in the country (Miner et al. 2014). Other 

reasons may include valuing multistoried forests, the burden of protocols under the Survey and Manage Program, 

lack of trust in managers (Olsen et al. 2012), the perception 

of some that mixed-conifer forests do not need restoration 

(Urgenson et al. 2017), or that reserves mean no-touch 

areas. Nevertheless, a review of the literature conducted for 

the 10-year socioeconomic monitoring report, combined 

with interviews held with forest managers and community 

members in four case-study locations across the NWFP 

area, found that most people (84 percent) believe that active 

forest management is needed to maintain forest health, 

as long as it does not include harvesting old-growth or 

clearcutting (Charnley and Donoghue 2006). Most interviewees did not believe that enough active management 

had occurred during the first decade of the Plan, expressing 

concerns about fire, insects, and disease. 

If the broader goal of managers is to build resilience 

to fire and climate change across fire-prone landscapes, 

our evaluation of recent science indicates that the current 

NWFP conservation strategy (e.g., LSRs, matrix, survey 

and manage species) in fire-prone forests would not 

increase ecological integrity or resilience of terrestrial and 

aquatic ecosystems in these landscapes (chapter 3). This 

is because the current approaches focus on maintaining 

current levels or even increasing the amount of dense older 

forest. Although some treatments are permitted in older 

forests to reduce risk of loss of northern spotted owl habitat 

to wildfire, insects and disease, the current strategy does 

not appear to have a goal of landscape-level resilience 

to fire and climate change as indicated under the 2012 

planning rule. Landscape-level strategies that restore fire 

as an ecological process based on topography, vegetation 

heterogeneity, successional dynamics, fire behavior, and 

other factors would be more in line with the latest scientific 

thinking (Cissel et al. 1999, Hessburg et al. 2015). Such an 

approach would also be more in line with the most recent 

northern spotted owl recovery plan (USFWS 2011, 2012), 
954

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

which provides broad guidelines for navigating diverse 

ecological goals in these regions and states: 

...we recommend that dynamic, disturbance-prone 

forests of the eastern Cascades, California Cascades 

and Klamath Provinces should be actively managed 

in a way that reconciles the overlapping goals of 

spotted owl conservation, responding to climate 

change and restoring dry forest ecological structure, 

composition and processes, including wildfire and 

other disturbances... . Vegetation management of 

fire-prone forests can retain spotted owl habitat on 

the landscape by altering fire behavior and severity 

and, if carefully and strategically applied, it could 

be part of a larger disturbance management regime 

for landscapes that attempts to reintegrate the 

relationship between forest vegetation and disturbance regimes, while also anticipating likely shifts 

in future ecosystem processes due to climate... . 

Modeling studies suggest that landscape approaches 

could reduce conflicts between restoration of fire-excluded 

ponderosa pine forests and conservation of the Mexican 

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) in Arizona (Prather 

et al. 2008); meanwhile, for the Sierra Nevada of California, 

Stephens et al. (2017) suggested that more comprehensive 

restoration treatments were needed to reduce wildfire risk to 

California spotted owls. Within the NWFP area, Spies et al. 

(2017) and Ager et al. (2017) modeled landscape scenarios in 

the eastern Cascade Range of Oregon and found that most of 

the existing area of spotted owl habitat could be maintained 

for 50 years despite the occurrence of wildfire (at recent 

rates) and restoration activities designed to create open, more 

resilient forests. Projected losses of owl habitat from wildfire 

were significantly more than from relatively limited restoration activities, but these losses were made up for by gains 

in habitat from growth and succession of small-diameter or 

relatively open forests. The value of examining both losses 

to fire and succession together has also been highlighted in a 

study by Reilly et al. (2017b), who found that in the eastern 

Cascades of Washington, Oregon, and California, losses of 

closed-canopy forests to high-severity fire between 1985 and 

2010 were mostly balanced by gains from succession, though 

higher elevation forests showed significant declines and LSRs 

showed a small net decline in old, closed-canopy forests. 

These studies suggests that landscape-scale assessments of 

northern spotted owl habitat dynamics and fire need to take 

into account the age and structure distribution of all forests 

in a landscape and account for potential increases in northern 

owl habitat from succession. These trends may not hold in 

the future, however. Ager et al. (2017) found that if the rate of 

wildfire were to increase 2 to 3 times over current rates (e.g., 

moving from fire-return intervals of 250 years to 100 and 63 

years, respectively), as some climate change studies suggest 

could happen (chapter 2), then the amount of northern 

spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat across the Deschutes 

National Forest could decrease by 25 to 40 percent in 30 

years. Climate change projections also suggest decreased tree 

growth in the future (Restaino et al. 2016), which may affect 

the rate at which forest structure can regrow following fire. 

The only explicit strategy that implements this vision 

for high-frequency fire forests is the Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forest Restoration Strategy (USDA FS 2012b). 

This strategy places a priority on restoring fire as an 

ecological process while maintaining adequate areas of 

spotted owl habitat that will shift across the landscape as 

fire and successional processes operate. Dynamic landscape 

approaches to reserves (as described above) or habitat 

conservation would have some similarities with recovery 

plans used for other listed bird species that find habitat in 

dynamic fire-prone landscapes (e.g., Kirkland’s warbler 

and red-cockaded woodpecker). However, the habitats of 

these species are threatened by fire suppression rather than 

being promoted by it in the case of the northern spotted owl. 

The literature indicates that a dynamic landscape approach 

could still fit the broader definition of a “reserve” (e.g., 

exclusion of industrial level logging). 

The current LSR-Matrix approach for dry zone forests 

does not appear to have or meet goals related to ecosystem 

integrity and management for resilience to climate change 

and fire. Managers may want to consider reevaluating 

and redesigning the NWFP conservation strategy for 

dry forests based on new scientific knowledge of climate 

change effects, knowledge of restoration strategies for dry 

forest landscapes (Hessburg et al. 2016), and the new 2012 
955

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

planning rule, which emphasizes ecosystem approaches to 

conserving biodiversity. The science and experience with 

proposed changes to the NWFP conservation strategies 

indicate that design and implementation of such approaches 

would be facilitated by a transparent and inclusive decisionmaking processes (Olsen et al. 2012). 

There may also be ecological benefits for alternative 

approaches for terrestrial and aquatic goals in dry parts 

of the moist zone forests (Cissel et al. 1999, Reeves et al. 

1995). Management based on the historical disturbance 

regimes can benefit aquatic habitats (Reeves et al. 1995) in 

these fire regimes. For example, Cissel et al. (1999) found 

ecological benefits from changing the spatial distribution 

of reserves and standards and guidelines for LSRs and the 

matrix to better approximate the mixed-severity fire regime 

dynamics of the western Cascades of Oregon. Experiments 

were started in older stands to evaluate the management 

alternatives that included using timber harvest and prescribed fire as surrogates for partial stand-replacement fire. 

However, the effort was abandoned because stakeholders 

were skeptical of cutting older trees in the matrix lands, 

and they lacked trust in the agency to implement such 

approaches to achieve restoration goals (Olsen et al. 2012). 

Thomas et al. (2006) suggested changing the NWFP allocations to protect all remaining older forest, whether located 

in reserves or the matrix. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

critical habitat designation recommends conserving spotted 

owl sites (recovery action 10) and protecting high-quality habitat (recovery action 32) whether it occurred in LSRs or the 

matrix (USFWS 2011, 2012). The science suggests that these 

actions will have ecological and social benefits, but there will 

be tradeoffs associated with timber production and needs of 

species that use other successional stages, although none of 

those species has been identified as threatened, endangered, 

or at risk because of conversion of their habitat to late-successional or old-growth forest conditions. 

The NWFP was intended to adapt to new knowledge 

and changes in the environment (USDA and USDI 1994b), 

which is consistent with the idea that conservation should 

be adaptive and iterative (Carroll et. al. 2010, Walters 1986), 

but this goal has not been fully achieved for various reasons 

(see below). Although lines are drawn on maps, and standards and guidelines are developed for reserves and other 

land allocations, findings from conservation and ecosystem 

sciences suggest that these should not be seen as immutable. 

Ecological and social science research, adaptive management experiments at landscape scales, and monitoring are 

critical to learning and meeting the conservation goals of 

the NWFP. These tools are also critical to addressing other 

species and habitat concerns, along with other human values 

across the wide range of forest environments within the 

range of the northern spotted owl. 

Socioeconomic goals—

The NWFP had four main socioeconomic goals (Charnley 

2006b): (1) produce a predictable and sustainable level of 

timber and nontimber resources, (2) maintain the stability 

of local and regional economies on a predictable, long-term 

basis, (3) assist with long-term economic development and 

diversification in communities most affected by cutbacks in 

timber harvesting to minimize the adverse impacts associated with job loss (USDA and USDI 1994b), and (4) promote 

interagency collaboration and agency and citizen collaboration in forest management (Tuchmann et al. 1996). Regarding 

the first goal, 20 years of monitoring data indicate that the 

probable sale quantity of timber identified by the Plan was 

never met, meaning that timber sales have not been predictable or at the level envisioned (chapter 8). The probable sale 

quantity established by the Plan was based on a number of 

assumptions: (1) harvesting unreserved older forest in the 

matrix with novel silviculture would contribute roughly 90 

percent of the volume during the first three to five decades of 

the Plan, (2) about half of the harvest during the first decade 

would come from forests more than 200 years old, and (3) the 

main harvest method would be regeneration harvest, using 

retention harvesting approaches (chapter 3) rather than clearcutting (Charnley 2006a). The area of regeneration harvest 

in OGSI 80 and OGSI 200 (fig. 12-9) was 1,000 to 2,000 ac 

annually in the first 5 years of the Plan, but it declined to near 

zero by 2000 and has stayed very low since then. Most of the 

harvest since 2000 has been in the form of thinning and partial canopy removal (figs. 12-9C and 12-9D), which generate 

less volume than intensive (regeneration) harvest. The early 

levels of regeneration harvest may have also included sales 

awarded before the Plan was implemented. 
956

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Appeals and litigation over timber sales that included 

large, older trees, and lack of public support for clearcutting 

and old-growth harvesting, were major factors preventing 

the agencies from cutting OGSI 80 and OGSI 200 to meet 

probable sale quantity (Charnley 2006a, Thomas et al. 

2006). The need to protect more habitat for the northern 

spotted owl (given the threat from the barred owl), and the 

need to protect late-seral habitat for other species associated 

with older forest also limited harvest in mature and oldgrowth forests (chapter 6). 

Thus, the main source of timber supply shifted from 

the intended ecological retention harvesting from older 

unreserved forests in the matrix in the first few years 

of the Plan to restoration thinning of smaller trees from 

plantations and forests less than 80 years old in LSRs and 

the matrix. Timber as a byproduct of thinning in plantations 

and restoration in dry older forests is compatible with 

several conservation goals as discussed above, and it is less 

controversial. However, such thinning in LSRs cannot be 

sustained, because in 10 to 20 years most of the plantations 

will have been thinned once, and most of them in the moist 

provinces will become too old (80 years) to be treated 

again according to the record of decision (USDA and USDI 

1994b) (chapter 8). Likewise, the thinning and restoration 

of resilience in fire-prone older forests may not produce a 

sustainable supply of wood as restoration eventually shifts 

from mechanical removal of understory trees to using 

wildfire and prescribed fire to maintain resilience (Spies 

et al. 2007). The sale of wood products generated may not 

offset the costs of treatments. 

One way that restoration might provide for more 

economically viable and longer term production of wood 

from federal lands is through the use of ecological forestry8

approaches (Franklin and Johnson 2012) to create diverse 

early-successional habitats (chapter 3). Such habitats are 

created naturally by wildfires and other natural disturbance 

agents, but in most areas in the NWFP region these fires are 

suppressed to protect a variety of human and forest values 

(see chapter 3). Fire exclusion means that diverse early-seral 

conditions will develop from fire at lower rates than would 

have occurred historically. Restoration treatments (mechanical and prescribed fire) could be used to create diverse 

early-seral vegetation to help achieve biodiversity goals in 

contexts in which they do not conflict with goals for older 

forests. Such actions would typically remove some larger 

trees and could thereby provide timber for local economies, 

while helping to fund removal of small trees and biomass. 

Franklin and Johnson (2012) suggested that such actions 

be focused on existing plantations, outside of LSRs and in 

places where other late-successional goals are not compromised. This type of management could provide a niche for 

federal timber production that is something of a win-win 

for a diverse set of ecological and socioeconomic goals. In 

addition, the fact that federal timber cannot be exported 

could also provide a supply of timber for local mills that 

would not have to compete with export markets that are 

currently strong. 

Ecological forestry principles could also be used in 

riparian forests to restore the diverse forest structure and 

composition that occurred under historical disturbance 

regimes. Since development of the ACS, there has been 

support in the scientific literature for discretion in setting 

site-specific activities (Kuglerová et al. 2014, Lee et al. 

2004, Richardson et al. 2012), which can be economically beneficial (Tiwari et al. 2016). Greater flexibility 

in the management of riparian areas would depend 

on the “context” of the area of interest (Kondolf et al. 

2006, Montgomery 2004) and the primary management 

objective for the specific area (Burnett and Miller 2007). 

However, development of such an approach has been 

limited because of the reliance on “off-the-shelf” and 

one-size-fits-all concepts and designs, rather than on an 

understanding of specific features and capabilities of the 

location of interest (Kondolf et al. 2003, Naiman et al. 

2012). A mix of approaches could be undertaken, recognizing ecological and other goals such as timber harvest, 

especially if applied over larger spatial scales (Burnett and 

Miller 2007, Miller and Burnett 2008, Olson and Rugger 

2007), and if consideration is given to the distribution 

of populations of concern and connectivity among them 

8

 Ecological forestry uses silviculture based on knowledge of 

natural disturbance regimes and succession to manage forests for 

ecological goals or a mixture of ecological and socioeconomic 

goals. See chapter 3 for more information. 
957

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

(Olson and Burnett 2009, Olson and Kluber 2014, Olson et 

al. 2007). Reeves et al. (2016) provided an example of such 

an approach and showed that small adjustments in the 

amount of area in which active management may occur 

results in substantial increases in wood production while 

still meeting ecological goals. 

We now have a new understanding of the relations 

between federal forest management and community 

socioeconomic well-being (chapter 8) that helps us understand the ability of the NWFP to achieve goal 2 (maintain 

stability of local and regional economies). For example, 

private forests currently contribute the vast majority of 

logs processed by mills in the Plan area. Greater timber 

harvest on federal forests would increase the number 

of logs available to mills and likely create additional 

work opportunities for loggers, at least in the short term. 

Generally, increased federal harvest would reduce the 

prices paid for logs by mills, which in turn would make 

wood products producers better off, while making private 

landowners worse off because their logs will be worth 

less. However, there are exceptions where mills need to 

maintain capacity for processing but timber resources are 

in limited supply, including in forest regions with few 

mills. In these cases, increased federal harvests can help 

keep mills from closing, benefiting both wood products 

producers and private landowners. 

Federal forest management can contribute to community well-being in other ways, through the production of 

a variety of commodities, natural amenity values, other 

ecosystem services, and employment opportunities, but 

it cannot ensure the stability of local communities and 

economies (chapter 8). Not only is community well-being 

a product of multiple influences at multiple scales; social 

systems, like ecological systems, are dynamic. Today a 

more relevant question for managers is how federal forest 

management can contribute to community sustainability 

and increase community resilience in the face of social and 

environmental change. Social, economic, and ecological 

sustainability are linked, and community resilience contributes to resilient social-ecological systems.

Regarding long-term economic development and diversification (socioeconomic goal 3), the Northwest Economic 

Adjustment Initiative and Jobs in the Woods programs had 

mixed results (see chapters 8 and 11). However, alternate 

formulas for payments to counties embedded in the Secure 

Rural Schools Act have made important economic contributions to NWFP-area counties and communities, although 

the future of these payments remains uncertain because the 

Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2017. 

As to the fourth goal—increased collaboration in 

forest management—the NWFP was perceived by many 

people who were interviewed as part of the socioeconomic 

monitoring program during the first decade of the Plan as 

moving forest management decisionmaking from the local 

to the regional level (Charnley 2006b). Since that time, 

however, the number of forest collaborative groups has 

grown in the Plan area (from 8 to 25), and the agencies have 

emphasized the importance of local-level collaboration as a 

way of doing business (chapter 9). 

One way of reducing tradeoffs between the social 

and biodiversity goals of the NWFP would be to increase 

activities that contribute to community well-being 

while fostering the engagement of local communities in 

conservation. One clear example is to continue attempts 

to create quality jobs that employ local community 

residents in ecosystem restoration, research, monitoring, 

fire suppression, and other activities that contribute to 

forest stewardship (Charnley 2006a. Although such jobs 

are unlikely to replace the number of jobs lost over the 

past few decades in the wood products industry, and may 

not pay as well, they nevertheless can make a significant 

economic contribution in local communities and be a 

source of economic diversification.

Adaptive management and monitoring—

The NWFP was founded on the concept of adaptive 

management and learning, based on monitoring, adaptive 

management areas (AMAs), and other forms of reactive, 

active, and passive adaptive management. Adaptive management, social learning, and landscape-level experiments 

are key components of increasing social-ecological resilience (Tompkins and Adger 2004). Strategies to promote 

this type of resilience would include engagement of collaborative groups in management experiments, demonstration 

projects, and landscape restoration projects. Social networks 
958

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

may be able to help spread adaptive forest management 

ideas and practices to deal with fire and climate change in 

the area of the NWFP (Fischer and Jasny 2017, Jacobs and 

Cramer 2017). 

Bormann et al. (2006) provided an indepth evaluation 

of the adaptive management and regional monitoring program for the NWFP; here we highlight a few key findings. 

First, the adaptive management program as embodied in 

the AMAs was generally not successful, as funding for 

the AMAs declined after 1998, and adaptive management 

protocols were not widely integrated into agency missions at local scales. However, some successes in active 

adaptive management did occur. For example, the Central 

Cascades AMA was the location of efforts to develop 

and implement alternative landscape-scale approaches to 

meeting NWFP goals based on mixed-severity fire regimes 

(Cissel et al. 1999). Other AMAs may have implemented 

valuable experiments, but we could not find published or 

unpublished reports that document these actions. Four 

obstacles to adaptive management in the NWFP area 

were identified by Bormann et al. 2006: (1) perceived or 

real latitude to try different approaches on AMAs was 

too limited; (2) adaptive management was perceived 

as only a public participation process and there was a 

lack of consensus on implementing ideas on the ground; 

(3) precautionary, risk-averse approaches dominated 

and eventually overshadowed efforts to learn by doing, 

limiting the ability to increase understanding of systems; 

and (4) sufficient resources for management activities and 

the attending followup monitoring and research were not 

available. The lack of adaptive management activity and 

restoration activity in general may be a consequence of 

the fact that federal forest management increasingly takes 

place in a “vetocratic” setting in which non-Forest Service 

stakeholders reduce the decision space of managers and 

make the agency less autonomous than it was previously 

(Maier and Abrams 2018). According to Maier and Abrams 

(2018), this situation developed as a way for managers to 

reduce likelihood of litigation and to provide funding for 

nontimber objectives that is tied to collaboration. 

It also should be noted that the Plan was not implemented as written, as managers responded to various 

social, economic, and administrative constraints. The 

implementation of the Plan has occurred through a more 

reactive or passive adaptive management approach based 

on resource limitations, social influences, and different 

interpretations at the ground level. The changes made in 

implementation of the NWFP include avoiding timber production from older forests in the matrix, ending of surveying for rare species, limited restoration activities in LSRs 

in fire-prone forests and riparian zones, and, of course, 

adaptive management itself. Because the NWFP has not 

been formally changed, it can be confusing to discuss the 

“Plan” without qualifying whether one is referring to the 

NWFP as written or as applied. 

Obstacles to learning and adaptive management and 

maintaining an effective monitoring program are not easily 

overcome (Bormann et al. 2006). Some key principles 

for more effective adaptive management and monitoring 

include (1) engaging multi-agency regional executives in 

guiding learning, (2) involving regulatory agencies, (3) 

accommodating reasonable disagreement among stakeholders, (4) committing to quality, standardized record 

keeping by managers, (5) developing long-term funding 

strategies and maintaining a critical mass of agency 

expertise, (6) reinterpreting the burden of proof and the 

precautionary principle so that passive management is not 

the default and different management approaches can be 

applied, and (7) allowing for scientifically credible and 

relevant management experiments to take place even if 

they do not have total social license. 

Although the adaptive management component of 

the NWFP fell quite short of expectations, the effectiveness monitoring program has been a relative success as 

evidenced by the valuable and insightful information 

obtained by 20 years of monitoring of old-growth forest, 

northern spotted owls, marbled murrelets, aquatic systems, 

socioeconomic conditions, and tribal relations. Monitoring 

moved the implementation of the Plan from opinion to 

evidence-based decisionmaking, helped institutionalize 

some adaptive management at regional scales, provided 

evidence of measurement error and variance in key Plan 

indicators, and demonstrated that agencies can work 

together effectively. 
959

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Plan Goals and Strategies in Relation to 

New Concerns 

Since the development of the NWFP in the early 1990s, several 

new conservation concerns and issues have emerged that are 

directly related to meeting its original goals. Perhaps the most 

significant new concern is the spread of the invasive barred 

owl and its strong effect on populations of northern spotted 

owls, as noted above. Here we highlight two other major 

concerns: (1) the exclusion of wildfire as a keystone ecological 

process in many NWFP-area forest ecosystems and (2) the role 

of climate change in profoundly affecting species, wildfire size 

and severity, and reducing the resilience of dense forests that 

have accumulated in dry forest zones in the absence of fire. 

Fire exclusion and successional diversity— 

We have already discussed at length the effects of fire 

exclusion on forest structure and composition and resilience of 

dry forests to fire and drought. Here we focus on a somewhat 

different aspect of that problem, the loss of other successional 

stages (which contribute to resilience) that are dependent on 

both low- and high-severity fire. Although not part of the original focus of conservation in the NWFP area, fire-dependent 

vegetation states are ecologically interdependent with dense 

old-growth forest in the sense that policies that promote these 

conditions (e.g., fire suppression) will reduce other vegetation 

types (Spies et al. 2006). Chapter 3 highlights the ecological 

significance of open, fire-dependent old-growth forests, 

including providing habitat for species such as the whiteheaded woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), a species that is 

on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service 

sensitive species lists for Oregon and Washington as a result 

of loss of open ponderosa pine forests to logging, and fire 

exclusion (Buchanan et al. 2003, Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). 

Another fire-dependent state is early-successional 

vegetation (which can also arise from other disturbance 

agents). The lack of diverse early-successional ecosystems9

has also become a major conservation concern (DellaSala 

et al. 2014, Franklin and Johnson 2012, Hessburg et al. 

2016, Reilly and Spies 2015, Swanson et al. 2011). Many 

plant and animal species, including state-listed species, 

specialize in these early-successional conditions (Swanson 

et al. 2011, 2014). Some components of these ecosystems 

can persist for many decades (e.g., snags, dead wood, and 

open canopies) (Reilly and Spies 2015), but certain conditions within them (snag decay stages and environments 

for establishment of annual plants) are ephemeral, lasting 

just a few years. Whereas older forests can take centuries 

to develop, early-seral vegetation may be initiated in a few 

hours from a disturbance event and then further develop 

over many decades before tree canopy closure (chapter 

3) (Raphael et al., in press). Maintaining occurrence of 

these episodic and dynamic ecosystems depends upon 

relatively frequent disturbance (of either natural or human 

origin) distributed across large landscapes (Reilly and 

Spies 2015). Clearcutting on private lands can produce 

open-canopy conditions that support some early-seral 

plant and animals species but lack dead and down wood, 

and active control of herbs, grasses, and shrubs to favor 

tree establishment and growth greatly limit the ecological diversity and function of clearcuts as surrogates for 

early-seral ecosystems (Spies et al. 2007, Swanson et al. 

2011. Thus, early-successional stages, especially structurally and compositionally diverse ones, are important 

sources of biological diversity in the NWFP area, but their 

biodiversity has not been monitored or studied as well as 

later successional stages. 

Despite increasing wildfire activity over the past 25 

years, the occurrence of high-severity fire across all NWFP 

fire regimes has been low: rotations of 1,628 to 2,398 years 

in moist forest fire regimes and 333 to 690 years in dry forest 

fire regimes (chapter 3). Although area burned has increased 

with drought in the past 25 years in the area of the NWFP 

(chapter 2) (Reilly et al. 2017a), the amount of high-severity 

fire in moist forest may still be within the full historical 

range (over the past few thousand years) given the large 

amount of historical climate and fire variability in the region 

(chapter 3) (Reilly et al. 2017a, Walsh et al. 2015). However, 

when climate is taken into account, the recent (past 25 

years) amount of high-severity fire and early-seral vegetation 

9

 These are ecosystems dominated by shrubs, herbs, and grasses 

that have little or no tree canopy. They develop after stand-replacing disturbances (see chapter 3) and often contain dead legacies 

of the previous forest. Site conditions are such that they have the 

potential to develop into closed-canopy forests that can eventually 

develop into old-growth forests.
960

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in moist forest regimes is probably low given that we are 

currently experiencing a warming climate. In addition, we 

know that more than 6,000 lightning-caused fires have been 

suppressed in moist forests during the past 20 years (chapter 

3) within the Plan area. Thus, it is likely that the amount 

of early-seral post-wildfire vegetation within moist forest 

regimes is deficient relative to the historical range of variation, especially for the drier parts of the moist forests. In the 

historical very frequent fire regimes of the dry forests, large 

patches of high-severity fire that create early-successional 

vegetation would not have been common, and early-seral 

conditions would have occurred as a fine-grained mosaic 

within a matrix of open older forest (fig. 12-2). 

Although early-seral post-wildfire vegetation on sites 

capable of growing forests appeared to be historically 

uncommon in most areas of high-frequency, low-severity 

fire (chapter 3), large patches of nonforest areas, such as 

savannas, grasslands, shrublands, and even some wetlands 

would have been relatively common and maintained by fire 

(chapter 3). These nonforest environments, which have been 

decreasing in many dry forest landscapes (Hessburg et al. 

2007, Skinner 1995), are known to support unique biodiversity based on global-scale studies (Veldman et al. 2015) and 

may be more reduced than dense old-growth forests in the 

Pacific Northwest region. However, relatively little attention 

has been paid to the conservation needs of these nonforest 

and low-tree-density vegetation types in the literature from 

the NWFP region. 

Climate change—

The effects of climate change have become a major concern 

and focus of research since the NWFP was developed and 

implemented (chapter 2). The effects and magnitude of 

climate change are still uncertain and will differ among 

species, ecosystem processes, and geographic area. In 

general, climate change adaptation goals can be congruent 

or compatible with many of the original goals and strategies 

of the NWFP, including large reserves in which commodity 

management and roads are excluded or minimized (Spies et 

al. 2010a). However, the degree of congruence varies with 

geography and spatial and temporal scale. For example, 

efforts to reduce tree density within forest stands and to 

increase resilience to drought conflict with development of 

dense, multilayer forest habitat at stand or patch scales (e.g., 

less than 100 ac). Early-seral vegetation created by wildfire 

or through restoration management could provide opportunity to plant or naturally establish more drought-resistant 

genotypes of native tree species (Spies et al. 2010a). 

Addressing fish responses to climate change will be 

especially challenging because of the prominent role of 

ocean conditions and the importance of nonfederal lands 

for fish that move through large watersheds (chapter 7). 

The conservation and restoration strategies of the NWFP 

can benefit native fish, but there are inherent limits given 

the complex life histories of anadromous fish and ownership patterns. Populations of introduced or reintroduced 

fish species may expand under a warming climate and 

affect native species. Terrestrial and aquatic species 

responses to climate change will be variable, as mentioned above, or essentially unknown, as with most of the 

lichens, bryophytes, and invertebrates. We lack scientific 

assessments of which and how many species may respond 

negatively to climate change and how management strategies, including protection of climate refugia, silviculture 

to promote forest resilience, and possibly even managed 

relocation of organisms might benefit at-risk species 

(Schwartz et. al. 2012). 

