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

Abstract

The socioeconomic monitoring report addresses two evaluation questions posed in the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) Record of Decision and assesses progress in meeting five Plan socioeconomic goals. Volume I of the report contains key findings. Volume II addresses the question, Are predictable levels of timber and nontimber resources available and being produced? It also evaluates progress in meeting the goal of producing a predictable level of timber sales, special forest products, livestock grazing, minerals, and recreation opportunities. The focus of volume III is the evaluation question, Are local communities and economies experiencing positive or negative changes that may be associated with federal forest management? Two Plan goals are also assessed in volume III: (1) to maintain the stability of local and regional economies on a predictable, long-term basis and, (2) to assist with long-term economic development and diversification to minimize adverse impacts associated with the loss of timber jobs. Progress in meeting anotherPlan goal-to promote agency-citizen collaboration in forest management-is evaluated in volume IV. Volume V reports on trends in public values regarding forest management in the Pacific Northwest over the past decade, community views of how well the forest values and environmental qualities associated with late-successional, old-growth, and aquatic ecosystems have been protected under the Plan (a fifth Plan goal), and issues and concerns relating to forest management under the Plan expressed by community members. Volume VI provides a history of the Northwest Forest Plan socioeconomic monitoring program and a discussion of potential directions for the program.

The Northwest Forest Plan as a Model for Broad‐Scale Ecosystem Management: a Social Perspective

“…A socioeconomic effectiveness monitoring program was established in late 2002 (after two pilot efforts) as part of the Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program to assess progress in meeting the plan's socioeconomic goals during the first decade. A team of 11 social scientists conducted the monitoring work, and their findings are published in Charnley (2006 a ). Because the agencies established the program late in the decade, the team had to rely largely on existing quantitative data not gathered for the explicit purpose of socioeconomic monitoring.…”

“…The team was able to collect qualitative data, however, from four forests and 12 communities associated with those forests to examine the effects of the plan at the local level. Detailed descriptions of the monitoring methods are in Charnley (2006 a ). I summarize some of the key findings below to assess whether the plan, as implemented, serves as a good model for ecosystem management.…”

Public Timber Supply, Market Adjustments, and Local Economies: Economic Assumptions of the Northwest Forest Plan

“… a Numbers 1–3 in parentheses represent sources: 1, Charnley 2006 a ; 2, Charnley et al 2006 ; 3, Pulp and Paperworkers Resource Council 2003 . …”

“… *Sources: First eight entries are from Charnley et al (2006) and remaining entries are from Charnley (2006 a ) . …”

“…The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) analyzed this variation in local experience by creating an index of socioeconomic well‐being for each community. This index combines measures of local industrial diversity, educational attainment, unemployment, poverty, income inequality, and commuting distance to work (Charnley et al 2006). About a quarter of the individual communities experienced a deterioration of conditions (Table 2).…”