HomeMy WebLinkAboutOR Forest Health Restoration Economic Assessment
National Forest Health Restoration
An Economic Assessment of
Forest Restoration on
Oregon’s Eastside National Forests
Prepared for:
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders
November 26, 2012
[Page Intentionally Left Blank]
Economic Assessment Team
Mason, Bruce & Girard, Inc.
Mark Rasmussen
Roger Lord
Brandon Vickery
Forest Econ, Inc.
Charles McKetta
Dan Green
MaryAnn Green
Institute for Natural Resources, Oregon State University
Miles Hemstrom
Northwest Economic Research Center, Portland State University
Tom Potiowsky
Jeff Renfro
Project Steering Committee
Paul Barnum, Oregon Forest Resources Institute
Brett Brownscombe, Office of Governor John Kitzhaber
Sarah Crim, USDA Forest Service
Pete Dalke, Oregon Solutions
Bruce Daucsavage, Ochoco Lumber Company
Renee Davis-Born, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Martin Goebel, Sustainable Northwest
Russ Hoeflich, The Nature Conservancy
Brandon Kaetzel, Oregon Department of Forestry
Matt Krumenauer, Oregon Department of Energy
Bruce Sorte, Oregon State University
Mark Stern, The Nature Conservancy
Acknowledgments
This assessment was made possible with funding from the Association of Oregon Counties,
Oregon Business Council, Oregon Department of Energy, Oregon Department of Forestry,
Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Sustainable
Northwest, and The Nature Conservancy.
The assessment team is grateful for the guidance and support of the Project Steering
Committee formed from members of the Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee - ad hoc
Implementation Working Group.
We are also especially grateful for the time and effort of Tom Mafera and Sarah Crim with the
United States Forest Service who provided valuable data, information, and insight during the
course of this project.
We would also like to offer our thanks to those who served as technical and peer reviewers of
this report and for the cooperation, input, and valuable insight from forest collaborative
participants, contractors, and other key stakeholders.
Please see Appendix I for a listing of people who participated in this study.
Table of Contents
Tables and Figures ......................................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Chapter 2: Forest Health Economic Assessment ........................................................................................ 11
Section 2.1: Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 12
Section 2.2: Economic Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration .................................................. 16
Chapter 3: Costs and Benefits of Increased Forest Restoration ................................................................. 21
Section 3.1: What does it mean to ‘scale up’ the pace of forest health restoration? ............................ 22
Section 3.2: What will help to increase the scale and pace of forest health restoration? ..................... 25
Section 3.3: Impacts of Increased Forest Health Restoration ................................................................ 28
Section 3-4: Regional Economic Impacts of Forest Restoration ............................................................. 37
Chapter 4: Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 47
Section 4.1: Next Steps ........................................................................................................................... 48
Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix I: Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. 54
Appendix II: Definition of Available Acres............................................................................................... 55
Appendix III: Input/Output Modeling Assumptions................................................................................ 57
Appendix IV: Economic Impact: Detailed Tables .................................................................................... 61
Appendix V: Detailed Summary Data ...................................................................................................... 78
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders i
Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1.2-1: Acres of USFS forestland within each economic region ........................................................... 4
Table 1.2-2: Crown Fire Potential on Oregon’s dry-side National Forests ................................................... 8
Table 2.2-1: USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) forest restoration costs ($) ........................................... 16
Table 2.2-2: USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) economic impacts from forest restoration activities .... 18
Table 2.2-3: USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) commercial production volume .................................... 19
Table 2.2-4: Economic impact of USFS spending $1 million on watershed restoration in each economic
region .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.1-1: USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) restoration footprint acres ............................................ 23
Table 3.3-1: USFS forestland by economic region and impact of current restoration footprint ................ 28
Table 3.3-2: Acres and costs of eastern Oregon large fires (> 100 acres), 2007-2011 ............................... 32
Table 3.3-3: Unemployment rates (September 2012) and poverty rates (2010) within the study area .... 32
Table 3.3-4: Total unemployment benefits and number of claims in eastern Oregon, 2010 .................... 33
Table 3.3-5: Categories of ecosystem services ........................................................................................... 34
Table 3.3-6: Expenditures for freshwater fishing and hunting in eastern Oregon, 2009 ........................... 35
Figures
Figure 1.2-1: Economic regions of eastern Oregon ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 1.2-2: Crown Fire Potential on Oregon’s dry-side National Forests .................................................. 9
Figure 3.1-1: Diagram of eastern Oregon USFS forest health restoration activity ..................................... 24
Figure 3.3-1: TANF and SNAP expenditures by fiscal year (FY) in eastern Oregon, 2005-2011 ................. 31
Figure 3.4-1: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Northeast Economic Region ......... 38
Figure 3.4-2: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Southeast Economic Region ......... 40
Figure 3.4-3: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Interior Central Economic
Region ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.4-4: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Interior South Economic
Region ......................................................................................................................................................... 44
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders ii
Executive Summary
Increasing the scale and pace of forest health restoration on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) managed forests
in eastern and south central Oregon will contribute to the health and resiliency of Oregon’s dry-side
forest ecosystems. Restoring fire-resilient forest landscapes will provide clean air, clean water, wildlife
habitat, recreational opportunities, and other critical ecosystem services.
In addition, eastern Oregon’s rural communities will benefit through the creation and retention of
thousands of jobs that generate local income, produce commercial wood products and contribute
millions of dollars to state tax revenue. These environmental and economic impacts help sustain and
enhance the overall quality of life in the entire State of Oregon.
Governor Kitzhaber and members of the Oregon legislature called on the Federal Forest Advisory
Committee – ad hoc Implementation Work Group to complete an economic assessment of National
Forest health restoration activities on Oregon’s dry-side National Forests. This report responds to that
call. It provides elected officials, public and private forest sector leaders, members of the conservation
community, and the electorate information needed to evaluate the challenges and opportunities of
forest health restoration.
Economic impacts of USFS’ current forest restoration program
• The USFS’ current average annual forest restoration activities on Oregon’s eastside provides the
following economic impacts:
o Accounts for a total of 2,310 jobs,
o Generates $90.5 million in total income,
o Accounts for $231.5 million in total industrial output, and
o Contributes $3.6 million in total state tax revenue.
• Currently, the USFS implements forest restoration treatments on about 129,000 acres annually in
eastern Oregon, or just 1.4 percent of the USFS forestland in eastern Oregon not restricted from
active forest management.
• The USFS spends, on average, $40.8 million in forest restoration activities per year in eastern
Oregon. Doubling the acreage would likely require a doubling of this amount.
• Doubling the current pace of restoration proportionate to the current distribution of treatments
would then double the volume of commercial production to 282 million board feet of sawlogs and
450,000 green tons of non-sawlogs and biomass material annually.
Doubling the scale and pace of forest health restoration on USFS-managed forests in eastern
Oregon to 258,000 acres annually and sustaining this pace over the next 20 years will allow
businesses to invest, restoration contractors to hire more workers, and mills to maintain their
operations and employees.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders iii
• The total impact of increasing restoration activity on employment depends on existing use of
capacity for restoration work. To the extent that workers are not currently full-time and other
equipment is not being fully utilized, we will not see both workers and equipment double with the
doubling of the pace of restoration. Doubling of restoration will undoubtedly save existing jobs and
increase working hours moving employment numbers in eastern Oregon in a positive direction.
• Industrial output will increase from $231.5 to $463 million alongside commercial production
expansion because more product sales will occur and more goods and services are being traded
among economic sectors.
• The total contribution of forest restoration activities to state tax revenue will increase from $3.6 to
$7.2 million because state tax revenue is strongly correlated to commercial production (income,
corporate, fuels, and harvest tax).
Summary data of National Forest health economic assessment
Summary Data
Northeast Southeast Interior
Central
Interior
South
Total
Eastern
Oregon
Total Acres (1,000) 2,646 2,905 2,016 3,801 11,368
Available Acres (1,000) 1,879 2,556 1,451 3,307 9,193
Footprint Acres (1,000)* 33 22 37 37 129
Cost ($1,000)* $ 6,687 $ 5,171 $ 10,474 $ 18,452 $ 40,784
Sawlogs (MMBF)* 18 25 32 66 141
Non-saw/Biomass (1,000 GT)* 73 38 57 57 225
Jobs (#)* 397 329 319 1,265 2,310
Output ($1,000)* $ 36,898 $ 35,186 $ 25,106 $ 134,322 $ 231,512
Income ($1,000)* $ 16,102 $ 14,019 $ 12,875 $ 47,521 $ 90,517
State Tax Revenue ($1,000)* $ 778 $ 518 $ 1,125 $ 1,191 $ 3,612
*On an average annual basis
• In coordination with forest restoration activities, the USFS conducts watershed restoration in order
to improve aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat and ecosystem function. These restoration
activities include fish passage improvement, road drainage, road decommissioning, riparian
restoration, and stream channel improvements.
Economic impact of the USFS spending $1 million on watershed restoration in each economic
region
Summary Northeast Southeast Interior Central Interior South
Jobs (#) 17 24 7 20
Output ($1,000) $1,500 $ 1,400 $ 470 $ 1,600
Income ($1,000) $ 678 $ 615 $261 $644
State Tax Revenue ($1,000) $ 34 $18 $ 39 $9
*The chart shows what $1 million spent on watershed restoration would return in each economic region - the
rows are not additive.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders iv
Avoided costs of federal forest restoration activities
• The difference between the cost of implementing restoration and conducting fire suppression in
eastern Oregon represents a potential $59.2 million annual savings for the USFS if 129,000 acres
were left untreated and burned by wildfire each year. For every $1 the USFS spends on forest
restoration, the agency avoids a potential loss of $1.45. This avoided cost could be higher because
untreated acres are likely to be protected from crown fires by nearby acres that are treated, further
reducing the potential for fire suppression expenditures.
• Taxpayers currently spending about $298 million on social services in eastern and south central
Oregon through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Programs. Increased forest heath restoration has the potential to reduce
community dependence on these services by creating jobs that generate additional income to help
people become less reliant on social services.
• Eastern Oregon’s average unemployment rate (10.8 percent) and poverty rate (19.1 percent) are the
highest in the state. Any increase in economic activity in the region from forest health restoration
will contribute to the region’s long-term economic health and stability.
• In 2010, the Oregon Employment Department distributed $470 million in unemployment benefits
through 29,000 unemployment insurance claims.
• In areas of eastern Oregon, forest health restoration is also benefiting communities through an
increase in the property tax base. For example, restoration within the Wildland-Urban Interface
enables the construction of high value homes for families wanting to live near the forest. This
construction is adding to the local property tax base.
• Forest health restoration presents an opportunity to improve the condition of eastern Oregon’s
forested landscape which will help to protect, restore, and manage a full suite of sustainable non-
timber resources and services.
• A program to increase the pace of forest restoration will protect and retain invaluable ecosystem
services that provide clean air, clean water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and other
services that are threatened by degraded forest health.
An investment in forest health restoration has the potential to save millions of dollars in state and
federal funds by avoiding costs associated with fire suppression, social service programs and
unemployment benefits.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders v
The opportunity ahead
• Any effort to ‘scale up’ the pace of forest restoration on Oregon’s eastside National Forests will have
to be accompanied by an increase in large-scale planning efforts led by the USFS.
• Improving the efficiency of the USFS’ planning and implementation will reduce total management
costs creating the potential to accomplish more forest restoration. The USFS is working to improve
the efficiency of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process by increasing the
use of landscape-scale NEPA, proposing the use of new Categorical Exclusions for restoration
activities, and the use of an adaptive Environmental Impact Statement process – support of these
efforts will be beneficial.
• Reauthorizing the U.S. Forest Service’s authority to use stewardship contracting is imperative.
Congressional approval granting this authority expires September 30, 2013.
• Determining the differences in the cost of litigation and associated planning between projects
supported by collaboratives and those not supported by collaboratives is necessary to determine to
what extent the collaborative process helps reduce USFS restoration costs.
• Some forest collaboratives have a decade or more experience cooperative planning with the USFS.
The effects of this engagement should be analyzed to help document the value of collaborative
efforts. The analysis should be based on specific projects that have been implemented through the
collaborative process through individual case studies.
• Priority should be given to supporting existing infrastructure that supports forest restoration work.
This infrastructure and workforce helps implement restoration activities and provides markets that
can help reduce the per acre costs.
• Developing markets that use products and byproducts of forest restoration will support expansion
of landscape scale forest restoration activities. Woody biomass utilization is currently hampered by
a lack of available markets. Without sufficient markets, this material will be underutilized.
• Oregon’s Forest Biomass Working Group [1]
has identified four market development initiatives that
should be pursued and supported at the state level. They are biomass thermal (on-site heat at
commercial and institutional facilities), distributed generation (heat and electricity at existing wood
product facilities), existing markets (landscape bark, shavings, bedding, etc.), and emerging markets
(biofuels, biochar, cellulosic ethanol, etc.).
[1] The Oregon Forest Biomass Working Group has proposed these initiatives through its recent document,
“Growing Oregon’s Biomass Industry: Oregon’s Forest Biomass Strategy”.
Without an increased public investment in a robust federal forest restoration program, the
economic health of Oregon’s rural communities will continue to decline and environmental issues
will worsen. Achieving a substantial increase in forest restoration activity across eastern Oregon is
a challenging endeavor and will take time to develop. Below are steps that can be taken at the local,
regional and state level to help advance this goal.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
A resilient ponderosa pine stand on the Deschutes National Forest
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 2
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an accurate economic impact assessment of forest health
restoration on Oregon’s eastside National Forests. In particular, the study is guided by the following
question:
“If Oregon were to double the average number of acres treated annually to benefit and restore
forest ecosystem health on Oregon’s dry-side national forestlands, then what would that cost and
what would be the economic benefit?”
The study was initiated at the request of the Governor of Oregon and leadership within Oregon’s
legislature.
The study is intended to assist in determining a strategic path toward formulating the most efficient and
effective strategy to cause an acceleration of forest restoration on Oregon’s federal forestlands.
Furthermore, this study will provide elected officials, public and private forest sector leaders, members
of the conservation community, and the electorate information needed to evaluate the challenges and
opportunities of forest health restoration.
While the focus of this report is on forestland administered by the United States Forest Service (USFS),
we recognize that significant other watershed restoration activities are occurring throughout eastern
Oregon funded by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Bureau of Land Management, Natural
Resource Conservation Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, and other
organizations. These additional projects are not specifically assessed through this report, but it is
anticipated that the results and economic benefits would mirror those found in this report.
Study Background
In 2004, Governor Ted Kulongoski called upon the Board of Forestry to “create a unified vision of how
federal land should contribute” to sustainability, and to “make that vision action-oriented and
comprehensive – following through to the last step including implementation”. The Federal Forestlands
Advisory Committee (FFAC) was created in 2006 to assist the Board of Forestry in completing the
Governor’s charge. The FFAC, working through the Board of Forestry, developed a set of
recommendations that appear in the report, “Achieving Oregon’s Vision for Federal Forestlands”, which
was released in 2008.
In 2009, the Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee – ad hoc Implementation Working Group (FFAC-
IWG) was formed by a group of key stakeholders to execute on the Board of Forestry’s vision and to
break through any barriers to implementation of the recommendations. The FFAC-IWG is convened by
Governor John Kitzhaber’s Natural Resources Office.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 3
The vision and purpose of the FFAC-IWG as published on March 4, 2011, reads:
“The FFAC-IWG is focused on supporting landscape-scale, active restoration of federal
forestlands by identifying and removing barriers to restoration of forest and watershed health.
We will:
• Help collaboratives identify local forest health priorities, develop landscape-scale forest
restoration plans, and find agreement for active management;
• Advocate for sustainable and predictable supply of biomass and merchantable timber,
and
• Advocate for supportive state and federal policy.
These activities will restore forests, help sustain communities by creating jobs and maintaining
forest sector infrastructure, and will enhance Oregon’s energy independence. The FFAC-IWG
will initially focus on the dry, fire prone forests found east of the Cascades and in the southern
interior of Oregon.”
The FFAC-IWG believes that there is broad public consensus that a solution to improving the health of
Oregon’s forest conditions and rural economies is to put Oregonians to work restoring forest ecosystem
health – producing direct restoration and logging jobs, products from merchantable timber, thinning for
fire-risk reduction and biomass production, and creating additional jobs through watershed restoration
such as aquatic and habitat improvement work.
Among those who have expressed formal agreement on the need for restoration on Oregon’s eastside
National Forests are:
• Western Governors’ Association, Policy Resolution 11-01
• The Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee Recommendations of 2009, adopted by the
Oregon Board of Forestry and accepted by the Governor’s Office
• The ad hoc Oregon Forest Cluster Working Group’s recommendations of May 2011, adopted by
the Oregon Board of Forestry
• Governor Kitzhaber, policy speech to the Oregon Board of Forestry, November 2011
Governor Kitzhaber, in his policy speech to the Board of Forestry (November 2011), succinctly summed
up the problem and the opportunity:
The legacy of these management practices – particularly in Eastern Oregon – is forests
overstocked with stands of younger fir and pine; the loss of older fire-resilient forest structure; a
mammoth road system that has disconnected healthy hydrologic function and fragmented
habitat; a significant reduction in watershed health; the destruction of habitat for sensitive
species; a steep decline in employment for timber dependent communities; and a high risk of
catastrophic fire.
…Reversing this legacy requires environmentally sound active management to restore the health
of these federal forests. Active management requires local mill infrastructure and a skilled
contractor base; an operational market which rests upon a predictable and sustainable supply of
wood and other products of restoration work; and adequate capacity for management within
the federal agencies.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 4
The Study Area
Our investigation focused on all National Forests east of the Cascade Crest (except for Mt. Hood
National Forest) and the western portion of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest, collectively, the “Study
Area”.1
The Study Area is similar in scope to other projects, including research related to the Dry Forest
Investment Zone (Sustainable Northwest 2012).