Mitigation efforts to limit releases of greenhouse gases 

and increase carbon storage can be compatible with many 

NWFP goals. For example, protecting and developing 

old-growth forests will contribute toward carbon sequestration in forest stands and landscapes (chapter 2). On the 

other hand, maximizing carbon sequestration will not be 

compatible with habitat creation for early-successional 

species (Kline et al. 2016), and may not be consistent with 

reducing stand density in dry forests to increase resilience 

to drought, fire, and insects. The tradeoffs between carbon 

emissions related to thinning and the carbon emissions that 

are avoided because forests are more resilient to fire- or climate-induced mortality (after thinning) will vary with scale 

of observation of fire, and forest type (McKinley et al. 2011, 

Ryan et al. 2010) (chapter 2). Carbon calculators are now 

available for exploring how different forest management 

and fire regimes might affect carbon sequestration in the 

forest ecosystem and in forest products (Zald et al. 2016). 
961

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Fire and climate change will also have an impact on 

some of the NWFP socioeconomic goals. For example, 

the ability of federal agencies to produce a predictable 

and sustainable supply of timber, recreation opportunities, 

nontimber resources such as mushrooms, and fish and 

game will be challenged as climate change alters weather, 

ecosystem productivity, and species distributions. Winter 

recreation associated with snow is already being affected 

by warmer winters, particularly at lower elevations. And, 

high-severity fire affects timber stocks and availability 

of nontimber forest products. As mentioned above, local 

job creation associated with forest restoration to increase 

resilience to wildfire, and for fire suppression, can support 

the Plan goal of contributing to economic development and 

diversification in communities (chapter 8). 

Regional-Scale Issues and Challenges 

The regional-scale concerns related to the NWFP goals 

include (1) the limited ability of federal forest lands to 

meet some conservation objectives, (2) the need for coordination among management units (e.g., national forests) 

to provide for population conservation goals and develop 

standards and guidelines that take regional ecological variability into account, (3) the connectivity and distribution 

of federal lands as they relate to the capacity of organisms 

to respond to changing climate and vegetation dynamics, 

and (4) coordination among ownerships to deal with 

cross-boundary and regional-scale issues such as wildfire 

and smoke, watershed processes, populations of sensitive 

species, and road systems. 

The limits of federal lands to meet conservation goals 

for species and ecosystems were recognized at the time the 

NWFP was developed. These limits are particularly relevant 

to the marbled murrelet and the ACS. The marbled murrelet (as well as the northern spotted owl) occur in coastal 

forests in southwestern Washington, Oregon, and northern 

California, where the proportion of nonfederal forest land 

is relatively high (chapter 5). In these areas, continuing loss 

of marbled murrelet nesting habitat may eventually lead 

to a large gap in distribution of nesting habitat and thus a 

potential gap in the marbled murrelet distribution, leading 

to genetic isolation of northern and southern populations 

(Raphael et al. 2016). Habitat for six salmonid species is 

not well provided solely on federal lands because these 

species find high-quality habitat in lower reaches where 

most habitat is on private lands (chapter 7). With divergence 

of forest management intensity between federal and private 

forest lands, the landscapes may become more “black and 

white” with old forest on public lands and plantation forests 

on private lands (Spies et al. 2007). The implications of 

this landscape change in terms of edge effects and lack of 

diverse early- and mid-successional stages in the landscape 

as a whole are not well understood but may result in a 

reduction in regional biodiversity. 

The need for coordination among management 

units (e.g., national forests, districts) for conservation 

of populations of listed species and recognition of 

variability in ecosystems and disturbance regimes was 

recognized in the development of the NWFP (USDA and 

USDI 1994b). The need for a regional-scale strategy still 

exists for the listed species (chapters 5, 4, and 7) (USFWS 

2008). Recent science indicates that the regional-scale 

stratification of disturbance regimes into just two regimes 

(wet and dry) for purposes of standards and guidelines 

for management under the NWFP (USDA and USDI 

1994b) was too simplistic because it lumped drier, more 

fire-frequent ecosystems in parts of western Oregon and 

Washington into one infrequent fire regime, and drier 

types into a single frequent regime with low- to moderate-severity fire (chapter 3). 

Another limitation of the regional perspective that 

underlies the strategy and implementation of the NWFP 

is the lack of characterization of regional variability in 

socioeconomic conditions and aggregation of local-level 

variability at the human community scale, including 

community types and their contexts (e.g., proximity to and 

dependence on federal lands). For example, it might be 

possible to map regional or local variation in the availability of ecosystem services and well-being of communities 

(chapter 8) and community dependence on ecosystem 

services from federal lands. That information could be 

used to set priorities for meeting socioeconomic objectives 

and finding areas where restoration needs and socioeconomic needs line up. 
962

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

The importance of regional connectivity of federal forest lands to provide for movements of plants and animals in 

response to climate change has been recognized (chapter 3) 

(Carroll et al. 2010, McRae et al. 2016, Spies et al. 2010a). 

The distribution of federal lands and reserves appears 

generally favorable for species that will likely need to move 

upslope and northward (DellaSala et al. 2016, Spies et al. 

2010a). In general, areas occupied by federal lands have a 

relatively high topo-climatic diversity. Their permeability 

to movement of vagile vertebrates may be relatively high 

based on general land cover and use types (fig. 12-10), but it 

is not known how the distribution and condition of federal 

lands affects more sessile terrestrial organisms or benefits 

aquatic organisms. 

Quantitative analysis of the effectiveness of the 

NWFP reserves and federal lands in providing for most 

species ecological processes, and other aspects of biodiversity under climate change, has been very limited. 

Carroll et al. (2010) found that “the current reserve 

system will face challenges conserving its current suite 

of species under future climates.” They suggested that to 

address climate change for all species revisions to reserve 

networks designs may be needed. More research is needed 

to address this issue using updated models of climate, 

vegetation dynamics, species habitats, population dynamics, and landscape genetics.

The NWFP had a federal lands focus, but it is increasingly acknowledged that an all-lands or a multi-ownership 

perspective would be beneficial in dealing with issues 

such as fire, climate change, watersheds, and recovery 

of listed and at-risk species (chapters 4 and 7) (Bone et 

al. 2016; Charnley et al. 2017; Spies et al. 2007, 2010b). 

All-lands approaches can be promoted in several ways 

including prioritizing actions on federal lands based on 

conditions (context) in nearby nonfederal lands; providing 

funding mechanisms to support restoration on public, 

private, and tribal lands within shared landscapes; and 

coordinating management actions within watersheds and 

landscapes, where social and administrative processes 

enable such actions (Charnley et al. 2017, Knight and 

Landres 1998). 

0 50 100 150

Miles

C A L I F O R N I A C A L I F O R N I A

O R E G O N O R E G O N

W A S H I N G T O N W A S H I N G T O N

Moderate, diffuse connectivity

High resilience density

Northwest Forest Plan boundary

o

Figure 12-10—Regional connectivity and terrestrial resilience to 

climate change effects based on land cover types (connectivity) 

and topoclimatic conditions (resilience). Illustration adapted from 

McRae et al. 2016. Blue represents moderate levels of diffuse connectivity (movement is largely unrestricted); dark green represents 

areas of high resilience density (topoclimatic diversity). 
963

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Tradeoffs Associated With Restoration 

Because the ecological goals of the NWFP are not necessarily consistent with addressing new conservation issues 

(e.g., the tension between managing for dense old-forest 

species versus open old-forest or early-seral species), it 

should not be a surprise that forest management activities 

for specific restoration goals would have variable effects 

across a spectrum of ecological and socioeconomic goals. 

We have touched on some of these in the previous section; here we summarize these in more detail in terms of 

specific management actions and how they might affect 

different management goals (table 12-1). Most of these 

effects are discussed in greater detail in other chapters of 

this report. 

Variable-density thinning in plantations in moist and 

dry forests—

Variable-density thinning in plantations in uplands and 

riparian areas to immediately increase vegetation diversity 

and accelerate future development of large tree boles and 

crowns has a variety of effects across all fire regimes, as 

noted elsewhere in this document (chapters 3, 4, 5, and 7). 

Thinning can have immediate positive effects on several 

species; e.g., some lichens and bryophytes (chapter 6), and 

can accelerate growth of larger trees, but it reduces dead 

wood amounts compared to the unthinned state unless 

some thinned trees are left on the site. Studies of effects 

of variable-density thinning on invertebrates in western 

Washington indicate that the effects can be positive, especially in the short term, or negative depending on time since 

thinning, forest structure, and environment (Schowalter et 

al. 2003). Increasing spatial heterogeneity of the tree layer 

in plantations creates discontinuous fuel beds, increases 

structural and compositional diversity, and restores some 

of the heterogeneity that would have occurred in young 

post-wildfire stands. Similarly, thinning in riparian plantations can accelerate growth of large trees that occurred in 

variable densities near streams. Dense, uniform plantations 

are an altered ecosystem that may not serve as a good 

reference for management in riparian zones, many of which 

were historically a mosaic of older conifers, hardwoods, 

and shrub patches, especially near larger streams (chapter 

7) (fig. 12-10). Thinning in plantations in riparian areas 

can also increase spatial heterogeneity of trees and shrubs 

and increase overall biotic community diversity, but reduce 

shading, which can increase stream temperatures (chapter 

7). The role of thinning in increasing resilience of forests 

climate change has received only limited empirical study 

globally (chapter 2) (D’Amato et al. 2013, Elkin et al. 2015, 

Seidl et al. 2017). 

Restoration of fire-excluded forests—

Thinning and prescribed fire to restore structure, composition, and resilience to older forests that historically 

experienced frequent fire can have numerous site- and 

landscape-level benefits (chapter 3; table 12-1) (Hessburg 

et al. 2016) that are both ecological and social. Restoration 

for ecological integrity and conservation of listed species 

can improve resilience to climate change and fire, and 

habitat for open old-growth species. Reducing fuel loads 

and increasing the heterogeneity of amounts and types of 

fuel can also reduce the potential extent of large patches 

of high-severity fire that result in losses of denser forest 

habitat. This practice can have adverse effects on northern 

spotted owls (but see North et al. [2017] for a different 

perspective) and some species such as fisher and marten that 

use dead wood as sites for foraging, resting, and denning. 

Little published science exists about blending the goals of 

conservation of northern spotted owl habitat and restoration 

of fire-dependent forest ecosystems at landscape scales. 

As experience with the Blue River plan (Cissel et al. 1999) 

indicates, this is both an ecological and socioeconomic 

problem that requires more research and evaluation through 

adaptive management and collaborative landscape efforts 

that try new approaches to the problem. 

Restoration of fire-excluded forests also has social and 

economic benefits, particularly by reducing the risk of loss 

of property, structures, and lives to high-severity wildfire in 

the wildland-urban interface; by producing wood products 

and biomass that can be utilized; and by creating jobs. 

Tradeoffs include the impacts of smoke from prescribed fire 

treatments, the risk of escaped prescribed fire, and the cost 

of restoration treatments in areas where there are insufficient 

larger trees to provide revenue to offset restoration costs
964

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Early-seral vegetation in moist forests— 

Given that fire suppression has reduced the occurrence of 

early-seral vegetation, innovative silviculture including 

prescribed fire (such as ecological forestry) (Franklin et 

al. 2007), could be used to create large enough patches of 

early-seral conditions that are minimally influenced (e.g., 

by shade and belowground effects) from adjacent forest 

areas. To reduce impacts on existing older forests, such 

actions would be best focused on existing plantations, 

especially in matrix areas. Such activities would allow for 

establishment and persistence of early-successional species, 

including shrubs, and would contain large-diameter 

dead and some live trees that would be characteristic of 

higher severity post-wildfire environments (Franklin and 

Johnson 2012, Franklin et al. 2007) and that would serve 

as “legacy” elements of the previous stand conditions. 

The amount of retention of live trees would be variable to 

match variation in fire effects and site capacity at patch 

and landscape scales. Prescribed fire could be used in 

conjunction with this action to approximate some of effects 

of wildfire, especially on soil surface layers and understory 

plant and animal communities. This type of silviculture 

could meet diverse ecological and socioeconomic goals in 

both regimes of the moist forests and could target stands of 

any age because wildfire would occur across the full range 

of successional stages. However, when applied in older 

forests in the matrix, there are some tradeoffs (table 12-1). 

Large early-seral and nonforest patches do not provide 

habitat for late-successional species unless those species 

use early-successional and edge environments for some 

facet of their life history requirements. Cutting larger or 

older trees to create early-seral patches can provide larger 

volumes of wood for local mills, but it may not be socially 

acceptable because the focus and expectations of the Plan 

are currently to protect all remaining older forests from 

logging, and such harvest may conflict with the need to 

protect owl habitat given the threat of the barred owl. 

Recognizing these concerns, Franklin and Johnson (2012) 

have proposed that this type of habitat creation focus on 

stands less than 80 years old in the matrix. When applied 

in older plantations, this activity could produce significant 

amounts of wood and be a potential win-win for biodiversity and socioeconomic values. It should be noted, however, 

that there is little research and management experience 

in this type of restoration. In addition, using mechanical 

treatments to create early-successional habitat in younger 

forests and plantations will not provide large dead trees 

and other vegetation structures of late-successional and 

old-growth forests, nor some of the fire effects of naturally 

created early-successional vegetation (e.g., very large 

patches of early-seral ecosystems). 

Post-wildfire management—

Post-wildfire management typically includes both salvage 

logging and planting of trees, which may or may not 

occur together in management. The ecological effects of 

postfire salvage logging can differ depending on treatment, fire severity, and biophysical setting (Peterson et al. 

2009), but, in general, much existing research indicates 

that salvage logging does not have beneficial ecological 

effects on terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems (chapter 3) 

(table 12-3). However, there may be some exceptions to 

this rule. Peterson et al. (2015) and Hessburg et al. (2016) 

identified situations, e.g., concerns about lack of seed 

sources or reburns that maintain undesirable shrub fields, 

in which postfire wood removal might meet ecological 

goals. These include (1) fuel reduction treatments that 

reducs levels of large woody fuels derived from shade-tolerant species that may have accumulated under fire 

suppression and may pose a risk to soil fertility were the 

area to reburn; and (2) fuel treatments to reduce potential 

for high-severity reburns, and planting of trees to speed 

rate of forest succession where the potential for large 

semistable patches of shrubs is high and regeneration is 

lacking (Coppoletta et al. 2016, Dodson and Root 2013, 

Lauvaux et al. 2016, Meng et al. 2015); and (3) to reduce 

surface fuels that may impede establishment of trees. 

Sudden oak death also is likely contributing to ecologically novel configurations of dead trees and high fuels 

that may warrant interventions to reduce the potential for 

undesirable effects of reburn on soils. 

Where timber salvage is conducted, reserving dense 

patches of snags adjacent to salvaged stands, rather than 

uniformly retaining small numbers of snags across a 

landscape, may be essential for sustaining populations of 
965

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

early-successional species such as black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) (White et al. 2016b). Within 

riparian areas, more research is needed to understand 

variation in wood loading and whether there are loads that 

are detrimental to stream function, as well as the effects of 

riparian snag patches of different densities and sizes. As 

with terrestrial systems, retaining large snags that are likely 

to remain standing longer, and which are more likely to 

form persistent elements of aquatic ecosystems, could help 

to extend and moderate the input of large wood. Fuel hazard 

reduction might be achieved in part by removing smaller 

dead trees for biomass utilization or masticating them into 

ground cover where soils are severely burned and lack 

protective cover.

Roads— 

The ecological effects of roads have been extensively 

reviewed in the literature (chapter 7) (Fahrig and Rytwinski 

2009, Jones et al. 2000, Trombulak and Frissell 2000). The 

ecological effects of roads affect both terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems but are especially pronounced for aquatic ecosystems and species as the following list of impacts (chapter 

7) indicates: 

1. Accelerating erosion and increasing sediment loading.

2. Imposing barriers to the migration of aquatic 

organisms, including access to floodplains and 

off-channel habitats. 

3. Increasing stream temperatures.

4. Causing changes in channel morphology. 

Table 12-3—Summary of socioecological impacts of postfire management (salvage or planting)

Issue Cons Pros

Carbon Carbon in dead trees may be slowly released 

as wood decays, and some may enter longterm pools in soils or in streams

Burned trees can be used as harvested wood 

products or can offset energy from more 

carbon-intensive energy sources when burned 

in biomass facilities; replanting of trees has 

potential to accelerate long-term carbon 

storage in areas where natural regeneration 

is poor

Wildlife habitat Negative impacts on wildlife communities 

of removing biological “legacies” such 

as standing and down wood, particularly 

“early-successional” species that depend on 

standing snags

Planting of trees can accelerate forest 

development and reestablishment of latesuccessional habitat

Erosion Mechanical activity can pose risks of 

increased erosion and runoff

Residual materials can be used as source of 

ground cover

Wood loading to 

streams

Removal can interrupt important process for 

storing sediments and reforming aquatic 

habitats

Reducing excessive wood loading could lessen 

risk of debris jams and downstream culvert/

bridge failures

Fuel loading/fire 

hazard

Salvage can increase loading of fine fuels, 

leading to increased fire severity upon 

reburn; planted stands are highly vulnerable 

to fire for decades

Removal of excessive fuel load can moderate 

future fire severity and fire behavior in some 

contexts; can reduce risk to firefighters

Forest development Salvage has potential to affect natural 

revegetation by trees and shrubs

Salvage plus replanting can accelerate return to 

forest conditions in areas

Economic returns Investments in planted stands may be lost, 

especially as climatic conditions become 

less favorable to tree establishment and more 

favorable to frequent reburns, and they may 

also complicate use of fire at landscape scales

Timber from burned areas has high economic 

value, and returns can be used to offset 

costs of hazard reduction and long-term 

restoration; replanting can accelerate 

regrowth of timber-producing forests
966

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

5. Introducing exotic species. 

6. Increasing harvest and poaching pressure. 

7. Changing hillslope hydrology and resulting peak flows. 

In the case of hydrological processes, the majority of 

roads have negligible effects, suggesting the need for a 

landscape approach to identity problem roads and prioritize 

road decommissioning. Hydrologically problematic roads 

constrain floodplains or have direct hydrologic connectivity 

with fish-bearing streams, but most streams in a network 

are not fish bearing. 

On the other hand, roads are needed for forest restoration management, recreation, access to tribal resources 

and nontimber forest products, timber harvesting, and fire 

suppression. Roads are the primary way for people to access 

public lands, including private inholdings and historical 

tribal use areas. Decommissioning roads can help both 

reduce ecological impacts and reduce maintenance costs, 

which can be significant, but some road systems area still 

needed to meet other objectives. For example, roads provide 

access to forests and wilderness areas and are the pathways 

to special places to which people form strong attachments 

through repeated use. Roads also provide access to areas of 

the forest that generate incomes and provide jobs, as well as 

access to food and forage used by the public for everyday 

sustenance and survival. The costs associated with road 

decommissioning, which involves regrading, removing 

culverts, and revegetation, often make this option impractical. Roads that may be decommissioned by default through 

neglect may become safety hazards and sources of public 

conflict. Roads and road decommissioning are a prime 

example of tradeoffs associated with meeting competing 

goals for federal forests, including ecological restoration. 

Uncertainty and Risk in Forest Planning 

and Management

Uncertainty and risk have long been a part of forest 

management and planning. However, as management 

objectives have shifted from commodity production to a 

broader range of ecological and social values from complex 

ecological and social systems (Moore and Conroy 2006, 

Rose and Chapman 2003), it has become even more crucial 

to consider ways of dealing with uncertainty, risk, and 

tradeoffs (Spies et al. 2010a). In addition, the threats from 

climate change, undesirable fire effects, invasive species, 

and social change introduce new drivers of forest ecosystems and management goals that are difficult to predict, 

control, and have variable effects on ecosystems and forest 

values. Uncertainty is defined as lack of information that 

falls on a continuum between absolute determinism and 

total ignorance (Walker et al. 2003). Risk can be defined 

as the probability (often not well known) of some, often 

undesirable, occurrence. 

Uncertainty and risk pervade our understanding of the 

species, ecosystems, and social systems of the NWFP area. 

We know a great deal, of course, as the chapters of this synthesis demonstrate, but we also know that our knowledge 

in some key areas (e.g., persistence of the northern spotted 

owl and climate change effects, suitability of conditions 

other than old growth being favorable for fish and other 

aquatic organisms) is uncertain, and that the ability of 

management to achieve particular outcomes can be quite 

unsure. We also know that many forest values are at risk 

from influences that are both internal and external to the 

NWFP area and outside the control of forest managers (e.g., 

climate change and markets for wood products). Although 

concepts of uncertainty and risk are well known from the 

forest planning literature, the practical applications of this 

theory in decision support models and management are 

rare (Pasalodos-Tato et al. 2013). Managers and scientists 

may not be comfortable in admitting to the public that they 

are unsure of outcomes of proposed actions, but ignoring 

or not acknowledging uncertainties, risks, and tradeoffs 

can lead to poor decisions and bad planning alternatives 

(Pasalodos-Tato (2013). Although uncertainty is pervasive, 

it should not necessarily be seen as a reason for inaction 

(Dessai and Hulme 2004).

Several strategies exist for incorporating uncertainty 

and risk in forest management or biodiversity conservation. For example, Lindenmayer et al. (2000) suggested 

four approaches: (1) establish biodiversity priority areas 

(e.g., reserves) managed primarily for the conservation of 

biological diversity; (2) within production forests, apply 
967

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

structure-based indicators including structural complexity, 

connectivity, and heterogeneity; (3) use multiple conservation strategies at multiple spatial scales, spreading out 

risk in wood-production forests; and (4) adopt an adaptive 

management approach to test the validity of structure-based 

indices of biological diversity by treating management practices as experiments. Lindenmayer et al. (2000) also noted 

that “a biodiversity priority area should not imply a lack of 

need for active management regimes inside that area...such 

as the restoration of burning regimes that may be required 

by taxa dependent on particular seral stages or vegetation 

mosaics.” Others have also called for risk spreading by 

creating heterogeneous systems at stand and landscape 

scales (Hessburg et al. 2016, O’Hara and Ramage 2013). In 

general, adaptive management (including monitoring) is 

considered one of the most important strategies for dealing 

with uncertainty (e.g., acknowledging it and reducing it) 

in forest planning and management (Keenan 2015, Moore 

and Conroy 2006, USDA FS 2012). Although more passive 

learning approaches can be successful, active and intentional adaptive management is much more likely to reduce 

uncertainty (McCarthy and Possingham 2007). It should be 

reiterated that active adaptive management is expensive and 

time consuming, however, how often have scientists and 

managers looked back 10 years and lamented lack of action 

to pursue such work?

Other approaches for dealing with uncertainty, risk 

and tradeoffs involve governance systems and interactions 

with stakeholders in plan development and implementation. 

The goals here are not so much to reduce uncertainty but 

to incorporate it into decisionmaking and communications 

with the public to provide more flexibility to change plans 

and management approaches to meet new challenges. Strategies include communication by managers with communities (in the case of natural hazards like fire), collaboratives, 

partnerships with nongovernmental organizations and 

planning boards (Calkin et al. 2011), and engaging stakeholders to improve plans and decisionmaking (Bizikova and 

Krcmar 2015, Keenan 2015). 

Scenario analysis can help deal with and communicate 

to stakeholders the reality that social-ecological system 

complexity and stochasticity preclude prediction and 

certainty about management effects. Scenario analysis was 

used to inform forest management and policy across 13 

states in the Southeastern United States (Wear and Greis 

2012). In scenario analysis, a range of plausible futures is 

identified, and the consequences of different management 

strategies are evaluated with models (e.g., discussion/

decision support tools) or expert opinion. This approach 

can help identify management alternatives that are likely 

to fail under certain futures and other alternatives that 

may provide some level of desired outcomes across a range 

of possible futures. Such efforts may help communicate 

sources of uncertainty and the idea that plans need to 

be flexible and adaptive to respond to unexpected and 

undesirable future outcomes and tradeoffs. However, 

this approach is also very labor intensive, involving 

much up-front work before engaging with stakeholders 

to develop and evaluate scenarios (Bizikova and Krcmar 

2015). The challenges are many, including designing the 

social process of stakeholder engagement and interactions 

of stakeholders with data and models. 

Policy research indicates that in our current biophysical 

and socioeconomic environment, forest plans must not only 

meet ecological and socioeconomic goals but also be robust 

and adaptable over time (Walker et al. 2013). Walker et al. 

(2013) listed three key principles to guide development of 

robust forest plans:

• Explore a wide variety of relevant uncertainties 

including natural variability, external changes, and 

policy responses.

• Connect short-term targets with long-term goals.

• Commit to short-term actions that keep options open 

for the future.

The NWFP was designed to be adaptable (e.g., through 

research, monitoring, and adaptive management), but as we 

described above, the adaptive management component of 

the Plan and some of the monitoring components did not 

survive for various social and economic reasons. Nevertheless, the idea that forest plans should be adaptable and 

underpinned by adaptive management is still considered the 

best way forward in a dynamic and uncertain world. 
968

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Information Gaps, Research Needs, and 

Limitations

Monitoring—

We lack information about the amount, pattern, and type 

of restoration activities that have occurred in upland 

and riparian forests. Implementation monitoring has not 

occurred to a degree that we can know the rate, pattern, 

and type of restoration actions across the NWFP area. 

Effectiveness monitoring has provided useful information 

(e.g., about the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet), 

but disinvestment in some aspects of NWFP monitoring 

over time (e.g., socioeconomic, implementation, Survey 

and Manage species) has limited the amount and usefulness of the monitoring information produced. Research is 

needed to determine how well the current set of monitoring 

metrics (e.g., old-growth index) address issues related to fire 

exclusion (e.g., metrics for open canopy, old-growth forests) 

and climate change, and how effectiveness monitoring can 

be better linked with validation monitoring and research. 

Research is also needed to better understand what is causing 

the monitoring trends observed and how to address undesirable trends.

Climate change—

Uncertainties about the effects of climate change on 

ecosystems, including fire activity, remain large owing to 

regional variability, complex interactions, and the coarse 

spatial scale of projections. Having large areas dedicated to 

promoting biodiversity and resilience to climate change is 

a foundational strategy, but we lack quantitative analyses 

of how different management approaches to biodiversity 

conservation affect vulnerability to climate change. 

Silviculture, including innovative tree planting strategies, 

may help improve resilience of forests to climate change 

impacts (e.g., large patches of high-severity fire). However, 

we lack information on how future vegetation communities 

might form and adapt to different climate scenarios to 

fully understand the interactions and tradeoffs. We also are 

challenged to estimate how vegetation might change across 

time and landscapes under different climate scenarios and 

the degree to which various measures of and objectives for 

“forest resilience” may be met. This lack of information 

also tempers our confidence in climate change adaptation 

strategies for human communities. Landscape-scale models 

and tools are needed to analyze scenarios and the effects 

of alternative landscape designs on species, ecosystems, 

and human communities. New monitoring field studies and 

assessment tools are needed to evaluate stress and mortality 

in forests at landscape scales and to test hypotheses from 

landscape simulation models that are a major source of 

information about possible future climate change effects. 

Species and ecosystems— 

We have virtually no published information about how northern spotted owls respond to wildfires, including increased 

frequency and severity of fire. We also need to improve our 

understanding about interactions between northern spotted 

owls and barred owls and their niche separations to help 

identify key areas for northern spotted owl conservation. 

Effects of fire suppression (e.g., increased forest 

density and increased proportion of shade-tolerant trees) 

on ecosystem processes and population responses of plants 

and animals are not well understood in the area of the 

NWFP. More research has been conducted on how changes 

in stand structure and composition affect fire behavior than 

on how those altered forest conditions affect resilience to 

drought, biodiversity and ecosystem function, and successional trajectories. 

Conservation and restoration strategies— 

The limits (ecological and social) to restoring forest ecological integrity (per the 2012 planning rule) and resilience 

with fire (both prescribed and wildfire managed to achieve 

resource objectives) across diverse landscapes are not well 

understood. More fundamentally, we need research to help 

develop definitions and metrics of integrity and resilience 

so that managers can operationalize them at different scales. 

It is unclear if we have passed tipping points (e.g., crossed 

ecological and socioecological thresholds that make it 

difficult to restore desired conditions) in some landscapes 

that have been transformed by the cumulative effects of 

altered disturbance regimes and climate change. In addition, 

the ecological and social impacts of using surrogates (e.g., 

mechanical fuels treatments) for fire are also not well understood across the fire regimes of the NWFP area, especially 
969

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

for biodiversity (most work has focused on forest structure 

and composition change, and fire behavior); previous 

work suggested that such surrogates may not serve well if 

they do not pay attention to biological legacies (Franklin 

et al. 2000). For example, research is needed to help us 

understand how well mechanical methods and prescribed 

fire create diverse early-successional habitat and functions, 

especially when applied to forest plantations. Although theory supports the hypothesis that biodiversity and ecosystem 

function associated with post-clearcutting environments and 

young plantations (e.g., on private lands) are different from 

post-wildfire or post-windthrow environments, no empirical 

research has been conducted. 

