Chapter 10: Environmental Justice, Low Income and Minority ... · for Forest Service staff to help...

Peer Review Draft10/1916 “THIS INFORMATION IS DISTRIBUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRE-DISSEMINATION PEER REVIEW UNDER APPLICABLE INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DISSEMINATED BY [THE AGENCY]. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY DETERMINATION OR POLICY.”

1

Chapter 10: Environmental Justice, Low Income and 1

Minority Populations, and Forest Management in the 2

Northwest Forest Plan Area 3

4

Susan Charnley, Elisabeth Grinspoon, Heidi Huber-Stearns, Eric White, Delilah Jaworski, Lee 5

Cerveny1 6

7

Introduction 8

This chapter synthesizes literature about the relation between federal forest management and 9

low-income and minority populations, as defined by the 1994 Executive Order 12898–Federal 10

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 11

The executive order requires federal land managers to identify and address any 12

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of agency 13

programs, policies, and actions on minority and low-income populations. In this chapter we use 14

the term “environmental justice population” to refer to populations protected by the Executive 15

Order on environmental justice (defined below). The Forest Service forest planning process, and 16

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land use planning process, are the primary ways that 17

1 Susan Charnley is a research social scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 620 SW Main St., Portland OR 97205; Elisabeth Grinspoon is a regional social scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, OR 97204; Heidi Huber-Stearns is a research associate, Institute for a Sustainable Environment, 130 Hendricks Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403; Eric M. White is a research social scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 3625 93rd Avenue SW, Olympia, WA 98512. Delilah Jaworski is a social scientist, U.S. Forest Service, TEAMS Enterprise Unit, Seattle, WA; Lee Cerveny is a research social scientist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 N. 34th St., Suite 201, Seattle, WA 98103.


2

these agencies incorporate environmental justice into their mission. Northwest Forest Plan 1

(NWFP) monitoring has not explicitly focused on low-income or minority populations other than 2

American Indian tribes. However, federal land managers in the plan area submitted several 3

priority management questions pertaining to environmental justice and forest management for 4

consideration in this science synthesis report. We address these questions here. American Indian 5

tribes are the focus of chapter 11; this chapter focuses on other minority populations. 6

7

Defining Environmental Justice 8

The following material is excerpted from Grinspoon et al. (2014, p. 3-8), a guidance document 9

for Forest Service staff to help them comply with the Executive Order on Environmental Justice 10

during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, which requires the agency to 11

consider the potential social and economic effects of its proposed actions. The Forest Service 12

defines environmental justice in accordance with U.S. Department of Agriculture Departmental 13

Regulations (USDA 1997). Environmental justice includes the fair treatment and meaningful 14

involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the 15

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies 16

(USEPA 2013). An environmental justice population is a group of people that meets the criteria 17

for low-income or minority under Executive Order 12898 (Clinton 1994). An environmental 18

justice population may be both low income and/or minority. 19

20

Defining Minority Population 21

The U.S. Census Bureau (1999) identifies four racial categories (white, black, American 22

Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander), and two categories of ethnicity (Hispanic and 23

non-Hispanic). The USDA departmental regulations define minority as “a person who is a 24

member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or Pacific 25

Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic” (USDA 1997: 2). In its direction on 26

environmental justice in the NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines a 27

minority population as: 28


3

1. A readily identifiable group of people living in geographic proximity with a population 1

that is 50 percent minority or greater. The population may be made up of one minority or 2

a number of different minority groups; together the sum is 50 percent or more; or, 3

2. A minority population may be an identifiable group that has a meaningfully greater 4

minority population than the adjacent geographic areas, or may also be a geographically 5

dispersed/transient set of individuals such as migrant workers or Native Americans (CEQ 6

1997). 7

8

Defining Low-Income Population 9

According to CEQ, a low-income population is a community or a group of individuals living in 10

geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals, such as migrant workers or 11

American Indians, who meet the standards for low income and experience common conditions of 12

environmental exposure or effect (CEQ 1997). USDA departmental regulations (USDA 1997: 2) 13

state that low-income populations in an affected area should be identified with the annual 14

statistical poverty thresholds from the Census Bureau’s annual current population reports (Series 15

P-60) on income and poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau (2013) defines low-income populations 16

by the percentage of people living below poverty in a given area, which is consistent with the 17

CEQ’s environmental justice guidance. For tables showing Department of Health and Human 18