In order to capture ecological and economic variability across the study area we established the
following regions, which represent functional economies across eastern Oregon (Figure 1.2-1):
• Northeast Economic Region: Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests
- Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties
• Interior Central Economic Region: Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests
- Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson counties
• Southeast Economic Region: Malheur National Forest
- Baker, Grant, Harney, and Malheur counties
• Interior South Economic Region: Winema-Fremont and eastern portion of Rogue-Siskiyou
National Forests (High Cascades Ranger District only)
- Jackson, Klamath, and Lake counties
These areas contain private forestland, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) forestland and State Forests,
but the scope of this study was restricted to USFS National Forests. Table 1.2-1 shows the amount of
forestland administered by the USFS within the study area.
Table 1.2-1: Acres of USFS forestland within each economic region
Economic Region Acres
Northeast 2,646,000
Southeast 2,905,000
Interior Central 2,016,000
Interior South 3,801,000
Total 11,368,000
Source: Institute for Natural Resources (INR), 2012
1 The study includes the High Cascades Ranger District from the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest in Jackson County.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 5
Figure 1.2-1: Economic regions of eastern Oregon
Source: Regions represent functional economies of the study area developed by MB&G and Forest Econ Inc., 2012;
base features are from Environmental Science Research Institute (ESRI), 2008.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 6
What is forest health restoration?
Before defining forest health restoration, it’s important to consider the broader term of ecological
restoration. The Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI) defines ecological restoration as
“an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its
health, integrity and sustainability...Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an
ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.” (Society for Ecological Restoration
International 2004).
The terms degraded, damaged, and destroyed all represent deviations from a desired ecosystem state.
Degraded refers to subtle or gradual changes that reduce ecological integrity and health. Damaged
pertains to acute and obvious changes in an ecosystem. An ecosystem is destroyed when severe
degradation or damage drastically alters the physical environment. These terms are used collectively to
represent a continuum of conditions.
In 2006, the United States Forest Service (USFS) adopted “a strategic, integrated, science-based
framework for restoring and maintaining forest and grassland ecological condition” (USDA Forest Service
2006). The policy recommendations included in the framework rely on SERI’s definition of ecological
restoration, as defined above. Applying this broader definition of ecological restoration to forested
ecosystems helps us in defining forest health restoration. As such, we can consider forest health
restoration as a process attempting to regain ecological integrity and enhance human well-being within
a degraded, damaged, or destroyed forested ecosystem. Forest health restoration focuses on “restoring
forest functionality…the goods, services and ecological processes that forests can provide at the
landscape level” (Maginnis and Jackson 2004).
Throughout the forests of eastern Oregon, forest health restoration on national forestland incorporates
current, historic and new scientific information to return forest ecosystems in frequent fire forests to
more normalized levels of resilience to catastrophic fire, insects, disease and other disturbances as well
as forest structure as might be seen prior to modern fire suppression policy and methods. The ultimate
goal of forest health restoration is to reestablish a healthy forested landscape that is capable of
maximizing the benefits that society receives from its forests – ecosystem services such as clean water
and air, recreational opportunity, wildlife habitat, and carbon sequestration as well as economic goods
and services.
Restoration activities may include thinning trees, removing merchantable timber and reintroducing
prescribed fire where appropriate. In addition to these vegetation management activities, forest health
restoration presents opportunities to improve the overall condition of forested watersheds and related
habitat through watershed restoration activities such as upgrading stream crossing structures,
improving and reducing road networks, stabilizing stream banks and reintroducing native plant species.
Forest health restoration on Oregon’s eastside National Forests aims to create functional terrestrial and
aquatic conditions with greater ecological resilience to disturbance while creating a predictable flow of
work that retains current manufacturing infrastructure, supports new and emerging markets, and
produces local economic benefits.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 7
Why is forest health restoration such a critical issue for Oregon and the nation?
Of Oregon’s 63 million acres, nearly half – some 30 million acres – are forested. At 18 million acres, or
60 percent of the forestland base, the federal government is by far Oregon’s largest land manager. This
forest is managed by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (14.3 million acres) and
United States Depart of Interior Bureau of Land Management (3.7 million acres).
Over the past twenty years, reduced management activity and aggressive fire suppression on federal
forestland has resulted in higher timber stocking and higher per-acre timber mortality than found on
private forestland in eastern Oregon. Insect and disease losses have also increased in these forests as a
result of higher stocking, slower growth, and reduced vigor. The consequence is a higher potential for
significant loss of key ecosystem components to a wildfire.
Fires have become larger resulting in increased in fire suppression costs to both the federal
governmental and the State of Oregon, and fire risk to residential communities in the Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI). Data show that wildfire size is increasing. From 1980 to 2000 (20 years), wildfires in
eastern Oregon burned about 553,000 acres with an average fire size of 26,000 acres. From 2001 to
2011 (10 years), wildfires burned a total of 1 million acres averaging 93,000 acres per fire incident (ODF
2012).
Recent data from the USFS indicates that from 2007 to 2011, fires in eastern Oregon greater than
100 acres (large fires) burned an estimated 279,000 acres of national forestland costing the agency
$218 million ($780 per acre) in fire suppression costs (USFS 2012a).
During the 2012 fire season, large fires burned approximately 202,000 acres of national forestland in
eastern Oregon costing the agency approximately $60.5 million. One of those fires, the Pole Creek Fire,
burned about 27,000 acres with an estimated fire suppression cost of $17 million (USFS 2012a).2
The nature of wildfire has changed many of these eastern Oregon National Forests over the past
30 years. Due largely to fire suppression and past management practices, forests that would have
experienced low intensity surface fires have become forests that commonly experience crown fire under
extreme fire conditions. Due to this change, Crown Fire Potential 3 can be used as a measure of the need
for restoration on many eastern Oregon forest types. This study uses Crown Fire Potential as one
measure to generally describe the condition of eastern Oregon’s National Forests with regards to forest
restoration.4
2 The USFS is still calculating the data from the 2012 fire season and these estimates are preliminary and subject to
change.
3 Crown Fire Potential (CFP) is a calculated index based on canopy fuels and canopy base height, with a few other
factors, using inventory plots as data. High CFP means that an area could easily support crown fires, if there was an
ignition and the fire weather was right. Calculated CFP in dry forests may not be as high, but the likelihood for dry
fuels and hot, windy fire weather is often high.
4 There are other measures that are commonly used such as Fire Regime Condition Class and forest mortality
trends. A detailed study focused on the condition of these forests and where restoration should be prioritized
should take these other measures into consideration.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 8
Across eastern Oregon there are approximately 19.8 million acres of forestland – 11.3 million of which is
administered by the USFS. Approximately 9.2 million acres of USFS forest land is not legally dedicated to
the protection and preservation of the natural landscape (wilderness, congressional reserves, etc.) that
would restrict management activities; categorized in this report as ‘Available Acres’ (Table 1.2-2).
The potential for crown fire on these forested acres is significant. Across the acres classified as available,
about 78 percent have a moderate to high potential for crown fire (Figure 1.2-2).
The focus on available acres is intended to provide context to forest health concerns in eastern Oregon.
From the estimated 11.3 million acres of forestland administered by the USFS, about 81 percent are
available for USFS restoration treatments. The Land Use Allocation for these acres will determine the
type of restoration that is most appropriate – some may be more suitable for commercial treatments
while some acres will be more suitable for non-commercial treatments and watershed restoration work.
Overall, there are 9.2 million acres of national forestland in eastern Oregon that the USFS can include in
its restoration planning and implementation.
For a detailed discussion of Available Acres see Appendix II.
Table 1.2-2: Crown Fire Potential on Oregon’s dry-side National Forests
Eastern Oregon Crown Fire Potential (Acres)
Low Moderate High Total
USFS administered - all 2,269,000 4,030,000 5,069,000 11,368,000
USFS administered - reserved 248,000 838,000 1,089,000 2,175,000
USFS administered – available acres 2,021,000 3,192,000 3,980,000 9,193,000
Source: INR, 2012
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 9
Figure 1.2-2: Crown Fire Potential on Oregon’s dry-side National Forests.
Source: Crown Fire Potential classes are from INR, 2012; base features are from ESRI, 2008.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 10
[Page Intentionally Left Blank]
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 11
Chapter 2: Forest Health Economic Assessment
Chipping small diameter lodgepole and ponderosa pine at Sycan Marsh in Lake County, Oregon.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 12
Section 2.1: Methodology
The primary objective of this study is to provide an economic impact assessment of National Forest
health restoration in eastern Oregon. This study was not designed to result in a forest restoration plan;
we do not provide management recommendations on how to achieve the desired level of forest
restoration with specific treatment types or priority locations. Instead, we explore the current level of
USFS restoration activities and related economic outputs to provide a baseline of economic impacts
from which to evaluate the effects of increased restoration activity.
To understand the potential costs and benefits from a substantially larger forest restoration effort, we
needed to first understand the costs and benefits of current programs. This study began by investigating
recent and current efforts – the economics of projects (including cost of planning and preparation), the
flow and use of products, and the contracting system.
To understand the USFS’s current level of forest health restoration and the associated costs and
benefits, we worked closely with representatives from the USFS Pacific Northwest Regional Office and
agency staff at individual National Forests. With their assistance, we collected and analyzed USFS data
over a five year period (2007-2011) from the following sources:
• Timber Information Manager Database (TIM): the TIM database contains information related to
commercial timber sales and stewardship contracts such as product type (sawlog, non-sawlog,
poles, biomass, fuel wood, etc.), product bid value, and cruise acres for each project.
Cruise acres as reported in the TIM database determined the footprint5
acreage associated with
timber sales and stewardship contracts.
• Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS): the FACTS database contains information
related to each treatment activity occurring within a particular treatment area such as
treatment acres and activity type.
We isolated individual treatment units to determine the footprint acreage associated with
service contracts.
• Administrative and Treatment Cost Survey: the cost survey was administered to a key contact at
each of the seven National Forests within the study area.
A TIM database report was generated for each forest containing timber sales and stewardship
projects in progress during the 2007-2011 time period. From that list, each forest provided
estimated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning, sale/contract preparation, and
administrative costs on a per-acre basis and/or on a per-volume (thousand board feet) basis.
5 Section 3.1 provides details and definition of footprint acres.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 13
We also provided a list of non-commercial restoration activities implemented on those forests
during the same time period and each forest provided the implementation costs for those
activities on a per-acre basis.
• Estimated Funding Needs for Watershed Restoration: we received data from the USFS Pacific
Northwest Regional Hydrologist pertaining to planned costs associated with completing
essential watershed restoration work in priority subwatersheds in eastern Oregon.
These data provide the estimated costs for watershed restoration activities such as stream
improvements, road improvements and decommissioning, and fish passage work for priority
subwatersheds within the study area.
These data provide the foundation to construct Input/Output (I/O) models used to quantify the
economic impacts from USFS forest health restoration activity. I/O analysis is the most common and
widely accepted methodology for conducting regional economic impact analyses among academics,
government and private firms.
Input-Output Modeling
Through our preliminary investigation into USFS forest management activity and with conversations
with agency staff at the forest and regional level, we determined that the entire program of work on
eastern Oregon’s national forestlands has a restoration component and therefore, defined forest
restoration activity as all current USFS forest management activity occurring within the study area
except for work associated with salvage and hazard tree removal.
We developed three individual I/O models in order to capture the economic impacts of restoration work
being accomplished on eastern Oregon’s National Forests based on two broad categories; forest
restoration and watershed restoration. These restoration scenarios produce differing levels of
economic activity influencing the degree to which goods and services are sold and purchased within and
across economic sectors.
- The impacts of forest restoration (commercial and non-commercial) were calculated through
the Timber Sale and Stewardship Contract models.
The timber sale model captures the economic impacts associated with traditional timber sales.
Timber sales generally have a high sawlog component which requires logging equipment to
harvest and transport the product for processing.
The stewardship contract model captures the economic impacts associated with stewardship
contracts. This work involves the use of logging and other mechanized equipment for harvesting
and treatments such as mowing, mastication, and thinning. Stewardship contracts also require
manual labor to perform activities such as hand-piling, burning, lop and scattering and low-
thinning. Depending on market conditions, non-sawlog and biomass will be transported to
processing facilities.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 14
The stewardship contract model was also used to capture economic impacts associated with
restoration treatments accomplished through service contracts, which do not produce any
commercial products. Restoration accomplished through service contracts requires the use of
mechanized equipment and manual labor to conduct the planned treatments.
In all scenarios, the USFS plans and coordinates the activities while contractors implement
restoration treatments.
- The impacts of watershed restoration were calculated through a stand-alone watershed
restoration model. Watershed restoration includes stream and riparian improvements, road
maintenance and decommissioning, and fish passage improvements. This work primarily
involves construction equipment to replace culverts, improve roadbeds to alter hydrology and
sediment routing, and to protect in-stream flow.
As with forest restoration, the USFS plans and coordinates watershed restoration work while
implementation is accomplished by contractors.
Production functions for the forest and watershed restoration models were developed based on
research data provided by Cassandra Moseley (Personal communication, 2012; Nielsen-Pincus and
Moseley, 2010; Nielsen-Pincus and Moseley, in press). Small adjustments were made to these
production functions to account for occasional expenditures in various business services (legal services,
accounting services, real estate rental).
Production functions were also needed for chips which were integrated into miscellaneous wood
products. The production function for this sector was modified to account for the sale of chips to pulp
and paper mills (exports from the region).
A production function was also created for biomass utilization facilities based on interviews with
biomass operators. This included both power generating facilities, dry kilns, and brick and pellet mills.
Appendix III includes a detailed description of the I/O modeling assumptions, production functions, and
data sources.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 15
Forest Restoration Inputs and Outputs
The data analysis and forest restoration modeling allow us to compare the costs and benefits of each
restoration scenario across the study area by reporting the following results on an average annual basis:
- USFS costs – direct USFS costs including NEPA planning, contract and sale preparation,
administration, and implementation costs associated with timber sales, stewardship contracts,
and service contracts.
- Product volume - Sawlog, non-sawlog, and biomass volume produced through commercial
forest restoration.
- Employment (jobs) – the total employment effects (direct, indirect, and induced) generated by
forest restoration activities throughout regional economic sectors.
- Industrial Output – the secondary effects (direct, indirect, and induced) generated by forest
restoration activities measured as industrial output. Industrial output is a measure of the total
value of all goods produced by sawmills, veneer and plywood mills, biomass facilities, chip
facilities, and miscellaneous wood product facilities. Industrial output also includes the spending
of money for services throughout the economy. For example, non-commercial forest
restoration contractors create industrial output as they purchase equipment, supplies and
materials necessary to complete their work.
- Income – the total income effects (direct, indirect, and induced) generated by forest restoration
activities throughout regional economic sectors. Total income includes employee payroll (wages
or salary), all benefits (e.g., health, retirement, etc.), and employer-paid taxes. Total income also
includes profits for sole proprietors such as independent contractors.
- State Tax Revenue – includes state income, corporate, fuels, and harvest taxes generated
through forest restoration activities.
Watershed Restoration Inputs and Outputs
The watershed restoration data analyzed in this study did not provide an annual average level of activity,
but rather planned expenditures to restore priority subwatersheds within the study area. As such, we
do not report results from the watershed restoration modeling as total annual impacts. Alternatively, for
each economic region, we report employment, output, income, and tax revenue as defined above for
every $1 million the USFS spends on watershed restoration.
Direct effects = the direct impact of forest and watershed restoration activity within the economy.
Indirect effects = the impact of local industries buying goods and services from other local
industries to support forest and watershed activities.
Induced effects = the response by an economy that occurs through re-spending of income
generated through forest and watershed restoration activity. This money is recirculated through
household spending patterns causing further local economic activity.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 16
Section 2.2: Economic Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration
How much does the USFS spend on forest restoration annually?
On an average annual basis, the USFS spends about $40.8 million in forest restoration across the entire
study area.6
The agency spends most of this budget on non-commercial forest restoration through
service contracting (Table 2.2-1). The USFS spends an average of $460 per acre on timber sales, $330 per
acre on stewardship contracting, and $265 per acre on service contracting. Timber sales involve more in-
depth planning processes, sale preparation, and administration as compared to the other categories of
restoration.
On a per-acre basis, service contracting is the least expensive category for the agency to implement due
to the nature of planning for and administering service contracts. For instance, a thinning or lop and
scatter contract will not involve the level of preparation and administration needed to implement a
timber sale or stewardship contract.
The costs associated with timber sales and stewardship projects are based on estimated NEPA planning
costs, sale/contract preparation, and administrative costs only. Treatments associated with timber sales
and stewardship projects were not assigned implementation costs because implementation is
completed by the contractor through the value of commercial products removed from the sale area.
The costs associated with service contracts are based on implementation cost estimates for all
restoration treatments within the study area. We accounted for the cost of conducting multiple
treatments within a single treatment unit, including contract administration and treatment
implementation costs. We did not include any NEPA planning or sale preparation costs in this category.
Table 2.2-1: USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) forest restoration costs ($)
Commercial Non-Commercial TOTAL
(129,000 acres) Economic Regions Timber Sales Stewardship Contracts Service Contracts
(30,000 acres) (10,000 acres) (89,000 acres)
Northeast 1,867,000 1,030,000 3,790,000 6,687,000
Southeast 2,431,000 420,000 2,320,000 5,171,000
Interior Central 3,734,000 320,000 6,420,000 10,474,000
Interior South 5,959,000 1,453,000 11,040,000 18,452,000
Eastern Oregon $ 13,991,000 $ 3,223,000 $ 23,570,000 $ 40,784,000
Source: USFS TIM and FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012.