Relatively little published research has focused on how 

well the regional NWFP strategy of reserves and associated 

management guidelines will meet biodiversity goals under 

changing climate and fire regimes. Research is needed to 

understand the ecological tradeoffs associated with alternative conservation land allocations and designs based on 

different ecological priorities (e.g., single species versus 

multiple species and processes). 

Tradeoffs associated with alternative management 

strategies—

Although we have some knowledge of the tradeoffs associated with restoration and conservation strategies to meet 

ecological and socioeconomic goals, we generally lack 

knowledge of how those tradeoffs and interactions differ 

across the region, with scale, and over time. Reliance on 

precautionary approaches that avoid interventions may 

produce unintended outcomes because no action (e.g., not 

thinning a plantation or not using fire) may have undesirable 

effects (e.g., less biotic community diversity). In such cases, 

rigorous adaptive management approaches (e.g., learning by 

doing) are considered the best way to address uncertainty 

and complexity (Walters 1986). Research is needed for 

understanding the long-term and landscape-scale effects of 

restoration on terrestrial and aquatic species, biodiversity 

elements, and ecosystems and how these actions interact 

with social systems. 

Scientific literature has been fairly clear in indicating 

that the benefits from salvage logging are generally economic, in the form of wood products, rather than ecological. 

However, we lack information on the long-term effects 

of salvage logging in burned forests whose density and 

composition have been heavily altered by fire exclusion 

before the fire. As the likelihood of reburn in immature 

forests increases with climate change, the rationale for such 

interventions may grow. In addition, we lack information on 

when and where planting might be needed and what kind of 

salvage might be appropriate, if at all, to facilitate recovery 

of desired forest conditions following large high-severity 

wildfire events. Finally, where salvage logging is conducted 

for economic objectives, we lack studies that quantify the 

ecological effects of salvage logging when managers seek to 

meet both ecological and economic goals through carefully 

planned approaches to post-wildfire management. 

Social-ecological interactions and collaboration—

Although ecosystem services are now widely recognized 

as a framework for characterizing the range of values on 

federal forests, relatively little quantification and application 

have occurred on federal lands. Some ecosystem services, 

particularly cultural services such as support for spirituality 

or solitude, are important to many, but difficult to quantify 

or monetize. In addition, the potential for tradeoffs among 

ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration, habitat for 

some species of wildlife, water supply, and regulation of 

fire), particularly across long periods and large areas, is not 

well understood. Research is needed to determine the best 

methods for quantifying ecosystem services, understanding 

tradeoffs, and using qualitative approaches in planning and 

management when quantification of ecosystem services 

does not exist. In addition, research is needed to determine 

the costs and benefits (e.g., providing more public support 

for investment in public lands) of using an ecosystem management framework compared to alternative ways of valuing 

and communicating the benefits that public lands provide.

Low income and minority populations protected 

by the 1994 Executive Order on Environmental Justice 

have increased throughout the NWFP area over the past 

two decades. This trend increases the need for ongoing 

research into how these populations relate to federal forests 

and are affected by their management. There is a fairly 

substantive literature about how minority populations 

relate to national forests in terms of work (e.g., forestry 
970

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

services work, commercial NTFP harvesting). However, 

apart from recreation, little information is available 

about noneconomic relations between federal forests and 

low-income or minority populations (other than American 

Indians). Furthermore, research is only beginning to fill the 

gap in knowledge about the environmental justice implications of Forest Service management actions. For example, 

there remains a lack of information about how fire—managed, prescribed, or wild—and associated smoke affect 

low income and minority populations in the Plan area. 

There is also little information about how management 

activities that influence forest structure and composition 

affect uses and values of associated species that are valued 

by these populations.

The ability to undertake active management to achieve 

diverse ecological and socioeconomic goals is constrained 

by many factors, but limited public trust in federal managers is among the most critical, especially when it comes to 

working in forests with larger or older trees in frequent and 

moderately frequent fire regimes. Forest landscape collaboratives provide socioecological laboratories for studying 

how interactions among stakeholders and federal managers 

affect the ability to achieve restoration and resilience to 

fire and climate change. These collaboratives are relatively 

new, and study results are still unfolding. However, findings 

thus far suggest that collaboratives have not been a cure-all 

for resolving conflicts about public values and minimizing 

litigation, but in some cases participants have suggested that 

progress has been made on those measures (Schultz et al. 

2012, Urgenson et al. 2017). A contributing factor to those 

trends has been social learning by agency staff in managing 

their roles (Butler 2013), adopting new approaches such as 

multiparty monitoring and use of stewardship contracts, 

as well as picking collaborative projects that have a high 

likelihood of success. More information is needed about 

public responses to restoration management efforts, 

especially in complex contexts such as mixed-severity fire 

regimes (Urgenson et al. 2017), and addressing socioecological objectives including timber production while applying 

nonindustrial, ecological forestry methods.

We lack understanding of how trust at different 

organizational scales (individual, district, forest, national) 

affects public understanding of and support for various 

types of active forest management strategies. Finally, 

although research suggests that the efforts required for 

collaboration can be taxing on both agency staff and 

community stakeholders (Urgenson et al. 2017), we lack 

information on appropriate forms and levels of support to 

bolster the capacity of both for long-term engagement in 

collaborative processes. 

Conclusions and Management Considerations

The goals of the NWFP for federal forests occur within a 

diverse, dynamic, and complex social-ecological system 

that has changed in significant ways since the Plan was 

implemented. For example, the capacity of the agency and 

of the forest industry to conduct restoration efforts across 

landscapes has declined significantly; budgets for managing 

resources are greatly diminished, and wildfire suppression 

programs and budgets overshadow most other work. The 

contributions of public forest lands to ecosystem services 

(e.g., carbon sequestration and water supply) are now more 

widely recognized than ever, but the ecosystem services 

framework has only just begun to be implemented at forest 

and project scales and not been applied yet in assessments 

and forest plan revision (Deal et al. 2017b). A major change 

in biodiversity conservation policy has also occurred for the 

Forest Service in the form of the 2012 planning rule, which 

emphasizes whole ecosystem approaches to conservation 

in contrast to previous planning rules, which emphasized 

population viability of individual species, and which the 

agency considered “procedurally burdensome to implement” (Schultz et al. 2013). NWFP monitoring indicates 

that progress is being made toward meeting several of the 

original long-term goals, namely maintenance of vegetation 

conditions that support northern spotted owls and marbled 

murrelets, protecting dense old-growth forests, providing 

habitat for aquatic and riparian-associated organisms, and 

reducing the loss of mature and old forests to logging, 

(Bormann et al. 2006, DellaSala et al. 2015). Other goals, 

such as providing for a predictable timber harvest to support 

rural communities, road decommissioning, adaptation, 

learning through adaptive management (Bormann et al. 

2006, Burns et al. 2011) (chapter 8), and effectiveness and 
971

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

validation monitoring of old-forest species and biodiversity 

(chapter 6) have not been realized. Finally, Congressional 

legislation that provided alternative formulas for payments 

to counties most affected by the Plan to mitigate the financial impacts of reduced timber harvesting were realized in 

the short to mid term, but their long-term viability remains 

uncertain (Phillips 2006). In addition, new concerns have 

emerged that were not part of the original Plan, including a 

major threat to populations of the northern spotted owl from 

the native invasive barred owl, widespread loss of fire-dependent ecosystems including open old-growth, early-seral 

forests, nonforest communities, increased influence of 

exotic invasive species, and climate change. 

Over the past 150 years, timber harvest, fire exclusion, 

and the loss of American Indian burning have profoundly 

changed both moist and dry forests of the NWFP area. 

Although the motivation for the Plan arose from halting 

20th century clearcutting of old growth, moist forests and 

the associated loss of habitat for the spotted owl habitat 

and other old-growth forest species, the dry forests, which 

occupy about 43 percent of the Plan area, probably have 

experienced much more pervasive ecological changes as 

a result of human activity (chapter 3). Key changes in dry 

forests are loss of large, typically open grown, fire-resistant 

trees to logging; large increases in surface and canopy fuels 

and their connectivity; widespread shifts in seral-stage 

dominance; and changes in the patch size distributions of 

those seral stages. These changes have affected all species 

and processes; some in favorable ways (e.g., more habitat 

for dense, young multistory forest associates) and others 

in unfavorable ways (e.g., loss of open old-growth and 

early-seral forests, and associated resilience to fire and 

drought). Changes in moist forests are also significant, 

but they have been affected differently by logging and 

fire exclusion. Here, intensive timber harvest has been the 

primary impact on biodiversity by dramatically fragmenting and reducing the amount of closed-canopy old-growth 

forests, and habitats for the associated species. Fire exclusion in moist forests has also had important effects as well; 

historical fires created a highly diverse seral-stage patchwork with many patches of early- and mid-seral-aged forest. 

This patchwork is now highly altered. 

Strategies are available to move these ecosystems, 

forests, landscapes, and species toward conditions that 

appear better aligned with policy direction (e.g., ecological 

integrity under the 2012 planning rule) and with current 

social values, both utilitarian (e.g., clean water, sustainable 

production of wood and special forest products, recreation) 

and intrinsic (nature for its own sake). The challenge will be 

to determine how to prioritize restoration goals and distribution actions across landscapes. Ecological history can 

be a valuable guide for restoration, but land managers, in 

reality, cannot restore ecosystems to any particular historical period or condition, or meet all management objectives 

in one area of land. However, they can learn from the 

historical conditions about the kinds of patterns and patch 

size distributions that offered the best hedging strategies 

against large wildfires and climate warming. Managers can 

take actions that increase the likelihood of retaining desired 

ecosystem services, species, intrinsic values of forests, and 

resilience to climate change and disturbances, even if their 

actions produce forest conditions that are altered relative 

to the pre-Euro-American period. Ecological and social 

history demonstrates that change is inherent in these forests, 

and we appear to be entering a new period of rapid change 

with uncertain outcomes. 

Species and ecosystems—

The current outlook for widespread persistence of the 

northern spotted owls is not good. It appears unlikely that 

the northern spotted owl can persist without significant 

reduction in barred owl populations. However, without the 

implementation of the NWFP (e.g., if the pace of old-growth 

logging from the 1970s and 1980s had continued for 23 

years), northern spotted owl populations would likely have 

already become moribund. Forests capable of supporting 

interconnected populations of northern spotted owls have 

increased or stayed relatively stable at the Plan scale. 

However, the rapid pace of climate and fire regime change 

suggests that recent trends may not continue. Continued 

success at conservation of northern spotted owls under the 

NWFP rests on understanding how to minimize the impacts 

of barred owls and on how to manage dry and moist zone 

forests in ways that increase rather than reduce future 

resilience to wildfire and climate change effects. 
972

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Under the original NWFP goals, an emphasis on 

multilayered old-growth forest conservation was critical 

given its relationship to owl habitat occurrence and its 

reduced abundance through harvesting. However, the 2012 

planning rule emphasizes ecological integrity and resilience 

(ecosystem goals that were not part of the NWFP goals), 

and deemphasizes species viability approaches, a policy 

change that could significantly affect the conservation goals 

for biodiversity in the NWFP area. Managing to maintain 

current levels and patterns of multilayered old forests in dry 

forest zones (the NWFP goal) will not promote resilience of 

those dry forests to climate change, fire, and other stressors, 

and it will not restore more natural ecosystem dynamics. 

The new rule also has implications for supporting human 

communities, including tribes with protected treaty rights. 

Finally, the using ecological integrity as a guide means 

that conserving biodiversity in this region is more than 

just conserving dense old-growth forests—other stages 

are valuable, including open old growth, diverse earlyand mid-successional post-wildfire vegetation, wetlands, 

oak-dominated forest patches and woodlands, and shrublands and grasslands. 

Conservation and restoration—

The contribution of federal lands to the conservation and 

recovery of ESA-listed fish, northern spotted owl, and 

marbled murrelet populations continues to be essential, but 

it is likely insufficient to reach the comprehensive goals of 

the NWFP, or the newer goals of the 2012 planning rule. 

Contributions from streams and forests on nonfederal 

lands are important to achieving NWFP conservation 

goals, especially under climate change, which may shift 

species distributions. Transboundary collaborative efforts 

can help to address challenges such as restoration of fire 

regimes, and can enhance conservation efforts, especially 

when supported with innovative arrangements to share 

funding, resources, information, or liability, such as the Fire 

Learning Network and Training Exchange (TREX) program 

to support prescribed burning (fig. 12-11) (Goldstein and 

Butler 2010). These efforts have supported collaborations 

that have engaged tribes, including the Western Klamath 

Restoration Partnership (see chapter 11). Such approaches 

combined with other incentives can help to increase conservation on nonfederal lands, but further research to evaluate 

the impact of particular approaches within the NWFP 

context is needed. 

Under current goals, a restoration strategy would likely 

combine efforts to ameliorate anthropogenic impacts, such 

as culverts that are likely to fail in priority watershed areas, 

as well as some dams and diversions used for irrigation 

water withdrawal, while also directing active management 

interventions, such as intensive thinning and use of fire, to 

restore degraded systems or at least increase their resilience 

to climate change and fire. Such active management may be 

particularly valuable in areas where both fire regimes and 

forest structure have been dramatically altered, because it 

can increase the likelihood that wildfires will help promote 

rather than erode resilience. 

With congressional reserves, LSRs and riparian 

reserves, and administratively withdrawn areas occupying 

more than 80 percent of the Forest Service and BLM land 

base in the NWFP area, rates of additional fragmentation of 

older forests outside of reserves from management activities 

on federal lands will be very low. Landscape-level change 

will be dominated by succession of young and mid-seral 

forests, with increasing area of disturbance from wildfire. 

Concerns over connectivity among old-growth forests and 

LSRs have shifted to climate change effects and access 

to climate refugia, although the effects of past logging on 

connectivity remain. The widespread effects of roads on 

species and ecosystem processes also remain a conservation 

concern, especially those that constrain full floodplain 

functioning or contribute high sediment loads. 

The small amount of logging within nonreserved 

northern spotted owl habitat or mature and old-growth 

forests over the past 15 years of NWFP implementation does 

not reflect the original provisions of the Plan as written, but 

it does mean that the major historical threat to biodiversity 

(commercial logging of old-growth forests) has been greatly 

reduced on federal lands. This outcome may have been 

largely a result of the Survey and Manage program and 

changes in the social acceptability of cutting old growth in 

the matrix. The lack of harvesting of older forests outside 

the reserves means that a major motivation for adding hundreds of species to the Survey and Manage lists no longer 
973

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

exists (i.e., the older forest habitat needs of the northern 

spotted owl do not necessarily cover the needs of other 

late-successional species). The Survey and Manage program 

was abolished under its economic weight and because fewer 

older forests were being logged than originally projected. 

Fire suppression in some parts of the moist forest region 

has reduced the amount of structurally diverse early-seral 

vegetation over the past several decades. It also has likely 

reduced the diversity of older forest structural and composition conditions and landscape diversity in the drier parts of 

the moist forest zone. Managers could explore opportunities 

to restore fire effects in these systems through combinations 

of thinning, prescribed burning, and managing wildfires. In 

theory, such restoration actions could occur in the matrix 

in forests with old trees (e.g., greater than 80 years old), 

but the ecological and social acceptability of this activity 

are unknown. The issue is well suited for adaptive management studies. Possible win-win (wood production and 

biodiversity) alternatives are to create early-seral vegetation 

in plantations in the matrix or to do more active management in plantations in riparian reserves using principles of 

ecological forestry or restoration silviculture. 

A major challenge to management for resilience to fire 

and climate change exists in landscapes that historically 

experienced frequent fire in northern California, southern 

Oregon, and the eastern Cascade Range of Oregon and 

Washington. Fires in these areas have been much less 

frequent in recent decades than historically. However, some 

recent fires have created larger patches of high-severity fire 

compared to the historical regime, likely as a result of fuel 

continuity. The denser forests and more shade-tolerant tree 

species have increased the area of northern spotted owl habitat despite losses to fire in recent years (chapter 3). Landscapes that include northern spotted owl habitat reserves, in 

Figure 12-11—2015 Klamath River Training Exchange prescribed fire at night.

©Adam Shumaker
974

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

which little or no restoration or management to restore fire 

and successional dynamics occurs, likely will not provide 

for resilient forest ecosystems in the face of climate change 

and increasing fire. Prioritizing conservation of dense forest 

habitats that have increased in area with fire exclusion is 

not congruent with managing forests for ecological integrity or resilience to fire and climate change. Management 

strategies that promote resilience in fire-prone forest 

landscapes include restoring fire and the patchwork of open 

and closed-canopy forests, and tailoring these conditions 

to topography. Landscape-level strategies are needed to provide for dense forest conditions, where they would typically 

occur, and would be more likely to persist in the face of 

coming wildfires and a steadily warming climate. Finding 

and implementing these strategies is both a technical and 

social problem that is perhaps the most difficult challenge 

that land managers will face in the near term.

Scientists are becoming more aware that active management within reserves or redesign of reserves may be 

needed to conserve biodiversity in fire-frequent landscapes, 

where human activities have excluded fire and decreased 

resilience of forests to fire, insects, disease, and drought. 

Invasive species such as the barred owl and the sudden oak 

death pathogen are also motivators for interventions within 

reserves. Many studies suggest that conservation strategies 

(and reserve design) should periodically be reevaluated to 

determine how well they are meeting original and any new 

goals, and to make possible changes to standards and guidelines and reserve or habitat conservation area boundaries. 

This may include expanding reserves, increasing connectivity of reserves, shifting locations of reserves (e.g., for small 

reserves), or using dynamic landscape approaches based on 

historical disturbance regimes to guide management. Ideally, 

meeting ecosystem goals for reserves would require areas 

that are large enough to support fire and other key natural 

disturbance processes. Meeting both fine- and coarse-filter 

objectives in these dry forests requires landscape-scale 

approaches that can integrate potentially competing ecological goals over large areas and long time frames. Using 

disturbance-based management approaches to conservation 

is likely to require robust social engagement to increase 

transparency, public understanding, and trust in managers. 

Social-ecological interactions—

For much of the 20th century, timber production was the 

central way in which federal forests in the NWFP area 

contributed to community socioeconomic well-being. 

Although timber production remains important today 

in some Plan-area communities, the economies of many 

communities have shifted or diversified their focus over 

the past two decades. Rural communities are not all alike, 

forest management policies affect different communities 

differently, and the social and economic bases of many 

traditionally forest-dependent communities have changed. 

Better understanding and consideration of the economic 

development trajectories of different communities will 

help to identify forest management activities that best 

contribute to their well-being. Providing for a diverse set 

of community benefits from public lands may be the best 

way to support communities in their efforts to diversify 

economically, and contribute to building community 

resilience to future changes in federal forest management 

and policy.

The forests of the NWFP area provide many ecosystems 

services to people of the region, in addition to wood. Carbon 

sequestration, water supply, and recreation are among some 

of the most valuable of these services. Several policies 

(table 12-2) direct the agency to use ecosystem management 

frameworks in planning. However, efforts to quantify and 

communicate ecosystem services and characterize the associated tradeoffs have yet to be applied in forest plan revision, 

and there is much to be learned about the most effective 

ways to use ecosystem services at project and forest scales, 

though some examples are beginning to appear. 

The ability to sustain ecosystem services, conserve 

species, and promote ecosystem resilience to climate change 

and fire is highly dependent on socioeconomic factors. 

Declines in wood processing infrastructure throughout the 

Plan area have made vegetation management less economical and thus created a financial barrier to fully accomplishing forest restoration. With declining agency capacity, 

it will be difficult to impossible to maximize all of these 

objectives, and prioritization likely would be necessary for 

making progress or goals. Nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) and other government agencies may help manag-
975

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

ers meet their social and ecological goals. As outlined in 

chapter 11, an emphasis on engaging with tribes to promote 

tribal ecocultural resources, in part as a means of upholding 

the federal trust responsibility, would likely also align 

with other objectives for ecological restoration, while also 

providing additional tools and resources for accomplishing 

those objectives. Approaches such as disturbance-based 

management or “ecological forestry” may provide a way 

for federal forests to contribute to local timber-based 

economies, while providing early-successional habitat and 

vegetation dependent on fire that has been excluded by fire 

suppression to meet other management objectives. 

Collaborative groups may be part of the solution to 

increasing trust and social license for forest management. 

However, collaborative processes are a relatively recent 

phenomenon and continued learning and adaptive management will be needed to determine the best way forward 

into an uncertain future. In addition, efforts to collaborate 

with neighboring landowners in planning and implementing management activities for landscape-level treatments 

can contribute to increasing forest resilience to climate 

change, invasive species, and wildfire, and to provide 

desired ecosystem services (e.g., owl and fish habitat) in 

mixed-ownership landscapes. Any strategies to promote 

resilience will need to recognize complex ecological and 

social system dynamics operating across land ownerships, 

as well as tensions that arise among competing goals, by 

adopting long-term and landscape-scale perspectives that 

include transparent accountability for all involved. 

Major disturbances such as large wildfires can promote 

desired conditions and reestablish key ecosystem processes 

and species over larger areas of land than can be accomplished through prescribed fire or mechanical treatments. 

Institutional and social systems may need to evolve to take 

advantage of such opportunities; for example, by designing 

postfire management interventions based upon long-term 

restoration goals as well as more short-term considerations 

such as safety and timber salvage. Institutional capacity to 

take advantage of these opportunities is severely limited by 

an agency-wide decline in staffing, a decades-long history 

of budget cuts in non-wildfire areas, limited or absent 

infrastructure for wood processing of forest products, and 

monetary resource shifts toward fighting wildfires rather 

than restoring forests. Currently, nearly 55 to 60 percent of 

the total Forest Service budget each year goes to fighting 

fires, up from 17 percent 25 years ago.

The challenges ahead for public lands may well require 

new staffing and partnerships to get work done and new 

approaches to the problem of restoration. For example, 

managing natural ignitions for resource benefit may be a 

particularly cost-effective means of treating landscapes, but 

prior, large-scale, and widespread fire use planning is likely 

needed to make these methods effective.

Nevertheless, these opportunities for managing wildfire for resource benefit will pose difficult challenges for 

managers. Careful assessment of risk to life and property 

is paramount. 

Tradeoffs associated with management—

All management choices involve some social and ecological 

tradeoffs among the goals of the NWFP. For example, 

1. Variable-density thinning can accelerate the development of large live trees and habitat diversity 

that will benefit northern spotted owls and other 

species in the future, and produce wood products 

for the market. However, within the range of the 

murrelet, these actions may have a short-term negative impact on habitat quality, by creating diverse 

understory species that benefit murrelet predators, 

and can reduce amounts of dead wood that are habitat of other species. 

2. Thinning and restoring fire to fire-dependent forests will increase habitat for species that use more 

open older forests and increase forest resilience to 

fire and drought while creating restoration jobs and 

reducing wildfire risk in the wildland-urban interface, but these actions can reduce habitat quality 

for species that use dense older forests. 

3. Maintaining road systems to conduct landscape-scale restoration and support recreation will 

negatively affect some species and ecosystem processes. Many of the potential negative impacts can 

be ameliorated through landscape-scale planning 

and using best practices for decisionmaking. 
976

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

In the long run, thinning in plantations less than 80 

years old in LSRs to promote old-growth forest development will not sustain wood production for local communities (chapter 8). Future wood production depends on 

management in the matrix, where the NWFP allows timber 

harvest even from older forests. There is no new science 

that specifically indicates that timber management using 

retention silviculture in forests over 80 years old in the 

matrix is inconsistent with the original goals of the NWFP. 

In addition, partial stand-replacement fires were part of 

the historical dynamics of some older forests of the moist 

zone, and the ecological effects of excluding this type of 

disturbance are not well understood but might convey some 

resilience to climate and future fire. Given the social pressure to avoid logging of older trees, management in existing 

plantations for wood in the matrix would appear to be the 

most socially acceptable way to provide economic returns 

to support local communities while promoting biodiversity 

associated with early-seral ecosystems. In addition, it will 

be valuable to demonstrate how other ecosystems services 

(e.g., water, recreation) contribute to the mix of values of 

federal forests, and how effectively active management can 

meet ecological and social goals. 

Monitoring and adaptive management—

The long-term NWFP monitoring program and complementary research efforts of countless agency, university, tribal, 

and NGO scientists have provided managers, researchers, 

and stakeholders with an enormous amount of information on 

how species, ecosystems, and social systems in the NWFP 

area interact, and have changed over the past 23 years. There 

will be a need for sustained technical and scientific capacity in the management agencies to keep up with and help 

translate the large volumes of rapidly expanding scientific 

knowledge and tools into guidance for planning and management. However, the capacity of agencies to generate new 

knowledge has precipitously declined, threatening their ability to sustain the flow of information that can lead to more 

effective management and policies. Scientific uncertainties 

and debates will continue. Although they may be frustrating 

to managers, scientists, and the public, the debates also spur 

research that can lead to new understanding and discovery 

of knowledge that challenges assumptions, and improve our 

ability to set and meet attainable goals for forests and aquatic 

and riparian ecosystems. Further, areas of scientific uncertainty, highlighted by risk analysis, can be clearly articulated 

to managers and decisionmakers who engage in risk management. Development, evaluation, and testing of new, highly 

integrated conservation strategies are encouraged to deal 

with changing knowledge, new perspectives on fire regimes, 

climate change, invasive species, and recognition of tradeoffs 

in pursuing biodiversity goals (e.g., coarse filter and fine 

filter), and other ecological and social dimensions of forest 

ecosystem management. These forest and social systems 

will undoubtedly change in the next 23 years. Continuation 

of monitoring, research, public engagement, and adaptive 

management will help managers and society adapt to these 

changes and to meet old and new goals. 

Literature Cited

Adams, W.M. 2004. Biodiversity conservation and the 

eradication of poverty. Science. 306(5699): 1146–1149. 

doi:10.1126/science.1097920.

Agee, J.K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest 

fire regimes. Northwest Science. 72: 24–34.

Agee, J.K.; Edmonds, R.L. 1992. Forest protection 

guidelines for the northern spotted owl. In: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl—final draft. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: 

181–244.

Agee, J.K.; Wakimoto, R.H.; Biswell, H.H. 1977. Fire 

and fuel dynamics of Sierra Nevada conifers. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 1: 255–265. doi:10.1016/

0378-1127(76)90030-x.

Ager, A.A.; Barros, A.M.; Preisler, H.K.; Day, M.A.; 

Spies, T.A.; Bailey, J.D.; Bolte, J.P. 2017. Effects 

of accelerated wildfire on future fire regimes and 

implications for United States federal fire policy. Ecology 

and Society. 22(4): 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ ES-09680-

220412.
977

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Alagador, D.; Cerdeira, J.O.; Araújo, M.B. 2014. Shifting 

protected areas: scheduling spatial priorities under 

climate change. Journal of Applied Ecology. 51(3): 

703–713. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12230.

Alexander, S.J.; Oswalt, S.N.; Emery, M.R. 2011.

Nontimber forest products in the United States: Montreal 

Process indicators as measures of current conditions and 

sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-851. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p. doi:10.2737/

pnw-gtr-851.

Archie, K.M.; Dilling, L.; Milford, J.B.; Pampel, F.C. 

2012. Climate change and western public lands: a survey 

of U.S. federal land managers on the status of adaptation 

efforts. Ecology and Society. 17(4): 20. doi:10.5751/

es-05187-170420.

Aronson, J.; Murcia, C.; Kattan, G.H.; Moreno-Mateos, 

D.; Dixon, K.; Simberloff, D. 2014. The road to 

confusion is paved with novel ecosystem labels: a reply 

to Hobbs et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 29(12): 

646–647. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.011.

Aycrigg, J.L.; Davidson, A.; Svancara, L.K.; Gergely, 

K.J.; McKerrow, A.; Scott, J.M. 2013. Representation 

of ecological systems within the protected areas network 

of the continental United States. PLoS ONE. 8(1): 

e54689. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054689.

Baker, M. 2003. Against the odds: (re-) building 

community through forestry on the Hoopa Reservation. 

In: Kusel, J.; Adler, E., eds. Forest communities, 

community forests. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield 

Publishers, Inc.: 27–54.

Batavia, C.; Nelson, M.P. 2017. For goodness sake! 

What is intrinsic value and why should we care? 

Biological Conservation. 209: 366–376. doi:10.1016/

j.biocon.2017.03.003.