Services guidelines for poverty, see the Federal Register notice (U.S. DHHS 2013). For more 19

information also see “How poverty is calculated in the ACS [American Community Survey]” 20

(U.S. Census Bureau 2013). In 2013, the poverty guideline for the 48 contiguous states and the 21

District of Columbia was $11,490 for a one-person household and $23,550 for a four-person 22

household. 23

Low-income status is determined by comparing annual income to a set of dollar values 24

called poverty thresholds that vary by family size, number of children, and age of householder. If 25

a family’s before tax monetary income is less than the dollar value of their threshold, then that 26

family and every individual in it are considered to be living in poverty. For people not living in 27

families, poverty status is determined by comparing the individual’s income to his or her poverty 28

threshold. 29


4

Guiding Questions 1

This chapter addresses the following questions pertaining to environmental justice, low income 2

and minority populations, and federal forest management: 3

1) What are the trends in the size of low-income and minority populations in the NWFP 4

area since the plan was adopted, and what is their current distribution? 5

2) How do low-income and minority populations interact with federal forests in the 6

NWFP area? 7

8

Key Findings 9

Trends in Low-income and Minority Population Sizes and Current 10

Distribution 11

The size and percentage of environmental justice populations in the NWFP area have increased 12

since the NWFP was adopted, consistent with national trends. This increase has occurred both in 13

the size of low-income populations (measured here by number of people living below the 14

poverty line), as well as in the number of people belonging to minority groups specified by the 15

Executive Order on Environmental Justice. These trends are detailed below. We use 1990 as our 16

baseline because of the availability of decennial U.S. Census data from 1990. For current status, 17

we use U.S. Census data from 2012, consistent with the 20-year NWFP socioeconomic 18

monitoring report (Grinspoon et al. 2016). 19

Low-income-populations— 20

The poverty rate in the NWFP area as a whole increased from 11.2 to 14.7 percent of the 21

region’s population between 1990 and 2012 (table 1). Nevertheless, the poverty rate was lower 22

overall than the national poverty rate during the three periods reported on here. While poverty 23

rates fell in many subregions of the plan area between 1990 and 2000, those improvements were 24

more than offset by increases in poverty across the NWFP area between 2000 and 2012. There 25

are 72 counties—32 metropolitan, and 40 nonmetropolitan—in the NWFP area (appendix). 26

Poverty rates were uniformly higher in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties 27

during the analysis period, and they were also higher than the national average (table 1). Overall,28

Policy Review Draft 08/16/16 “THIS INFORMATION IS DISTRIBUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRE-DISSEMINATION PEER REVIEW UNDER APPLICABLE INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DISSEMINATED BY [THE AGENCY]. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY DETERMINATION OR POLICY.”

5

Table 1—County-level poverty rates in the NWFP area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 1

1990 Poverty rate 2000 Poverty rate 2012 Poverty rate

Percent

United States 13.5 11.3 15.0

All NWFP counties 11.2 10.0 14.7

All metro counties 10.3 9.1 13.9

All nonmetro counties 15.3 14.2 19.0

All CA NWFP counties 11.4 11.1 15.4

All CA metro counties 9.6 9.0 13.1

All CA nonmetro counties 15.6 16.4 21.7

All OR NWFP counties 12.2 10.4 16.9

All OR metro counties 11.4 9.7 16.4

All OR nonmetro counties 15.2 13.2 19.2

All WA NWFP counties 10.5 9.4 13.2

All WA metro counties 9.9 8.8 12.8

All WA nonmetro counties 15.1 13.3 16.7

2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, small area income and poverty estimates. 3

4


6

poverty rates were highest in Oregon and lowest in Washington in both 1990 and 2012. 1

However, in California, nonmetropolitan counties area had the highest poverty rates within the 2

plan area during the period. These counties also experienced the biggest increase in poverty—3

rising from 15.6 percent in 1990 to 21.7 percent in 2012, with no dip in 2000, unlike the other 4

subregions (table 1). Figure 1 shows poverty rates in the NWFP area by county in 2012. The 5

highest poverty rates are concentrated in northern California and southern Oregon. Counties with 6

the lowest poverty rates are concentrated around the greater San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle 7

metropolitan areas. 8

Minority populations— 9

The percentage of the population identifying as a racial or ethnic minority grew in both 10

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties within the NWFP area between 1990 and 2012 (table 11