Please see Appendix V for a detailed summary of these costs.
6 This average annual cost of forest restoration includes NEPA planning, sale/contract preparation,
implementation, and administrative costs only. We did not include litigation costs or factor in timber sale revenue.
In addition, these cost estimates may be less than other estimates because we only include planning and
preparation at the forest level and not at the regional level. With any NEPA process, there is work completed at
the Regional Office that we did not include.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 17
What are the average annual economic impacts of the USFS forest restoration activities?
Total Jobs
Across the entire study area, the USFS’s forest restoration program has an employment impact of
2,310 jobs created or retained throughout the economy.
Total Output
In all, the USFS’s forest restoration activities produce about $232 million in total industrial output,
64 percent of which is generated through timber sale contracts. Commercial forest restoration has
secondary impacts from processing logs that are harvested and this supports industrial output in the
existing primary wood product industries such as sawmills. Restoration activities that produce a
significant volume of timber will result in higher levels of industrial output because of the secondary
impact on the wood products industry.
Those economic regions with a strong wood products sector will capture output value from those areas
that do not. For instance, the Interior South Economic Region has a several large sawmills and veneer
mills that are capturing a significant amount of timber from the Interior Central and Southeast Economic
Regions. Those economic regions are exporting the output value to the Interior South because of
limited wood product infrastructure – the Interior South generates about 58 percent of the total
industrial output in the study area, which explains why this economic region has higher total jobs.
Non-commercial forest restoration activities produce about $40.9 million of total industrial output in
eastern Oregon. This output is generated when contractors purchase equipment, supplies and materials.
Total Income
Across the study area, forest restoration on national forestland creates approximately $90.5 million of
total annual income. The average wage (annualized) for these jobs is approximately $40,000.
Restoration associated with timber sale contracts creates 58 percent ($52.3 million) of the total income
and provides for the highest paying jobs compared to the other types of restoration with an average
annualized wage of $43,000. In addition, there is a significant amount of proprietor’s income generated
by independent contractors such as loggers and truck drivers that is associated with timber sales.
Stewardship and service contracts create a similar amount of income totaling approximately
$38.1 million with an average annualized wage of $35,000. This labor intensive restoration often
involves lower wage scale projects and does not provide comparable income and impacts compared to
equipment intensive restoration through timber sales. In general, these projects involve treating a large
area that results in minimal commercial product volume.
Total State Tax Revenue
Commercial and non-commercial forest restoration generates approximately $3.6 million in annual state
tax revenue from income, corporate, fuels, and harvest taxes. Timber sales generate
62 percent ($2.2 million) of the total state revenue associated with forest restoration due to the higher
income jobs they support, the proprietors’ income they generate, and transportation activities that
generates fuels tax. Stewardship contracting generates less in state tax revenue from fuel and harvest
tax because the volume of timber harvested on these projects is generally less.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 18
Table 2.2-2 shows the average annual economic impact of the current forest restoration program on
Oregon’s eastside National Forests. These impacts represent each regional economy as well as the
eastern Oregon study area.
Table 2.2-2: USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) economic impacts from forest restoration activities
Commercial Non-Commercial
Service Contracts Economic Impact Timber Sales Stewardship Contracts TOTAL
Jobs (#)*
Northeast 167 117 113 397
Southeast 215 50 63 329
Interior Central 129 28 162 319
Interior South 717 236 313 1,265
Eastern Oregon 1,228 431 651 2,310
Output ($)*
Northeast 21,139,000 9,390,000 6,369,000 36,898,000
Southeast 27,382,000 4,075,000 3,729,000 35,186,000
Interior Central 12,400,000 2,079,000 10,627,000 25,106,000
Interior South 86,659,000 27,480,000 20,183,000 134,322,000
Eastern Oregon 147,580,000 43,024,000 40,908,000 231,512,000
Income ($)*
Northeast 8,051,000 4,595,000 3,456,000 16,102,000
Southeast 10,271,000 1,807,000 1,941,000 14,019,000
Interior Central 5,902,000 1,065,000 5,908,000 12,875,000
Interior South 28,129,000 8,983,000 10,409,000 47,521,000
Eastern Oregon 52,353,000 16,450,000 21,714,000 90,517,000
Tax Revenue ($)
Northeast 415,000 225,000 138,000 778,000
Southeast 360,000 95,000 63,000 518,000
Interior Central 619,000 75,000 431,000 1,125,000
Interior South 843,000 227,000 121,000 1,191,000
Eastern Oregon 2,237,000 622,000 753,000 3,612,000
Source: Input/Output Models (Forest Econ Inc, 2012)
*Job, Output, and Income impacts include direct, indirect, and induced effects.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 19
This study does not report the amount of economic ‘leakage’ resulting from trade and labor movement
beyond the boundaries of the study area into the rest of the state or into domestic and foreign export
markets. Leakage creates broader economic impacts than reported in this report and if taken into
consideration, we estimate that there could be a 5-10 percent increase in the total economic impacts of
forest restoration.
How much commercial product comes from the USFS’s annual forest restoration program?
The USFS’s commercial forest restoration activities produce an average 141 million board feet (MMBF)
of sawlogs and 225,000 green tons (GT) of non-sawlogs and biomass annually (Table 2.2-3).
Eighty-three percent of the total sawlog volume is produced through timber sales. Stewardship
contracts produce the remaining 17 percent. The Interior South and Interior Central Economic Regions
produce 70 percent of the total sawlog volume - 47 percent and 23 percent, respectfully.
Sixty percent of the total non-sawlog/biomass production occurs through timber sales while the
remaining percentage is attributed to stewardship contracts. Each economic region, except for the
northeast, produces between 10,000 and 14,000 GT of non-sawlog/biomass annually. The Northeast
Economic Region, on average, produces about 51,000 GT annually or 57 percent of the total production
through stewardship contracts.
Table 2.2-3: USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) commercial production volume
Commercial TOTAL Product Timber Sales Stewardship Contracts
Sawlog (MBF)
Northeast 15,000 3,000 18,000
Southeast 20,000 5,000 25,000
Interior Central 30,000 2,000 32,000
Interior South 52,000 14,000 66,000
Eastern Oregon 117,000 24,000 141,000
Non-sawlog/Biomass (GT)
Northeast 22,000 51,000 73,000
Southeast 24,000 14,000 38,000
Interior Central 44,000 13,000 57,000
Interior South 47,000 10,000 57,000
Eastern Oregon 137,000 88,000 225,000
Source: USFS TIM database, 2012.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 20
What economic benefits result from the USFS spending $1 million on watershed restoration?
Watershed restoration activity results in economic impacts across eastern Oregon. Each economic
region differs slightly from one another as show in Table 2.2-4, below.
Across the entire study area, $1 million spent on watershed restoration within eastern Oregon National
Forests creates approximately 15 total jobs that generate about $502,000 in total income, $1.1 million in
total industrial output, and $25,000 in state tax revenue.
Table 2.2-4: Economic impact of the USFS spending $1 million on watershed restoration 7
Summary
in each
economic region
Northeast Southeast Interior Central Interior South
Jobs (#) 17 24 7 20
Output ($1,000) $1,500 $ 1,400 $ 470 $ 1,600
Income ($1,000) $ 678 $ 615 $261 $644
State Tax Revenue ($1,000) $ 34 $18 $ 39 $9
Source: Input/Output Models (Forest Econ Inc, 2012)
7 Rows are not additive. Input/Output is based on linear modeling such that the impacts from the first million
dollars can be reported with high confidence, but it would not be appropriate for the reader to assume that the
second or third million spent on watershed restoration would yield similar economic impacts due to diminishing
marginal returns.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 21
Chapter 3: Costs and Benefits of Increased Forest Restoration
A discussion of restoration principles for ponderosa pine forests during workshop with staff from the
Fremont-Winema National Forest.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 22
Section 3.1: What does it mean to ‘scale up’ the pace of forest health
restoration?
For the purposes of this study, ‘scaling up’ the pace of forest health restoration is defined as an increase
in the number of acres treated annually to benefit and restore forest ecosystem health on Oregon’s dry-
side national forestlands over the next 20 years.
Across the entire study area, the USFS’s average annual (2007-2011) forest restoration footprint is about
129,000 acres (Table 3.1-1).8 The forest restoration footprint refers to the average number of unique
acres that receive some form of restoration treatment per year. Once a treatment occurs on a particular
acre, any other subsequent treatment on that particular acre is not included in the footprint
calculation.9
The forest restoration footprint can be separated into two categories (Figure 3.1-1):
• Commercial Forest Restoration Footprint (31 percent of total restoration footprint)
The average annual commercial restoration footprint in eastern Oregon is about 40,000 acres
(timber sales and stewardship contracts combined). These acres are treated through traditional
timber sales and stewardship contracts receiving some form of commercial activity resulting in a
commercial product component (sawlogs, poles, biomass and fuel wood).
In addition, these acres are also often treated through various activities such as pre-commercial
thinning, piling and burning of fuels, and prescribed fire to realize the full restoration objectives
for those acres.
• Non-commercial Forest Restoration Footprint (69 percent of total restoration footprint)
The average annual non-commercial restoration footprint in eastern Oregon is about
89,000 acres. These acres are treated through service contracts that do not result in a
commercial product.
These acres receive a suite of restoration treatments such as pre-commercial thinning, piling
and burning of fuels, prescribed fire, et cetera – occurring in one year or over multiple years.
We stress the distinction between total restoration accomplishments and the restoration footprint
because we are interested in tracking unique treatment acres as opposed to tracking each activity within
a particular treatment unit. Focusing on footprint acres allows us to gauge the relative impact of the
agency’s restoration activities across the eastern Oregon landscape.
8 Footprint acres were calculated from the USFS TIM and FACTS databases as described in the Methodology
Section.
9 We recognize that a complete restoration program involves treating an individual acre multiple times, but for the
purposes of this analysis, we focus on the footprint acre to avoid double counting treatment acres.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 23
Table 3.1-1: USFS average annual (2007-2011) restoration footprint acres
Commercial Non-Commercial
Service Contracts Economic Regions Timber Sales Stewardship Contracts TOTAL
Northeast 5,152 2,730 24,653 32,535
Southeast 6,464 1,867 13,688 22,019
Interior Central 10,613 1,477 25,262 37,352
Interior South 8,016 3,731 25,122 36,869
Eastern Oregon 30,245 9,805 88,725 128,775
Source: USFS TIM and FACTS database, 2012
For the purpose of this study, we assume that ‘scaling up’ would involve doubling the total footprint
acres treated annually across the landscape.
There could be many other assumptions about how the mix of projects (commercial to non-commercial
ratio) would occur across the eastern Oregon landscape, but we assume that the current level of activity
reflects an acceptable mix defined by resource conditions, budget allocations, social agreement,
processing infrastructure and the economies specific to each region.
In coordination with commercial and non-commercial forest restoration treatments, the USFS conducts
watershed restoration work to improve aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat and ecosystem function.
This is an essential component of forest restoration. These restoration activities include fish passage
improvement, road drainage, road decommissioning, riparian restoration, and stream channel
improvements. We do not define a total annual watershed restoration footprint due to the nature of the
work – these treatments do not lend themselves to description by a single metric, such as acres treated.
The USFS also accomplishes certain forest and watershed restoration activities in-house through Force
Account Crews as well as coordinated agreements with outside labor crews (e.g., youth corps, job corps,
and prison crews). This study only includes restoration work being conducted through private sector
interaction.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 24
Figure 3.1-1: Diagram of eastern Oregon USFS forest health restoration activity
Note:
Timber sales = USFS contract forms: 6/6T, 4T/4P, and 3T/3S
Stewardship Projects = USFS contract forms: 13/13T (Integrated Resource Timber Contracts), 33/33T, 1449/1449T
(Integrated Resource Service Contracts), and 21/21T (Stewardship Agreements)
Service Contracts = contracts for on the ground services requiring extensive hand labor including, but not limited
to tree thinning, tree pruning, and other forest related services.
Watershed Restoration = contracts for watershed restoration work such as fish passage improvement, road
drainage, decommissioning, and stream channel improvement.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 25
Section 3.2: What will help to increase the scale and pace of forest health
restoration?
Through interviews with stakeholders involved in forest restoration in eastern Oregon, we have
identified three barriers that will need to be addressed before eastern Oregon National Forests are able
to double the current pace of restoration: (1) capacity for social agreement, (2) USFS capacity for
planning, and (3) market development, especially for forest restoration byproducts:
1. Capacity for social agreement
In recent years, collaboration has emerged as an effective way to rebuild trust and foster local
agreements among stakeholders about how to sustainably manage public forests. Though not new, the
collaborative model has experienced increasing success in Oregon and to date has been fairly successful
in developing forest restoration projects with social and community support.
Currently, there are at least eight community-based collaboratives operating in eastern Oregon
focused on improving the health of the forested landscapes and local communities by collaborating
with the USFS to broaden stakeholder participation and increase the level of agreement on how to
address forest health issues (Oregon Solutions 2012).10
Effective collaboration and implementation of landscape-scale restoration depends on strong local
organizations to shepherd the collaborative agreement through implementation and larger landscape
planning efforts. To be effective, local collaborative groups must have organizational and collaborative
capacity.
The USFS is committed to increasing the pace of landscape-scale forest restoration on national forests
and is emphasizing collaboration as a necessary means to move beyond the legacy of conflict, and
towards a program of work designed to restore the health and integrity of national forestlands.
Across the entire USFS national forestland system, the agency is committed to increasing the number of
acres being mechanically treated annually by 20 percent (USDA Forest Service 2012b).
In eastern Oregon, the USFS will invest about $7.1 million through the Collaborative Forest Landscape
Restoration Program (CFLRP) during 2012. About $2.5 million will go to the Southern Blues Restoration
Coalition Project 11 and another $3.5 million will be directed to the Lakeview Stewardship Project 12. The
Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project 13
was awarded $500,000 in 2010, $750,000 in 2011 and in 2012,
the project was awarded $1.1 million giving Oregon three funded projects on eastside National Forests.
10 See Davis et al. 2012 for further information on forest collaboratives.
11 Includes Blue Mountain Forest Partners and Harney County Restoration Collaborative
12 Coordinated by Lake County Resources Initiative
13 Coordinated by Central Oregon Partnerships for Wildfire Risk Reduction
The following forest collaboratives are currently established in eastern Oregon:
• Blue Mountain Forest Partners
• Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project
• Harney County Restoration Collaborative
• Lakeview Stewardship Group
• Ochoco Forest Restoration Collaborative
• Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative
• Umatilla Forest Collaborative
• Wallowa-Whitman Forest Collaborative
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 26
An increase in the pace of forest health restoration will challenge the ability of these collaborative
groups to keep pace with and gain broad public consensus on the management of more forest area.
In some instances, increased funding could enhance the capacity for collaboratives to maintain their
effectiveness. However, current restoration activities are occurring in areas that have public support for
one reason or another and once completed, fostering support for restoration will likely require
additional investment at the local level to achieve social agreement. For instance, areas in need of
restoration may be located on steeper slopes, in roadless areas or in areas where scientific justification
for restoration is less clear. It is in these areas that gaining social agreement will challenge the capacity
of collaborative groups to be successful.
Forest collaborative groups in eastern Oregon are primarily organized by volunteers and part-time
employees that utilize limited resources to further their missions. Some of these organizations are
reportedly experiencing burn out among their members and losing capacity due to natural
organizational turn-over. An increased work load and commitment would accompany an increased pace
of restoration, which may also be a challenge for some of these collaborative groups to overcome.
2. USFS Management Costs
The USFS spends significant resources on planning and implementing forest restoration projects. Much
of the cost can be attributed to NEPA planning and analyses while sale and contract preparation
represent additional costs. These costs are a barrier to increasing the pace of restoration because, in
most cases, the USFS has reached its capacity to keep pace with ongoing planning efforts. If restoration
activity were to increase, there could be a significant lag time from project planning to implementation.
There are instances in eastern Oregon where collaborative groups are out pacing the USFS’s capacity to
move projects through the planning process. Some forests are receiving an infusion of implementation
funding through the CFLRP, but do not receive corresponding funding for the planning necessary for
implementation; there is a budget imbalance.
Congress established the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program with Title IV of the
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The purpose of the CFLRP is to encourage the
collaborative, science-based ecosystem restoration of priority forest landscapes (USDA Forest
Service 2012c).
The CFLRP provides a means to achieve the following goals:
• encourage ecological, economic, and social sustainability;
• leverage local resources with national and private resources;
• facilitate the reduction of wildfire management costs, including through re-establishing
natural fire regimes and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire;
• demonstrate the degree to which various ecological restoration techniques achieve
ecological and watershed health objectives; and,
• encourage utilization of forest restoration byproducts to offset treatment costs, to benefit
local rural economies, to and improve forest health.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 27
Increasing the pace of restoration in eastern Oregon would depend on the USFS’s ability to satisfy the
NEPA planning requirements in a more cost effective manner – this can only be accomplished by
increasing the agency’s capacity to match the expected increase in restoration activities. This study
estimates the USFS total annual forest restoration costs, which helps to determine what it would cost to
‘scale up’ forest restoration.
3. Market Development
Markets help drive on-the-ground implementation of forest health restoration because byproducts of
treatments have economic value; more acres can be treated with less expenditure making a dollar of
budget go further. Forest restoration treatments without byproduct recovery are expensive and will be
limited by available funding.
Without a healthy market place to utilize forest restoration byproducts, restoration treatments cannot
be sustained and supported across the landscape. Byproducts removed during restoration-based
thinning operations must generate revenue and in order for this to occur, private industry must be able
to convert non-sawlogs and woody biomass to economically viable products. The revenue generated
from the merchantable value of this material helps to offset the treatment implementation costs.