Bengtsson, J.; Angelstam, P.; Elmqvist, T.; Emanuelsson, 

U.; Folke, C.; Ihse, M.; Moberg, F.; Nyström, M. 

2003. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. 

AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment. 32(6): 

389–396. doi:10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.389.

Bernard, T. 2010. Hope and hard times: communities, 

collaboration and sustainability. Gabriola Island, BC: 

New Society Publishers. 336 p.

Beschta, R.L.; Ripple, W.J. 2008. Wolves, trophic 

cascades, and rivers in the Olympic National Park, USA. 

Ecohydrology. 1(2): 118–130. doi:10.1002/eco.12.

Beschta, R.L.; Ripple, W.J. 2009. Large predators and 

trophic cascades in terrestrial ecosystems of the western 

United States. Biological Conservation. 142(11): 2401–

2414. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.06.015.

Biggs, R.; Westley, F.R.; Carpenter, S.R. 

2010. Navigating the back loop: fostering social 

innovation and transformation in ecosystem 

management. Ecology and Society. 15(2) doi:10.5751/

es-03411-150209.

Bisson, P.A.; Dunham, J.B.; Reeves, G.H. 2009.

Freshwater ecosystems and resilience of Pacific salmon: 

habitat management based on natural variability. 

Ecology and Society. 14(1) doi:10.5751/es-02784-140145.

Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Luce, C.; Hessburg, P.F.; 

Lee, D.C.; Kershner, J.L.; Reeves, G.H.; Gresswell, 

R.E. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western 

USA: current knowledge and key questions. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 178(1–2): 213–229. https://

doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00063-X.

Bizikova, L.; Krcmar, E. 2015. Integrated scenario 

planning and multi-criteria decision analysis framework 

with application to forest planning. Open Journal of 

Forestry. 05(02): 139–153. doi:10.4236/ojf.2015.52014.

Bone, C.; Moseley, C.; Vinyeta, K.; Bixler, R.P. 2016.

Employing resilience in the United States Forest 

Service. Land Use Policy. 52: 430–438. doi:10.1016/j.

landusepol.2016.01.003.
978

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Kiester, A.R.; Spies, T.A.; 

Haynes, R.W.; Reeves, G.H.; Raphael, M.G.; Martin, 

J.R. 2006. Synthesis:interpreting the Northwest Forest 

Plan as more than the sum of its parts. In: Haynes, 

R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R., tech. eds. 

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

synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 23–48. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-651.

Brandt, P.; Abson, D.J.; Dellasala, D.A.; Feller, R.; Von 

Wehrden, H. 2014. Multifunctionality and biodiversity: 

ecosystem services in temperate rainforests of the Pacific 

Northwest, USA. Biological Conservation. 169: 362–371. 

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.003.

Brockington, D.; Duffy, R.; Igoe, J. 2008. Nature 

unbound: conservation, capitalism and the future of 

protected areas. London: Earthscan. 249 p.

Brockington, D.; Wilkie, D. 2015. Protected areas and 

poverty. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 

B: Biological Sciences. 370(1681): 2014.0271. doi:10.1098/

rstb.2014.0271.

Brown, R. 2009. Getting from “no” to “yes”: a 

conservationist’s perspective. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, 

S.L., eds. Old growth in a new world: a Pacific Northwest 

icon reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press: 149–157.

Brown, T.C.; Froemke, P. 2010. Risk of impaired condition 

of watersheds containing National Forest lands. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-251. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 57 p. doi:10.2737/rmrs-gtr-251.

Brown, T.C.; Froemke, P. 2012. Nationwide assessment 

of nonpoint source threats to water quality. BioScience. 

62(2): 136-146. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.7.

Bruins, R.J.F.; Canfield, T.J.; Duke, C.; Kapustka, L.; 

Nahlik, A.M.; Schäfer, R.B. 2017. Using ecological 

production functions to link ecological processes 

to ecosystem services. Integrated Environmental 

Assessment and Management. 13(1): 52–61. doi:10.1002/

ieam.1842.

Buchanan, J.B.; Irwin, L.L.; McCutchen, E.L. 1995.

Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls in the 

eastern Washington Cascades. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 59: 301–310. doi:10.2307/3808943.

Buchanan, J.B.; Rogers, R.E.; Pierce, D.J.; Jacobson, 

J.E. 2003. Nest-site habitat use by white-headed 

woodpeckers in the eastern Cascade Mountains, 

Washington. Northwestern Naturalist. 84(3): 119. 

doi:10.2307/3536537.

Buddle, C.M.; Langor, D.W.; Pohl, G.R.; Spence, J.R. 

2006. Arthropod responses to harvesting and wildfire: 

implications for emulation of natural disturbance in 

forest management. Biological Conservation. 128(3): 

346–357. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.002.

Bunnell, F.L. 1995. Forest-dwelling vertebrate faunas and 

natural fire regimes in British Columbia: patterns and 

implications for conservation. Conservation Biology. 

9(3): 636–644.

Burnett, K.M.; Miller, D.J. 2007. Streamside policies 

for headwater channels: an example considering debris 

flows in the Oregon Coastal Province. Forest Science. 

53: 239–253.

Burnett, K.M.; Reeves, G.H.; Miller, D.J.; Clarke, 

S.; Vance-Borland, K.; Christiansen, K. 2007.

Distribution of salmon-habitat potential relative 

to landscape characteristics and implications for 

conservation. Ecological Applications. 17(1): 66–80. 

doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2007)017[0066:dosprt]2.0.co;2.

Burnett, R.D.; Roberts, L.J. 2015. A quantitative 

evaluation of the conservation umbrella of spotted owl 

management areas in the Sierra Nevada. PLoS ONE. 

10(4): e0123778. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123778.
979

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Burns, A.F.; Horngren, S.; Mickey, R.; Partin, T. 2011.

Judging the effectiveness of the Northwest Forest Plan: 

year eighteen. Northwest Science. 85(3): 504–505. 

doi:10.3955/046.085.0311.

Butler, W.H. 2013. Collaboration at arm’s length: 

navigating agency engagement in landscape-scale 

ecological restoration collaboratives. Journal of Forestry. 

111(6): 395–403. doi:10.5849/jof.13-027.

Butler, W.H.; Goldstein, B.E. 2010. The US Fire Learning 

Network: springing a rigidity trap through multiscalar 

collaborative networks. Ecology and Society. 15(3). 

doi:10.5751/es-03437-150321.

Butler, W.H.; Monroe, A.; McCaffrey, S. 2015.

Collaborative implementation for ecological 

restoration on US public lands: implications for legal 

context, accountability, and adaptive management. 

Environmental Management. 55(3): 564–577. 

doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0430-8.

Butman, J. 2016. Opinion: against ‘sustainability’. 

New York Times. August 8. http://www.nytimes.

com/2016/08/08/opinion/against-sustainability.html. 

(18 January 2018).

Calkin, D.C.; Finney, M.A.; Ager, A.A.; Thompson, 

M.P.; Gebert, K.M. 2011. Progress towards and 

barriers to implementation of a risk framework for US 

federal wildland fire policy and decision making. Forest 

Policy and Economics. 13(5): 378–389. doi:10.1016/j.

forpol.2011.02.007.

Cannon, S.H.; DeGraff, J. 2009. The increasing wildfire 

and post-fire debris-flow threat in western USA, and 

implications for consequences of climate change. In: 

Sassa, K.; Canuti, P., eds. Landslides—disaster risk 

reduction. Berlin: Springer: 177–190. doi:10.1007/978-3-

540-69970-5_9.

Carey, J. 2016. Core concept: are we in the 

“Anthropocene”? Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences of the United States of America. 113(15): 

3908–3909. doi:10.1073/pnas.1603152113.

Carey, M.P.; Sanderson, B.L.; Barnas, K.A.; 

Olden, J.D. 2012. Native invaders—challenges for 

science, management, policy, and society. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment. 10(7): 373–381. 

doi:10.1890/110060.

Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Anderies, J.M.; Abel, N. 2001.

From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to 

what? Ecosystems. 4(8): 765–781. doi:10.1007/s10021-

001-0045-9.

Carroll, C. 2010. Role of climatic niche models in focalspecies-based conservation planning: assessing potential 

effects of climate change on northern spotted owl in the 

Pacific Northwest, USA. Biological Conservation. 143(6): 

1432–1437. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.018.

Carroll, C.; Dunk, J.R.; Moilanen, A. 2010. Optimizing 

resiliency of reserve networks to climate change: 

multispecies conservation planning in the Pacific 

Northwest, USA. Global Change Biology. 16(3): 891–

904. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01965.x.

Casazza, M.L.; Overton, C.T.; Bui, T.-V.D.; Hull, 

J.M.; Albertson, J.D.; Bloom, V.K.; Bobzien, S.; 

McBroom, J.; Latta, M.; Olofson, P.; Rohmer, T.M.; 

Schwarzbach, S.; Strong, D.R.; Grijalva, E.; Wood, 

J.K.; Skalos, S.M.; Takekawa, J. 2016. Endangered 

species management and ecosystem restoration: finding 

the common ground. Ecology and Society. 21(1): 19. 

doi:10.5751/es-08134-210119.

Charnley, S. 2006a. The Northwest Forest Plan as a 

model for broad-scale ecosystem management: a social 

perspective. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 330–340. 

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00388.x.

Charnley, S., ed. 2006b. 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. doi:10.2737/pnwgtr-649.
980

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Charnley, S.; Donoghue, E.M. 2006. Volume V: public 

values and forest management. In: Charnley, S., ed. 

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. 23 p. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-649.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating 

traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest 

biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 246(1): 14–28. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2007.03.047.

Charnley, S.; Kelly, E.C.; Wendel, K.L. 2017. All lands 

approaches to fire management in the Pacific west: a 

typology. Journal of Forestry. 115(1): 16–25. doi:10.5849/

jof.15-092.

Charnley, S.; Poe, M.R.; Ager, A.A.; Spies, T.A.; Platt, 

E.K.; Olsen, K.A. 2015. A burning problem: social 

dynamics of disaster risk reduction through wildfire 

mitigation. Human Organization. 74(4): 329–340. 

doi:10.17730/0018-7259-74.4.329.

Charnley, S.; Sheridan, T.E.; Nabhan, G.P. 

2014. Stitching the West back together: 

conservation of working landscapes. Chicago, IL: 

University of Chicago Press. 352 p. doi:10.7208/

chicago/9780226165851.001.0001.

Cissel, J.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Weisberg, P.J. 1999.

Landscape management using historical fire regimes: Blue 

River, Oregon. Ecological Applications. 9: 1217–1231. 

doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[1217:lmuhfr]2.0.co;2.

Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J.; Battles, 

J. 2010. Challenges and approaches in planning fuel 

treatments across fire-excluded forest landscapes. 

Journal of Forestry. 108(1): 24–31.

Cooper, N.; Brady, E.; Steen, H.; Bryce, R. 2016.

Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: recognising 

the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural 

ecosystem ‘services’. Ecosystem Services. 21: 218–229. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.014.

Coppoletta, M.; Merriam, K.E.; Collins, B.M. 2016.

Post-fire vegetation and fuel development influences fire 

severity patterns in reburns. Ecological Applications. 

doi:10.1890/15-0225.1.

Corlett, R.T. 2015. The Anthropocene concept in ecology 

and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30(1): 

36–41. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.10.007.

Corrao, M.V.; Andringa, S. 2017. Anchor forests and tribal 

lifeways to improve ecosystem resilience and maintain 

working forests. Journal of Forestry. 115(5): 341–342. 

doi:10.5849/jof.16-022.

Craig, R.K. 2010. ‘Stationarity is dead’—long live 

transformation: five principles for climate change 

adaptation law. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 

34(1): 9–75.

Creed, I.; Weber, M.; Accatino, F.; Kreutzweiser, D. 

2016. Managing forests for water in the Anthropocenethe best kept secret services of forest ecosystems. 

Forests. 7(3): 60. doi:10.3390/f7030060.

Cronon, W. 1996. The trouble with wilderness: or, getting 

back to the wrong nature. Environmental History. 1(1): 7. 

doi:10.2307/3985059.

Crotteau, J.S.; Morgan Varner, J.; Ritchie, M.W. 2013.

Post-fire regeneration across a fire severity gradient in 

the southern Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 

287: 103–112. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.022.

Crutzen, P.J. 2006. The “Anthropocene.” In: Ehlers, 

E.; Krafft, T., eds. Earth system science in the 

Anthropocene: emerging issues and problems. Berlin: 

Springer-Verlag: 13–18. doi:10.1007/3-540-26590-2_3.

Cumming, G.S.; Allen, C.R.; Ban, N.C.; Biggs, D.; 

Biggs, H.C.; Cumming, D.H.M.; De Vos, A.; Epstein, 

G.; Etienne, M.; Maciejewski, K.; Mathevet, 

R.; Moore, C.; Nenadovic, M.; Schoon, M. 2015.

Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, 

social-ecological approach. Ecological Applications. 

25(2): 299–319. doi:10.1890/13-2113.1.
981

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Dale, V.H.; Joyce, L.A.; McNulty, S.; Neilson, 

R.P.; Ayres, M.P.; Flannigan, M.D.; Hanson, 

P.J.; Irland, L.C.; Lugo, A.E.; Peterson, C.J.; 

Simberloff, D.; Swanson, F.J.; Stocks, B.J.; 

Michael Wotton, B. 2001. Climate change and forest 

disturbances. BioScience. 51(9): 723. doi:10.1641/0006-

3568(2001)051[0723:ccafd]2.0.co;2.

Dale, V.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Crisafulli, C.M. 2005.

Disturbance, survival, and succession: understanding 

ecological responses to the 1980 eruption of Mount St. 

Helens. In: Dale, V.H.; Swanson, F.J.; Crisafulli, C.M., 

eds. Ecological responses to the 1980 eruption of Mount 

St. Helens. New York: Springer: 3–11. doi:10.1007/0-387-

28150-9_1.

D’Amato, A.W.; Bradford, J.B.; Fraver, S.; Palik, B.J. 

2013. Effects of thinning on drought vulnerability 

and climate response in north temperate forest 

ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 23(8): 1735–1742. 

doi:10.1890/13-0677.1.

Daniels, S.E.; Walker, G.B. 1995. Managing local 

environmental conflict amidst national controversy. 

International Journal of Conflict Management. 6(3): 

290–311. doi:10.1108/eb022767.

Davenport, M.A.; Leahy, J.E.; Anderson, D.H.; Jakes, 

P.J. 2007. Building trust in natural resource management 

within local communities: a case study of the Midewin 

National Tallgrass Prairie. Environmental Management. 

39(3): 353–368. doi:10.1007/s00267-006-0016-1.

Davis, E.J.; Cerveny, L.; Nuss, M.; Seesholtz, D. 2015a.

Oregon’s forest collaboratives: a rapid assessment. 

Research Contribution Summaries—RCS 1. Corvallis, 

OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry, 

Oregon Forest Research Laboratory. 6 p. https://ir.library.

oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/6t053h28v.

Davis, E.J.; White, E.M.; Cerveny, L.K.; Seesholtz, 

D.; Nuss, M.L.; Ulrich, D.R. 2017. Comparison of 

USDA Forest Service and stakeholder motivations and 

experiences in collaborative federal forest governance in 

the western United States. Environmental Management. 

60(5): 908–921. doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0913-5.

Davis, R.J.; Hollen, B.; Hobson, J.; Gower, J.E.; 

Keenum, D. 2016. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 20 

years (1994–2013): status and trends of northern spotted 

owl habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-929. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 54 p.

Davis, R.J.; Ohmann, J.L.; Kennedy, R.E.; Cohen, W.B.; 

Gregory, M.J.; Yang, Z.; Roberts, H.M.; Gray, A.N.; 

Spies, T.A. 2015b. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 20 

years (1994–2013): status and trends of late-successional 

and old-growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-911. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 112 p.

Deal, R.L.; Fong, L.; Phelps, E., eds. 2017a. Integrating 

ecosystem services into national Forest Service policy 

and operations. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-943. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 87 p.

Deal, R.L.; Smith, N.; Gates, J. 2017b. Ecosystem 

services to enhance sustainable forest management in 

the US: moving from forest service national programmes 

to local projects in the Pacific Northwest. Forestry: An 

International Journal of Forest Research. 90(5): 632–639. 

doi:10.1093/forestry/cpx025.

DellaSala, D.; Baker, R.; Heiken, D.; Frissell, C.; Karr, 

J.; Nelson, S.; Noon, B.; Olson, D.; Strittholt, J. 2015.

Building on two decades of ecosystem management 

and biodiversity conservation under the Northwest 

Forest Plan, USA. Forests. 6(9): 3326–3352. doi:10.3390/

f6093326.
982

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

DellaSala, D.A.; Anthony, R.G.; Bond, M.L.; Fernandez, 

E.S.; Frissell, C.A.; Hanson, C.T.; Spivak, R. 2013.

Alternative views of a restoration framework for federal 

forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry. 

111(6): 420–429. doi:10.5849/jof.13-040.

DellaSala, D.A.; Bond, M.L.; Hanson, C.T.; Hutto, 

R.L.; Odion, D.C. 2014. Complex early seral forests of 

the Sierra Nevada: what are they and how can they be 

managed for ecological integrity? Natural Areas Journal. 

34(3): 310–324. doi:10.3375/043.034.0317.

Dessai, S.; Hulme, M. 2004. Does climate adaptation 

policy need probabilities? Climate Policy. 4(2): 107–128. 

doi:10.1080/14693062.2004.9685515.

Doak, D.F.; Bakker, V.J.; Goldstein, B.E.; Hale, B. 2014.

What is the future of conservation? Trends in Ecology & 

Evolution. 29(2): 77–81. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2013.10.013.

Dodson, E.K.; Peterson, D.W.; Harrod, R.J. 2008.

Understory vegetation response to thinning and 

burning restoration treatments in dry conifer forests 

of the eastern Cascades, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 255(8–9): 3130–3140. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2008.01.026.

Dodson, E.K.; Root, H.T. 2013. Conifer regeneration 

following stand-replacing wildfire varies along an 

elevation gradient in a ponderosa pine forest, Oregon, 

USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 302: 163–170. 

doi: 10.1111/gcb.12775.

Duncan, S.L.; McComb, B.C.; Johnson, K.N. 2010.

Integrating ecological and social ranges of variability in 

conservation of biodiversity: past, present, and future. 

Ecology and Society. 15(1): 5. doi:10.5751/es-03025-150105.

Duncan, S.L.; Spies, T.A. 2009. Old growth in a new 

world: a synthesis. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. 

Old growth in a new world: a Pacific Northwest icon 

reexamined. Washington, DC: Island Press: 303–312.

Elkin, C.; Giuggiola, A.; Rigling, A.; Bugmann, H. 

2015. Short- and long-term efficacy of forest thinning 

to mitigate drought impacts in mountain forests in the 

European Alps. Ecological Applications. 25(4): 1083–

1098. doi:10.1890/14-0690.1.

Everett, Y.; Fuller, M. 2011. Fire safe councils in the 

interface. Society & Natural Resources. 24(4): 319–333. 

doi:10.1080/08941920903313835.

Fahrig, L.; Rytwinski, T. 2009. Effects of roads on animal 

abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecology 

and Society. 14(1) doi:10.5751/es-02815-140121.

Fischer, A.P.; Jasny, L. 2017. Capacity to adapt to 

environmental change: evidence from a network of 

organizations concerned with increasing wildfire risk. 

Ecology and Society. 22(1): 23. doi:10.5751/es-08867-

220123.

Fischer, A.P.; Spies, T.A.; Steelman, T.A.; Moseley, C.; 

Johnson, B.R.; Bailey, J.D.; Ager, A.A.; Bourgeron, 

P.; Charnley, S.; Collins, B.M. 2016. Wildfire risk as a 

socioecological pathology. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment. 14(5): 276–284.

Flitcroft, R.L.; Falke, J.A.; Reeves, G.H.; Hessburg, 

P.F.; McNyset, K.M.; Benda, L.E. 2016. Wildfire may 

increase habitat quality for spring Chinook salmon 

in the Wenatchee River subbasin, WA, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 359: 126–140. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2015.09.049.

Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective 

for social-ecological systems analyses. Global 

Environmental Change. 16(3): 253–267. doi:10.1016/j.

gloenvcha.2006.04.002.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of 

the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination]
983

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Franklin, A.B.; Anderson, D.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; 

Burnham, K.P. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, 

and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in 

northwestern California. Ecological Monographs. 70: 

539–590. doi:10.1890/0012-9615(2000)070[0539:chqafi]

2.0.co;2.

Franklin, J.F. 1995. Scientists in wonderland. BioScience. 

45: S74–S78. doi:10.2307/1312448.

Franklin, J.F.; Hagmann, R.K.; Urgenson, L.S. 2014.

Interactions between societal goals and restoration of dry 

forest landscapes in western North America. Landscape 

Ecology. 29(10): 1645–1655. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-

0077-0.

Franklin, J.F.; Johnson, K.N. 2012. A restoration 

framework for federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Forestry. 110(8): 429–439. doi:10.5849/

jof.10-006.

Franklin, J.F.; Lindenmayer, D.B. 2009. Importance 

of matrix habitats in maintaining biological diversity. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the 

United States of America. 106(2): 349–350. doi:10.1073/

pnas.0812016105.

Franklin, J.F.; Lindenmayer, D.; MacMahon, J.A.; 

McKee, A.; Magnuson, J.; Perry, D.A.; Waide, R.; 

Foster, D. 2000. Threads of continuity. There are 

immense differences between even-aged silvicultural 

disturbances (especially clearcutting) and natural 

disturbances, such as windthrow, wildfire, and even 

volcanic eruptions. Conservation in Practice. 1(1): 8–17. 

doi:10.1111/j.1526-4629.2000.tb00155.x.

Franklin, J.F.; Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural 

disturbance and stand development principles 

for ecological forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRSGTR-19. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 

44 p. doi:10.2737/nrs-gtr-19.

Franklin, J.F.; Spies, T.A. 1991. Composition, function, 

and structure of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. In: 

Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Carey, A.B.; Huff, M.H., 

eds. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir 

forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 71–80. doi:10.2737/pnwgtr-285.

Fremier, A.K.; Kiparsky, M.; Gmur, S.; Aycrigg, 

J.; Craig, R.K.; Svancara, L.K.; Goble, D.D.; 

Cosens, B.; Davis, F.W.; Scott, J.M. 2015. A riparian 

conservation network for ecological resilience. 

Biological Conservation. 191: 29–37. doi:10.1016/j.

biocon.2015.06.029.

Frey, S.J.K.; Hadley, A.S.; Betts, M.G. 2016a.

Microclimate predicts within-season distribution 

dynamics of montane forest birds. Diversity and 

Distributions. 22(9): 944–959. doi:10.1111/ddi.12456.

Frey, S.J.K.; Hadley, A.S.; Johnson, S.L.; Schulze, M.; 

Jones, J.A.; Betts, M.G. 2016b. Spatial models reveal 

the microclimatic buffering capacity of old-growth 

forests. Science Advances. 2(4): e1501392–e1501392. 

doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501392.

Gabriel, M.W.; Wengert, G.M.; Higley, J.M.; Krogan, 

S.; Sargent, W.; Clifford, D.L. 2013. Silent forests: 

rodenticides on illegal marijuana crops harm wildlife. 

Wildlife Professional. 7(1): 46–50.

Gabriel, M.W.; Woods, L.W.; Poppenga, R.; Sweitzer, 

R.A.; Thompson, C.; Matthews, S.M.; Higley, J.M.; 

Keller, S.M.; Purcell, K.; Barrett, R.H.; Wengert, 

G.M.; Sacks, B.N.; Clifford, D.L. 2012. Anticoagulant 

rodenticides on our public and community lands: spatial 

distribution of exposure and poisoning of a rare forest 

carnivore. PLoS ONE. 7(7): e40163. doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0040163.
984

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Garcia, R.A.; Cabeza, M.; Rahbek, C.; Araujo, M.B. 

2014. Multiple dimensions of climate change and 

their implications for biodiversity. Science. 344(6183): 

1247579–1247579. doi:10.1126/science.1247579.

Glicksman, R.L. 2009. Ecosystem resilience to disruptions 

linked to global climate change: an adaptive approach 

to federal land management. Nebraska Law Review. 87: 

833–892.

Goldenberg, W.P.; George, T.L.; Black, J.M. 2016.

Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) space use and behavior 

in campground and non-campground sites in coastal 

redwood forests. Condor. 118(3): 532–541. doi:10.1650/

condor-15-187.1.

Goldstein, B.E.; Butler, W.H. 2010. Expanding the 

scope and impact of collaborative planning: combining 

multi-stakeholder collaboration and communities 

of practice in a learning network. Journal of the 

American Planning Association. 76(2): 238–249. 

doi:10.1080/01944361003646463.

Götmark, F. 2013. Habitat management alternatives 

for conservation forests in the temperate zone: 

review, synthesis, and implications. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 306: 292–307. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2013.06.014.

Grantham, T.E.; Fesenmyer, K.A.; Peek, R.; Holmes, 

E.; Quiñones, R.M.; Bell, A.; Santos, N.; Howard, 

J.K.; Viers, J.H.; Moyle, P.B. 2017. Missing the boat on 

freshwater fish conservation in California. Conservation 

Letters. 10(1): 77–85. doi:10.1111/conl.12249.

Gray, A. 2008. Monitoring and assessment of regional 

impacts from nonnative invasive plants in forests of the 

Pacific coast, United States. In: Jose, S.; Singh, H.P.; 

Batish, D.R.; Kohli, R.K., eds. Invasive plants and forest 

ecosystems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press: 217–235. 

doi:10.1201/9781420043389.ch13.

Hammer, R.B.; Radeloff, V.C.; Fried, J.S.; Stewart, 

S.I. 2007. Wildland-urban interface housing growth 

during the 1990s in California, Oregon, and Washington. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 16(3): 255. 

doi:10.1071/wf05077.

Harrison, P.; Spring, D.; MacKenzie, M.; Mac Nally, 

R. 2008. Dynamic reserve design with the union-find 

algorithm. Ecological Modelling. 215(4): 369–376. 

doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.04.003.

Hatcher, W.; Rondeau, S.; Johnson, D.L.; Johnson, 

K.N.; Franklin, J.F. 2017. Klamath Tribes: managing 

their homeland forests in partnership with the USDA 

Forest Service. Journal of Forestry. 115(5): 447–455. 

doi:10.5849/jof.16-027.

Haugo, R.; Zanger, C.; DeMeo, T.; Ringo, C.; Shlisky, 

A.; Blankenship, K.; Simpson, M.; Mellen-McLean, 

K.; Kertis, J.; Stern, M. 2015. A new approach to 

evaluate forest structure restoration needs across Oregon 

and Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 

335: 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.09.014.

Haynes, R.W. 2009. Contribution of old-growth timber to 

regional economies in the Pacific Northwest. In: Spies, 

T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth in a new world: a 

Pacific Northwest icon reexamined. Washington, DC: 

Island Press: 83–94.

Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, 

J.R. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years 

(1994–2003): synthesis of monitoring and research 

results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 292 p.

Hessburg, P.F.; Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Haugo, 

R.D.; Miller, C.; Spies, T.A.; North, M.P.; Povak, 

N.A.; Belote, R.T.; Singleton, P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; 

Keane, R.E.; Aplet, G.H.; Stephens, S.L.; Morgan, P.; 

Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Salter, R.B.; Reeves, G.H. 

2015. Restoring fire-prone inland Pacific landscapes: 

seven core principles. Landscape Ecology. 30(10): 1805–

1835. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0218-0.
985

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Hessburg, P.F.; Povak, N.A. 2015. Book review: applying 

historical range of variability concepts. Landscape 

Ecology. 30: 753–755.

Hessburg, P.F.; Salter, R.B.; James, K.M. 2007. Reexamining fire severity relations in pre-management 

era mixed conifer forests: inferences from landscape 

patterns of forest structure. Landscape Ecology. 22: 

5–24. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9098-2.

Hessburg, P.F.; Spies, T.A.; Perry, D.A.; Skinner, C.N.; 

Taylor, A.H.; Brown, P.M.; Stephens, S.L.; Larson, 

A.J.; Churchill, D.J.; Povak, N.A.; Singleton, P.H.; 

McComb, B.; Zielinski, W.J.; Collins, B.M.; Salter, 

R.B.; Keane, J.J.; Franklin, J.F.; Riegel, G. 2016.

Tamm review: management of mixed-severity fire 

regime forests in Oregon, Washington, and Northern 

California. Forest Ecology and Management. 366: 

221–250. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.01.034.