In healthy market conditions, existing infrastructure in eastern Oregon has the capacity to utilize a
higher volume of sawlogs. Investment is this existing infrastructure in necessary to retain capacity while
investment in emerging markets, particularly for non-sawlogs and woody biomass material, must be a
consideration in order to increase the current pace of restoration.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 28
Section 3.3: Impacts of Increased Forest Health Restoration
How much national forestland (available for management) is currently being treated annually?
The current forest restoration footprint, across the entire study area, is impacting approximately
1.4 percent of USFS forestland that is not reserved from active forest management activities. In order to
treat all the available acres at least one time during a 20 year time period, the USFS will need to reach
an annual pace of 5 percent. The only economic region currently exceeding 2.5 percent is the Interior
Central, which on average, accomplishes 2.6 percent of the region’s available forestland each year
(Table 3.3-1).
An accelerated forest restoration program with a goal of doubling the annual number of acres treated
would increase the pace to 2.8 percent for the entire study area. At that rate, the USFS would treat
about 258,000 acres per year – still 202,000 acres less than what is needed to achieve a 5 percent
accomplishment rate of 460,000 acres a year.
Table 3.3-1: USFS forestland by economic region and impact of current restoration footprint
Economic Region All USFS Acres USFS – Available
Acres
Current Annual
Pace (%)
Current Annual
Pace x 2 (%)
Northeast 2,646,000 1,878,000 1.7 3.4
Southeast 2,905,000 2,556,000 .86 1.7
Interior Central 2,016,000 1,452,000 2.6 5.2
Interior South 3,801,000 3,307,000 1.1 2.2
Eastern Oregon 11,368,000 9,193,000 1.4 2.8
Source: INR, 2012
What are the costs and economic impacts of doubling the current pace of restoration?
The costs and benefits of doubling the current pace of restoration are influenced by multiple factors
ranging from current policies and budget constraints to forest specific objectives and goals.
Assuming that the USFS continued with the same mix or proportion of commercial (timber sales and
stewardship contracts) and non-commercial forest restoration (service contracts) accomplishments, the
cost of doubling the annual pace of forest restoration would increase from $41 to $82 million –
assuming a linear relationship exists between the number of acres being treated and the associated
costs.
By also assuming a linear relationship between the number of restoration acres and commercial
production, doubling the current pace proportionate to the current distribution of commercial and non-
commercial forest restoration would then double the volume of commercial production to 282 MBF of
sawlogs and 450,000 GT of non-sawlog/biomass material annually.
Doubling the pace of restoration will allow businesses to invest, restoration contractors to hire more
workers and help to maintain a vital infrastructure and workforce over a period of time. The total impact
of increasing restoration activity on employment depends on existing use of capacity for restoration
work. To the extent that workers are not currently full-time and other equipment is not being fully
utilized, we will not see both workers and equipment double with the doubling of the pace of
restoration. What can be said is that the doubling of restoration will undoubtedly save existing jobs and
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 29
increase working hours. While the total may not add to a doubling of workers and equipment, it will
certainly move the numbers in that direction.
Most mills in the region currently operate one shift (8 hours per shift), but those mills generally need to
operate at least at 60 percent capacity - requiring two 8-hour shifts - in order to be profitable. These
mills have a total processing capacity of about 830 MMBF annually, but are currently operating at only
30 to 40 percent of that capacity (250 – 330 MMBF). An increase in timber volume resulting from more
commercial forest restoration will help contribute towards maintaining the current level of operation.
If sustained over a period of time it could help fill total capacity resulting in an additional shift that will
create more jobs and total income. Keeping mills operational is a key consideration in realizing the full
benefits of forest restoration.
Industrial output will also increase alongside commercial production expansion because more product
sales will occur. State tax revenue is strongly linked to commercial production (income, corporate, fuels,
and harvest tax), therefore, the total revenue generated from more forest restoration will also likely
increase.
An additional 225,000 GT of non-sawlog/biomass material produced annually is more problematic.
Currently, there is limited demand for green woody biomass and there is no indication that markets will
improve in the near future. The only stand-alone bioenergy facility in the region is Biomass One in White
City which, at full capacity, can consume about 300,000 bone dry tons (BDT) annually. Biomass One
could capture a percentage of this material, a portion would enter the pulp chip market, and then there
may be some remaining material that does not pay its way out of the woods. A program designed to
produce more biomass should therefore include a program to develop more capacity for using more
biomass.
At times, the Northeast Economic Region responds to chip demand driven by the pulp market. In good
markets, the region is able to capture material from the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla, and the Malheur
National Forests. This material is, however, exported out of the region through Columbia River ports.
If the USFS chose to adjust the proportion of acres being treated by each of the forest restoration
categories, different economic impacts would result.
For instance, if the total forest restoration footprint was doubled with an even distribution of acres
being treated by commercial and non-commercial activities, the USFS costs would increase by 11
percent from $82 million to $91 million. However, that additional cost would result in an increase in
commercial product (more commercial forest restoration acres being treated) which would have greater
secondary effects on the wood processing infrastructure likely generating more jobs, income, and state
tax revenue.
On the other hand, if the majority of those additional acres were treated by non-commercial forest
restoration and commercial forest restoration was decreased, the cost of doubling acres treated would
fall by 9 percent from $82 million to $75 million. In this scenario, the USFS would decrease its total
forest restoration cost, but there would likely be a decrease in the volume of commercial products (less
commercial forest restoration acres being treated) which would then reduce the secondary effects on
wood processing infrastructure leading to a decrease in industrial output, jobs, income, and state tax
revenue.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 30
What costs are avoided with forest restoration?
Accounting for all avoided costs associated with forest and watershed restoration is a complex task that
is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, we can discuss where some savings could be realized if a
program of increased forest health restoration was implemented across the eastern Oregon landscape.
If successfully implemented, forest health restoration activities have the potential to return forested
ecosystems to more normalized levels of resilience to fire, insects, and diseases and other disturbances.
In the case of fire, a forest that is more resilient to fire is less likely to experience high intensity, large-
scale crown fires that trigger massive emergency responses, which are extremely costly.
Predicting when a future fire might occur on a particular acre is speculative, but because present fuel
loads are well outside of historic levels on many acres, fire ecologists believe that the unknown is not
whether these forests burn but when (Mason et al. 2006). Based on the assumption that an acre treated
would otherwise burn, we can estimate potential avoided fires suppression costs.
The federal government spends a significant amount of money each year on fire suppression. From 2007
to 2011, large fires annually burned an average of 56,000 acres of national forestland in eastern Oregon,
which cost $43.6 million, on average (Table 3.3-2). Based on these five-year averages, the USFS spends
an estimated $780 per acre on expenses related to fire suppression each year. These costs include the
cost to suppress and contain the fire as well as any rehabilitation of fire suppression activities.
At current levels, the USFS’s spends $40.8 million dollars each year to treat 129,000 acres. Based on the
average fire suppression cost of $780 per acre, the USFS would incur approximately $100 million in fire
suppression costs each year if 129,000 acres were left untreated and burned by wildfire. The difference
between the cost of implementing restoration and incurring fire suppression costs represents a
potential $59.2 million annual savings for the USFS. In other words, for every $1 the USFS spends on
forest restoration, the agency avoids a potential loss of $1.45. This actual avoided cost could be higher
because untreated acres are likely to be protected from crown fires by nearby acres that are treated,
further reducing the potential for fire suppression expenditures.
Table 3.3-2: Acres and costs of eastern Oregon large fires (> 100 acres), 2007-2011.
Year Total Acres Burned Total Cost Cost/Acre
2007 171,934 $ 61,137,556 $ 356
2008 35,552 $ 66,708,776 $ 1,876
2009 19,621 $ 17,843,480 $ 909
2010 22,020 $ 39,819,798 $1,808
2011 30,473 $32,505,420 $ 1,067
Total 279,600 $ 218,015,030 $ 780
5-year average 55,920 $ 43,603,006 $780
Source: USFS, 2012a
In addition to fire suppression costs, forest restoration would contribute to significant cost savings
associated with avoiding facility losses, the loss of wildlife habitat, and timber value. Furthermore, post-
fire reforestation is a necessary investment that is usually needed to avoid soil erosion, sedimentation,
and water contamination (Mason et al. 2006).
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 31
Increased forest and watershed restoration will also have positive employment, income, and state tax
revenue impacts in the rural communities of eastern Oregon. If more of the labor force is employed,
increased levels of state tax revenue will be generated that will help fund current social service
programs. As more people become employed and earn more income, communities are likely to see a
decreased reliance on social services such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – once known as the food stamp program. TANF
provides cash assistance to low-income families for living expenses while the SNAP program provides
cash assistance to low-income families to help purchase food.
Since 2006, total expenditures for TANF and SNAP have increased an average of 22 percent per year. In
2011, for instance, social service costs for the two programs totaled $298 million: $42 million for TANF,
and $256 million for SNAP (Figure 3.3-1). During that year, TANF helped about 7,400 one- and two-
parent families, providing about $465 per month in cash assistance while SNAP provided 77,000
households an estimated $278 per month.
Figure 3.3-1: TANF and SNAP expenditures by fiscal year (FY) in eastern Oregon, 2005-2011
Source: Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS), 2012
DHS Districts 8-14
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 32
Unemployment and poverty rates are important measures of economic well-being that would also be
influenced by a long-term program of forest health restoration. The unemployment rate shows the
percent of an area’s labor force that is not working but actively seeking employment. The poverty rate
shows the percent of people in an area living below the poverty threshold.
As of September 2012, the average county unemployment rate is 10.8 percent within the study area,
with ranges from 7.2 (Wheeler County) to 13.8 percent (Crook County). On a regional basis, the
Southeast Economic Region has the highest unemployment rate at 12.8 percent followed by the Interior
South’s unemployment rate of 11.7 percent. The Northeast Economic Region has the lowest
unemployment rate at 8.8 percent (Table 3.3-3).
The average poverty rate in 2010 for counties within the study area was 19.1 percent ranging from 15.5
percent (Umatilla County) to 39.5 percent (Malheur County). The Interior Central Economic Region had
the highest poverty rate at 18.6 percent while the Northeast Economic Region had the lowest at 17.2
percent.14
Based on our assessment, forest restoration on USFS forestland in eastern Oregon employs a total of
2,310 people each year. If restoration activities were increased to a point where 2,310 new jobs were
created, the region’s unemployment rate would be reduced by 0.6 percent (10.8 to 10.1 percent). This
reduction is relative to a baseline that assumes labor force and job growth proportionate to the region’s
population growth.
Table 3.3-3: Unemployment rates (September 2012) and poverty rates (2010) within study area
County Unemployment Rate (%)* Poverty Rate (%)
Baker County 9.9 20.0
Crook County 13.8 17.4
Deschutes County 11.4 14.8
Grant County 13.6 16.5
Harney County 12.6 19.1
Jackson County 10.8 15.7
Jefferson County 12.2 21.1
Klamath County 11.5 17.4
Lake County 12.9 20.4
Malheur County 9.9 39.5
Morrow County 8.9 16.7
Umatilla County 8.3 15.5
Union County 9.0 16.7
Wallowa County 10.2 16.6
Wheeler County 7.2 19.8
Average 10.8 19.1
Source: Oregon Labor Market Information System, 2012; U.S. Census Bureau Small Income and Poverty Estimates,
2012 (only 2010 data available)
*Seasonally adjusted rate
14 Based on U.S. Census income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in
poverty. Poverty rate includes all ages.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 33
Increased forest and watershed restoration will generate additional employment opportunities, which
also increases the amount of payroll eligible for state and federal unemployment insurance tax. In 2010,
Oregon Department of Employment distributed approximately $470 million in unemployment benefits
through its Unemployment Insurance Program (Table 3.3-4) to individuals in the study area. These
benefits were generated by an estimated 29,000 claims through state and federal payroll taxes to
provide unemployed individuals in the study area assistance while actively seeking to become
employed.
Table 3.3-4: Total unemployment benefits and number claims in eastern Oregon, 2010
County Annual Benefits* Number of Claims
Baker County $6,248,585 450
Crook County $23,014,056 1,226
Deschutes County $162,027,228 9,506
Grant County $4,661,743 288
Harney County $6,178,635 358
Jackson County $142,682,595 9,270
Jefferson County $14,737,455 836
Klamath County $44,103,975 2,865
Lake County $3,676,512 258
Malheur County $8,768,854 653
Morrow County $3,960,819 270
Umatilla County $30,389,119 2,131
Union County $15,252,404 818
Wallowa County $4,197,930 290
Wheeler County $438,646 38
Total $470,338,556 29,257
Source: State of Oregon Employment Department – Financial Services, 2012
*Includes payment for all types and claims in Oregon.
In areas of eastern Oregon, forest health restoration is also benefiting communities through an increase
in property tax base. For example, restoration within the WUI is enabling the construction of high value
homes for families wanting to live near the forest. This construction is adding to the local property tax
base. One could also argue that restoration beyond the WUI is also contributing to increased property
values because treatments are enhancing and protecting the recreational amenities that attract
tourism-related business and new residents to the area.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 34
What are the non-market benefits of forest health restoration?
National Forests on Oregon’s eastside provide clean air, clean water, habitat for a variety of wildlife
species, recreational opportunities, and other ecosystem services that are threatened by degraded
forest health. A program to increase the pace of restoration presents an opportunity to improve the
overall condition of this forested landscape and retain these invaluable services.
Forest health restoration will help protect, restore, and manage a full suite of sustainable non-timber
resources and services (Table 3.3-5). These services can be categorized to highlight the values they
provide to both people and ecosystem function: (1) supporting services; (2) provisioning services; (3)
regulating services; and (4) cultural services (Deal et al. 2012).
Table 3.3-5: Categories of ecosystem services
Ecosystem Services
Supporting Services
Nutrient cycling
Soil productivity
Primary production
Provisioning Services
Food
Fiber
Genetic resources
Clean water
Regulating Services
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation
(carbon sequestration)
Water regulation
Erosion regulation
Water purification
Disease regulation
Pest regulation
Pollination
Natural hazard
regulation
Cultural Services
Aesthetic values
Spiritual and religious
values
Recreation and tourism
Source: Adapted from Deal et al., 2012
The total economic value of ecosystem services flowing from eastern Oregon’s national forestlands is
unknown. There is an increasing interest in developing quantitative methods to calculate these values,
but such analysis falls outside the scope of this study. We do, however, qualitatively highlight some of
the more significant services to provide an understanding of their importance and connection to forest
health restoration impacts.
Clean water
One of the most important ecosystem services from forests is a plentiful supply of clean water. In the
Pacific Northwest, 38 percent of the total surface water runoff originates on national forestlands (USDA
Forest Service 2000). Healthy forested watersheds reduce storm runoff, stabilize streambanks, shade
surface water, cycle nutrients, and filter pollutants (USDA Forest Service 2010). In addition, National
Forests house a number of municipal watersheds that provide clean water for domestic and industrial
uses. Reducing the risk of high intensity wildfires through forest health restoration will help minimize
sedimentation impacts by reducing soil erosion that can occur after a large, high intensity fire. There is
also evidence that tree stress and mortality caused by fire, insects, and diseases may affect the depth
and length of the winter snow pack which, in turn, reduces the duration and quantity of surface water
during spring runoff.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 35
A large supply of high-quality clean water from a healthy forested landscape is necessary to sustain
human and ecological needs. Clean water is also essential to the economic well-being of our state as the
cost of providing alternative sources of filtered water could be prohibitive.
Recreation
Recreation activities on eastern Oregon national forestlands have a significant economic impact on local
and state economies. In 2009, recreational activities such as freshwater fishing and hunting in eastern
Oregon produced $153 million in travel-related expenditures and $37.1 million in local recreational
expenditures (Dean Runyan 2009) (Table 3.3-6).
Table 3.3-6: Expenditures for freshwater fishing and hunting in eastern Oregon, 2009
Activity Travel-Generated Expenditures*
($Million)
Local Recreation Expenditures**
($Million)
Overnight Day Total Total
Freshwater Fishing 63.2 28.1 91.3 24.7
Hunting 51.5 10.6 62.1 12.4
Total 114.7 37.8 153.4 37.1
Source: Dean Runyan, 2009
*Travel-generated expenditures associated with overnight and day trips 50+ miles (one-way)
** Local recreation expenditures associated with trips under 50 miles.
In addition to these activities, other forms of recreation that are difficult to quantify have positive
economic benefits locally and across the state. People visit National Forests to camp, backpack,
mountain bike, operate recreational vehicles, and much more. All these activities hinge on the
conservation and enhancement of user-friendly and aesthetically pleasing forested areas. As well,
recreational users rely on conveniences such as gas stations, markets, motels, restaurants, etc., that
likely would not be able to sustain year-round activities without a firm base of economic activity
provided by forest management and restoration activities.
Air quality
The potential impacts of fire-induced degradation of air quality on public health and welfare range from
exposure of smoke on firefighters to broader economic and social impacts (USDA Forest Service 2002).
The components of smoke that are of most harm to humans are carbon monoxide and tiny particles of
solid matter called particulate matter. Particulate matter is the main pollutant of concern to the public.
Brief exposures to particulate matter may aggravate asthma and bronchitis and may sometimes cause
heartbeat irregularities and heart attacks.
Forest restoration activities have the potential to reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires, which in
turn, will help reduce the public’s long-term exposure to poor air quality resulting from wildfires. During
the summer of 2012, wildfires caused unhealthy air conditions in most of the U.S. Interior Northwest. At
times the general population was advised to stay indoors or wear masks.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 36
Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration
Forest health restoration will help forested ecosystems adapt to the effects of a changing climate.
Adaptation focuses on (1) increasing ecosystem resistance to climate-related stressors such as wildfire,
insects and disease; (2) increasing ecosystem resilience to degradation by climate-related stressors; and
(3) facilitating landscape-scale ecological transitions in response to changing conditions (Tidwell and
Brown 2011). Management actions such as restoration treatments at the landscape scale will support
ecosystems in adapting to changes in the climate and other large-scale drivers.
Working towards a healthy forested landscape through restoration activities will have a positive impact
on the forest’s ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, which helps regulate atmospheric
greenhouse gases. Treatments designed to reduce fire and promote forest resiliency will reduce the
scale of potential losses due to fires, insects and diseases that affect associated carbon emissions due to
mortality (Malmsheimer, et al. 2011).
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 37
Section 3-4: Regional Economic Impacts of Forest Restoration
The USFS’s current forest restoration program in eastern Oregon reflects the resource conditions,
budget allocations, the level of social agreement, wood processing infrastructure capacity and the
economies specific to each region. Subsequently, these factors influence the costs and benefits of
regional forest restoration programs and can be compared to further understand the economic impacts
of USFS forest restoration in eastern Oregon.
The following section provides a summary of economic impacts associated with the current level of
restoration activity in each economic region. We graph the proportion of resource activity outputs and
impacts in each region as a percent of the total. This provides a quick comparison between regions.
Specific numbers for each region can be found in Appendix V.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 38
Northeast Economic Region:
Figure 3.4-1: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Northeast Economic Region
Sources: USFS TIM and FACTS database, 2012; USFS cost survey, 2012; Input/Output Models (Forest Econ Inc,
2012)
• The Northeast Economic Region accounts for a quarter of the forest restoration activity in the
region.
• The USFS spends proportionately less in this region than the Interior Central and Interior South,
producing proportionately less commercial sawlog material. However, the region produces the
highest proportionate amount of non-sawlog/biomass material in eastern Oregon.
• The amount of non-sawlog and biomass material being produced is used by a wood products
manufacturing infrastructure that is integrated and able to respond to available markets. Currently,
there is a good market for fiber and the USFS should be able to sell all or most of the restoration
sales that it develops. There has also been a good market for non-sawlogs in this region due to low
Columbia-Snake River transportation costs. Labor intensive restoration projects that sell this
material are generally more economically feasible in this region than in other parts of eastern
Oregon. However, the market is cyclical and dependent upon remaining primary manufacturing
infrastructure.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 39
• The economic outputs related to commercial and non-commercial restoration are comparable to
the total USFS costs and fairly similar with other regions, except for the Interior South.
• The Northeast Economic Region has a fairly robust contractor capacity that captures economic
benefit from non-commercial forest restoration and watershed restoration work.
• $1 million spent on watershed restoration in the Northeast Economic Region has an economic
return of:
- 17 jobs
- $1.5 million in industrial output
- $678,000 in total income
- $34,000 in state tax revenue
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 40
Southeast Economic Region:
Figure 3.4-2: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Southeast Economic Region
Sources: USFS TIM and FACTS database, 2012; USFS cost survey, 2012; Input/Output Models (Forest Econ Inc,
2012)
• The Southeast Economic Region treats proportionately fewer footprint acres than other regions.
• The USFS restoration costs are the lowest in this region, and as a result it has the lowest commercial
production of any region – sawlog and nonsaw/biomass combined.
• Although the Southeast Economic Region has the lowest commercial production in eastern Oregon,
the region is able to realize economic benefits comparable to the Interior Central Economic Region
due to the existing Malheur Lumber Mill.
• This region has similar economic benefits as the Interior Central Economic Region, despite having
proportionately less costs and lower commercial production.
• This region lacks the infrastructure to capture the full benefits of non-commercial forest restoration
projects.
• This region lacks the infrastructure to capture watershed restoration projects. The watershed
projects examined involve primarily traditional construction such as pulling culverts, and this region
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 41
does have construction contractors available. As more complex watershed restoration projects
develop, the region will need to develop a pool of local contractors or work will go to other regions.
• $1 million spent on watershed restoration in the Southeast Economic Region has an economic
return of:
- 24 jobs
- $1.4 million in industrial output
- $615,000 in total income
- $18,000 in state tax revenue
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 42
Interior Central Economic Region:
Figure 3.4-3: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Interior Central Economic Region
Sources: USFS TIM and FACTS database, 2012; USFS cost survey, 2012; Input/Output Models (Forest Econ Inc,
2012)
• The Interior Central Economic Region has fewer available acres than other regions, but conducts
forest restoration treatments on a higher proportion of those acres.
• The USFS spends more on restoration in this region than in the Interior Central and Northeast
Economic Regions and produces about a quarter of eastern Oregon’s sawlog and non-
sawlog/biomass production.
• Although there is a large portion of commercial production occurring in the Interior Central
Economic Region, most of the economic benefits are realized in other regions because the logs must
be transported to other regions for processing. Most of the wood goes to the Interior South
Economic Region.
• The region has a well developed restoration infrastructure that provides services to this region and
surrounding areas. In the Bend-Redmond-Prineville area, there is a concentration of forest and
watershed restoration contractors.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 43
• The region captures both wage and salary and proprietor’s income from non-commercial forest and
watershed restoration.
• $1 million spent on watershed restoration in the Interior Central Economic Region has an economic
return of:
- 7 jobs
- $470,000 in industrial output
- $261,000 in total income
- $39,000 in state tax revenue
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 44
Interior South Economic Region:
Figure 3.4-4: USFS’s current level of forest restoration activity in the Interior South Economic Region
Sources: USFS TIM and FACTS database, 2012; USFS cost survey, 2012; Input/Output Models (Forest Econ Inc,
2012)
• The Interior South Economic Region conducts treatments roughly proportionate to the available
acres.
• The USFS spends the most on forest restoration activities in this region and produces the most
commercial sawlogs than other regions.
• The region produces about a quarter of eastern Oregon’s non-sawlog/biomass material.
• The level of commercial production in the Interior South Economic Region combined with products
from other economic regions provides this region with the largest economic benefits from current
levels of forest restoration.
• The region has a nucleus of restoration contractors that allow it to capture most of the jobs and
income benefits of all restoration projects.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 45
• Sawmills in this region are the principal beneficiaries of USFS eastside Oregon timber harvest. As
sawmills throughout the eastside have closed, the region’s sawmills have captured an increasing
share of USFS sawlog volume.
• Markets for biomass in this region help the region capture more of the benefits associated with
restoration byproducts.
• $1 million spent on watershed restoration in the Interior South Economic Region an economic
return of:
- 20 jobs
- $1.6 million in industrial output
- $644,000 in total income
- $9,000 in state tax revenue
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 46
[Page Intentionally Left Blank]
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 47
Chapter 4: Next Steps
Trucks roll through Ashland, Oregon, hauling commercial saw logs from a restoration thinning in the
Ashland Forest Resiliency Project to the Murphy Plywood veneer mill in White City, Oregon.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 48
Section 4.1: Next Steps
The risks involved in not addressing the forest health crisis, particularly on Oregon’s eastside National
Forests, have far-reaching implications that are already having an effect. The economic and ecological
costs will continue to rise; an investment in active forest management focused on restoration represents
a cost effective method to address the forest health concerns in eastern Oregon.
Achieving a substantial increase in forest restoration activity across the eastern Oregon landscape is a
challenging endeavor and will take time to develop. We recognize that many of our elected leaders are
undertaking laudable and ground-breaking efforts to increase the pace and scale of restoration. Instead
of addressing individual legislative proposals, we offer several steps that can be taken at the local,
regional, and state level to help advance landscape-scale forest health restoration.
1. Any effort to ‘scale up’ the pace of forest restoration on Oregon’s eastside National Forests will
have to be accompanied by a large-scale planning effort led by the USFS.
• A planning effort will help determine the level at which forest restoration could be increased
based on current social agreement, infrastructure base, available contractor workforce, and
forest specific planning decisions.
• The planning process could also address any policies that may be hindering the expansion or
effectiveness of the agency’s forest restoration goals.
2. Improving the efficiency of the USFS’ planning and implementation will reduce total management
costs creating the potential to accomplish more forest restoration. There are many ideas and
proposals for future analyses that should be pursued in order to have a meaningful impact on
USFS costs.
• Does collaboration help reduce USFS restoration costs?
Forest collaboratives in eastern Oregon report anecdotal evidence that the collaborative process
reduces the frequency of litigation and helps streamline the overall NEPA process, thus reducing
USFS planning costs.
A focused study that quantifies the costs of litigation and associated planning costs between
collaborative and non-collaborative projects is necessary to help gauge the degree to which the
collaborative process helps reduce USFS restoration costs.
• What efficiencies can the USFS target to help reduce time and costs?
The USFS is working to improve the efficiency of the NEPA process by increasing the use of
landscape-scale NEPA, proposing the use of new Categorical Exclusions for restoration activities,
and the use of an adaptive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process that would cover a
large planning area with individual projects being evaluated through focused assessments
allowing for a quicker time to decision and faster implementation rate.
These efforts have the potential to significantly reduce restoration costs and should be
supported.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 49
• What is the fiscal impact of extending Stewardship Contracting authority?
The expanded use of stewardship contracting has the potential to reduce restoration costs, and
this integrated approach should be extended through congressional approval. Current approval
expires September 30, 2013.
State level support for extending stewardship contracting authority permanently should be a
priority.
3. Forest collaboratives in eastern Oregon have a wealth of local, project-based knowledge.
• Forest collaboratives have years of project documentation and experience, which should be
analyzed in order to inform how to support their efforts in future years. The analysis should be
based on specific projects that have been implemented through the collaborative process.
• Individual case studies of collaborative effectiveness should include an economic and fiscal
impact analysis to determine the economic impact of site specific restoration.
• A fiscal analysis to describe federal government costs tied to collaboratives and forest
restoration activity would help policymakers determine the highest leverage points for taxpayer
investment.
• The studies should also assess the challenges and opportunities for collaboratives if the pace of
landscape-scale restoration were to increase – what is needed to foster social agreement as
implementation increases across the landscape?
4. Retaining eastern Oregon’s wood product manufacturing infrastructure is critical to the success of
a landscape-scale forest restoration program.
• Priority should be given to existing infrastructure that supports forest restoration work.
• Economic regions with a robust, integrated infrastructure are able to capture more value and
result in more jobs than regions with limited manufacturing capacity. There are few remaining
mills in eastern Oregon and haul distances are considerable. If mills continue to close in the
region, it will not be economical to conduct restoration work. Haul costs will be too high and
National Forest sales will no longer be attractive to bidding contractors.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 50
5. Pursuing markets and public investments to utilize forest restoration products and byproducts is
an important component of landscape-scale implementation of forest health restoration.
• An integrated wood products infrastructure in eastern Oregon is dependent upon the markets
that drive long-term product demand, but also on well designed restoration projects. Projects
should be designed with current market conditions in mind to make the removal of material
economical will benefit both the USFS and local economies.
• Oregon’s Forest Biomass Working Group 15
has identified four market development initiatives
that should be pursued and supported at the state level. They are biomass thermal (on-site heat
at commercial and institutional facilities), distributed generation (heat and electricity at existing
wood product facilities), existing markets (landscape bark, shavings, bedding, etc.), and
emerging markets (biofuels, biochar, cellulosic ethanol, etc.).
15 The Oregon Forest Biomass Working Group has proposed these initiatives through its recent document,
“Growing Oregon’s Biomass Industry: Oregon’s Forest Biomass Strategy”.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 51
Literature Cited
American Sportsfishing Association. 2006. State and National Economic Impacts of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Related Recreation on U.S. Forest Service-Managed Lands. Prepared for the Wildlife,
Fish and Rare Plants, USDA Forest Service. January 23, 2006.
Davis, Emily J., C. Moseley, C. Evers, K. MacFarland, M. Nielsen-Pincus, A. Pomeroy, M.J. Enzer. 2012.
Community-based natural resource management in Oregon: a profile of organizational capacity.
University of Oregon Ecosystem Workforce Program, Working Paper #39.
Deal, Robert L., B. Cochran and G.L. LaRocco. 2012. Bundling of Ecosystem Services to Increase
Forestland value and Enhance Sustainable Forest Management. Forest Policy and Economics
(17).
Maginnis, Stewart and W. Jackson. 2004. Restoring forest landscapes: Forest landscape restoration aims
to re-establish ecological integrity and enhance human well-being in degraded forest
landscapes.
www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/uploads/files/LiteratureAttachments/271_restoring-forest-
landscapes.pdf (last accessed September 2012).
Malmsheimer, R.W., J.L. Bowyer, J.S. Fried, E. Gee, R.L. Izlar, R.A. Miner, I.A. Munn, E. Oneil, and W.C.
Stewart. 2011. Managing Forests because Carbon Matters: Integrating Energy, Products, and
Land Management Policy. Journal of Forestry 109(7S):S7–S50.
Mason, C. Larry, R.L. Lippke, K.W. Zobrist, T.D. Bloxton Jr., K.R. Cedar, J.M. Comnick, J.B. McCarter, and
H.K. Rogers. 2006. Investments in Fuel Removals to Avoid Forest Fires Result in Substantial
Benefits. Journal of Forestry. January/February 2006.
Nielsen-Pincus, Max and C. Moseley. 2010. Economic and Employment Impacts of Forest and Watershed
Restoration in Oregon. Ecosystem Workforce Program, Working Paper #24. Institute for a
Sustainable Environment. University of Oregon.
Nielsen-Pincus, Max and C. Moseley. In press. The Economic and Employment Impacts of Forest and
Watershed Restoration. Restoration Ecology.
Oregon Department of Employment. 2012. Oregon Labor Market information System.
www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/OlmisZine?zineid=00000011 (last accessed October 2012).
Oregon Department of Forestry. 2012. Historic Fires, 1960-2011, GIS database.
http://www.oregon.gov/odf/pages/gis/gisdata.aspx (last accessed October 2012).
Oregon Solutions. 2012. Oregon Statewide Forest Collaborative Inventory, 2012. Working draft prepared
for the Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee Implementation Working Group.
Society for Ecological Restoration International. 2004. Society for Ecological Restoration International
Primer on Ecological Restoration. Version 2, October 2004.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 52
Sustainable Northwest. 2012. The Dry Forest Investment Zone.
www.sustainablenorthwest.org/programs/dfiz (last accessed October 2012)
Tidwell, Tom and H. Brown. 2011. Moving Toward a Restoration Economy. Journal of Forestry.
October/November, 2011.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water and The Forest Service. United States Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. FS-660. January 2000.
USDA Forest Service. 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Air. United States Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-42, Volume 5. December 2002.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Ecosystem Restoration: A framework for Restoring and Maintaining the
National forests and Grasslands. January 6, 2006.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Water, Climate, and Forests: Watershed Stewardship for a Changing Climate.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. PNW-GTR-812. June 2010.
USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Large Fires Data from 2007-2012. Provided by the Pacific Northwest Region,
United States Forest Service.
USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our National
Forests. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. February 2012.
USDA Forest Service. 2012c. Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program Overview.
www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLRP/overview.shtml (last accessed October 2012)
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 53
Appendices
A resilient ponderosa pine forest following restoration thinning and prescribed fire at Sycan Marsh in
Lake County, Oregon.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 54
Appendix I: Acknowledgements
In addition to the Project Steering Committee, The Federal Forestlands Advisory Committee-ad hoc
Implementation Working Group gratefully acknowledges the support, participation, counsel and expert
advice of the following people who contributed to this report:
United State Forest Service
Arnie Cole, Malheur National Forest
Sarah Crim, Pacific Northwest Regional Office
Howard Freerksen, Fremont-Winema National Forest
Shellie Jones, Pacific Northwest Regional Office
Dan Kinney, Umatilla National Forest
Tom Mafera, Deschutes National Forest
Laura Mayer, Pacific Northwest Regional Office
Elida Monroe, Pacific Northwest Regional Office
Brian Staab, Pacific Northwest Regional Office
Brian Watt, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest
Dave Zimmerman, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest
Stakeholder Input + Expert Review Participants
Darius Adams, Oregon State University
Susan Jane Brown, Western Environmental Law Center
Pete Caligiuri, The Nature Conservancy
Linc Cannon, Oregon Forest Industries Council
Phil Chang, Central Oregon Partnerships for Wildfire Risk Reduction
Nils Christofferson, Wallowa Forest Products
Mike Cloughsey, Oregon Forest Resources Institute
Chad Davis, Oregon Department of Forestry
Tom Insko, Boise Cascade
Brandon Kaetzel, Oregon Department of Forestry
George McKinley, Southern Oregon Forest Restoration Collaborative
Cassandra Moseley, University of Oregon Ecosystem Workforce Program
Margaret Peterson, USFS Region 6 Public and Private Partnerships Coordinator
Nathan Poage, Oregon Solutions/Clackamas Stewardship Partners
Curt Qual, USFS – Malheur National Forest
Patrick Shannon, Sustainable Northwest
Bruce Sorte, Oregon State University
Jim Walls, Lakeview Stewardship Group (Lake County Resources Initiative)
Paul Warner, Oregon Legislative Revenue Officer
Photo credits: Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon State Archives, Stock Photo, and Mike McMurray
– Cover Photos (clockwise from top left); Marko Bey – page 47; Craig Bienz – pages 11, 21, and 53; Garth
Fuller – page 1
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 55
Appendix II: Definition of Available Acres
The Institute for Natural Resources (INR) at Oregon State University provided the analysis to estimate
the acres of national forestland within the study area that are available for forest restoration. The
following description provides INR’s methodology.