Hiers, J.K.; Jackson, S.T.; Hobbs, R.J.; Bernhardt, 

E.S.; Valentine, L.E. 2016. The precision problem 

in conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & 

Evolution. 31(11): 820–830. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.08.001.

Higgs, E.; Falk, D.A.; Guerrini, A.; Hall, M.; Harris, J.; 

Hobbs, R.J.; Jackson, S.T.; Rhemtulla, J.M.; Throop, 

W. 2014. The changing role of history in restoration 

ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 

12(9): 499–506. doi:10.1890/110267.

Hjerpe, E.; Holmes, T.; White, E. 2017. National and 

community market contributions of wilderness. Society 

& Natural Resources. 30(3): 265–280. doi:10.1080/08941

920.2016.1196280.

Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Hall, C.M.; Bridgewater, P.; 

Chapin, F.S.; Ellis, E.C.; Ewel, J.J.; Hallett, L.M.; 

Harris, J.; Hulvey, K.B.; Jackson, S.T.; Kennedy, 

P.L.; Kueffer, C.; Lach, L.; Lantz, T.C.; Lugo, A.E.; 

Mascaro, J.; Murphy, S.D.; Nelson, C.R.; Perring, 

M.P.; Richardson, D.M.; Seastedt, T.R.; Standish, 

R.J.; Starzomski, B.M.; Suding, K.N.; Tognetti, 

P.M.; Yakob, L.; Yung, L. 2014. Managing the whole 

landscape: historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 12(10): 

557–564. doi:10.1890/130300.

Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. 2009. Novel 

ecosystems: implications for conservation and 

restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 24(11): 

599–605. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.05.012.

Hobbs, R.J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. 2008. From perspectives 

to principles: where to from here? In: Lindenmayer, D.B.; 

Hobbs, R.J., eds. Managing and designing landscapes 

for conservation. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell 

Publishing: 561–568. doi:10.1002/9780470692400.ch46.

Holling, C.S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of 

economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems. 

4(5): 390–405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.

Holmes, T.P.; Bowker, J.M.; Englin, J.; Hjerpe, E.; 

Loomis, J.B.; Phillips, S.; Richardson, R. 2016. A 

synthesis of the economic values of wilderness. Journal 

of Forestry. 114(3): 320–328. doi:10.5849/jof.14-136.

Houtman, R.M.; Montgomery, C.A.; Gagnon, A.R.; 

Calkin, D.E.; Dietterich, T.G.; McGregor, S.; 

Crowley, M. 2013. Allowing a wildfire to burn: 

estimating the effect on future fire suppression costs. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 22(7): 871–882. 

doi:10.1071/wf12157.

Hudiburg, T.; Law, B.; Turner, D.P.; Campbell, J.; 

Donato, D.; Duane, M. 2009. Carbon dynamics of 

Oregon and Northern California forests and potential 

land-based carbon storage. Ecological Applications. 

19(1): 163–180. doi:10.1890/07-2006.1.
986

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Hunter, M.L. 2005. A mesofilter conservation strategy 

to complement fine and coarse filters. Conservation 

Biology. 19(4): 1025–1029.

Hunter, M.L.; Redford, K.H.; Lindenmayer, D.B. 2014.

The complementary niches of anthropocentric and 

biocentric conservationists. Conservation Biology. 28(3): 

641–645.

Jacobs, D.B.; Cramer, L.A. 2017. Applying information 

network analysis to fire-prone landscapes: implications 

for community resilience. Ecology and Society. 22(1) 

doi:10.5751/es-09119-220152.

Johnson, K.N.; Franklin, J.; Johnson, D. 2008. A plan 

for the Klamath Tribes’ management of the Klamath 

Reservation Forest. http://klamathtribes.org/documents/

Klamathtribes_forestmanagement_plan.pdf. (18 

January 2018).

Johnson, K.N.; Swanson, F.J. 2009. Historical context 

of old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest—policy, 

practices, and competing world views. In: Spies, T.A.; 

Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth in a new world: a Pacific 

Northwest icon reexamined. Washington, DC: Island 

Press: 12–28.

Jones, G.M.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Tempel, D.J.; Whitmore, 

S.A.; Berigan, W.J.; Peery, M.Z. 2016. Megafires: 

an emerging threat to old-forest species. Frontiers in 

Ecology and Evolution. 14(6): 300–306.

Jones, J.A.; Swanson, F.J.; Wemple, B.C.; Snyder, K.U. 

2000. Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, 

and disturbance patches in stream networks. 

Conservation Biology. 14(1): 76–85. doi:10.1046/j.1523-

1739.2000.99083.x.

Kareiva, P. 2014. New conservation: setting the record 

straight and finding common ground. Conservation 

Biology. 28(3): 634–636. doi:10.1111/cobi.12295.

Kareiva, P.; Marvier, M. 2012. What is conservation 

science? BioScience. 62(11): 962–969. doi:10.1525/

bio.2012.62.11.5.

Keane, R.E.; Hessburg, P.F.; Landres, P.B.; Swanson, 

F.J. 2009. The use of historical range and variability 

(HRV) in landscape management. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258: 1025–1037. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2009.05.035.

Keane, R.E.; Ryan, K.C.; Veblen, T.T.; Allen, C.D.; 

Logan, J.; Hawkes, B. 2002. Cascading effects of fire 

exclusion in the Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a literature 

review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-91. Ogden, UT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 24 p. doi:10.2737/rmrsgtr-91.

Keenan, R.J. 2015. Climate change impacts and adaptation 

in forest management: a review. Annals of Forest 

Science. 72(2): 145–167. doi:10.1007/s13595-014-0446-5.

Kellert, S.R.; Mehta, J.N.; Ebbin, S.A.; Lichtenfeld, 

L.L. 2000. Community natural resource 

management: promise, rhetoric, and reality. 

Society & Natural Resources. 13(8): 705–715. 

doi:10.1080/089419200750035575.

Kline, J.D.; Harmon, M.E.; Spies, T.A.; Morzillo, A.T.; 

Pabst, R.J.; McComb, B.C.; Schnekenburger, F.; 

Olsen, K.A.; Csuti, B.; Vogeler, J.C. 2016. Evaluating 

carbon storage, timber harvest, and habitat possibilities 

for a western Cascades (USA) forest landscape. 

Ecological Applications. 26(7): 2044–2059. doi:10.1002/

eap.1358.

Kline, J.D.; Mazzotta, M.J.; Spies, T.A.; Harmon, M.E. 

2013. Applying the ecosystem services concept to public 

land management. Agricultural and Resource Economics 

Review. 42(1): 139–158.

Klyza, C.M.; Sousa, D. 2010. Beyond gridlock: green 

drift in American environmental policymaking. Political 

Science Quarterly. 125(3): 443–463. doi:10.1002/j.1538-

165x.2010.tb00681.x.

Knight, R.L.; Landres, P., eds. 1998. Stewardship across 

boundaries. Washington, DC: Island Press. 382 p.
987

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Kondolf, G.M.; Boulton, A.J.; O’Daniel, S.; Poole, 

G.C.; Rahel, F.J.; Stanley, E.H.; Wohl, E.; Bång, A.; 

Carlstrom, J.; Cristoni, C.; Huber, H.; Koljonen, 

S.; Louhi, P.; Nakamura, K. 2006. Process-based 

ecological river restoration: visualizing threedimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover 

lost linkages. Ecology and Society. 11(2) doi:10.5751/

es-01747-110205.

Kondolf, G.M.; Montgomery, D.R.; Piégay, H.; Schmitt, 

L. 2003. Geomorphic classification of rivers and 

streams. In: Kondolf, G.M.; Piégay, H., eds. Tools in 

fluvial geomorphology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell: 

171–204. doi:10.1002/0470868333.ch7.

Kuglerová, L.; Ågren, A.; Jansson, R.; Laudon, H. 2014.

Towards optimizing riparian buffer zones: ecological 

and biogeochemical implications for forest management. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 334: 74–84. 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.033.

Lange, S.E. 2016. Policy-oriented learning among 

national forest stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest: 

changes in policy beliefs since adoption of the 

Northwest Forest Plan. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington. 97 p. M.S. thesis.

Lausche, B.J.; Burhenne-Guilmin, F. 2011. Guidelines for 

protected areas legislation. IUCN Environmental Policy 

and Law Paper. No. 81. Gland, Switzerland: International 

Union for Conservation of Nature. https://portals.iucn.

org/library/node/9869. (7 February 2018).

Lauvaux, C.A.; Skinner, C.N.; Taylor, A.H. 2016. High 

severity fire and mixed conifer forest-chaparral 

dynamics in the southern Cascade Range, USA. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 363: 74–85. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2015.12.016.

Leach, W.D. 2006. Public involvement in USDA Forest 

Service policymaking: a literature review. Journal of 

Forestry. 104(1): 43–49.

Lee, P.; Smyth, C.; Boutin, S. 2004. Quantitative review 

of riparian buffer width guidelines from Canada and the 

United States. Journal of Environmental Management. 

70(2): 165–180. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.11.009.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Kennedy, M.; Ford, E.D.; Singleton, 

P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Lind, R.L. 2007. Seeing the forest 

for the fuel: integrating ecological values and fuels 

management. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 

73–80. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.071.

Lemieux, C.J.; Beechey, T.J.; Gray, P.A. 2011. Prospects 

for Canada’s protected areas in an era of rapid climate 

change. Land Use Policy. 28(4): 928–941. doi:10.1016/j.

landusepol.2011.03.008.

Lewicki, R.J.; McAllister, D.J.; Bies, R.J. 1998. Trust 

and distrust: new relationships and realities. Academy 

of Management Review. 23(3): 438–458. doi:10.5465/

amr.1998.926620.

Lewis, S.L.; Maslin, M.A. 2015. Defining the 

Anthropocene. Nature. 519(7542): 171–180. doi:10.1038/

nature14258.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Laurance, W.F.; Franklin, J.F.; 

Likens, G.E.; Banks, S.C.; Blanchard, W.; Gibbons, 

P.; Ikin, K.; Blair, D.; McBurney, L.; Manning, A.D.; 

Stein, J.A.R. 2014. New policies for old trees: averting 

a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. 

Conservation Letters. 7(1): 61–69. doi:10.1111/conl.12013.

Lindenmayer, D.B.; Margules, C.R.; Botkin, D.B. 2000.

Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable 

forest management. Conservation Biology. 14(4): 941–

950. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.98533.x.

Lint, J. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 

years (1994–2003): status and trends of northern 

spotted owl populations and habitat. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-648. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 176 p. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-648.
988

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Liu, J.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, 

C.; Moran, E.; Pell, A.N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; 

Lubchenco, J.; Ostrom, E.; Ouyang, Z.; Provencher, 

W.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Taylor, W.W. 

2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural 

systems. Science. 317(5844): 1513–1516. doi:10.1126/

science.1144004.

Liu, J.C.; Mickley, L.J.; Sulprizio, M.P.; Dominici, F.; 

Yue, X.; Ebisu, K.; Anderson, G.B.; Khan, R.F.A.; 

Bravo, M.A.; Bell, M.L. 2016. Particulate air pollution 

from wildfires in the Western US under climate change. 

Climatic Change. 138(3–4): 655–666. doi:10.1007/

s10584-016-1762-6.

Livezey, K.B. 2010. Killing barred owls to help spotted 

owls I: a global perspective. Northwestern Naturalist. 

91(2): 107–133. doi:10.1898/nwn09-37.1.

Long, J.W.; Quinn-Davidson, L.; Skinner, C.N. 2014.

Science synthesis to support socioecological resilience 

in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247. Albany, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 712 p. doi:10.2737/psw-gtr-247.

Loudermilk, E.L.; Scheller, R.M.; Weisberg, P.J.; Yang, 

J.; Dilts, T.E.; Karam, S.L.; Skinner, C. 2013. Carbon 

dynamics in the future forest: the importance of longterm successional legacy and climate-fire interactions. 

Global Change Biology. 19: 3502–3515. doi:10.1111/

gcb.12310.

Luce, C.H.; Lute, A.C.; Kormos, P.; Livneh, B. 2017.

Modeled historical streamflow metrics for the contiguous 

United States and national forest lands. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Research Data Archive. http://dx.doi.org/10.2737/rds2017-0046. (7 February 2018).

Luginbuhl, J.M.; Marzluff, J.M.; Bradley, J.E.; 

Raphael, M.G.; Varland, D.E. 2001. Corvid survey 

techniques and the relationship between corvid 

relative abundance and nest predation. Journal of Field 

Ornithology. 72(4): 556–572. doi:10.1648/0273-8570-

72.4.556.

Lugo, A.E. 2015. Forestry in the Anthropocene. Science. 

349(6250): 771–771. doi:10.1126/science.aad2208.

Lunetta, R.S.; Cosentino, B.L.; Montgomery, D.R.; 

Beamer, E.M.; Beechie, T.J. 1997. GIS-based 

evaluation of salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest. 

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing. 

63: 1219–1229.

Maier, C.; Abrams, J.B. 2018. Navigating social 

forestry—a street-level perspective on national forest 

management in the US Pacific Northwest. Land Use 

Policy. 70: 432–441. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.031.

Margules, C.R.; Pressey, R.L. 2000. Systematic 

conservation planning. Nature. 405(6783): 243–253. 

doi:10.1038/35012251.

Marzano, M.; Dandy, N. 2012. Recreationist behaviour in 

forests and the disturbance of wildlife. Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 21(11): 2967–2986. doi:10.1007/s10531-012-

0350-y.

Marzluff, J.M.; Neatherlin, E. 2006. Corvid response 

to human settlements and campgrounds: causes, 

consequences, and challenges for conservation. 

Biological Conservation. 130(2): 301–314. doi:10.1016/j.

biocon.2005.12.026.

McCarthy, M.A.; Possingham, H.P. 2007. Active adaptive 

management for conservation. Conservation Biology. 

21(4): 956–963. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00677.x.
989

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

McKinley, D.C.; Ryan, M.G.; Birdsey, R.A.; Giardina, 

C.P.; Harmon, M.E.; Heath, L.S.; Houghton, R.A.; 

Jackson, R.B.; Morrison, J.F.; Murray, B.C.; 

Pataki, D.E.; Skog, K.E. 2011. A synthesis of current 

knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United 

States. Ecological Applications. 21(6): 1902–1924. 

doi:10.1890/10-0697.1.

McKinney, M.L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and 

conservation: the impacts of urbanization on native 

species are poorly studied, but educating a highly 

urbanized human population about these impacts can 

greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. 

BioScience. 52(10): 883–890. doi:10.1641/0006-

3568(2002)052[0883:ubac]2.0.co;2.

McRae, B.H.; Popper, K.; Jones, A.; Schindel, M.; 

Buttrick, S.; Hall, K.; Unnasch, R.S.; Platt, J. 2016.

Conserving nature’s stage: mapping omnidirectional 

connectivity for resilient terrestrial landscapes in 

the Pacific Northwest. Portland, OR: The Nature 

Conservancy. 47 p.

Mellen-McLean, K.; Wales, B.; Bresson, B. 2013. A 

conservation assessment of the white-headed woodpecker 

(Picoides albolarvatus). Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 41 p.

Meng, R.; Dennison, P.E.; Huang, C.; Moritz, M.A.; 

D’Antonio, C. 2015. Effects of fire severity and 

post-fire climate on short-term vegetation recovery 

of mixed-conifer and red fir forests in the Sierra 

Nevada Mountains of California. Remote Sensing of 

Environment. 171: 311–325. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2015.10.024.

Meslow, E.C. 1993. Spotted owl protection: unintentional 

evolution toward ecosystem management. Endangered 

Species Update. 3(4): 34–38.

Metz, M.R.; Frangioso, K.M.; Meentemeyer, R.K.; 

Rizzo, D.M. 2011. Interacting disturbances: wildfire 

severity affected by stage of forest disease invasion. 

Ecological Applications. 21(2): 313–320. doi:10.1890/

10-0419.1.

Meyer, M.D. 2015. Forest fire severity patterns of resource 

objective wildfires in the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Journal of Forestry. 113(1): 49–56. doi:10.5849/jof.14-

084.

Millar, C.I.; Stephenson, N.L.; Stephens, S.L. 2007.

Climate change and forests of the future: managing in 

the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications. 17(8): 

2145–2151. doi:10.1890/06-1715.1.

Millar, C.I.; Westfall, R.D.; Delany, D.L.; Bokach, M.J.; 

Flint, A.L.; Flint, L.E. 2012. Forest mortality in highelevation whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forests of 

eastern California, USA; influence of environmental 

context, bark beetles, climatic water deficit, and 

warming. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 42(4): 

749–765. doi:10.1139/x2012-031.

Miller, B.; Soulé, M.E.; Terborgh, J. 2014. ‘New 

conservation’ or surrender to development? Animal 

Conservation. 17(6): 509–515. doi:10.1111/acv.12127.

Miller, D.J.; Burnett, K.M. 2008. A probabilistic model 

of debris-flow delivery to stream channels, demonstrated 

for the Coast Range of Oregon, USA. Geomorphology. 

94(1–2): 184–205. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.05.009.

Miner, A.M.A.; Malmsheimer, R.W.; Keele, D.M. 

2014. Twenty years of Forest Service land management 

litigation. Journal of Forestry. 112(1): 32–40. doi:10.5849/

jof.12-094.

Molina, R.; Marcot, B.G.; Lesher, R. 2006. Protecting 

rare, old-growth, forest-associated species under the 

survey and manage program guidelines of the Northwest 

Forest Plan. Conservation Biology. 20(2): 306–318. 

doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00386.x.

Montgomery, D.R. 2004. Geology, geomorphology, and 

the restoration ecology of salmon. GSA Today. 14(11): 4. 

doi:10.1130/1052-5173(2004)014<4:ggatre>2.0.co;2.

Moore, C.T.; Conroy, M.J. 2006. Optimal regeneration 

planning for old-growth forest: addressing scientific 

uncertainty in endangered species recovery through 

adaptive management. Forest Science. 52(2): 155–172.
990

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Moore, D.W.; Booth, P.; Alix, A.; Apitz, S.E.; Forrow, 

D.; Huber-Sannwald, E.; Jayasundara, N. 2017.

Application of ecosystem services in natural resource 

management decision making. Integrated Environmental 

Assessment and Management. 13(1): 74–84. doi:10.1002/

ieam.1838.

Naiman, R.J.; Alldredge, J.R.; Beauchamp, D.A.; 

Bisson, P.A.; Congleton, J.; Henny, C.J.; Huntly, N.; 

Lamberson, R.; Levings, C.; Merrill, E.N.; Pearcy, 

W.G.; Rieman, B.E.; Ruggerone, G.T.; Scarnecchia, 

D.; Smouse, P.E.; Wood, C.C. 2012. Developing a 

broader scientific foundation for river restoration: 

Columbia River food webs. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 

109(52): 21201–21207. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213408109.

Nelson, M.P.; Vucetich, J.A. 2012. Environmental ethics 

and wildlife management. In: Decker, D.J.; Riley, 

S.J.; Siemer, W.F., eds. Human dimensions of wildlife 

management. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University 

Press: 223–237.

Nie, M. 2003. Drivers of natural resource-based political 

conflict. Policy Sciences. 36(3/4): 307–341. doi:10.1023/

b:olic.0000017484.35981.b6.

Nonaka, E.; Spies, T.A. 2005. Historical range of 

variability in landscape structure: a simulation study in 

Oregon, USA. Ecological Applications. 15: 1727–1746. 

doi:10.1890/04-0902.

Noon, B.R.; McKelvey, K.S.; Dickson, B.G. 2009.

Multispecies conservation planning on U.S. federal 

lands. In: Millspaugh, J.J.; Thompson, F.R., III. Models 

for planning wildlife conservation in large landscapes. 

San Diego, CA: Academic Press: 51–83. doi:10.1016/

b978-0-12-373631-4.00003-4.

North, M.; Collins, B.M.; Stephens, S. 2012. Using fire 

to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance 

of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry. 110: 392–401. 

doi:10.5849/jof.12-021.

North, M.P.; Kane, J.T.; Kane, V.R.; Asner, G.P.; 

Berigan, W.; Churchill, D.J.; Conway, S.; Gutiérrez, 

R.J.; Jeronimo, S.; Keane, J.; Koltunov, A.; Mark, 

T.; Moskal, M.; Munton, T.; Peery, Z.; Ramirez, C.; 

Sollmann, R.; White, A.; Whitmore, S. 2017. Cover 

of tall trees best predicts California spotted owl habitat. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 405: 166–178. 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.019.

North, M.P.; Stephens, S.L.; Collins, B.M.; Agee, J.K.; 

Aplet, G.; Franklin, J.F.; Fulé, P.Z. 2015. Reform 

forest fire management. Science. 349(6254): 1280–1281.

Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes 

in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature 

Conservancy (USA). Biological Conservation. 41: 11–37.

Noss, R.F.; O’Connell, M.A.; Murphy, D.D. 1997. The 

science of conservation planning: habitat conservation 

under the Endangered Species Act. Washington, DC: 

Island Press. 263 p.

Odion, D.C.; Frost, E.J.; Strittholt, J.R.; Jiang, H.; 

Dellasala, D.A.; Moritz, M.A. 2004. Patterns of fire 

severity and forest conditions in the western Klamath 

mountains, California. Conservation Biology. 18: 927–

936. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00493.x.

O’Hara, K.L.; Ramage, B.S. 2013. Silviculture in an 

uncertain world: utilizing multi-aged management 

systems to integrate disturbance. Forestry. 86(4): 

401–410. doi:10.1093/forestry/cpt012.

Olsen, C.S.; Mallon, A.L.; Shindler, B.A. 2012. Public 

acceptance of disturbance-based forest management: 

factors influencing support. ISRN Forestry. 2012: 1–10. 

doi:10.5402/2012/594067.

Olson, D.H.; Anderson, P.D.; Frissell, C.A.; Welsh, 

H.H.; Bradford, D.F. 2007. Biodiversity management 

approaches for stream–riparian areas: perspectives for 

Pacific Northwest headwater forests, microclimates, and 

amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 

81–107. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.053.
991

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Olson, D.H.; Burnett, K.M. 2009. Design and management 

of linkage areas across headwater drainages to conserve 

biodiversity in forest ecosystems. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 258: S117–S126. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2009.04.018.

Olson, D.H.; Kluber, M.R. 2014. Plethodontid salamander 

distributions in managed forest headwaters in western 

Oregon, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology. 

9(1): 76–96.

Olson, D.H.; Rugger, C. 2007. Preliminary study of the 

effects of headwater riparian reserves with upslope 

thinning on stream habitats and amphibians in western 

Oregon. Forest Science. 53(2): 331–342.

Papworth, S.K.; Rist, J.; Coad, L.; Milner-Gulland, 

E.J. 2009. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in 

conservation. Conservation Letters. doi:10.1111/j.1755-

263x.2009.00049.x.

Parks, S.A.; Miller, C.; Parisien, M.A.; Dobrowski, S.Z. 

2015. Wildland fire deficit and surplus in the western 

United States, 1984–2012. Ecosphere. 6(12): 1–13.

Pasalodos-Tato, M.; Mäkinen, A.; Garcia-Gonzalo, 

J.; Borges, J.G.; Lämås, T.; Eriksson, L.O. 2013.

Assessing uncertainty and risk in forest planning and 

decision support systems: review of classical methods 

and introduction of new approaches. Forest Systems. 

22(2): 282. doi:10.5424/fs/2013222-03063.

Paveglio, T.B.; Jakes, P.J.; Carroll, M.S.; Williams, 

D.R. 2009. Understanding social complexity within 

the wildland-urban interface: a new species of human 

habitation? Environmental Management. 43(6): 1085–

1095. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9282-z.

Peine, J.D., ed. 1998. Ecosystem management for 

sustainability: principles and practices illustrated by a 

regional biosphere reserve cooperative. Boca Raton, FL: 

Lewis Press. 500 p.

Penaluna, B.E.; Olson, D.H.; Flitcroft, R.L.; Weber, 

M.A.; Bellmore, J.R.; Wondzell, S.M.; Dunham, J.B.; 

Johnson, S.L.; Reeves, G.H. 2017. Aquatic biodiversity 

in forests: a weak link in ecosystem services resilience. 

Biodiversity and Conservation. 26(13): 3125–3155. 

doi:10.1007/s10531-016-1148-0.

Perry, T.D.; Jones, J.A. 2017. Summer streamflow 

deficits from regenerating Douglas-fir forest in the 

Pacific Northwest, USA. Ecohydrology. 10(2): e1790. 

doi:10.1002/eco.1790.

Peterson, A.T.; Robins, C.R. 2003. Using ecologicalniche modeling to predict barred owl invasions with 

implications for spotted owl conservation. Conservation 

Biology. 17(4): 1161–1165. doi:10.1046/j.1523-

1739.2003.02206.x.

Peterson, D.L.; Agee, J.K.; Aplet, G.H.; Dykstra, D.P.; 

Graham, R.T.; Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Pilliod, D.S.; Potts, 

D.F.; Powers, R.F.; Stuart, J.D. 2009. Effects of timber 

harvest following wildfire in western North America. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Peterson, D.W.; Dodson, E.K.; Harrod, R.J. 2015. Postfire logging reduces surface woody fuels up to four 

decades following wildfire. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 338: 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

foreco.2014.11.016.

Peterson, S.A.; Colwell, M.A. 2014. Experimental 

evidence that scare tactics and effigies reduce corvid 

occurrence. Northwestern Naturalist. 95(2): 103–112. 

doi:10.1898/nwn13-18.1.
992

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Phillips, R. 2006. Payments to county governments. In: 

Donoghue, E.M.; Stuart, C.; Dillingham, C.; Buttolph, 

L.P.; Kay, W.; McLain, R.J.; Moseley, C.; Phillips, R.H.; 

Tobe, L., eds. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years 

(1994–2003): 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: 101–104. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-649. Chapter 7.

Pickett, S.T.; Thompson, J.N. 1978. Patch dynamics and the 

design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation. 13(1): 

27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(78)90016-2.

Pielke, R.A., Jr. 2007. The honest broker: making 

sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 198 p. 

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818110.

Prather, J.W.; Noss, R.F.; Sisk, T.D. 2008. Real versus 

perceived conflicts between restoration of ponderosa 

pine forests and conservation of the Mexican spotted 

owl. Forest Policy and Economics. 10(3): 140–150.

Pressey, R.L.; Cabeza, M.; Watts, M.E.; Cowling, 

R.M.; Wilson, K.A. 2007. Conservation planning in a 

changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 22(11): 

583–592. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2007.10.001.

Pretty, J.; Ward, H. 2001. Social capital and the 

environment. World Development. 29(2): 209–227. 

doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(00)00098-x.

Radeloff, V.C.; Williams, J.W.; Bateman, B.L.; Burke, 

K.D.; Carter, S.K.; Childress, E.S.; Cromwell, K.J.; 

Gratton, C.; Hasley, A.O.; Kraemer, B.M.; Latzka, 

A.W.; Marin-Spiotta, E.; Meine, C.D.; Munoz, S.E.; 

Neeson, T.M.; Pidgeon, A.M.; Rissman, A.R.; Rivera, 

R.J.; Szymanski, L.M.; Usinowicz, J. 2015. The rise 

of novelty in ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 25(8): 

2051–2068. doi:10.1890/14-1781.1.

Raphael, M.G.; Airola, D.A.; Harris, R.; Stine, P.A. 

[In press]. Breeding bird changes during 50 years of 

post-fire succession in the Sierra Nevada. In: Shuford, 

W.D.; Gill, R., eds. Avifaunal change in western North 

America: studies of western birds 2. Camarillo, CA: 

Western Field Ornithologists.

Raphael, M.G.; Mack, D.E.; Cooper, B.A. 2002.

Landscape-scale relationships between abundance 

of marbled murrelets and distribution of nesting 

habitat. Condor. 104(2): 331. doi:10.1650/0010-

5422(2002)104[0331:lsrbao]2.0.co;2.

Raphael, M.G.; Marcot, B.G. 1994. Species and 

ecosystem viability: key questions and issues. Journal 

of Forestry. 92(4): 45–47.

Raphael, M.G.; Shirk, A.J.; Falxa, G.A.; Pearson, 

S.F. 2015. Habitat associations of marbled murrelets 

during the nesting season in nearshore waters along 

the Washington to California coast. Journal of Marine 

Systems. 146: 17–25. doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.06.010.

Rayfield, B.; James, P.M.A.; Fall, A.; Fortin, M.-J. 2008.

Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the 

Québec boreal forest. Biological Conservation. 141(2): 

438—449. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.013.

Rayner, L.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Wood, J.T.; Gibbons, P.; 

Manning, A.D. 2014. Are protected areas maintaining 

bird diversity? Ecography. 37(1): 43–53. doi:10.1111/

j.1600-0587.2013.00388.x.

Reeves, G.H. 2006. The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of 

the Northwest Forest Plan: an assessment after ten years. 

In: Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R. 

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

synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 181–217. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-651.
993

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Reeves, G.H.; Benda, L.E.; Burnett, K.M.; Bisson, 

P.A.; Sedell, J.R. 1995. A disturbance-based ecosystem 

approach to maintaining and restoring freshwater 

habitats of evolutionarily significant units of anadromous 

salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium. 17: 334–349.

Reeves, G.H.; Bisson, P.A. 2009. Fish and old-growth 

forests. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth 

in a new world: a Pacific Northwest icon reexamined. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 70–82.

Reeves, G.H.; Pickard, B.R.; Johnson, K.N. 2016. An 

initial evaluation of potential options for managing 

riparian reserves of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

of the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-937. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 97 p.

Reilly, M.J.; Dunn, C.J.; Meigs, G.W.; Spies, T.A.; 

Kennedy, R.E.; Bailey, J.D.; Briggs, K. 2017a.

Contemporary patterns of fire extent and severity in 

forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA (1985–2010). 

Ecosphere. 8(3): e01695. doi:10.1002/ecs2.1695.

Reilly, M.J.; Elia, M.; Spies, T.A.; Gregory, M.J.; 

Sanesi, G.; Lafortezza, R. 2017b. Cumulative effects 

of wildfires on forest dynamics in the eastern Cascade 

Mountains, USA. Ecological Applications. doi:10.1002/

eap.1644.

Reilly, M.J.; Spies, T.A. 2015. Regional variation in 

stand structure and development in forests of Oregon, 

Washington, and inland northern California. Ecosphere. 

6(10): art192. doi:10.1890/es14-00469.1.

Restaino, C.M.; Peterson, D.L.; Littell, J. 2016. Increased 

water deficit decreases Douglas-fir growth throughout 

western US forests. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 

113(34): 9557–9562. doi:10.1073/pnas.1602384113.

Richardson, J.S.; Naiman, R.J.; Bisson, P.A. 2012. How 

did fixed-width buffers become standard practice for 

protecting freshwaters and their riparian areas from 

forest harvest practices? Freshwater Science. 31(1): 

232–238. doi:10.1899/11-031.1.

Rizzo, D.M.; Garbelotto, M. 2003. Sudden oak death: 

endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1(4): 197–204. 

doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0197:sodeca]2.0.co;2.

Robbins, W.G. 1999. Landscapes of promise: the Oregon 

story, 1800–1940. Seattle, WA: University of Washington 

Press. 416 p.

Romme, W.H.; Hayward, G.D.; Regan, C. 2012. A 

framework for applying the historical range of variation 

concept to ecosystem management. In: Wiens, J.A.; 

Hayward, G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. 

Historical environmental variation in conservation 

and natural resource management. Chichester, 

United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons: 246–261. 

doi:10.1002/9781118329726.ch17.

Romme, W.H.; Wiens, J.A.; Safford, H.D. 2012. Setting 

the stage: theoretical and conceptual background of 

historical range of variation. In: Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, 

G.D.; Safford, H.D.; Giffen, C.M., eds. Historical 

environmental variation in conservation and natural 

resource management. Chichester, United Kingdom: John 

Wiley & Sons: 3–18. doi:10.1002/9781118329726.ch1.

Rose, S.K.; Chapman, D. 2003. Timber harvest adjacency 

economies, hunting, species protection, and old growth 

value: seeking the dynamic optimum. Ecological 

Economics. 44(2–3): 325–344. doi:10.1016/s0921-

8009(02)00268-9.

Ryan, M.G.; Harmon, M.E.; Birdsey, R.A.; Giardina, 

C.P.; Heath, L.S.; Houghton, R.A.; Jackson, R.B.; 

McKinley, D.C.; Morrison, J.F.; Murray, B.C.; 

Pataki, D.E. 2010. A synthesis of the science on forests 

and carbon for US forests. Issues in Ecology. 13(1): 16.
994

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Safford, H.D.; Betancourt, J.L.; Hayward, G.D.; Wiens, 

J.A.; Regan, C.M. 2008. Land management in the 

Anthropocene: Is history still relevant? Incorporating 

historical ecology and climate change into land 

management. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical 

Union. 89(37): 343. doi:10.1029/2008eo370004.

Safford, H.D.; Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Heller, 

N.; Wiens, J.A. 2012. Climate change and historical 

ecology: can the past still inform the future? In: 

Wiens, J.A.; Hayward, G.D.; Hugh, D.; Giffen, C., eds. 

Historical environmental variation in conservation 

and natural resource management. Chichester, West 

Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell: 46–62. 

doi:10.1002/9781118329726.ch24.

Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.L.; 

Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, 

A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; van Oosten, C.; Buck, 

L.E. 2013. Ten principles for a landscape approach 

to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other 

competing land uses. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 

110(21): 8349–8356. doi:10.1073/pnas.1210595110.

Schowalter, T.D.; Zhang, Y.L.; Rykken, J.J. 2003. Litter 

invertebrate responses to variable density thinning in 

western Washington forest. Ecological Applications. 

13(5): 1204–1211.

Schröter, M.; van Oudenhoven, A.P.E. 2016. Ecosystem 

services go beyond money and markets: reply to 

Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 31(5): 

333–334. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.001.

Schultz, C.A.; Sisk, T.D.; Noon, B.R.; Nie, M.A. 2013.

Wildlife conservation planning under the United States 

Forest Service’s 2012 planning rule. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 77: 428–444. doi:10.1002/jwmg.513.

Schwartz, M.W.; Hellmann, J.J.; McLachlan, J.M.; Sax, 

D.F.; Borevitz, J.O.; Brennan, J.; Camacho, A.E.; 

Ceballos, G.; Clark, J.R.; Doremus, H.; Early, R.; 

Etterson, J.R.; Fielder, D.; Gill, J.L.; Gonzalez, P.; 

Green, N.; Hannah, L.; Jamieson, D.W.; Javeline, 

D.; Minteer, B.A.; Odenbaugh, J.; Polasky, S.; 

Richardson, D.M.; Root, T.L.; Safford, H.D.; Sala, 

O.; Schneider, S.H.; Thompson, A.R.; Williams, 

J.W.; Vellend, M.; Vitt, P.; Zellmer, S. 2012. Managed 

relocation: integrating the scientific, regulatory, 

and ethical challenges. BioScience. 62(8): 732–743. 

doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.6.

Seidl, R.; Vigl, F.; Rössler, G.; Neumann, M.; Rammer, 

W. 2017. Assessing the resilience of Norway spruce 

forests through a model-based reanalysis of thinning 

trials. Forest Ecology and Management. 388: 3–12. 

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2016.11.030.

Shindler, B.; Cramer, L.A. 1999. Shifting public values for 

forest management: making sense of wicked problems. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 14(1): 18–34.

Silvertown, J. 2015. Have ecosystem services been 

oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30(11): 641–

648. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007.

Simberloff, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: 

is single-species management passé in the landscape era? 

Biological Conservation. 83(3): 247–257. doi:10.1016/

s0006-3207(97)00081-5.

Simberloff, D. 2011. Native invaders. In: Simberloff, D.; 

Rejmánek, M., eds. Encyclopedia of biological invasions. 

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 792 p.

Simberloff, D.; Murcia, C.; Aronson, J. 2015. “Novel 

ecosystems” are a Trojan horse for conservation. Ensia. 

http://ensia.com/voices/novel-ecosystems-are-a-trojanhorse-for-conservation. (19 January 2018).
995

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Simončič, T.; Spies, T.A.; Deal, R.L.; Boncina, A. 

2015. A conceptual framework for characterizing 

forest areas with high societal values: experiences 

from the Pacific Northwest of USA and central Europe. 

Environmental Management. 56(1): 127–143. doi:10.1007/

s00267-015-0482-4.

Skinner, C.N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics 

of forest openings in the Klamath Mountains of 

northwestern California, USA. Landscape Ecology. 

10(4): 219–228.

Skillen, J.R. 2015. Federal ecosystem management: its rise, 

fall, and afterlife. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas 

Press. 348 p.

Smit, B.; Wandel, J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity 

and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16(3): 

282–292. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008.

Smith, J.E.; Heath, L.S.; Hoover, C.M. 2013. Carbon 

factors and models for forest carbon estimates for the 

2005-2011 national greenhouse gas inventories of the 

United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 307: 

7–19. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.061.

Smith, N.; Deal, R.; Kline, J.; Blahna, D.; Patterson, 

T.; Spies, T.A.; Bennett, K. 2011. Ecosystem services 

as a framework for forest stewardship: Deschutes 

National Forest overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-852. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46 p. 

doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-852.

Soulé, M.E. 1985. What is conservation biology? A 

new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and 

problems of perturbed species, communities, and 

ecosystems. BioScience. 35(11): 727–734.

Spaulding, S.E.; Rothstein, D.E. 2009. How well does 

Kirtland’s warbler management emulate the effects of 

natural disturbance on stand structure in Michigan jack 

pine forests? Forest Ecology and Management. 258(11): 

2609–2618. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.020.

Spies, T.A. 2006. Maintaining old-growth forests. In: 

Haynes, R.W.; Bormann, B.T.; Lee, D.C.; Martin, J.R., 

eds. Northwest Forest Plan—the first ten years (1994–

2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 83–116.

Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L. 2009. Old growth in a 

new world: a Pacific Northwest icon reexamined. 

Washington, DC: Island Press 344 p.

Spies, T.A.; Giesen, T.W.; Swanson, F.J.; Franklin, 

J.F.; Lach, D.; Johnson, K.N. 2010a. Climate change 

adaptation strategies for federal forests of the Pacific 

Northwest, USA: ecological, policy, and socio-economic 

perspectives. Landscape Ecology. 25(8): 1185–1199. 

doi:10.1007/s10980-010-9483-0.

Spies, T.A.; Johnson, K.N.; Burnett, K.M.; Ohmann, 

J.L.; McComb, B.C.; Reeves, G.H.; Bettinger, P.; 

Kline, J.D.; Garber-Yonts, B. 2007. Cumulative 

ecological and socioeconomic effects of forest policies 

in coastal Oregon. Ecological Applications. 17(1): 5–17. 

doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2007)017[0005:ceaseo]2.0.co;2.

Spies, T.A.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Youngblood, A.; Hummel, 

S. 2006. Conserving old-growth forest diversity in 

disturbance-prone landscapes. Conservation Biology. 

20(2): 351–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00389.x

Spies, T.A.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; Gill, A.M.; Stephens, 

S.L.; Agee, J.K. 2012. Challenges and a checklist 

for biodiversity conservation in fire-prone forests: 

perspectives from the Pacific Northwest of USA and 

southeastern Australia. Biological Conservation. 

145(1): 5–14. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.008.
996

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Spies, T.A.; Miller, J.D.; Buchanan, J.B.; Lehmkuhl, 

J.F.; Franklin, J.F.; Healey, S.P.; Hessburg, P.F.; 

Safford, H.D.; Cohen, W.B.; Kennedy, R.S.H.; 

Knapp, E.E.; Agee, J.K.; Moeur, M. 2010b.

Underestimating risks to the northern spotted owl in fireprone forests: response to Hanson et al. Conservation 

Biology. 24(1): 330–333. doi:10.1111/

j.1523-1739.2009.01414.x.

Spies, T.A.; White, E.; Ager, A.; Kline, J.D.; Bolte, J.P.; 

Platt, E.K.; Olsen, K.A.; Pabst, R.J.; Barros, A.M.G.; 

Bailey, J.D.; Charnley, S.; Morzillo, A.T.; Koch, J.; 

Steen-Adams, M.M.; Singleton, P.H.; Sulzman, J.; 

Schwartz, C.; Csuti, B. 2017. Using an agent-based 

model to examine forest management outcomes in a fireprone landscape in Oregon, USA. Ecology and Society. 

22(1): 25. doi:10.5751/es-08841-220125.

Spies, T.A.; White, E.M.; Kline, J.D.; Fischer, A.P.; 

Ager, A.; Bailey, J.; Bolte, J.; Koch, J.; Platt, E.; 

Olsen, C.S.; Jacobs, D.; Shindler, B.; Steen-Adams, 

M.M.; Hammer, R. 2014. Examining fire-prone forest 

landscapes as coupled human and natural systems. 

Ecology and Society. 19(3): 9. doi:10.5751/es-06584-

190309.

Stanley, T.R. 1995. Ecosystem management and the 

arrogance of humanism. Conservation Biology. 9(2): 

255–262.

Steel, B.S.; List, P.; Shindler, B. 1994. Conflicting values 

about federal forests: a comparison of national and 

Oregon publics. Society & Natural Resources. 7(2): 

137–153. doi:10.1080/08941929409380852.

Steffen, W.; Crutzen, P.J.; McNeill, J.R. 2007. The 

Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the 

great forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the 

Human Environment. 36(8): 614–621. doi:10.1579/0044-

7447(2007)36[614:taahno]2.0.co;2.

Stephens, S.L.; Agee, J.K.; Fule, P.Z.; North, M.P.; 

Romme, W.H.; Swetnam, T.W.; Turner, M.G. 2013.

Managing forests and fire in changing climates. Science. 

342(6154): 41–42. doi:10.1126/science.1240294.

Stern, M.J.; Coleman, K.J. 2015. The multidimensionality 

of trust: applications in collaborative natural resource 

management. Society & Natural Resources. 28(2): 

117–132.

Stine, P.; Hessburg, P.; Spies, T.; Kramer, M.; Fettig, 

C.J.; Hansen, A.; Lehmkuhl, J.; O’Hara, K.; Polivka, 

K.; Singleton, P.; Charnley, S.; Merschel, A.; White, 

R. 2014. The ecology and management of moist mixedconifer forests in eastern Oregon and Washington: 

a synthesis of the relevant biophysical science and 

implications for future land management. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-897. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 254 p. doi:10.2737/pnw-gtr-897.

Strittholt, J.R.; DellaSala, D.A. 2001. Importance of 

roadless areas in biodiversity conservation in forested 

ecosystems: case study of the Klamath-Siskiyou 

ecoregion of the United States. Conservation Biology. 

15(6): 1742–1754. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.99577.x.

Sun, G.; Vose, J. 2016. Forest management challenges for 

sustaining water resources in the Anthropocene. Forests. 

7(3): 68. doi:10.3390/f7030068.

Swanson, M.E.; Franklin, J.F.; Beschta, R.L.; Crisafulli, 

C.M.; Dellasala, D.A.; Hutto, R.L.; Lindenmayer, 

D.B.; Swanson, F.J. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest 

succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 9(2): 117–125. 

doi:10.1890/090157.

Swanson, M.E.; Studevant, N.M.; Campbell, J.L.; 

Donato, D.C. 2014. Biological associates of earlyseral pre-forest in the Pacific Northwest. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 324: 160–171. doi:10.1016/j.

foreco.2014.03.046.

Sweeney, B.W.; Newbold, J.D. 2014. Streamside forest 

buffer width needed to protect stream water quality, 

habitat, and organisms: a literature review. JAWRA 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 

50(3): 560–584. doi:10.1111/jawr.12203.
997

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Taylor, P. 2004. Resilience and biosphere reserves. 

Environments. 32(3): 79–90.

Tepley, A.J.; Swanson, F.J.; Spies, T.A. 2013. Firemediated pathways of stand development in Douglas-fir/

western hemlock forests of the Pacific Northwest, USA. 

Ecology. 94(8): 1729–1743. doi:10.1890/12-1506.1.

Thomas, J.W.; Franklin, J.F.; Gordon, J.; Johnson, K.N. 

2006. The Northwest Forest Plan: origins, components, 

implementation experience, and suggestions for change. 

Conservation Biology. 20(2): 277–287. doi:10.1111/j.1523-

1739.2006.00385.x.

Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A. 2010. Factors associated 

with crown damage following recurring mixed-severity 

wildfires and post-fire management in southwestern 

Oregon. Landscape Ecology. 25(5): 775–789. doi:10.1007/

s10980-010-9456-3.

Thompson, J.R.; Spies, T.A.; Ganio, L.M. 2007. Reburn 

severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a 

large wildfire. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences of the United States of America. 104: 10743–

10748. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700229104.

Tingley, M.W.; Darling, E.S.; Wilcove, D.S. 2014. Fineand coarse-filter conservation strategies in a time of 

climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of 

Sciences. 1322(1): 92–109. doi:10.1111/nyas.12484.

Tiwari, T.; Lundström, J.; Kuglerová, L.; Laudon, 

H.; Öhman, K.; Ågren, A.M. 2016. Cost of riparian 

buffer zones: a comparison of hydrologically adapted 

site-specific riparian buffers with traditional fixed 

widths. Water Resources Research. 52(2): 1056–1069. 

doi:10.1002/2015wr018014.

Tompkins, E.L.; Adger, W.N. 2004. Does adaptive 

management of natural resources enhance resilience 

to climate change? Ecology and Society. 9(2): 10. 

doi:10.5751/es-00667-090210.

Trombulak, S.C.; Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of 

ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic 

communities. Conservation Biology. 14: 18–30. 

doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99084.x.

Tuchmann, E.T.; Brookes, M.H.; Daterman, M. 1996.

The Northwest Forest Plan: a report to the President 

and Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Office of Forestry and Economic 

Assistance. 253 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2012a. National forest system land management 

planning. 36 C.F.R. Part 219. Federal Register. 77: 

21260–21276. http://www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule. 

(17 September 2015).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2012b. The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest 

restoration strategy: adaptive ecosystem management 

to restore landscape resiliency. Portland, OR: Pacific 

Northwest Region. 118 p. http://www.fs.usda.gov/

Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5340103.pdf. 

(17 February 2016).

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 oldgrowth forest related species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 

[Irregular pagination].

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. [Place of publication 

unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and 

guidelines].

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and 

Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2011. Revised 

recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina). Portland, OR. 258 p. http://

www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/nso/documents/

USFWS2011RevisedRecoveryPlanNorthernSpottedOwl.

pdf. (12 November 2014).
998

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS]. 2012. Revised critical habitat for 

the northern spotted owl: proposed rule. 50 C.F.R. Part 

17. Federal Register. 77: 14062–14165.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS]. 2013. Experimental removal of 

barred owls to benefit threatened northern spotted owls: 

final environmental impact statement. Portland, OR: 

Oregon State Office.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. 2015.

Incorporating ecosystem services into federal decision 

making. Memorandum. M-16-01. Washington, DC. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/

omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-01.pdf. (10 January 2018).

Urban, M.C. 2015. Accelerating extinction risk from 

climate change. Science. 348(6234): 571–573. doi:10.1126/

science.aaa4984.

Urgenson, L.S.; Ryan, C.M.; Halpern, C.B.; Bakker, 

J.D.; Belote, R.T.; Franklin, J.F.; Haugo, R.D.; 

Nelson, C.R.; Waltz, A.E.M. 2017. Visions of 

restoration in fire-adapted forest landscapes: lessons 

from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 

Program. Environmental Management. 59(2): 338–353. 

doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0791-2.

Vaillant, N.M.; Reinhardt, E.D. 2017. An evaluation of 

the forest service hazardous fuels treatment programare we treating enough to promote resiliency or 

reduce hazard? Journal of Forestry. 115(4): 300–308. 

doi:10.5849/jof.16-067.

Veldman, J.W.; Buisson, E.; Durigan, G.; Fernandes, 

G.W.; Le Stradic, S.; Mahy, G.; Negreiros, D.; 

Overbeck, G.E.; Veldman, R.G.; Zaloumis, N.P.; 

Putz, F.E.; Bond, W.J. 2015. Toward an old-growth 

concept for grasslands, savannas, and woodlands. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 13(3): 154–

162. doi:10.1890/140270.

Walker, B.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.; Kinzig, A. 

2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in 

social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society. 9(2): 5. 

doi: 10.5751/ES-00650-090205.

Walker, W.; Haasnoot, M.; Kwakkel, J. 2013. Adapt or 

perish: a review of planning approaches for adaptation 

under deep uncertainty. Sustainability. 5(3): 955–979. 

doi:10.3390/su5030955.

Walker, W.E.; Harremoës, P.; Rotmans, J.; van der 

Sluijs, J.P.; van Asselt, M.B.A.; Janssen, P.; Krayer 

von Krauss, M.P. 2003. Defining uncertainty: a 

conceptual basis for uncertainty management in modelbased decision support. Integrated Assessment. 4(1): 

5–17. doi:10.1076/iaij.4.1.5.16466.

Wallace, K.J. 2007. Classification of ecosystem services: 

problems and solutions. Biological Conservation. 139(3–

4): 235–246. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2007.07.015.

Wallach, A.D.; Ripple, W.J.; Carroll, S.P. 2015. Novel 

trophic cascades: apex predators enable coexistence. 

Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 30(3): 146–153. 

doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.01.003.

Walsh, M.K.; Marlon, J.R.; Goring, S.J.; Brown, 

K.J.; Gavin, D.G. 2015. A regional perspective on 

Holocene fire–climate–human interactions in the Pacific 

Northwest of North America. Annals of the Association 

of American Geographers. 105(6): 1135–1157. doi:10.108

0/00045608.2015.1064457.

Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable 

resources. New York: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 374 p.

Watson, J.E.M.; Dudley, N.; Segan, D.B.; Hockings, M. 

2014. The performance and potential of protected areas. 

Nature. 515(7525): 67–73. doi:10.1038/nature13947.

Watts, A.; Grant, G.E.; Safeeq, M. 2016. Flows of the 

future—How will climate change affect streamflows in 

the Pacific Northwest? Science Findings 187. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 5 p.
999

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2012. The Southern Forest 

Futures project: summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRSGTR-168. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 54 p.

Weatherspoon, C.P.; Husari, S.J.; van Wagtendonk, 

J.W. 1992. Fire and fuels management in relation to 

owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern 

California. In: Verner, J.; McKelvey, K.S.; Noon, B.R.; 

Gutierrez, R.J.; Gould, G.I., Jr.; Beck, T.W., eds. The 

California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its 

current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station: 247–260.

Weiss, F.; Brummer, T.J.; Pufal, G. 2016. Mountain bikes 

as seed dispersers and their potential socio-ecological 

consequences. Journal of Environmental Management. 

181: 326–332. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.037.

Wemple, B.C.; Swanson, F.J.; Jones, J.A. 2001. Forest 

roads and geomorphic process interactions, 

Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes 

and Landforms. 26(2): 191–204. doi:10.1002/1096-

9837(200102)26:2<191::aid-esp175>3.0.co;2-u.

West, P.; Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. 2006. Parks and 

peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annual 

Review of Anthropology. 35(1): 251–277. doi:10.1146/

annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308.

Westerling, A.L.; Hildago, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, 

T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western 

U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science. 313(5789): 940–943. 

doi:10.1126/science.1128834.

White, A.M.; Manley, P.N.; Tarbill, G.L.; Richardson, 

T.W.; Russell, R.E.; Safford, H.D.; Dobrowski, S.Z. 

2016b. Avian community responses to post-fire forest 

structure: implications for fire management in mixed 

conifer forests. Animal Conservation. 19(3): 256–264. 

doi:10.1111/acv.12237.

White, A.M.; Zipkin, E.F.; Manley, P.N.; Schlesinger, 

M.D. 2013. Conservation of avian diversity in the Sierra 

Nevada: moving beyond a single-species management 

focus. PLoS ONE. 8(5): e63088. doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0063088.

White, E.; Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.E.; Langner, L.L.; 

Arnold, J.R.; English, D.B.K. 2016a. Federal outdoor 

recreation trends: effects on economic opportunities. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-945. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 46 p.

White, R. 1993. It’s your misfortune and none of my own: 

a new history of the American West. Norman, OK: 

University of Oklahoma Press. 644 p.

Wiens, J.A. 2016. Ecological challenges and conservation 

conundrums. Oxford, United Kingdom: WileyBlackwell. 344 p.

Wiens, J.D.; Anthony, R.G.; Forsman, E.D. 2014.

Competitive interactions and resource partitioning 

between northern spotted owls and barred owls in 

western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs. 185(1): 1–50.

Wiens, J.D.; Dugger, K.M.; Lewicki, K.E.; Simon, D.C. 

2016. Effects of experimental removal of barred owls 

on population demography of northern spotted owls in 

Washington and Oregon—2015 progress report. OpenFile Report 2016-1041. Reston, VA: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey. doi:10.3133/ofr20161041.

Williams, M. 1992. Americans and their forests: a 

historical geography. New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 624 p.

Wilsey, C.B.; Lawler, J.J.; Cimprich, D.; Schumaker, 

N.H. 2014. Dependence of the endangered black-capped 

vireo on sustained cowbird management. Conservation 

Biology. 28(2): 561–571. doi:10.1111/cobi.12176.
1000

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Wilson, B.T.; Woodall, C.W.; Griffith, D.M. 2013.

Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory 

plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon 

Balance and Management. 8(1): 1. doi:10.1186/1750-

0680-8-1.

Wilson, E.O. 2016. Half-Earth: our planet’s fight for life. 

New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 272 p.

Wilson, K.A.; Law, E.A. 2016. How to avoid underselling 

biodiversity with ecosystem services: a response to 

Silvertown. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 31(5): 

332–333. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.002.

Wilson, T.M.; Forsman, E.D. 2013. Thinning effects 

on spotted owl prey and other forest-dwelling small 

mammals. In: Anderson, P.D.; Ronnenberg, K.L., eds. 

Density management for the 21st century: west side 

story. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-880. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 79–90.

Winthrop, R.H. 2014. The strange case of cultural 

services: limits of the ecosystem services paradigm. 

Ecological Economics. 108: 208–214. doi:10.1016/j.

ecolecon.2014.10.005.

Wohl, E. 2013. Wilderness is dead: whither critical zone 

studies and geomorphology in the Anthropocene? 

Anthropocene. 2: 4–15. doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2013.03.001.

Wondolleck, J.J. 2009. Old growth in a new world: a 

synthesis. In: Spies, T.A.; Duncan, S.L., eds. Old growth 

in a new world: a Pacific Northwest icon reexamined. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 303–312.

Wondolleck, J.M.; Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making 

collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural 

resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press. 

280 p.

Wurtzebach, Z.; Schultz, C. 2016. Measuring ecological 

integrity: history, practical applications, and research 

opportunities. BioScience. 66(6): 446–457. doi:10.1093/

biosci/biw037.

Zald, H.S.J.; Spies, T.A.; Harmon, M.E.; Twery, M.J. 

2016. Forest carbon calculators: a review for managers, 

policymakers, and educators. Journal of Forestry. 