The Ownership-Allocation and Management Layer is a GIS database created by combining the
ownership-allocation data (primarily compiled by Oregon Department of Forestry) and a management
layer (compiled by Oregon State University, Institute for Natural Resources).
Ownership-Allocation is the primary land ownership with the major management allocation for the
owner. This is derived from the public land ownership data combined with some additional data from
the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), Wilderness areas and roadless areas. This approach, used in the
Integrated Mapping and Assessment Project (IMAP) was developed by Andy Herstrom at Oregon
Department of Forestry. The primary data are outlined below used for Public Ownership and
Management:
Public Ownership
The public ownership layer is the land ownership/management for public entities - Federal, Tribal, State,
and Local. This is a seamless, statewide Oregon Public Ownership vector layer composed of fee
ownership of lands by Federal, State, Tribal, County, and City agencies. The layer is comprised of the
best available data compiled at 1:24,000 scale or better and line work matching GCDB boundary
locations and ORMAP standards where possible. This is a draft landownership theme. Corrections
should be sent to the Oregon Department of Forestry. FGDC compliant metadata was created by the
Oregon Geospatial Data Clearinghouse using source materials provided by the Oregon Department of
Forestry.
The following are the Ownership categories:
• F = USFS ownership
• B = BLM ownership
• S = General State
• O = Other Public (National Park, National Monument and other federal)
• T = Tribal
• P = Private
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 56
Management Data
Management data was compiled by Melissa Whitman from Oregon State University and feedback from
the modeling team. The process consisted of manually reviewing data from local land managers
(including data from the regional and local management plans) to determine a general management
category. Numerous data sets were all combined in this dataset include the Northwest Forest Plan
(NWFP), local management data, ownership, WUI, stewardship data (from GAP) and numerous other
sources.
The six management categories were created primarily for the VDDT modeling purposes. The initial
concept behind the codes was based on the definitions associated with Bureau of Land Management's
Four Visual Resource Classes (VRM). Two additional classes (more restrictive than VRM Code 1 and less
restrictive than VRM Code 4) were added to better represent the range of management practices.
Six categories were determined based on a review of the data which is outlined below:
• Code 1 = Protected & Preservation
• Code 3 = Retention
• Code 4 = Partial Retention
• Code 5 = Modification
• Code 6 = Modification Private
Code 1 is used to encompass areas that are legally dedicated to protection and preservation of the
characteristic of natural landscape (wilderness, congressional reserve, national parks). Additionally it
contains slightly less restrictive management and may allow for more adjustments in management
practices (regional conservation reserves/preserves, late successional reserves, wilderness study areas,
VRM Class 1).
Code 3 has more of an emphasis on retention of forested areas or native vegetation for a variety of
reasons such as the conservation of endangered species or for maintaining forested corridors along
areas of visual or biological importance (municipal watersheds, corridors for visual/riparian/biodiversity,
endangered/threatened species management, other values of importance, private conservation areas,
wildlife refuges, VRM Class 2).
Code 4 is based mainly on partial-retention with the potential for longer rotations or more experimental
management strategies (partial retention, adaptive management areas, experimental forests, other
wildlife areas, primitive recreation usage, VRM Class 3).
Code 5 is associated with major modification of the landscape and includes general forestry, developed
recreation (off road vehicle use, ski areas), mining, or grazing on public land (general forestry w/ habitat
modification, NWFP Matrix, developed recreation, VRM Class 4).
Code 6 is specific to privately owned lands which may be less restrictive than public lands may or may
not remain committed towards natural resource management over time.
Available acres in this study were determined by calculating the number of acres, within the study
area, that are under USFS ownership (F) with Management Category Codes 3, 4 and 5.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 57
Appendix III: Input/Output Modeling Assumptions
Log and Residuals Flows:
We used survey data wherever possible to specify USFS timber consumption and log flows. We
assumed that small purchasers of miscellaneous wood products (log home builders, post and pole,
timber frame and firewood) were more dependent upon National Forest timber. Industrial private
timber does not tend to be available for these sources and non-industrial private landowners log flows
have diminished greatly due to low stumpage prices.
Most of the pulp logs from the Umatilla and Wallowa National Forests were assumed to go into chips
which supply paper mills along the Columbia River. A portion of these chips also may go into the Asian
chip export market, but for modeling purposes that has no bearing on local value added: they are still
exported from the region.
During the time of our analysis, there was an unusually high volume of ton wood going into the chip
market. When chip prices go down some of these ton wood timber sales (particularly those distant from
mills) will not sell. Biomass facilities were assumed to be dependent upon local supplies of material.
Interviews indicated that biomass material rarely moved over fifty miles.
The Southeast Economic Region (Baker, Grant, Harney, and Malheur Counties) was assumed to capture
most of the flows of the Malheur National Forest and a portion of the Ochoco National Forest. The
Northeast Economic Region (Morrow, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler Counties) was assumed to
capture most of the harvest of the Wallowa-Whitman and Umatilla National Forests. The Interior
Central Economic Region (Crook, Deschutes, Jefferson Counties) currently has no large operating mills
that use National Forest timber (one small mill in Prineville is an exception to this). Most of the National
Forest timber from this region is exported to other regions of Oregon or to Longview, Washington
(chips). The Interior South Economic Region (Jackson, Klamath, and Lake Counties) was assumed to
capture most of the flows of the Fremont-Winema and Rogue National Forests.
Log exports:
It is not important to specify the destination of log exports for modeling purposes. Log exports (leakage)
are log exports regardless of destination. They leave the region’s economy and no value added or
multiplier effect from their processing is realized in the region. If statewide models were developed
they would capture this leakage and show stronger multiplier effects and fiscal recovery from these
projects. The absence of a pulp mill in eastern Oregon results in a significant loss of value added from
chips and residuals.
A significant portion of the logs from the Northeast Economic Region are exported to Idaho or
downriver along the Columbia. All log exports are treated the same and the destination is not important
for modeling purposes (they are all log exports). Log exports from the Interior South Economic Region
to the Willamette are offset by log imports from California and the Interior Central Economic Region.
The Interior Central Economic Region does not have a large sawmill that uses Forest Service timber, so
virtually all of the saw logs are exported from this region (primarily to the Interior South Economic
Region which has four mills). The Southeast Economic Region has only one mill and haul distances are
considerable to mills outside the area.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 58
Proprietors Income (Profit):
Proprietor’s income was scaled to changes in earnings. This assumes that proprietors’ income goes up
proportionately with increases in income. Effective tax rates were applied uniformly. Most wood
products firms are operating at a loss and may not be reporting profit at this time. Consequently, this
assumption may produce more revenue than actual conditions. Eastern Oregon mills have been
operating at a loss or very close to their margin for several years. As log supply and housing markets
improves, they will be much more profitable and will return more revenue.
We modeled the past five years which is a period in which mills have generally not been very profitable.
The industry is very cyclical and profits go up and down sharply with housing and other material
markets.
Wage and Salary Earnings:
Wage rates were assumed to be constant for the study period. This has been a period of very stable
wage rates—no significant increases in wage rates. Wage rates in some aspects of the industry where
there are shortages of skilled labor could go up significantly as the housing market recovers. This is
particularly true of logging contractors and skilled mill workers.
Trade leakage for Restoration and Watershed Projects:
The models assume that local contracting capacity is absorbed before outside contractors are hired. We
did not have information about in-commuting for labor intensive forest restoration and watershed
projects. Because this analysis is focused on the impact on the entire eastern Oregon economy it was
not critical if local or out-of-area contractors were hired for a project. Parts of eastern Oregon do not
have enough local contractors specializing in watershed and forest restoration. This represents a
potential local economic development opportunity. In the Southeast Economic Region, the region
where this is most apparent, the only watershed restoration project examined entailed conventional
construction (culvert removal and similar conventional construction).
The area in which contractor specialization is most apparent is in fire-scaping services for homes. These
services tend to be most concentrated in the Interior Central Economic Region and around Medford. As
we were examining only Forest Service contracting most of these services do not come into play (the
Forest Service typically uses its own crews for maintaining defensible space around their facilities). A
broader analysis that examines private spending for restoration might show more concentrated
spending for defensible space in areas where homes are more concentrated in high risk areas.
Forest Service Administrative Costs:
For watershed projects Forest Service internal administrative cost for project development,
environmental, contracting and environmental were assumed to be forty percent administrative costs.
Non-commercial watershed restoration projects are easier to develop and administer and have
administrative costs in the range of 15-20 percent.
Administrative costs for mechanical restoration and labor intensive forest restoration are both very high
(typically higher than forty percent). This is due to the extensive project planning, environmental
review, appeals and monitoring associated with these projects.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 59
Data Sources:
• Data for the I/O models was derived from IMPLAN (Minnesota IMPLAN Group), augmented with
field work performed for a previous study for the Oregon Forest Resources Institute (Oregon
Forest Resources Institute, 2012). IMPLAN data was 2010 data and it was updated in the spring
of 2012 with current data for all components of the forest industry.
• Phone interviews were conducted in the summer of 2012 to ascertain log flows and material
usage.
• USFS TIM and FACTS database information and costs surveys were used to determine
commercial product volumes and implementation costs.
• Effective tax rates for personnel income tax, corporate profits, fuels, and harvest tax were
obtained from the Oregon Department of Revenue. These tax rates were applied to wage and
salary earning generated by National Forest stewardship sales, conventional timber harvest, and
downstream impacts on sawmills plywood mills and other facilities.
• An effective tax rate of 6% was assumed for all corporate profits (proprietor’s income).
• A timber harvest tax of $3.70 per thousand board feet of harvest was applied to all stumpage
and ton wood harvested from national forestlands. This was the harvest tax for eastern Oregon
in 2011.
Changes in property taxes were not estimated. Property taxes are viewed as being somewhat
independent from National Forest timber harvest. Over the long term property values have been
affected in some areas of the state by major reductions in National Forest timber harvest. For the
period examined National Forest sales are small and fairly stable so no property tax effects were
expected. In any case the major changes in the housing market in 2006 over-shadow any expected
effects from National Forest actions.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 60
Table A-III.1: Production Functions*
Selected Industries Timber
Sales
Stewardship
Contracts
Watershed
Restoration
Accounting and bookkeeping services - 0.02900 0.00040
Advertising and related services 0.01100 0.00022 0.00017
Architectural and engineering services - - 0.00687
Banking 0.00100 0.00088 0.00441
Civic, social, professional and similar organizations - - 0.00083
Construction 0.00180 0.05000 0.00001
Construction machinery manufacturing - 0.00002 0.03031
Environmental and other technical consulting services - 0.00151 0.00022
Fabricated structural metal - - 0.00247
Food services and drinking places - 0.00100 0.00410
Forest nurseries, forest products, and timber tracts 0.00190 0.01400 -
Forestry support - 0.01000 -
Insurance - 0.02900 0.00002
Labor 0.36800 0.62300 0.36500
Legal services - 0.00033 0.00631
Machine shops - 0.00006 0.00188
Machinery and equipment rental and leasing - 0.10100 0.00907
Management consulting services 0.00100 - 0.00202
Management of companies and enterprises - - 0.03327
Plastics plumbing fixtures - - 0.00413
Ready-mix concrete - 0.00500 0.00176
Real estate - 0.00038 0.01098
Retail trade 0.17000 0.14100 0.00282
Sand, gravel, clay, and refractory mining - - 0.01800
Scientific research and development services - - 0.00169
Stone mining and quarrying - - 0.04282
Truck transportation 0.01289 0.00800 0.00100
Wholesale trade - 0.10160 0.02624
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Production functions for each economic region differ slightly from one another. This table serves as an example
of the general production function developed for this study.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 61
Appendix IV: Economic Impact: Detailed Tables
The following summary tables show the economic impact of forest and watershed restoration for each
type of restoration on major economic sectors within each economic region.
Each table displays the total output, jobs, and income (direct, indirect, and induced effects) in the entire
region (‘Total’ column) for each sector and then the economic contribution to those sectors for each
restoration category (‘Contribution’ column).
For example, Table A-IV.1 shows that the Northeast Economic Region has a total industrial output of
$5.9 billion and timber sale contracts on USFS forestland account for $21 million, or 0.36 percent, of that
total output.
Please note that the forest restoration impacts are based on the USFS’s average annual restoration
activity while the watershed restoration impacts are based on estimated expenditures over several
years.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 62
Table A-IV.1: Northeast Economic Region – Timber Sales
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 577,839 2,795 0.48% 11,186 6 0.05% 148,693 868 0.58%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 6,504 4 0.07% 80 0 0.06% 2,230 1 0.06%
Construction 168,866 233 0.14% 2,703 4 0.14% 74,225 102 0.14%
Food Processing 1,190,700 10,389 0.87% 4,543 49 1.08% 198,805 2,280 1.15%
Wood and Paper Processing 99,365 106 0.11% 496 1 0.11% 23,004 23 0.10%
Misc. Manufacturing 21,704 7 0.03% 92 0 0.03% 9,113 3 0.03%
Transportation 175,268 33 0.02% 1,037 0 0.02% 44,369 8 0.02%
Publishing & Communications 420,262 93 0.02% 3,207 1 0.03% 174,964 38 0.02%
Public Utilities 304,128 233 0.08% 373 0 0.08% 44,845 35 0.08%
Trade 65,062 39 0.06% 489 0 0.09% 15,235 12 0.08%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 463,072 1,306 0.28% 7,854 27 0.34% 204,862 605 0.30%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 235,532 197 0.08% 3,588 3 0.08% 68,450 89 0.13%
Amusement and Recreation 160,097 288 0.18% 4,498 8 0.18% 54,852 98 0.18%
Consumer Services 205,022 217 0.11% 2,417 6 0.24% 65,061 92 0.14%
Business Services 269,980 521 0.19% 4,343 15 0.35% 106,723 253 0.24%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 447,302 717 0.16% 8,465 13 0.15% 249,157 402 0.16%
Federal Government 222,198 1,875 0.84% 1,468 12 0.80% 107,157 857 0.80%
State and Local Government 919,438 2,086 0.23% 9,916 23 0.23% 491,440 1,115 0.23%
Total 5,952,340 21,139 0.36% 66,755 167 0.25% 2,083,185 6,882 0.33%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 63
Table A-IV.2: Northeast Economic Region – Stewardship Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 577,839 3,718 0.64% 11,186 52 0.47% 148,693 1,998 1.34%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 6,504
3 0.05% 80 0 0.04% 2,230 1 0.04%
Construction 168,866 266 0.16% 2,703 4 0.16% 74,225 117 0.16%
Food Processing 1,190,700 1,363 0.11% 4,543 6 0.14% 198,805 262 0.13%
Wood and Paper Processing 99,365 15 0.01% 496 0 0.02% 23,004 3 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 21,704
3 0.02% 92 0 0.02% 9,113 1 0.01%
Transportation 175,268 22 0.01% 1,037 0 0.01% 44,369 5 0.01%
Publishing & Communications 420,262 61 0.01% 3,207 1 0.02% 174,964 24 0.01%
Public Utilities 304,128
113 0.04% 373 0 0.04% 44,845 17 0.04%
Trade 65,062 22 0.03% 489 0 0.05% 15,235 7 0.04%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 463,072 504 0.11% 7,854 10 0.13% 204,862 233 0.11%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 235,532 90 0.04% 3,588 1 0.03% 68,450 39 0.06%
Amusement and Recreation 160,097 175 0.11% 4,498 5 0.11% 54,852 60 0.11%
Consumer Services 205,022 140 0.07% 2,417 3 0.14% 65,061 51 0.08%
Business Services 269,980 222 0.08% 4,343 6 0.13% 106,723 100 0.09%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 447,302 425 0.10% 8,465 7 0.09% 249,157 238 0.10%
Federal Government 222,198 1,037 0.47% 1,468 7 0.44% 107,157 474 0.44%
State and Local Government 919,438 1,212 0.13% 9,916 14 0.14% 491,440 648 0.13%
Total 5,952,340 9,390 0.16% 66,755 117 0.18% 2,083,185 4,279 0.21%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 64
Table A-IV.3: Northeast Economic Region – Service Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 577,839 3,318 0.58% 11,186 72 0.65% 146,693 1,875 1.28%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 6,504 2 0.03% 80 0 0.03% 2,230 1 0.03%
Construction 168,866 232 0.14% 2,703 4 0.14% 74,225 102 0.14%
Food Processing 1,190,700 96 0.01% 4,543 0 0.01% 198,805 17 0.01%
Wood and Paper Processing 99,365 8 0.01% 496 0 0.01% 23,004 2 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 21,704 2 0.01% 92 0 0.01% 9,113 1 0.01%
Transportation 175,268 14 0.01% 1,037 0 0.01% 44,369 3 0.01%
Publishing & Communications 420,262 46 0.01% 3,207 0 0.01% 174,964 18 0.01%
Public Utilities 304,128 78 0.03% 373 0 0.03% 44,845 12 0.03%
Trade 65,062 16 0.02% 489 0 0.04% 15,235 5 0.03%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 463,072 314 0.07% 7,854 6 0.08% 204,862 145 0.07%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 235,532 61 0.03% 3,588 1 0.02% 68,450 26 0.04%
Amusement and Recreation 160,097 132 0.08% 4,498 4 0.08% 54,852 45 0.08%
Consumer Services 205,022 107 0.05% 2,417 2 0.10% 65,061 38 0.06%
Business Services 269,980 140 0.05% 4,343 3 0.08% 106,723 59 0.06%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 447,302 320 0.07% 8,465 6 0.07% 249,157 179 0.07%
Federal Government 222,198 572 0.26% 1,468 4 0.24% 107,157 262 0.24%
State and Local Government 919,438 912 0.10% 9,916 10 0.10% 491,440 487 0.10%
Total 5,952,340 6,369 0.11% 66,755 113 0.17% 2,081,185 3,276 0.16%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 65
Table A-IV.4: Northeast Economic Region – Watershed Restoration
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 577,839 940 0.16% 11,186 7 0.06% 148,693 240 0.16%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 6,504 56 0.87% 80 1 0.74% 2,230 18 0.81%
Construction 168,866 2,350 1.39% 2,703 38 1.39% 74,225 1,033 1.39%
Food Processing 1,190,700 81 0.01% 4,543 0 0.01% 198,805 14 0.01%
Wood and Paper Processing 99,365 19 0.02% 496 0 0.02% 23,004 4 0.02%
Misc. Manufacturing 21,704 7 0.03% 92 0 0.03% 9,113 3 0.03%
Transportation 175,268 24 0.01% 1,037 0 0.01% 44,369 5 0.01%
Publishing & Communications 420,262 75 0.02% 3,207 1 0.02% 174,964 30 0.02%
Public Utilities 304,128 107 0.04% 373 0 0.04% 44,845 16 0.04%
Trade 65,062 17 0.03% 489 0 0.04% 15,235 5 0.03%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 463,072 192 0.04% 7,854 4 0.05% 204,862 88 0.04%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 235,532 29 0.01% 3,588 0 0.01% 68,450 8 0.01%
Amusement and Recreation 160,097 130 0.08% 4,498 4 0.08% 54,852 44 0.08%
Consumer Services 205,022 87 0.04% 2,417 2 0.09% 65,061 37 0.06%
Business Services 269,980 175 0.07% 4,343 5 0.11% 106,723 92 0.09%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 447,302 323 0.07% 8,465 6 0.07% 249,157 181 0.07%
Federal Government 222,198 2,081 0.94% 1,468 13 0.89% 107,157 949 0.89%
State and Local Government 919,438 922 0.10% 9,916 10 0.10% 491,440 493 0.10%
Total 5,952,340 7,616 0.13% 66,755 90 0.14% 2,083,185 3,260 0.16%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 66
Table A-IV.5: Southeast Economic Region – Timber Sales
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 317,842 5,151 1.62% 6,356 9 0.14% 79,976 1,420 1.78%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,256 7 0.05% 170 0 0.08% 4,326 2 0.05%
Construction 46,258 132 0.29% 1,210 3 0.29% 20,333 58 0.29%
Food Processing 290,223 12,117 4.18% 1,320 52 3.95% 51,895 2,584 4.98%
Wood and Paper Processing 94,542 57 0.06% 347 0 0.07% 17,914 10 0.06%
Misc. Manufacturing 3,125 5 0.17% 28 0 0.17% 832 1 0.17%
Transportation 15,976 46 0.29% 140 0 0.33% 4,842 12 0.24%
Publishing & Communications 54,383 83 0.15% 705 1 0.17% 22,015 33 0.15%
Public Utilities 68,458 285 0.42% 115 0 0.40% 10,484 44 0.42%
Trade 45,330 63 0.14% 295 1 0.27% 9,632 20 0.21%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 270,911 2,558 0.94% 4,976 52 1.05% 120,752 1,182 0.98%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 113,831 396 0.35% 1,714 6 0.37% 34,294 177 0.52%
Amusement and Recreation 101,155 479 0.47% 2,609 12 0.48% 34,811 164 0.47%
Consumer Services 48,427 373 0.77% 1,338 10 0.77% 18,067 163 0.90%
Business Services 77,382 668 0.86% 1,550 13 0.87% 36,691 325 0.89%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 231,014 899 0.39% 4,660 16 0.35% 128,640 503 0.39%
Federal Government 144,357 2,451 1.70% 1,005 16 1.60% 69,141 1,122 1.62%
State and Local Government 517,780 1,612 0.31% 5,635 20 0.35% 276,753 862 0.31%
Total 2,454,249 27,381 1.12% 34,172 215 0.63% 941,399 8,682 0.92%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 67
Table A-IV.6: Southeast Economic Region – Stewardship Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 317,842 1,245 0.39% 6,356 20 0.32% 79,976 551 0.69%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,256 1 0.01% 170 0 0.01% 4,326 0 0.01%
Construction 46,258 36 0.08% 1,210 1 0.08% 20,333 16 0.08%
Food Processing 290,223 1,179 0.41% 1,320 5 0.36% 51,895 229 0.44%
Wood and Paper Processing 94,542 6 0.01% 347 0 0.01% 17,914 1 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 3,125 1 0.03% 28 0 0.03% 832 0 0.03%
Transportation 15,976 8 0.05% 140 0 0.06% 4,842 2 0.04%
Publishing & Communications 54,383 17 0.03% 705 0 0.03% 22,015 7 0.03%
Public Utilities 68,458 44 0.06% 115 0 0.06% 10,484 7 0.06%
Trade 45,330 11 0.02% 295 0 0.05% 9,632 4 0.04%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 270,911 357 0.13% 4,976 7 0.15% 120,752 165 0.14%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 113,831 61 0.05% 1,714 1 0.06% 34,294 27 0.08%
Amusement and Recreation 101,155 85 0.08% 2,609 2 0.09% 34,811 29 0.08%
Consumer Services 48,427 67 0.14% 1,338 2 0.13% 18,067 27 0.15%
Business Services 77,382 106 0.14% 1,550 2 0.14% 36,691 49 0.13%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 231,014 156 0.07% 4,660 3 0.06% 128,640 87 0.07%
Federal Government 144,357 423 0.29% 1,005 3 0.28% 69,141 194 0.28%
State and Local Government 517,780 271 0.05% 5,635 3 0.06% 276,753 145 0.05%
Total 2,454,249 4,075 0.17% 34,172 50 0.15% 941,399 1,541 0.16%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 68
Table A-IV.7: Southeast Economic Region – Service Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 317,842 2,020 0.64% 6,356 37 0.58% 79,976 1,138 1.42%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,256 1 0.01% 170 0 0.02% 4,326 0 0.01%
Construction 46,258 66 0.14% 1,210 2 0.14% 20,333 29 0.14%
Food Processing 290,223 52 0.02% 1,320 0 0.02% 51,895 9 0.02%
Wood and Paper Processing 94,542 5 0.01% 347 0 0.01% 17,914 1 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 3,125 1 0.02% 28 0 0.02% 832 0 0.02%
Transportation 15,976 7 0.05% 140 0 0.05% 4,842 2 0.04%
Publishing & Communications 54,383 22 0.04% 705 0 0.04% 22,015 8 0.04%
Public Utilities 68,458 45 0.07% 115 0 0.06% 10,484 7 0.07%
Trade 45,330 12 0.03% 295 0 0.05% 9,632 4 0.04%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 270,911 294 0.11% 4,976 6 0.12% 120,752 135 0.11%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 113,831 58 0.05% 1,714 1 0.05% 34,294 25 0.07%
Amusement and Recreation 101,155 107 0.11% 2,609 3 0.11% 34,811 37 0.10%
Consumer Services 48,427 81 0.17% 1,338 2 0.16% 18,067 30 0.16%
Business Services 77,382 95 0.12% 1,550 2 0.14% 36,691 40 0.11%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 231,014 192 0.08% 4,660 4 0.08% 128,640 107 0.08%
Federal Government 144,357 351 0.24% 1,005 2 0.23% 69,141 161 0.23%
State and Local Government 517,780 319 0.06% 5,635 4 0.07% 276,753 171 0.06%
Total 2,454,249 3,729 0.15% 34,172 63 0.19% 941,399 1,902 0.20%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 69
Table A-IV.8: Southeast Economic Region – Watershed Restoration
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 317,842 103 0.03% 6,356 1 0.02% 79,976 26 0.03%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,256 8 0.06% 170 0 0.24% 4,326 3 0.06%
Construction 46,258 918 1.98% 1,210 24 1.98% 20,333 403 1.98%
Food Processing 290,223 13 0.00% 1,320 0 0.00% 51,895 2 0.00%
Wood and Paper Processing 94,542 6 0.01% 347 0 0.01% 17,914 1 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 3,125 1 0.04% 28 0 0.04% 832 0 0.04%
Transportation 15,976 8 0.05% 140 0 0.06% 4,842 2 0.04%
Publishing & Communications 54,383 16 0.03% 705 0 0.03% 22,015 6 0.03%
Public Utilities 68,458 30 0.04% 115 0 0.04% 10,484 5 0.04%
Trade 45,330 6 0.01% 295 0 0.03% 9,632 2 0.02%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 270,911 100 0.04% 4,976 2 0.04% 120,752 46 0.04%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 113,831 16 0.01% 1,714 0 0.01% 34,294 4 0.01%
Amusement and Recreation 101,155 54 0.05% 2,609 1 0.05% 34,811 19 0.05%
Consumer Services 48,427 31 0.06% 1,338 1 0.07% 18,067 13 0.07%
Business Services 77,382 45 0.06% 1,550 1 0.07% 36,691 22 0.06%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 231,014 102 0.04% 4,660 2 0.04% 128,640 57 0.04%
Federal Government 144,357 661 0.46% 1,005 4 0.43% 69,141 302 0.44%
State and Local Government 517,780 166 0.03% 5,635 2 0.04% 276,753 89 0.03%
Total 2,454,249 2,285 0.09% 34,172 40 0.12% 941,399 1,002 0.11%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 70
Table A-IV.9: Interior Central Economic Region – Timber Sales
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 284,139 396 0.14% 4,671 2 0.05% 63,121 115 0.18%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,436 3 0.02% 298 0 0.03% 4,470 1 0.02%
Construction 391,882 105 0.03% 7,945 2 0.03% 172,252 46 0.03%
Food Processing 759,945 4,999 0.66% 3,563 52 1.45% 172,217 1,675 0.97%
Wood and Paper Processing 210,724 38 0.02% 924 0 0.02% 51,983 10 0.02%
Misc. Manufacturing 144,995 41 0.03% 392 0 0.04% 37,413 13 0.04%
Transportation 430,521 150 0.03% 2,908 1 0.03% 135,738 43 0.03%
Publishing & Communications 175,058 35 0.02% 1,698 0 0.02% 70,521 14 0.02%
Public Utilities 252,741 150 0.06% 368 0 0.05% 39,867 23 0.06%
Trade 313,530 54 0.02% 1,990 0 0.02% 91,665 18 0.02%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 921,940 429 0.05% 13,852 7 0.05% 413,251 194 0.05%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 740,400 117 0.02% 12,051 2 0.02% 221,267 34 0.02%
Amusement and Recreation 574,437 356 0.06% 11,926 7 0.06% 197,128 123 0.06%
Consumer Services 253,799 162 0.06% 6,198 4 0.06% 101,909 67 0.07%
Business Services 518,927 463 0.09% 10,805 9 0.08% 273,622 250 0.09%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 1,128,210 677 0.06% 15,491 9 0.06% 639,423 383 0.06%
Federal Government 318,390 3,739 1.17% 2,411 27 1.14% 154,287 1,704 1.10%
State and Local Government 1,090,483 485 0.04% 10,773 5 0.05% 582,863 259 0.04%
Total 8,523,556 12,400 0.15% 108,263 129 0.12% 3,422,999 4,972 0.15%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 71
Table A-IV.10: Interior Central Economic Region – Stewardship Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 284,139 736 0.26% 4,671 12 0.26% 63,121 411 0.65%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,436 0 0.00% 298 0 0.00% 4,470 0 0.00%
Construction 391,882 36 0.01% 7,945 1 0.01% 172,252 16 0.01%
Food Processing 759,945 348 0.05% 3,563 3 0.09% 172,217 113 0.07%
Wood and Paper Processing 210,724 5 0.00% 924 0 0.00% 51,983 1 0.00%
Misc. Manufacturing 144,995 5 0.00% 392 0 0.01% 37,413 1 0.00%
Transportation 430,521 21 0.00% 2,908 0 0.01% 135,738 6 0.00%
Publishing & Communications 175,058 10 0.01% 1,698 0 0.01% 70,521 4 0.01%
Public Utilities 252,741 24 0.01% 368 0 0.01% 39,867 4 0.01%
Trade 313,530 10 0.00% 1,990 0 0.00% 91,665 3 0.00%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 921,940 98 0.01% 13,852 2 0.01% 413,251 45 0.01%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 740,400 27 0.00% 12,051 1 0.00% 221,267 9 0.00%
Amusement and Recreation 574,437 68 0.01% 11,926 1 0.01% 197,128 23 0.01%
Consumer Services 253,799 65 0.03% 6,198 1 0.02% 101,909 21 0.02%
Business Services 518,927 98 0.02% 10,805 2 0.02% 273,622 42 0.02%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 1,128,210 117 0.01% 15,491 2 0.01% 639,423 66 0.01%
Federal Government 318,390 321 0.10% 2,411 2 0.10% 154,287 147 0.10%
State and Local Government 1,090,483 90 0.01% 10,773 1 0.01% 582,863 48 0.01%
Total 8,523,556 2,079 0.02% 108,263 28 0.03% 3,422,999 961 0.03%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 72
Table A-IV.11: Interior Central Economic Region – Service Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 284,139 5,609 1.97% 4,671 93 2.00% 63,121 3,166 5.02%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,436 3 0.02% 298 0 0.02% 4,470 1 0.02%
Construction 391,882 241 0.06% 7,945 5 0.06% 172,252 106 0.06%
Food Processing 759,945 112 0.01% 3,563 1 0.02% 172,217 23 0.01%
Wood and Paper Processing 210,724 20 0.01% 924 0 0.01% 51,983 5 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 144,995 11 0.01% 392 0 0.01% 37,413 4 0.01%
Transportation 430,521 59 0.01% 2,908 0 0.01% 135,738 16 0.01%
Publishing & Communications 175,058 48 0.03% 1,698 0 0.03% 70,521 19 0.03%
Public Utilities 252,741 117 0.05% 368 0 0.04% 39,867 18 0.04%
Trade 313,530 53 0.02% 1,990 0 0.02% 91,665 17 0.02%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 921,940 636 0.07% 13,852 11 0.08% 413,251 294 0.07%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 740,400 166 0.02% 12,051 3 0.03% 221,267 59 0.03%
Amusement and Recreation 574,437 387 0.07% 11,926 8 0.07% 197,128 134 0.07%
Consumer Services 253,799 445 0.18% 6,198
8 0.13% 101,909 134 0.13%
Business Services 518,927 576 0.11% 10,805 10 0.09% 273,622 221 0.08%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 1,128,210 661 0.06% 15,491 9 0.06% 639,423 375 0.06%
Federal Government 318,390 969 0.30% 2,411 7 0.30% 154,287 443 0.29%
State and Local Government 1,090,483 514 0.05% 10,773 5 0.05% 582,863 275 0.05%
Total 8,523,556 10,627 0.12% 108,263 162 0.15% 3,422,999 5,309 0.16%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 73
Table A-IV.12: Interior Central Economic Region – Watershed Restoration
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 284,139 3,488 1.23% 4,671 58 1.24% 63,121 1,969 3.12%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 13,436 2 0.01% 298 0 0.01% 4,470 1 0.01%