114(2): 134–143. doi:10.5849/jof.15-019.
1001

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Scientific and common names of plant species identified in this report

Scientific name Common name

Abies amabilis (Douglas ex Loudon) Douglas ex Forbes Pacific silver fir

Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. White fir

Abies grandis (Douglas ex D. Don) Lindl. Grand fir

Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. Subalpine pine

Abies magnifica A. Murray bis California red fir

Abies procera Rehder Noble fir

Acer circinatum Pursh Vine maple

Acer macrophyllum Pursh Bigleaf maple

Achlys triphylla (Sm.) DC. Sweet after death

Adenocaulon bicolor Hook. American trailplant

Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara & Grande Garlic mustard

Alnus rubra Bong. Red alder

Amelanchier alnifolia (Nutt.) Nutt. ex M. Roem. Saskatoon serviceberry

Anemone oregana A. Gray Blue windflower

Apocynum cannabinum L. Dogbane

Arbutus menziesii Pursh) Madrone

Arceuthobium M. Bieb. Dwarf mistletoe

Arceuthobium occidentale Engelm. Gray pine dwarf mistletoe

Arceuthobium tsugense Rosendahl Hemlock dwarf mistletoe

Arctostaphylos nevadensis A. Gray Pinemat manzanita

Brachypodium sylvaticum (Huds.) P. Beauv. False brome

Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Engl. Cluster-lilies

Callitropsis nootkatensis (D. Don) Oerst. ex D.P. Little Alaska yellow-cedar

Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin Incense cedar

Cannabis L. Marijuana 

Carex barbarae Dewey and C. obnupta L.H. Bailey Sedges

Centaurea solstitialis L. Yellow starthistle

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murray bis) Parl. Port Orford cedar

Chimaphila menziesii (R. Br. ex D. Don) Spreng. Little prince’s pine

Chimaphila umbellata (L.) W.P.C. Barton Pipsissewa

Clematis vitalba L. Old man’s beard

Clintonia uniflora Menzies ex Schult. & Schult. f.) Kunth Bride’s bonnet

Coptis laciniata A. Gray Oregon goldthread

Corylus cornuta Marshall var. californica (A. DC.) Sharp California hazel

Cornus canadensis L. Bunchberry dogwood

Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link Scotch broom

Disporum hookeri (Torr.) G. Nicholson var. hookeri Drops-of-gold

Fallopia japonica (Houtt.) Ronse Decr. var. japonica Japanese knotweed

Gaultheria ovatifolia A. Gray Western teaberry

Gaultheria shallon Pursh Salal
1002

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Scientific name Common name

Gentiana douglasiana Bong. Swamp gentian

Geranium lucidum L. Shining geranium

Geranium robertianum L. Robert geranium

Goodyera oblongifolia Raf. Western rattlesnake plantain

Hedera helix L. English ivy

Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier Giant hogweed

Hesperocyparis sargentii (Jeps.) Bartel Sargent’s cypress

Hieracium aurantiacum L. Orange hawkweed

Ilex aquifolium L. English holly

Iris pseudacorus L. Paleyellow iris

Juniperus occidentalis Hook. Western juniper

Lamiastrum galeobdolon (L.) Ehrend. & Polatschek Yellow archangel

Lilium occidentale Purdy Western lily

Linnaea borealis L. Twinflower

Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Rehder Tanoak

Lonicera hispidula Pursh Honeysuckle

Lupinus albicaulis Douglas Sickle-keeled lupine

Lycopodium clavatum L. Running clubmoss

Lythrum salicaria L. Purple loosestrife

Mahonia nervosa (Pursh) Nutt. Cascade barberry

Malus fusca (Raf.) C.K. Schneid. Pacific crabapple

Notholithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) P.S. Manos, C.H. Cannon, & S.H. Oh Tanoak

Notholithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) P.S. Manos, C.H. Cannon, & S.H. Oh 

var. echinoides (R.Br. ter) P.S. Manos, C.H. Cannon & S.H. Oh

Shrub form of tanoak

Nuphar polysepala (Engelm.) Yellow pond lily

Nymphoides peltata (S.G. Gmel.) Kuntze Yellow floating heart

Osmorhiza chilensis Hook. & Arn. Sweetcicely

Phalaris arundinacea L. Reed canarygrass

Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm. Engelmann spruce

Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carrière Sitka spruce

Pinus albicaulis Engelm. Whitebark pine

Pinus attenuata Lemmon Knobcone pine

Pinus contorta Douglas ex Loudon Lodgepole pine

Pinus contorta Douglas ex Loudon var. contorta Beach pine, shore pine

Pinus jeffreyi Balf. Jeffrey pine

Pinus lambertiana Douglas Sugar pine

Pinus monticola Douglas ex D. Don) Western white pine

Pinus ponderosa Lawson & C. Lawson Ponderosa pine

Populus trichocarpa L. ssp. trichocarpa (Torr. & A. Gray ex Hook) Brayshaw Black cottonwood

Potamogeton crispus L. Curly pondweed

Potentilla recta L. Sulphur cinquefoil
1003

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Scientific name Common name

Prunus emarginata (Douglas ex Hook. D. Dietr.) Bitter cherry

Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco Douglas-fir

Pteridium aquilinum (L. Kuhn) Brackenfern

Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var. lobata (Willd.) Maesen & S.M. Almeida ex 

Sanjappa & Predeep

Kudzu

Pyrola asarifolia Sweet American wintergreen

Quercus agrifolia Née var. oxyadenia (Torr.) J.T. Howell Coastal live oak

Quercus berberidifolia Liebm. Scrub oak

Quercus chrysolepis Liebm. Canyon live oak

Quercus douglasii Hook. & Arn. Blue oak

Quercus garryana Douglas ex hook. Oregon white oak

Quercus kelloggi Newberry California black oak

Quercus lobata Née Valley oak

Rhamnus purshiana (DC.) A. Gray Cascara

Rhododendron groenlandicum Oeder Bog Labrador tea

Rhododendron macrophyllum D. Don ex G. Don Pacific rhododendron

Ribes lacustre (Pers.) Poir. Prickly currant

Rubus armeniacus Focke Himalayan blackberry

Salix exigua Nutt. Sandbar willow

Senecio bolanderi A. Gray Bolander’s ragwort

Sequoia sempervirens (Lamb. ex D. Don) Endl. Redwood

Smilacina stellata (L.) Desf. Starry false Solomon’s seal

Synthyris reniformis (Douglas ex Benth.) Benth. Snowqueen

Taxus brevifolia Nutt. Pacific yew

Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don Western redcedar

Tiarella trifoliate L. Threeleaf foamflower

Trapa natans L. Water chestnut

Trillium ovatum Pursh Pacific trillium

Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg. Western hemlock

Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière Mountain hemlock

Typha latifolia L. Cattails

Umbellularia californica (Hook. & Arn.) Nutt. California bay laurel

Vaccinium alaskaense Howell Alaska blueberry

Vaccinium membranaceum Douglas ex Torr. Thinleaf huckleberry, big huckleberry

Vaccinium ovatum Pursh Evergreen huckleberry

Vaccinium oxycoccos L. Small cranberry

Vaccinium parvifolium Sm. Red huckleberry

Vancouveria hexandra (Hook.) C. Morren & Decne. White insideout flower

Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt. Beargrass
1004

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Glossary

This glossary is provided to help readers understand 

various terms used in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 

science synthesis. Sources include the Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

executive orders, the Federal Register (FR), and various 

scientific publications (see “Glossary Literature Cited”). 

The authors have added working definitions of terms used 

in the synthesis and its source materials, especially when 

formal definitions may be lacking or when they differ 

across sources.

active management—Direct interventions to achieve desired outcomes, which may include harvesting and planting 

of vegetation and the intentional use of fire, among other 

activities (Carey 2003).

adaptive capacity—The ability of ecosystems and social 

systems to respond to, cope with, or adapt to disturbances 

and stressors, including environmental change, to maintain 

options for future generations (FSH 1909.12.5).

adaptive management—A structured, cyclical process for 

planning and decisionmaking in the face of uncertainty and 

changing conditions with feedback from monitoring, which 

includes using the planning process to actively test assumptions, track relevant conditions over time, and measure 

management effectiveness (FSH 1909.12.5). Additionally, 

adaptive management includes iterative decisionmaking, 

through which results are evaluated and actions are adjusted 

based on what has been learned.

adaptive management area (AMA)—A portion of the federal land area within the NWFP area that was specifically 

allocated for scientific monitoring and research to explore 

new forestry methods and other activities related to meeting the goals and objectives of the Plan. Ten AMAs were 

established in the NWFP area, covering about 1.5 million 

ac (600 000 ha), or 6 percent of the planning area (Stankey 

et al. 2003).

alien species—Any species, including its seeds, eggs, 

spores, or other biological material capable of propagating 

that species, that is not native to a particular ecosystem 

(Executive Order 13112). The term is synonymous with exotic species, nonindigenous, and nonnative species (see also 

“invasive species”).

allochthonous inputs—Material, specifically food resources, that originates from outside a stream, typically in the 

form of leaf litter. 

amenity communities—Communities located near lands 

with high amenity values.

amenity migration—Movement of people based on 

the draw of natural or cultural amenities (Gosnell and 

Abrams 2011).

amenity value—A noncommodity or “unpriced” value of 

a place or environment, typically encompassing aesthetic, 

social, cultural, and recreational values.

ancestral lands (of American Indian tribes)—Lands that 

historically were inhabited by the ancestors of American 

Indian tribes.

annual species review—A procedure established under the 

NWFP in which panels of managers and biologists evaluate new scientific and monitoring information on species to 

potentially support the recommendation of changes in their 

conservation status.

Anthropocene—The current period (or geological epoch) 

in which humans have become a dominant influence on the 

Earth’s climate and environment, generally dating from the 

period of rapid growth in industrialization, population, and 

global trade and transportation in the early 1800s (Steffen et 

al. 2007).

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) —A regional strategy applied to aquatic and riparian ecosystems across the 

area covered by the NWFP) (Espy and Babbit 1994) (see 

chapter 7 for more details).

at-risk species—Federally recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species and species of conservation concern. These species are considered at risk of 

low viability as a result of changing environmental conditions or human-caused stressors.
1005

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

best management practices (BMPs) (for water quality)—Methods, measures, or practices used to reduce or 

eliminate the introduction of pollutants and other detrimental impacts to water quality, including but not limited to 

structural and nonstructural controls and to operation and 

maintenance procedures.

biodiversity—In general, the variety of life forms and their 

processes and ecological functions, at all levels of biological 

organization from genes to populations, species, assemblages, communities, and ecosystems. 

breeding inhibition—Prevention of reproduction in 

healthy adult individuals.

bryophytes—Mosses and liverworts.

canopy cover—The downward vertical projection from the 

outside profile of the canopy (crown) of a plant measured in 

percentage of land area covered.

carrying capacity—The maximum population size a specific environment can sustain.

ceded areas—Lands that particular tribes ceded to the 

United States government by treaties, which have been catalogued in the Library of Congress.

climate adaptation—Management actions to reduce vulnerabilities to climate change and related disturbances.

climate change—Changes in average weather conditions 

(including temperature, precipitation, and risk of certain 

types of severe weather events) that persist over multiple 

decades or longer, and that result from both natural factors 

and human activities such as increased emissions of greenhouse gases (U.S. Global Change Research Program 2017).

coarse filter—A conservation approach that focuses on 

conserving ecosystems, in contrast to a “fine filter” approach that focuses on conserving specific species. These 

two approaches are generally viewed as complementary, 

with fine-filtered strategies tailored to fit particular species 

that “fall through the pores” of the coarse filter (Hunter 

2005). See also “mesofilter.”

co-management—Two or more entities, each having legally 

established management responsibilities, working collaboratively to achieve mutually agreed upon, compatible objectives to protect, conserve, use, enhance, or restore natural 

and cultural resources (81 FR 4638).

collaborative management—Two or more entities working together to actively protect, conserve, use, enhance, or 

restore natural and cultural resources (81 FR 4638).

collaboration or collaborative process—A structured 

manner in which a collection of people with diverse interests share knowledge, ideas, and resources, while working 

together in an inclusive and cooperative manner toward a 

common purpose (FSH 1909.12.05).

community (plant and animal)—A naturally occurring 

assemblage of plant and animal species living within a defined area or habitat (36 CFR 219.19).

community forest—A general definition is forest land that 

is managed by local communities to provide local benefits 

(Teitelbaum et al. 2006). The federal government has specifically defined community forest as “forest land owned in 

fee simple by an eligible entity [local government, nonprofit 

organization, or federally recognized tribe] that provides 

public access and is managed to provide community benefits pursuant to a community forest plan” (36 CFR 230.2).

community of place or place-based community—A group 

of people who are bound together because of where they 

reside, work, visit, or otherwise spend a continuous portion 

of their time.

community resilience—The capacity of a community to 

return to its initial function and structure when initially 

altered under disturbance.

community resistance—The capacity of a community to 

withstand a disturbance without changing its function and 

structure. 

composition—The biological elements within the various 

levels of biological organization, from genes and species to 

communities and ecosystems (FSM 2020).
1006

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

congeneric—Organisms that belong to the same taxonomic 

genus, usually belonging to different species.

connectivity (of habitats)—Environmental conditions 

that exist at several spatial and temporal scales that provide landscape linkages that permit (a) the exchange of 

flow, sediments, and nutrients; (b) genetic interchange of 

genes among individuals between populations; and (c) the 

long-distance range shifts of species, such as in response to 

climate change (36 CFR 219.19).

consultation (tribal)—A formal government-to-government process that enables American Indian tribes and 

Alaska Native Corporations to provide meaningful, timely 

input, and, as appropriate, exchange views, information, 

and recommendations on proposed policies or actions 

that may affect their rights or interests prior to a decision. 

Consultation is a unique form of communication characterized by trust and respect (FSM 1509.05).

corticosterone—A steroid hormone produced by many species of animals, often as the result of stress.

cryptogam—An organism that reproduces by spores and 

that does not produce true flowers and seeds; includes fungi, 

algae, lichens, mosses, liverworts, and ferns. 

cultural keystone species—A species that significantly 

shapes the cultural identity of a people, as reflected in diet, 

materials, medicine, or spiritual practice (Garibaldi and 

Turner 2004).

cultural services—A type of ecosystem service that includes the nonmaterial benefits that people obtain from 

ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences 

(Sarukhán and Whyte 2005).

desired conditions—A description of specific social, economic, or ecological characteristics toward which management of the land and resources should be directed.

disturbance regime—A description of the characteristic 

types of disturbance on a given landscape; the frequency, 

severity, and size distribution of these characteristic disturbance types and their interactions (36 CFR 219.19).

disturbance—Any relatively discrete event in time that 

disrupts ecosystem, watershed, community, or species 

population structure or function, and that changes resources, substrate availability, or the physical environment (36 

CFR 219.19).

dynamic reserves—A conservation approach in which protected areas are relocated following changes in environmental conditions, especially owing to disturbance.

early-seral vegetation—Vegetation conditions in the early 

stages of succession following an event that removes the 

forest canopy (e.g., timber harvest, wildfire, windstorm), 

on sites that are capable of developing a closed canopy 

(Swanson et al. 2014). A nonforest or “pre-forest” condition 

occurs first, followed by an “early-seral forest” as young 

shade-intolerant trees form a closed canopy.

ecocultural resources—Valued elements of the biophysical 

environment, including plants, fungi, wildlife, water, and 

places, and the social and cultural relationships of people 

with those elements.

ecological conditions—The biological and physical environment that can affect the diversity of plant and animal 

communities, the persistence of native species, invasibility, 

and productive capacity of ecological systems. Ecological 

conditions include habitat and other influences on species 

and the environment. Examples of ecological conditions 

include the abundance and distribution of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, connectivity, roads and other structural 

developments, human uses, and occurrence of other species 

(36 CFR 219.19).

ecological forestry—A ecosystem management approach 

designed to achieve multiple objectives that may include 

conservation goals and sustainable forest management and 

which emphasizes disturbance-based management and 

retention of “legacy” elements such as old trees and dead 

wood (Franklin et al. 2007).

ecological integrity—The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (e.g., 

composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species 

composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of 
1007

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

variation and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or 

human influence (36 CFR 219.19).

ecological keystone species—A species whose ecological 

functions have extensive and disproportionately large effects 

on ecosystems relative to its abundance (Power et al. 1996).

ecological sustainability—The capability of ecosystems to 

maintain ecological integrity (36 CFR 219.19).

economic sustainability—The capability of society to 

produce and consume or otherwise benefit from goods and 

services, including contributions to jobs and market and 

nonmarket benefits (36 CFR 219.19).

ecoregion—A geographic area containing distinctive ecological assemblages, topographic and climatic gradients, 

and historical land uses.

ecosystem—A spatially explicit, relatively homogeneous 

unit of the Earth that includes all interacting organisms and 

elements of the abiotic environment within its boundaries 

(36 CFR 219.19).

ecosystem diversity—The variety and relative extent of 

ecosystems (36 CFR 219.19).

ecosystem integrity—See “ecological integrity.” 

ecosystem management—Management across broad 

spatial and long temporal scales for a suite of goals, including maintaining populations of multiple species and 

ecosystem services.

ecosystem services—Benefits that people obtain from 

ecosystems (see also “provisioning services,” “regulating 

services,” “supporting services,” and “cultural services”).

ectomycorrhizal fungi—Fungal species that form symbiotic relationships with vascular plants through roots, typically 

aiding their uptake of nutrients. Although other mycorrhizal fungi penetrate their host’s cell walls, ectomycorrhizal 

fungi do not. 

endangered species—Any species or subspecies that the 

Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce has 

deemed in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. Section 1532).

endemic—Native and restricted to a specific geographical 

area. 

El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO)—A band of anomalously warm ocean water temperatures that occasionally 

develops off the western coast of South America and can 

cause climatic changes across the Pacific Ocean. The extremes of this climate pattern’s oscillations cause extreme 

weather (such as floods and droughts) in many regions of 

the world.

environmental DNA (eDNA)—Genetic material (DNA) 

contained within small biological and tissue fragments that 

can be collected from aquatic, terrestrial, and even atmospheric environments, linked to an individual species, and 

used to indicate the presence of that species.

environmental justice populations—Groups of people who have low incomes or who identify themselves as 

African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, American 

Indian or Alaskan Native, or of Hispanic origin.

ephemeral stream—A stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation in the immediate locality (watershed 

or catchment basin), and whose channel is at all other times 

above the zone of saturation. 

epicormic—Literally, “of a shoot or branch,” this term implies growth from a previously dormant bud on the trunk or 

a limb of a tree. 

epiphyte—A plant or plant ally (including mosses and 

lichens) that grows on the surface of another plant such as a 

tree, but is not a parasite. 

even-aged stand—A stand of trees composed of a single 

age class (36 CFR 219.19).

fecundity—The reproductive rate of an organism or 

population.

federally recognized Indian tribe—An Indian tribe or 

Alaska Native Corporation, band, nation, pueblo, village, or 

community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges 
1008

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized 

Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a (36 CFR 

219.19).

fine filter—A conservation approach that focuses on conserving individual species in contrast to a “coarse filter” 

approach that focuses on conserving ecosystems; these 

approaches are generally viewed as complementary with 

fine-filtered strategies tailored to fit particular species that 

“fall through the pores” of the coarse filter (Hunter 2005). 

See also “mesofilter.” 

fire-dependent vegetation types—A vegetative community that evolved with fire as a necessary contributor to its 

vitality and to the renewal of habitat for its member species. 

fire exclusion—Curtailment of wildland fire because of 

deliberate suppression of ignitions, as well as unintentional effects of human activities such as intensive grazing 

that removes grasses and other fuels that carry fire (Keane 

et al. 2002). 

fire intensity—The amount of energy or heat release 

during fire.

fire regime—A characterization of long-term patterns of 

fire in a given ecosystem over a specified and relatively long 

period of time, based on multiple attributes, including frequency, severity, extent, spatial complexity, and seasonality 

of fire occurrence.

fire regime, low frequency, high severity—A fire regime 

with long return intervals (>200 years) and high levels of 

vegetation mortality (e.g., ~70 percent basal area mortality 

in forested ecosystems), often occurring in large patches 

(>10,000 ac [4047 ha]) (see chapter 3 for more details).

fire regime, moderate frequency, mixed severity—A 

fire regime with moderate return intervals between 50 and 

200 years and mixtures of low, moderate, and high severity; high-severity patches would have been common and 

frequently large (>1,000 ac [>405 ha]) (see chapter 3 for 

more details).

fire regime, very frequent, low severity—A fire regime 

with short return intervals (5 to 25 years) dominated by 

surface fires that result in low levels of vegetation mortality 

(e.g., <20 percent basal area mortality in forested ecosystems), with high-severity fire generally limited to small 

patches (<2.5 ac [1 ha]) (see chapter 3 for more details). 

fire regime, frequent, mixed severity—A fire regime with 

return intervals between 15 and 50 years that burns with a 

mosaic of low-, moderate-, and high-severity patches (Perry 

et al. 2011) (see chapter 3 for more details).

fire rotation—Length of time expected for a specific 

amount of land to burn (some parts might burn more than 

once or some not at all) based upon the study of past fire 

records in a large landscape (Turner and Romme 1994).

fire severity—The magnitude of the effects of fire on ecosystem components, including vegetation or soils.

fire suppression—The human act of extinguishing wildfires (Keane et al. 2002). 

floodplain restoration—Ecological restoration of a stream 

or river’s floodplain, which may involve setback or removal 

of levees or other structural constraints.

focal species—A small set of species whose status is assumed to infer the integrity of the larger ecological system 

to which it belongs, and thus to provide meaningful information regarding the effectiveness of a resource management plan in maintaining or restoring the ecological conditions to maintain the broader diversity of plant and animal 

communities in the NWPF area. Focal species would be 

commonly selected on the basis of their functional role in 

ecosystems (36 CFR 219.19).

food web—Interconnecting chains between organisms in 

an ecological community based upon what they consume.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

(FEMAT)—An interdisciplinary team that included expert 

ecological and social scientists, analysts, and managers 

assembled in 1993 by President Bill Clinton to develop 

options for ecosystem management of federal forests within 

the range of the northern spotted owl (FEMAT 1993).
1009

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

forest fragmentation—The patterns of dispersion and 

connectivity of nonhomogeneous forest cover (Riitters et 

al. 2002). See also “landscape fragmentation” and “habitat 

fragmentation” for specific meanings related to habitat loss 

and isolation.

frequency distribution—A depiction, often appearing in 

the form of a curve or graph, of the abundance of possible 

values of a variable. In this synthesis report, we speak of the 

frequency of wildfire patches of various sizes.

fuels (wildland)—Combustible material in wildland areas, 

including live and dead plant biomass such as trees, shrub, 

grass, leaves, litter, snags, and logs. 

fuels management—Manipulation of wildland fuels 

through mechanical, chemical, biological, or manual means, 

or by fire, in support of land management objectives to control or mitigate the effects of future wildland fire.

function (ecological)—Ecological processes, such as energy flow; nutrient cycling and retention; soil development and 

retention; predation and herbivory; and natural disturbances 

such as wind, fire, and floods that sustain composition and 

structure (FSM 2020). See also “key ecological function.” 

future range of variation (FRV)—The natural fluctuation 

of pattern components of healthy ecosystems that might 

occur in the future, primarily affected by climate change, 

human infrastructure, invasive species, and other anticipated disturbances.

gaps (forest)—Small openings in a forest canopy that 

are naturally formed when one or a few canopy trees die 

(Yamamoto 2000).

genotype—The genetic makeup of an individual organism. 

glucocorticoid—A class of steroid hormones produced by 

many species of animals, often as the result of stress.

goals (in land management plans)—Broad statements of 

intent, other than desired conditions, that do not include expected completion dates (36 CFR part 219.7(e)(2)).

guideline—A constraint on project and activity decisionmaking that allows for departure from its terms, so long as 

the purpose of the guideline is met (36 CFR section 219.15(d)

(3)). Guidelines are established to help achieve or maintain a 

desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

habitat—An area with the environmental conditions and 

resources that are necessary for occupancy by a species and 

for individuals of that species to survive and reproduce.

habitat fragmentation—Discontinuity in the spatial distribution of resources and conditions present in an area at a 

given scale that affects occupancy, reproduction, and survival in a particular species (see “landscape fragmentation”).

heterogeneity (forest)—Diversity, often applied to variation in forest structure within stands in two dimensions: 

horizontal (e.g., single trees, clumps of trees, and gaps of no 

trees), and vertical (e.g., vegetation at different heights from 

the forest floor to the top of the forest canopy), or across 

large landscapes (North et al. 2009).

hierarchy theory—A theory that describes ecosystems at 

multiple levels of organization (e.g., organisms, populations, 

and communities) in a nested hierarchy.

high-severity burn patch—A contiguous area of highseverity or stand-replacing fire.

historical range of variation (HRV)—Past fluctuation or 

range of conditions in the pattern of components of ecosystems over a specified period of time.

hybrid ecosystem—An ecosystem that has been modified from a historical state such that it has novel attributes while retaining some original characteristics (see 

“novel ecosystem”).

hybrid—Offspring resulting from the breeding of two 

different species.

inbreeding depression—Reduced fitness in a population 

that occurs as the result of breeding between related individuals, leading to increased homogeneity and simplification of the gene pool.
1010

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

in-channel restoration—Ecological restoration of the 

channel of a stream or river, often through placement of materials (rocks and wood) or other structural modifications.

individuals, clumps, and openings (ICO) method—A 

method that incorporates reference spatial pattern targets 

based upon individual trees, clumps of trees, and canopy 

openings into silvicultural prescriptions and tree-marking 

guidelines (Churchill et al. 2013).

Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species 

Program (ISSSSP)—A federal agency program, established under the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Region and Bureau of Land Management Oregon/

Washington state office. The ISSSSP superseded the Survey 

and Manage standards and guidelines under the NWFP and 

also addresses other species of conservation focus, coordinates development and revision of management recommendations and survey protocols, coordinates data management 

between the agencies, develops summaries of species biology, and conducts other tasks. 

intermittent stream—A stream or reach of stream channel 

that flows, in its natural condition, only during certain times 

of the year or in several years, and is characterized by interspersed, permanent surface water areas containing aquatic 

flora and fauna adapted to the relatively harsh environmental conditions found in these types of environments.

invasive species—An alien species (or subspecies) whose 

deliberate, accidental, or self-introduction is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health 

(Executive Order 13112).

key ecological function—The main behaviors performed 

by an organism that can influence environmental conditions 

or habitats of other species.

key watersheds—Watersheds that are expected to serve as 

refugia for aquatic organisms, particularly in the short term, 

for at-risk fish populations that have the greatest potential 

for restoration, or to provide sources of high-quality water. 

land and resource management plan (Forest Service)—A 

document or set of documents that provides management 

direction for an administrative unit of the National Forest 

System (FSH 1909.12.5).

landform—A specific geomorphic feature on the surface of 

the Earth, such as a mountain, plateau, canyon, or valley.

landscape—A defined area irrespective of ownership 

or other artificial boundaries, such as a spatial mosaic of 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, landforms, and plant 

communities, repeated in similar form throughout such a 

defined area (36 CFR 219.19).

landscape fragmentation—Breaking up of continuous 

habitats into patches as a result of human land use and 

thereby generating habitat loss, isolation, and edge effects 

(see “habitat fragmentation”).

landscape genetics—An interdisciplinary field of study 

that combines population genetics and landscape ecology to explore how genetic relatedness among individuals 

and subpopulations of a species is influenced by landscape-level conditions.

landscape hierarchy—Organization of land areas based 

upon a hierarchy of nested geographic (i.e., different-sized) 

units, which provides a guide for defining the functional 

components of a system and how components at different 

scales are related to one another.

late-successional forest—Forests that have developed after 

long periods of time (typically at least 100 to 200 years) following major disturbances, and that contain a major component of shade-tolerant tree species that can regenerate beneath a canopy and eventually grow into the canopy in which 

small canopy gaps occur (see chapter 3 for more details). 

Note that FEMAT (1993) and the NWFP also applied this 

term to older (at least 80 years) forest types, including both 

old-growth and mature forests, regardless of the shade tolerance of the dominant tree species (e.g., 90-year-old forests 

dominated by Douglas-fir were termed late successional).

leading edge—The boundary of a species’ range at which 

the population is geographically expanding through colonization of new sites.
1011

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

legacy trees—Individual trees that survive a major disturbance and persist as components of early-seral stands 

(Franklin 1990).

legacies (biological)—Live trees, seed and seedling banks, 

remnant populations and individuals, snags, large soil aggregates, hyphal mats, logs, uprooted trees, and other biotic 

features that survive a major disturbance and persist as 

components of early-seral stands (Franklin 1990, Franklin 

et al. 2002).

lentic—Still-water environments, including lakes, ponds, 

and wet meadows.

longitudinal studies—Studies that include repeated observations on the same response variable over time.

lotic—Freshwater environments with running water, including rivers, streams, and springs.

low-income population—A community or a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or 

a set of individuals, such as migrant workers or American 

Indians, who meet the standards for low income and experience common conditions of environmental exposure or 

effect (CEQ 1997).

managing wildfire for resource objectives—Managing 

wildfires to promote multiple objectives such as reducing 

fire danger or restoring forest health and ecological processes rather than attempting full suppression. The terms 

“managed wildfire” or “resource objective wildfire” have 

also been used to describe such events (Long et al. 2017). 