Construction 391,882 150 0.04% 7,945 3 0.04% 172,252 66 0.04%
Food Processing 759,945 69 0.01% 3,563 0 0.01% 172,217 14 0.01%
Wood and Paper Processing 210,724 12 0.01% 924 0 0.01% 51,983 3 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 144,995 7 0.00% 392 0 0.01% 37,413 2 0.01%
Transportation 430,521 37 0.01% 2,908 0 0.01% 135,738 10 0.01%
Publishing & Communications 175,058 30 0.02% 1,698 0 0.02% 70,521 12 0.02%
Public Utilities 252,741 73 0.03% 368 0 0.03% 39,867 11 0.03%
Trade 313,530 33 0.01% 1,990 0 0.01% 91,665 11 0.01%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 921,940 396 0.04% 13,852 7 0.05% 413,251 183 0.04%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 740,400 103 0.01% 12,051 2 0.02% 221,267 37 0.02%
Amusement and Recreation 574,437 241 0.04% 11,926 5 0.04% 197,128 84 0.04%
Consumer Services 253,799 277 0.11% 6,198 5 0.08% 101,909 83 0.08%
Business Services 518,927 358 0.07% 10,805 6 0.06% 273,622 137 0.05%
Medical, Education, and Social
Services 1,128,210 411 0.04% 15,491 5 0.03% 639,423 233 0.04%
Federal Government 318,390 602 0.19% 2,411 4 0.18% 154,287 275 0.18%
State and Local Government 1,090,483 320 0.03% 10,773 3 0.03% 582,863 171 0.03%
Total 8,523,556 6,609 0.08% 108,263 101 0.09% 3,422,999 3,301 0.10%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 74
Table A-IV.13: Interior South Economic Region – Timber Sales
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 659,990 11,450 1.73% 8,696 22 0.25% 158,000 3,231 2.05%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 18,978 20 0.10% 322 0 0.09% 5,820 6 0.10%
Construction 485,141 601 0.12% 10,254 13 0.12% 213,244 264 0.12%
Food Processing 1,343,324 38,466 2.86% 6,180 149 2.41% 270,134 7,829 2.90%
Wood and Paper Processing 435,226 322 0.07% 2,149 2 0.08% 105,685 74 0.07%
Misc. Manufacturing 97,782 114 0.12% 403 0 0.11% 26,117 28 0.11%
Transportation 515,744 423 0.08% 3,231 3 0.11% 141,231 125 0.09%
Publishing & Communications 412,014 363 0.09% 5,283 6 0.10% 166,741 147 0.09%
Public Utilities 336,439 1,016 0.30% 630 2 0.31% 51,304 157 0.31%
Trade 439,116 342 0.08% 2,736 3 0.12% 104,441 107 0.10%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 1,815,141 8,854 0.49% 31,526 159 0.51% 812,461 4,095 0.50%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 974,659 1,374 0.14% 16,576 25 0.15% 299,142 537 0.18%
Amusement and Recreation 741,090 1,643 0.22% 17,841 38 0.21% 258,634 566 0.22%
Consumer Services 393,168 1,469 0.37% 9,472 41 0.44% 143,940 592 0.41%
Business Services 847,035 4,320 0.51% 15,898 90 0.57% 435,551 2,146 0.49%
Medical, Education, and
Social Services 1,981,975 3,811 0.19% 30,567 55 0.18% 1,123,096 2,158 0.19%
Federal Government 557,099 6,028 1.08% 3,936 41 1.04% 274,721 2,768 1.01%
State and Local Government 1,691,260 6,043 0.36% 17,655 67 0.38% 903,978 3,230 0.36%
Total 13,745,182 86,659 0.63% 183,356 717 0.39% 5,494,241 28,060 0.51%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 75
Table A-IV.14: Interior South Economic Region – Stewardship Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 659,990 4,581 0.69% 8,696 21 0.24% 158,000 1,531 0.97%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 18,978 6 0.03% 322 0 0.03% 5,820 2 0.03%
Construction 485,141 211 0.04% 10,254 4 0.04% 213,244 93 0.04%
Food Processing 1,343,324 11,390 0.85% 6,180 39 0.63% 270,134 2,085 0.77%
Wood and Paper Processing 435,226 91 0.02% 2,149 1 0.02% 105,685 21 0.02%
Misc. Manufacturing 97,782 31 0.03% 403 0 0.03% 26,117 8 0.03%
Transportation 515,744 124 0.02% 3,231 1 0.03% 141,231 37 0.03%
Publishing & Communications 412,014 117 0.03% 5,283 2 0.03% 166,741 48 0.03%
Public Utilities 336,439 313 0.09% 630 1 0.10% 51,304 48 0.09%
Trade 439,116 111 0.03% 2,736 1 0.04% 104,441 35 0.03%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 1,815,141 2,973 0.16% 31,526 54 0.17% 812,461 1,378 0.17%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 974,659 460 0.05% 16,576 8 0.05% 299,142 183 0.06%
Amusement and Recreation 741,090 517 0.07% 17,841 12 0.07% 258,634 178 0.07%
Consumer Services 393,168 508 0.13% 9,472 14 0.15% 143,940 201 0.14%
Business Services 847,035 1,464 0.17% 15,898 30 0.19% 435,551 721 0.17%
Medical, Education, and
Social Services 1,981,975 1,187 0.06% 30,567 17 0.06% 1,123,096 672 0.06%
Federal Government 557,099 1,476 0.26% 3,936 10 0.26% 274,721 680 0.25%
State and Local Government 1,691,260 1,919 0.11% 17,655 21 0.12% 903,978 1,026 0.11%
Total 13,745,182 27,480 0.20% 183,356 236 0.13% 5,494,241 8,946 0.16%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 76
Table A-IV.15: Interior South Economic Region – Service Contracts
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 659,990 9,790 1.48% 8,696 166 1.91% 158,000 5,490 3.47%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 18,978 6 0.03% 322 0 0.03% 5,820 2 0.03%
Construction 485,141 463 0.10% 10,254 10 0.10% 213,244 203 0.10%
Food Processing 1,343,324 239 0.02% 6,180 1 0.02% 270,134 39 0.01%
Wood and Paper Processing 435,226 63 0.01% 2,149 0 0.02% 105,685 16 0.01%
Misc. Manufacturing 97,782 31 0.03% 403 0 0.03% 26,117 8 0.03%
Transportation 515,744 130 0.03% 3,231 1 0.03% 141,231 38 0.03%
Publishing & Communications 412,014 144 0.04% 5,283 2 0.04% 166,741 57 0.03%
Public Utilities 336,439 258 0.08% 630 0 0.08% 51,304 39 0.08%
Trade 439,116 102 0.02% 2,736 1 0.03% 104,441 31 0.03%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 1,815,141 1,589 0.09% 31,526 28 0.09% 812,461 728 0.09%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 974,659 347 0.04% 16,576 6 0.04% 299,142 127 0.04%
Amusement and Recreation 741,090 589 0.08% 17,841 13 0.08% 258,634 203 0.08%
Consumer Services 393,168 579 0.15% 9,472 13 0.14% 143,940 191 0.13%
Business Services 847,035 839 0.10% 15,898 17 0.10% 435,551 364 0.08%
Medical, Education, and
Social Services 1,981,975 1,339 0.07% 30,567 19 0.06% 1,123,096 758 0.07%
Federal Government 557,099 1,677 0.30% 3,936 11 0.29% 274,721 771 0.28%
State and Local Government 1,691,260 1,997 0.12% 17,655 22 0.13% 903,978 1,067 0.12%
Total 13,745,182 20,183 0.15% 183,356 313 0.17% 5,494,241 10,131 0.18%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 77
Table A-IV.16: Interior South Economic Region – Watershed Restoration
Economic Sector Output Contribution % Jobs Contribution % Income* Contribution %
($1000) ($1000)
Agriculture and Forestry
Services 659,990 4,674 0.71% 8,696 36 0.41% 158,000 1,191 0.75%
Mining, Sand and Gravel 18,978 206 1.09% 322 4 1.26% 5,820 63 1.08%
Construction 485,141 5,532 1.14% 10,254 117 1.14% 213,244 2,431 1.14%
Food Processing 1,343,324 238 0.02% 6,180 1 0.02% 270,134 39 0.01%
Wood and Paper Processing 435,226 128 0.03% 2,149 1 0.04% 105,685 34 0.03%
Misc. Manufacturing 97,782 109 0.11% 403 0 0.11% 26,117 26 0.10%
Transportation 515,744 302 0.06% 3,231 2 0.08% 141,231 88 0.06%
Publishing & Communications 412,014 229 0.06% 5,283 3 0.06% 166,741 89 0.05%
Public Utilities 336,439 373 0.11% 630 1 0.11% 51,304 56 0.11%
Trade 439,116 111 0.03% 2,736 1 0.04% 104,441 33 0.03%
Motels, Eating and Drinking 1,815,141 998 0.05% 31,526 18 0.06% 812,461 452 0.06%
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate 974,659 292 0.03% 16,576 6 0.03% 299,142 83 0.03%
Amusement and Recreation 741,090 600 0.08% 17,841 15 0.08% 258,634 209 0.08%
Consumer Services 393,168 433 0.11% 9,472 10 0.11% 143,940 168 0.12%
Business Services 847,035 963 0.11% 15,898 19 0.12% 435,551 505 0.12%
Medical, Education, and
Social Services 1,981,975 1,386 0.07% 30,567 20 0.07% 1,123,096 784 0.07%
Federal Government 557,099 6,493 1.17% 3,936 44 1.12% 274,721 2,964 1.08%
State and Local Government 1,691,260 2,097 0.12% 17,655 23 0.13% 903,978 1,121 0.12%
Total 13,745,182 25,163 0.18% 183,356 320 0.17% 5,494,241 10,338 0.19%
Source: Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
*Wage and salary income only – no proprietor’s income
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 78
Appendix V: Detailed Summary Data
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 79
Table A-V.1: Northeast Economic Region Summary Data
Summary Data
Commercial Non-commercial
Total
Timber Sales
Stewardship
Contracts Service Contracts
USFS Costs
Planning/NEPA $ 717,000 $ 396,000 - $ 1,113,000
Pre-sale/Preparation $ 781,000 $ 431,000 - $ 1,212,000
Administrative $ 369,000 $ 203,000 $ 566,000 $ 1,138,000
Implementation - - $3,218,000 $3,218,000
Total USFS Costs $ 1,867,000 $ 1,030,000 $ 3,784,000 $ 6,681,000
Product Volume (Volume)
Sawlogs (MBF) 15,009 2,886 - 17,895
Non-saw/Biomass (GT) 21,650 51,285 - 72,935
Total Industrial Output $ 21,138,751 $ 9,389,886 $ 6,368,561 $ 36,897,198
Total Jobs (#) 167 117 113 397
Income
Wage and Salary $ 6,882,124 $ 4,278,852 $ 3,275,988 $ 14,436,964
Proprietor's Income $ 1,168,895 $ 316,705 $ 180,022 $ 1,665,622
Total Income $ 8,051,019 $ 4,595,558 $ 3,456,010 $ 16,102,586
Tax Revenue
Income $ 234,190 $ 150,859 $ 117,090 $ 502,139
Corporate $ 70,134 $ 19,002 $ 10,801 $ 99,937
Fuels $ 43,986 $ 16,669 $ 10,186 $ 70,842
Harvest $ 66,211 $ 38,551 - $ 104,762
Total Tax Revenue $ 414,520 $ 225,082 $ 138,078 $ 777,680
Source: USFS TIM & FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012; Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
Note: USFS costs for non-commercial (service contracting) includes administration and implementation costs.
Implementation costs for commercial treatments are paid by contractors or through returned receipts.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 80
Table A-V.2: Southeast Economic Region Summary Data
Summary Data
Commercial Non-commercial
Total
Timber Sales
Stewardship
Contracts Service Contracts
USFS Costs
Planning/NEPA $ 934,000 $ 161,000 - $ 1,095,000
Pre-sale/Preparation $ 1,017,000 $ 176,000 - $ 1,193,000
Administrative $ 480,000 $ 83,000 $ 348,000 $ 911,000
Implementation - - $ 1,970,000 $ 1,970,000
Total USFS Costs ($) $ 2,431,000 $ 420,000 $ 2,318,000 $ 5,169,000
Product Volume (Volume)
Sawlogs (MBF) 20,300 4,664 24,964 24,964
Non-saw/Biomass (GT) 23,723 13,903 37,627 37,627
Total Industrial Output $ 27,381,274 $ 4,074,976 $ 35,184,922 $ 35,184,922
Total Jobs (#) 215 50 329 329
Income
Wage and Salary $ 8,682,208 $ 1,540,619 $ 12,125,240 $ 12,125,240
Proprietor's Income $ 1,588,824 $ 266,061 $ 1,893,536 $ 1,893,536
Total Income $ 10,271,032 $ 1,806,680 $ 14,018,775 $ 14,018,775
Tax Revenue
Income $ 87,984 $ 47,006 $ 181,026 $ 181,026
Corporate $ 95,329 $ 15,964 $ 119,119 $ 119,119
Fuels $ 84,499 $ 11,759 $ 105,500 $ 105,500
Harvest $ 92,366 $ 19,889 $ 112,255 $ 112,255
Total Tax Revenue $ 360,179 $ 94,618 $ 517,900 $ 517,900
Source: USFS TIM & FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012; Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
Note: USFS costs for non-commercial (service contracting) includes administration and implementation costs.
Implementation costs for commercial treatments are paid by contractors or through returned receipts.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 81
Table A-V.3: Interior Central Economic Region Summary Data
Summary Data
Commercial Non-commercial
Total
Timber Sales
Stewardship
Contracts Service Contracts
USFS Costs
Planning/NEPA $ 1,435,000 $ 123,000 - $ 1,558,000
Pre-sale/Preparation $ 1,562,000 $ 134,000 - $ 1,696,000
Administrative $ 737,000 $ 63,000 $ 963,000 $ 1,763,000
Implementation - - $ 5,459,000 $ 5,459,000
Total USFS Costs ($) $ 3,734,000 $ 320,000 $ 6,422,000 $ 10,476,000
Product Volume (Volume)
Sawlogs (MBF) 29,904 2,243 - 32,147
Non-saw/Biomass (GT) 44,083 13,141 - 57,224
Total Industrial Output $ 12,400,048 $ 2,079,158 $ 10,627,298 $ 25,106,504
Total Jobs (#) 129 28 162 319
Income
Wage and Salary $ 4,972,125 $ 961,478 $ 5,308,532 $ 11,242,134
Proprietor's Income $ 929,866 $ 104,103 $ 599,541 $ 1,633,510
Total Income $ 5,901,991 $ 1,065,580 $ 5,908,073 $ 12,875,644
Tax Revenue
Income $ 376,326 $ 34,984 $ 374,462 $ 785,772
Corporate $ 111,584 $ 6,246 $ 35,972 $ 153,803
Fuels $ 12,407 $ 3,125 $ 20,954 $ 36,486
Harvest $ 118,943 $ 30,247 - $ 149,190
Total Tax Revenue $ 619,260 $ 74,601 $ 431,388 $ 1,125,250
Source: USFS TIM & FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012; Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
Note: USFS costs for non-commercial (service contracting) includes administration and implementation costs.
Implementation costs for commercial treatments are paid by contractors or through returned receipts.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 82
Table A-V.4: Interior South Economic Region Summary Data
Summary Data
Commercial Non-commercial
Total
Timber Sales
Stewardship
Contracts Service Contracts
USFS Costs
Planning/NEPA $ 2,290,000 $ 558,000 - $ 2,848,000
Pre-sale/Preparation $ 2,493,000 $ 608,000 - $ 3,101,000
Administrative $ 1,176,000 $ 287,000 $ 1,656,000 $ 3,119,000
Implementation - - $ 9,381,000 $ 9,381,000
Total USFS Costs ($) $ 5,959,000 $ 1,453,000 $ 11,037,000 $ 18,449,000
Product Volume (Volume)
Sawlogs (MBF) 51,618 14,004 - 65,622
Non-saw/Biomass (GT) 47,034 10,356 - 57,390
Total Industrial Output $ 86,659,462 $ 27,479,529 $ 20,183,322 $ 134,322,313
Total Jobs (#) 717 236 313 1,265
Income
Wage and Salary $ 28,059,745 $ 8,946,070 $ 10,131,042 $ 47,136,857
Proprietor's Income $ 69,574 $ 37,501 $ 277,571 $ 384,646
Total Income $ 28,129,319 $ 8,983,571 $ 10,408,612 $ 47,521,503
Tax Revenue
Income $ 300,658 $ 93,322 $ 54,655 $ 448,635
Corporate $ 4,174 $ 2,250 $ 16,654 $ 23,079
Fuels $ 95,026 $ 100,618 $ 49,612 $ 445,255
Harvest $ 242,802 $ 30,335 - $ 273,137
Total Tax Revenue $ 842,660 $ 226,525 $ 120,921 $ 1,190,106
Source: USFS TIM & FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012; Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
Note: USFS costs for non-commercial (service contracting) includes administration and implementation costs.
Implementation costs for commercial treatments are paid by contractors or through returned receipts.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 83
Table A-V.5: Eastern Oregon – Summary Data
Summary Data
Commercial Non-commercial
Total
Timber Sales
Stewardship
Contracts Service Contracts
USFS Costs
Planning/NEPA $ 5,376,000 $ 1,238,000 - $ 6,614,000
Pre-sale/Preparation $ 5,853,000 $ 1,349,000 - $ 7,202,000
Administrative $ 2,762,000 $ 636,000 $3,534,000 $ 6,932,000
Implementation - - $20,029,000 $ 20,029,000
Total USFS Costs ($) $ 13,991,000 $ 3,223,000 $ 23,563,000 $ 40,777,000
Product Volume (Volume)
Sawlogs (MBF) 116,831 23,797 - 140,627
Non-saw/Biomass (GT) 136,491 88,685 - 225,176
Total Industrial Output $ 147,579,535 $ 43,023,549 $ 40,907,853 $ 231,510,937
Total Jobs (#) 1,228 430 651 2,310
Income
Wage and Salary $ 3,757,160 $ 724,370 $ 1,095,784 $ 5,577,314
Proprietor's Income $ 52,353,361 $ 16,451,390 $ 21,713,757 $ 90,518,509
Total Income $ 48,596,202 $ 15,727,020 $ 20,617,973 $ 84,941,195
Tax Revenue
Income $ 999,159 $ 326,170 $ 592,243 $ 1,917,572
Corporate $ 281,222 $ 43,462 $ 71,254 $ 395,938
Fuels $ 435,918 $ 132,171 $ 89,994 $ 658,083
Harvest $ 520,321 $ 119,022 - $ 639,343
Total Tax Revenue $ 2,236,620 $ 620,825 $ 753,491 3,610,936
Source: USFS TIM & FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012; Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
Note: USFS costs for non-commercial (service contracting) includes administration and implementation costs.
Implementation costs for commercial treatments are paid by contractors or through returned receipts.
National Forest Health Economic Assessment
Governor John Kitzhaber and Oregon’s Legislative Leaders 84
Table A-V.6: Economic impact of the USFS spending $1 million on forest and watershed restoration.
Economic Impact
Commercial Non-commercial
Service Contracts
Watershed
Restoration Timber Sales
Stewardship
Contracts
Jobs (#) 88 133 28 15
Output ($) $ 10,548,000 $ 13,349,000 $ 1,736,000 $ 1,124,000
Income ($) $ 3,742,000 $ 5,104,000 $ 922,,000 $ 502,000
State Tax Revenue ($) $ 160,000 $ 193,000 $ 32,000 $ 25,000
Source: USFS TIM & FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012; Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)
Table A-V.6: Economic impact from forest restoration for every 1,000 acres treated on eastern Oregon
federal forestlands.
Economic Impact
Commercial Non-commercial
Service Contracts Timber Sales
Stewardship
Contracts
Jobs (#) 41 44 4
Output ($) $ 4,879,000 $ 4,388,000 $ 461,000
Income ($) $ 1,731,000 $ 1,678,000 $ 245,000
State Tax Revenue ($) $ 74,000 $ 63,000 $ 8,000
Source: USFS TIM & FACTS database, 2012; USFS Cost Survey, 2012; Forest Econ Inc., 2012 (Input/Output Models)