However, fire managers note that many unplanned ignitions are managed using a combination of tactics, including 

direct suppression, indirect containment, monitoring of fire 

spread, and even accelerating fire spread, across their perimeters and over their full duration. Therefore, terms that 

separate “managed” wildfires from fully “suppressed” wildfires do not convey that complexity. (See “Use of wildland 

fire,” which also includes prescribed burning).

matrix—Federal and other lands outside of specifically 

designated reserve areas, particularly the late-successional 

reserves under the NWFP, that are managed for timber production and other objectives.

mature forest—An older forest stage (>80 years) prior to 

old-growth in which trees begin attaining maximum heights 

and developing some characteristic, for example, 80 to 200 

years in the case of old-growth Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests, often (but not always) including big trees (>50 

cm diameter at breast height), establishment of late-seral 

species (i.e., shade-tolerant trees), and initiation of decadence in early species (i.e., shade-intolerant trees).

mesofilter—A conservation approach that “focuses on conserving critical elements of ecosystems that are important 

to many species, especially those likely to be overlooked 

by fine-filter approaches, such as invertebrates, fungi, and 

nonvascular plants” (Hunter 2005).

meta-analysis—A study that combines the results of multiple studies. 

minority population—A readily identifiable group of people living in geographic proximity with a population that is 

at least 50 percent minority; or, an identifiable group that 

has a meaningfully greater minority population than the 

adjacent geographic areas, or may also be a geographically 

dispersed/transient set of individuals such as migrant workers or Americans Indians (CEQ 1997).

mitigation (climate change)—Efforts to reduce anthropogenic alteration of climate, in particular by increasing 

carbon sequestration. 

monitoring—A systematic process of collecting information to track implementation (implementation monitoring), 

to evaluate effects of actions or changes in conditions or relationships (effectiveness monitoring), or to test underlying 

assumptions (validation monitoring) (see 36 CFR 219.19).

mosaic—The contiguous spatial arrangement of elements 

within an area. In regions, this is typically the upland vegetation patches, large urban areas, large bodies of water, and 

large areas of barren ground or rock. However, regional mosaics can also be described in terms of land ownership, habitat 
1012

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

patches, land use patches, or other elements. For landscapes, 

this is typically the spatial arrangement of landscape elements.

multiaged stands—Forest stands having two or more 

age classes of trees; this includes stands resulting from 

variable-retention silvicultural systems or other traditionally even-aged systems that leave residual or reserve 

(legacy) trees.

multiple use—The management of all the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System so that 

they are used in the combination that will best meet the 

needs of the American people; making the most judicious 

use of the land for some or all of these resources or related 

services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to conform to changing 

needs and conditions; that some land will be used for less 

than all of the resources; and harmonious and coordinated 

management of the various resources, each with the other, 

without impairment of the productivity of the land, with 

consideration being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses 

that will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit 

output, consistent with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield 

Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) (36 CFR 219.19).

natal site—Location of birth.

native knowledge—A way of knowing or understanding the 

world, including traditional ecological, and social knowledge 

of the environment derived from multiple generations of indigenous peoples’ interactions, observations, and experiences with their ecological systems. This knowledge is accumulated over successive generations and is expressed through 

oral traditions, ceremonies, stories, dances, songs, art, and 

other means within a cultural context (36 CFR 219.19).

native species—A species historically or currently present 

in a particular ecosystem as a result of natural migratory or 

evolutionary processes and not as a result of an accidental 

or deliberate introduction or invasion into that ecosystem 

(see 36 CFR 219.19).

natural range of variation (NRV)—The variation of ecological characteristics and processes over specified scales of 

time and space that are appropriate for a given management 

application (FSH 1909.12.5).

nested hierarchy—The name given to the hierarchical 

structure of groups within groups used to classify organisms.

nontimber forest products (also known as “special forest products”)—Various products from forests that do not 

include logs from trees but do include bark, berries, boughs, 

bryophytes, bulbs, burls, Christmas trees, cones, ferns, firewood, forbs, fungi (including mushrooms), grasses, mosses, 

nuts, pine straw, roots, sedges, seeds, transplants, tree sap, 

wildflowers, fence material, mine props, posts and poles, shingle and shake bolts, and rails (36 CFR part 223 Subpart G).

novel ecosystem—An ecosystem that has experienced large 

and potentially irreversibly modifications to abiotic conditions 

or biotic composition in ways that result in a composition 

of species, ecological communities, and functions that have 

never before existed, and that depart from historical analogs 

(Hobbs et al. 2009). See “hybrid ecosystem” for comparison.

old-growth forest—A forest distinguished by old trees 

(>200 years) and related structural attributes that often (but 

not always) include large trees, high biomass of dead wood 

(i.e., snags, down coarse wood), multiple canopy layers, 

distinctive species composition and functions, and vertical 

and horizontal diversity in the tree canopy (see chapter 3). 

In dry, fire-frequent forests, old growth is characterized by 

large, old fire-resistant trees and relatively open stands without canopy layering. 

palustrine—Inland, nontidal wetlands that may be permanently or temporarily flooded and are characterized by the 

presence of emergent vegetation such as swamps, marshes, 

vernal pools, and lakeshores.

passive management—A management approach in which 

natural processes are allowed to occur without human intervention to reach desired outcomes.

patch—A relatively small area with similar environmental conditions, such as vegetative structure and composition. Sometimes used interchangeably with vegetation or 

forest stand.
1013

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)—A recurring (approximately decadal-scale) pattern of ocean-atmosphere 

—a stream or reach of a channel that flows continuously 

or nearly so throughout the year and whose upper surface 

is generally lower than the top of the zone of saturation in 

areas adjacent to the stream.

perennial stream—A stream or reach of a channel that 

flows continuously or nearly so throughout the year and 

whose upper surface is generally lower than the top of the 

zone of saturation in areas adjacent to the stream.

phenotype—Physical manifestation of the genetic makeup 

of an individual and its interaction with the environment.

place attachment—The “positive bond that develops 

between groups or individuals and their environment” 

(Jorgensen and Stedman 2001: 234).

place dependence— “The strength of an individual’s 

subjective attachment to specific places” (Stokols and 

Shumaker 1982: 157).

place identity—Dimensions of self that define an individual’s [or group’s] identity in relation to the physical 

environment through ideas, beliefs, preferences, feelings, values, goals, and behavioral tendencies and skills 

(Proshansky 1978).

place-based planning—“A process used to involve stakeholders by encouraging them to come together to collectively define place meanings and attachments” (Lowery and 

Morse 2013: 1423).

plant association—A fine level of classification in a hierarchy of potential vegetation that is defined in terms of a climax-dominant overstory tree species and typical understory 

herb or shrub species. 

population bottleneck—An abrupt decline in the size of 

a population from an event, which often results in deleterious effects such as reduced genetic diversity and increased 

probability of local or global extirpation.

potential vegetation type (PVT)—Native, late-successional (or “climax”) plant community that reflects the regional 

climate, and dominant plant species that would occur on a 

site in absence of disturbances (Pfister and Arno 1980).

poverty rate—A measure of financial income below a 

threshold that differs by family size and composition.

precautionary principle—A principle that if an action, 

policy, or decision has a suspected risk of causing harm 

to the public or to the environment, and there is no scientific consensus that it is not harmful, then the burden 

of proof that it is not harmful falls on those making that 

decision. Particular definitions of the principle differ, and 

some applications use the less formal term, “precautionary approach.” Important qualifications associated with 

many definitions include (1) the perceived harm is likely 

to be serious, (2) some scientific analysis suggests a significant but uncertain potential for harm, and (3) applications of the principle emphasize generally constraining 

an activity to mitigate it rather than “resisting” it entirely 

(Doremus 2007).

prescribed fire—A wildland fire originating from a 

planned ignition to meet specific objectives identified 

in a written and approved prescribed fire plan for which 

National Environmental Policy Act requirements (where applicable) have been met prior to ignition (synonymous with 

controlled burn).

primary recreation activity—A single activity that caused 

a recreation visit to a national forest.

probable sale quantity—An estimate of the average 

amount of timber likely to be awarded for sale for a given 

area (such as the NWFP area) during a specified period.

provisioning services—A type of ecosystem service that 

includes clean air and fresh water, energy, food, fuel, forage, wood products or fiber, and minerals.

public participation geographic information system 

(PPGIS)—Using spatial decisionmaking and mapping tools 

to produce local knowledge with the goal of including and empowering marginalized populations (Brown and Reed 2009).

public values—Amenity values (scenery, quality of life); 

environmental quality (clean air, soil, and water); ecological 
1014

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

values (biodiversity); public use values (outdoor recreation, 

education, subsistence use); and spiritual or religious values 

(cultural ties, tribal history).

record of decision (ROD)—The final decision document 

that amended the planning documents of 19 national forests 

and seven Bureau of Land Management districts within the 

range of the northern spotted owl (the NWFP area) in April 

1994 (Espy and Babbit 1994).

recreation opportunity—An opportunity to participate 

in a specific recreation activity in a particular recreation 

setting to enjoy desired recreation experiences and other 

benefits that accrue. Recreation opportunities include nonmotorized, motorized, developed, and dispersed recreation 

on land, water, and in the air (36 CFR 219.19).

redundancy—The presence of multiple occurrences of 

ecological conditions, including key ecological functions 

(functional redundancy), such that not all occurrences may 

be eliminated by a catastrophic event. 

refugia—An area that remains less altered by climatic and 

environmental change (including disturbances such as wind 

and fire) affecting surrounding regions and that therefore 

forms a haven for relict fauna and flora.

regalia—Dress and special elements made from a variety 

of items, including various plant and animal materials, and 

worn for tribal dances and ceremonies.

regulating services—A type of ecosystem service that 

includes long-term storage of carbon; climate regulation; 

water filtration, purification, and storage; soil stabilization; 

flood and drought control; and disease regulation.

representativeness—The presence of a full array of ecosystem types and successional states, based on the physical 

environment and characteristic disturbance processes.

reserve—An area of land designated and managed for a special purpose, often to conserve or protect ecosystems, species, 

or other natural and cultural resources from particular human 

activities that are detrimental to achieving the goals of the area.

resilience—The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance 

and reorganize (or return to its previous organization) so as 

to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (see FSM Chapter 2020 and see also “socioecological resilience”). Definitions emphasize the capacity 

of a system or its constituent entities to respond or regrow after mortality induced by a disturbance event, although broad 

definitions of resilience may also encompass “resistance” 

(see below), under which such mortality may be averted.

resistance—The capacity of a system or an entity to withstand a disturbance event without much change.

restoration economy—Diverse economic activities associated with the restoration of structure or function to terrestrial 

and aquatic ecosystems (Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley 2013).

restoration, ecological—The process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or 

destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on reestablishing 

the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 

sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions (36 CFR 219.19).

restoration, functional—Restoration of dynamic abiotic 

and biotic processes in degraded ecosystems, without necessarily a focus on structural condition and composition.

riparian areas—Three-dimensional ecotones (the transition zone between two adjoining communities) of interaction that include terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that 

extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, 

outward across the floodplain, up the near slopes that drain 

to the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and 

along the water course at variable widths (36 CFR 219.19).

riparian management zone—Portions of a watershed 

in which riparian-dependent resources receive primary 

emphasis, and for which plans include Plan components to 

maintain or restore riparian functions and ecological functions (36 CFR 219.19).

riparian reserves—Reserves established along streams and 

rivers to protect riparian ecological functions and processes 
1015

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

necessary to create and maintain habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms over time and ensure connectivity 

within and between watersheds. The Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy in the NWFP record of decision included standards 

and guidelines that delineated riparian reserves.

risk—A combination of the probability that a negative outcome will occur and the severity of the subsequent negative 

consequences (36 CFR 219.19).

rural restructuring—Changes in demographic and economic conditions owing to declines in natural resource 

production and agriculture (Nelson 2001).

scale—In ecological terms, the extent and resolution in spatial 

and temporal terms of a phenomenon or analysis, which differs 

from the definition in cartography regarding the ratio of map 

distance to Earth surface distance (Jenerette and Wu 2000).

scenic character—A combination of the physical, biological, 

and cultural images that gives an area its scenic identity and 

contributes to its sense of place. Scenic character provides a 

frame of reference from which to determine scenic attractiveness and to measure scenic integrity (36 CFR 219.19).

science synthesis—A narrative review of scientific information from a defined pool of sources that compiles and 

integrates and interprets findings and describes uncertainty, including the boundaries of what is known and 

what is not known.

sense of place—The collection of meanings, beliefs, symbols, values, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality (Williams and Stewart 1998).

sensitive species—Plant or animal species that receive 

special conservation attention because of threats to their 

populations or habitats, but which do not have special status 

as listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act.

sensitivity—In ecological contexts, the propensity of 

communities or populations to change when subject to 

disturbance, or the opposite of resistance (see “community resistance”).

sink population—A population in which reproductive rates 

are lower than mortality rates but that is maintained by immigration of individuals from outside of that population (see 

also “source population”). 

social sustainability—“The capability of society to support 

the network of relationships, traditions, culture, and activities that connect people to the land and to one another, and 

support vibrant communities” (36 CFR 219.19). The term is 

commonly invoked as one of the three parts of a “triple-bottom line” alongside environmental and economic considerations. The concept is an umbrella term for various topics 

such as quality of life, security, social capital, rights, sense 

of place, environmental justice, and community resilience, 

among others discussed in this synthesis.

socioecological resilience—The capacity of socioecological 

systems (see “socioecological system”) to cope with, adapt 

to, and influence change; to persist and develop in the face 

of change; and to innovate and transform into new, more 

desirable configurations in response to disturbance.

socioecological system (or social-ecological system)—A 

coherent system of biophysical and social factors defined 

at several spatial, temporal, and organizational scales that 

regularly interact, continuously adapt, and regulate critical 

natural, socioeconomic, and cultural resources (Redman et 

al. 2004); also described as a coupled-human and natural 

system (Liu et al. 2007).

source population—A population in which reproductive 

rates exceed those of mortality rates so that the population 

has the capacity to increase in size. The term is also often 

used to denote when such a population contributes emigrants (dispersing individuals) that move outside the population, particularly when feeding a sink population.

special forest products—See “nontimber forest products.”

special status species—Species that have been listed or 

proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act.

species of conservation concern—A species, other than 

federally recognized as a threatened, endangered, proposed, 
1016

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

or candidate species, that is known to occur in the NWFP 

area and for which the regional forester has determined that 

the best available scientific information indicates substantial 

concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long 

term in the Plan area (36 CFR 219.9(c)).

stand—A descriptor of a land management unit consisting of 

a contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in age-class 

distribution, composition, and structure, and growing on a site 

of sufficiently uniform quality, to be a distinguishable unit.

standard—A mandatory constraint on project and activity 

decisionmaking, established to help achieve or maintain the 

desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.

stationarity—In statistics, a process that, while randomly 

determined, is not experiencing a change in the probability 

of outcomes.

stewardship contract—A contract designed to achieve 

land management goals while meeting local and rural community needs, including contributing to the sustainability 

of rural communities and providing a continuing source of 

local income and employment.

strategic surveys—One type of field survey, specified 

under the NWFP, designed to fill key information gaps on 

species distributions and ecologies by which to determine 

if species should be included under the Plan’s Survey and 

Manage species list.

stressors—Factors that may directly or indirectly degrade 

or impair ecosystem composition, structure, or ecological 

process in a manner that may impair its ecological integrity, 

such as an invasive species, loss of connectivity, or the disruption of a natural disturbance regime (36 CFR 219.19).

structure (ecosystem)—The organization and physical 

arrangement of biological elements such as snags and down 

woody debris, vertical and horizontal distribution of vegetation, stream habitat complexity, landscape pattern, and 

connectivity (FSM 2020).

supporting services—A type of ecosystem service that 

includes pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, and nutrient cycling.

Survey and Manage program—A formal part of the 

NWFP that established protocols for conducting various 

types of species surveys, identified old-forest-associated 

species warranting additional consideration for monitoring and protection (see “Survey and Manage species”), and 

instituted an annual species review procedure that evaluated 

new scientific and monitoring information on species for 

potentially recommending changes in their conservation 

status, including potential removal from the Survey and 

Manage species list. 

Survey and Manage species—A list of species, compiled 

under the Survey and Manage program of the NWFP, that 

were deemed to warrant particular attention for monitoring and protection beyond the guidelines for establishing 

late-successional forest reserves.

sustainability—The capability to meet the needs of the 

present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs (36 CFR 219.19).

sustainable recreation—The set of recreation settings and 

opportunities in the National Forest System that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable for present and 

future generations (36 CFR 219.19).

sympatric—Two species or populations that share a common geographic range and coexist.

threatened species—Any species that the Secretary of the 

Interior or the Secretary of Commerce has determined is 

likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. Threatened species are listed at 50 CFR sections 

17.11, 17.12, and 223.102. 

timber harvest—The removal of trees for wood fiber use 

and other multiple-use purposes (36 CFR 219.19).

timber production—The purposeful growing, tending, 

harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of trees to 

be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial 

or consumer use (36 CFR 219.19).

topo-edaphic—Related to or caused by particular soil 

conditions, as of texture or drainage, rather than by physiographic or climatic factors within a defined region or area.
1017

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

traditional ecological knowledge—“A cumulative body 

of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive 

processes and handed down through generations by cultural 

transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment” 

(Berkes et al. 2000: 1252). See also “native knowledge.”

trailing edge—When describing the range of a species, the 

boundary at which the species’ population is geographically 

contracting through local extinction at occupied sites.

trophic cascade—Changes in the relative populations of 

producers, herbivores, and carnivores following the addition 

or removal of top predators and the resulting disruption of 

the food web.

uncertainty—Amount or degree of confidence as a result 

of imperfect or incomplete information.

understory—Vegetation growing below the tree canopy in a 

forest, including shrubs and herbs that grow on the forest floor.

use of wildland fire—Management of either wildfire or 

prescribed fire to meet resource objectives specified in land 

or resource management plans (see “Managing wildfire for 

resource objectives” and “Prescribed fire”).

variable-density thinning—The method of thinning some 

areas within a stand to a different density (including leaving 

dense, unthinned areas) than other parts of the stand, which 

is typically done to promote ecological diversity in a relatively uniform stand.

vegetation series (plant community)—The highest level 

of the fine-scale component (plant associations) of potential 

vegetation hierarchy based on the dominant plant species 

that would occur in late-successional conditions in the absence of disturbance.

vegetation type—A general term for a combination or 

community of plants (including grasses, forbs, shrubs, or 

trees), typically applied to existing vegetation rather than 

potential vegetation. 

viable population—A group of breeding individuals of a 

species capable of perpetuating itself over a given time scale. 

vital rates—Statistics describing population dynamics such 

as reproduction, mortality, survival, and recruitment.

watershed—A region or land area drained by a single 

stream, river, or drainage network; a drainage basin (36 

CFR 219.19).

watershed analysis—An analytical process that characterizes watersheds and identifies potential actions for addressing problems and concerns, along with possible management 

options. It assembles information necessary to determine the 

ecological characteristics and behavior of the watershed and 

to develop options to guide management in the watershed, 

including adjusting riparian reserve boundaries.

watershed condition assessment—A national approach 

used by the U.S. Forest Service to evaluate condition of 

hydrologic units based on 12 indicators, each composed of 

various attributes (USDA FS 2011).

watershed condition—The state of a watershed based on 

physical and biogeochemical characteristics and processes 

(36 CFR 219.19).

watershed restoration—Restoration activities that focus 

on restoring the key ecological processes required to create 

and maintain favorable environmental conditions for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms.

well-being—The condition of an individual or group in social, economic, psychological, spiritual, or medical terms.

wilderness—Any area of land designated by Congress as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System that 

was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 

1131–1136) (36 CFR 219.19).

wildlife—Undomesticated animal species, including amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, fish, and invertebrates 

or even all biota, that live wild in an area without being 

introduced by humans.

wildfire—Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire (such as a 

fire caused by lightning, volcanoes, unauthorized and accidental human-caused fires), and escaped prescribed fires.

wildland-urban interface (WUI)—The line, area, or zone 

where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetation fuels.
1018

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Glossary Literature Cited 

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery 

of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive 

management. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1251–1262.

Brown, G.G.; Reed, P. 2009. Public participation GIS: a 

new method for use in national forest planning. Forest 

Science. 55(2): 166–182.

Carey, A.B. 2003. Restoration of landscape function: 

reserves or active management? Forestry. 76(2): 221–230.

Churchill, D.J.; Larson, A.J.; Dahlgreen, M.C.; 

Franklin, J.F.; Hessburg, P.F.; Lutz, J.A. 2013.

Restoring forest resilience: from reference spatial 

patterns to silvicultural prescriptions and monitoring. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 442–457.

Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ]. 1997.

Environmental justice guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. [Updated]. https://www.

epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/ej_

guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf. (21 December 2017).

Doremus, H. 2007. Precaution, science, and learning while 

doing in natural resource management. Washington Law 

Review. 82: 547–580.

Espy, M.; Babbit, B. 1994. Record of decision: 

amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 74 p.

Executive Order No. 13112. 64 FR 6183, February 8, 

1999. Invasive species. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/

FR-1999-02-08/pdf/99-3184.pdf. (June 2017). 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team 

[FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: 

an ecological, economic, and social assessment. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Franklin, J.F. 1990. Biological legacies: a critical 

management concept from Mount St. Helens. In: Sabol, 

K.J., ed. Transactions of the 55th North American 

wildlands natural resource conference. Wildlife 

Management Institute: 216–219.

Franklin, J.F.; Mitchell, R.J.; Palik, B.J. 2007. Natural 

disturbance and stand development principles 

for ecological forestry. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTRNRS-19. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 44 p.

Franklin, J.F.; Spies, T.A.; Pelt, R.V.; Carey, A.B.; 

Thornburgh, D.A.; Berg, D.R.; Lindenmayer, D.B.; 

Harmon, M.E.; Keeton, W.S.; Shaw, D.C.; Bible, K.; 

Chen, J. 2002. Disturbances and structural development 

of natural forest ecosystems with silvicultural 

implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an example. 

Forest Ecology and Management. 155(1–3): 399–423.

Garibaldi, A.; Turner, N. 2004. Cultural keystone species: 

implications for ecological conservation and restoration. 

Ecology and Society. 9(3): art1.

Gosnell, H.; Abrams, J. 2011. Amenity migration: 

diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic 

dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal. 

76(4): 303–322.

Hobbs, R.J.; Higgs, E.; Harris, J.A. 2009. Novel 

ecosystems: implications for conservation and 

restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 24(11): 

599–605.

Hunter, M.L. 2005. A mesofilter conservation strategy 

to complement fine and coarse filters. Conservation 

Biology. 19(4): 1025–1029.

Jenerette, G.D.; Wu, J. 2000. On the definitions of scale. 

Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America. 81(1): 

104–105.

Jorgensen, B.S.; Stedman, R.C. 2001. Sense of place 

as an attitude: lakeshore owners attitudes toward their 

properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 

21(3): 233–-248.
1019

Synthesis of Science to Inform Land Management Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Keane, R.E.; Ryan, K.C.; Veblen, T.T.; Allen, C.D.; 

Logan, J.A.; Hawkes, B. 2002. The cascading effects 

of fire exclusion in Rocky Mountain ecosystems: a 

literature review. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-91. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 24 p.

Liu, J.G.; Dietz, T.; Carpenter, S.R.; Alberti, M.; Folke, 

C.; Moran, E.; Pell, A.N.; Deadman, P.; Kratz, T.; 

Lubchenco, J.; Ostrom, E.; Ouyang, Z.; Provencher, 

W.; Redman, C.L.; Schneider, S.H.; Taylor, W.W. 

2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. 

Science. 317(5844): 1513–1516.

Long, J.W.; Tarnay, L.W.; North, M.P. 2017. Aligning 

smoke management with ecological and public health 

goals. Journal of Forestry. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.16-

042. (22 December 2017).

Lowery, D.R.; Morse, W.C. 2013. A qualitative method for 

collecting spatial data on important places for recreation, 

livelihoods, and ecological meanings: integrating focus 

groups with public participation geographic information 

systems. Society & Natural Resources. 26(12): 1422–

1437.

Nelson, P.B. 2001. Rural restructuring in the American 

West: land use, family and class discourses. Journal of 

Rural Studies. 17(4): 395–407.

North, M.; Stine, P.A.; O’Hara, K.L.; Zielinski, W.J.; 

Stephens, S.L. 2009. An ecosystems management 

strategy for Sierra mixed-conifer forests, with 

addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Perry, D.A.; Hessburg, P.F.; Skinner, C.N.; Spies, 

T.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Taylor, A.H.; Franklin, J.F.; 

McComb, B.; Riegel, G. 2011. The ecology of mixed 

severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, and 

northern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 

262(5): 703–717.

Pfister, R.D.; Arno, S.F. 1980. Classifying forest habitat 

types based on potential climax vegetation. Forest 

Science. 26(1): 52–70.

Power, M.E.; Tilman, D.; Estes, J.A.; Menge, B.A.; 

Bond, W.J.; Mills, L.S.; Daily, G.; Castilla, J.C.; 

Lubchenco, J.; Paine, R.T. 1996. Challenges in the 

quest for keystones. BioScience. 46(8): 609–620.

Proshansky, H.M. 1978. The city and self-identity. 

Environment and Behavior. 10(2): 147–169.

Redman, C.L.; Grove, J.M.; Kuby, L.H. 2004. Integrating 

social science into the long-term ecological research 

(LTER) network: social dimensions of ecological change 

and ecological dimensions of social change. Ecosystems. 

7(2): 161–171.

Riitters, H.K.; Wickham, D.J.; O’Neill, V.R.; Jones, 

B.K.; Smith, R.E.; Coulston, W.J.; Wade, G.T.; 

Smith, H.J. 2002. Fragmentation of continental United 

States forests. Ecosystems. 5(8): 815–822.

Sarukhán, J.; Whyte, A. 2005. Ecosystems and 

human well-being: synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem 

Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press, World 

Resources Institute. 137 p.

Stankey, G.H.; Bormann, B.T.; Ryan, C.; Shindler, 

B.; Sturtevant, V.; Clark, R.N.; Philpot, C. 2003.

Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: 

rhetoric and reality. Journal of Forestry. 101(1): 40–46.

Steffen, W.; Crutzen, P.J.; McNeill, J.R. 2007. The 

Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the 

great forces of nature? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human 

Environment. 36(8): 614–621.

Stokols, D.; Shumaker, S.A. 1982. The psychological 

context of residential mobility and well-being. Journal of 

Social Issues. 38(3): 149–171.

Swanson, M.E.; Studevant, N.M.; Campbell, J.L.; 

Donato, D.C. 2014. Biological associates of early-seral 

pre-forest in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 324: 160–171.
1020

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-966

Teitelbaum, S.; Beckley, T.; Nadeau, S. 2006. A national 

portrait of community forestry on public land in Canada. 

The Forestry Chronicle. 82(3): 416–428.

Turner, M.G.; Romme, W.H. 1994. Landscape dynamics 

in crown fire ecosystems. Landscape Ecology. 9(1): 

59–77.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA 

FS]. 2011. Watershed condition framework. FS-977. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. 34 p.

U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2017. Glossary. 

[Updated]. http://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/

glossary. (11 October 2017).

Williams, D.R.; Stewart, S.I. 1998. Sense of place: an 

elusive concept that is finding a home in ecosystem 

management. Journal of Forestry. 96(5): 18–23.

Yamamoto, S.-I. 2000. Forest gap dynamics and tree 

regeneration. Journal of Forest Research. 5(4): 223–229.

Acknowledgments

We thank reviewers from U.S. Forest Service Regions 5 and 

6, who provided valuable input on earlier drafts of these 

chapters. We thank the many anonymous reviewers for 

their constructive comments. We also thank members of 

the public, Tribes, and other agencies who provided peer-reviewed literature for consideration, attended the public 

forums, or provided review comments for peer reviewers to 

consider. We thank Cliff Duke with the Ecological Society 

of America for organizing and coordinating the peer review 

process. We thank Lisa McKenzie and Ty Montgomery 

with McKenzie Marketing Group for coordinating and 

summarizing the extensive public input we received and for 

organizing and facilitating the public forums. We also thank 

Kathryn Ronnenberg for assisting with figures and editing 

for some chapters, as well as Keith Olsen for his work 

on figures. Sean Gordon is thanked for his creation and 

management of the NWFP literature reference database and 

for formatting all the citations in the chapters, which was a 

very large task. We really appreciate the efforts of Rhonda 

Mazza, who worked with the authors to write the executive 

summary. We appreciate the heroic efforts of the entire 

Pacific Northwest Research Station communications team 

to get the science synthesis edited and published to meet 

tight deadlines, especially editors Keith Routman, Carolyn 

Wilson, and Oscar Johnson and visual information specialist Jason Blake. Borys Tkacz and Jane Hayes are acknowledged for their diligent policy reviews of all chapters. We 

want to acknowledge the leadership of Paul Anderson and 

Cindy Miner and Yasmeen Sands for their communications 

coordination. Finally, the team wishes to thank Region 5, 

Region 6, and the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest 

Research Stations for significant funding and other support 

for this effort. 
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Website 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

1220 SW 3rd Ave.

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300