2). Most notably, the percentage of the population identifying as Hispanic/Latino doubled in 12

nonmetropolitan counties, and nearly tripled in metropolitan counties in the NWFP area. The 13

percentage of the white population declined more in metropolitan counties than in 14

nonmetropolitan counties. Plan-area counties with high concentrations of minority residents are 15

clustered near California’s Central Valley and east of the Cascade crest in Washington (fig. 2). 16

This finding may be explained by evidence that half of farm laborers and supervisors in the 17

United States are Hispanic (ERS 2012), and these are areas of high agricultural activity. 18

American Indian and Alaska Native populations are higher in the NWFP area than in the 19

nation as a whole (table 3). They were more prevalent in nonmetropolitan counties than in 20

metropolitan counties of the plan area throughout the period (table 2). In 2012, they accounted 21

for a higher percentage of the population in nonmetropolitan counties in California than in other 22

subregions (tables 4 to 6, fig. 3). In contrast, black/African American, and Asian and Pacific 23

Islander populations formed a higher percentage of the population in metropolitan than in 24

nonmetropolitan counties (table 2), and the highest percentage population for both was in 25

metropolitan counties in Washington (tables 4 to 6, fig. 4 and 5). The percentage of the 26

population identifying as Hispanic/Latino was high relative to other minority groups in the plan 27

area as a whole, and was fairly similar between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties (table 28

2). The percentage of the population that was Hispanic/Latino was highest in California counties29


7

1

2

Figure 1—Percentage of people living in poverty in NWFP area counties, 2012. 3

Credit: Clara Dair4


8

Table 2—Minority populations in the NWFP area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 1

1990 2000 2012

Plan area Nonmetro Metro Plan area Nonmetro Metro Plan area Nonmetro Metro

Percent

American Indian

& Alaska Native

2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2

Asian & Pacific

Islander

4 1 4 5 1 6 7 2 9

Black/African

American

3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 4

White 92 95 92 88 93 86 84 90 82

Hispanic/Latinoa 5 6 5 9 7 8 14 12 14

≥ two racesb 35 2 3 4 4 4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates. 2 a Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and individuals may identify as Hispanic/Latino and any of the racial categories (e.g., Hispanic and 3

white or Hispanic and black). Therefore, totals will not sum to 100 percent. 4 b This category was not available on the 1990 census form. 5


9

1

2

Figure 2—Percentage of minority populations (combined) in NWFP-area counties, 2012. 3

Credit: Clara Dair 4


10

Table 3—Minority populations in the United States, 1990, 2000, and 2012 1

1990 2000 2012

U.S. U.S. U.S.

Percent

American Indian

& Alaska Native

1 1 1

Asian & Pacific

Islander

3 4 5

Black/African

American

12 13 13

White 84 81 78

Hispanic/Latinoa 9 13 17

≥ two racesb 1 2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, population estimates. 2

3 a Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity and individuals may identify as Hispanic/Latino and any of the 4

racial categories (e.g., Hispanic and white or Hispanic and black). Therefore, totals will not sum 5

to 100 percent. 6 b This category was not available on the 1990 census form. 7


11

Table 4—Minority populations in California’s NWFP area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 1

1990 2000 2012

California Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro Metro

Percent

American Indian

& Alaska Native

4 1 4 1 5 2

Asian & Pacific

Islander

1 4 1 5 2 7

Black/African

American

1 2 2 2 2 2

White 94 93 90 89 87 85

Hispanic/Latino a 9 11 14 17 19 23

≥ 2 races** 3 2 4 4

2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates 3





12

Table 5—Minority populations in Oregon’s NWFP area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 1

1990 2000 2012

Oregon Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro Metro

Percent

American Indian

& Alaska Native

2 1 2 1 2 1

Asian & Pacific

Islander

1 3 1 1 2 6

Black/African

American

<0.5 2 1 3 1 3

White 97 94 94 90 92 86


≥ 2 races b 2 2 3 4

2






13

Table 6—Minority populations in Washington’s NWFP area, 1990, 2000, and 2012 1

1990 2000 2012

Washington Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro Metro

Percent

American Indian

& Alaska Native

3 2 3 1 3 2

Asian & Pacific

Islander

2 5 2 8 2 10

Black/African

American

1 4 1 4 1 5

White 94 89 92 84 90 79


≥ 2 race b 2 3 3 5

2



racial categories (e.g., Hispanic/Latino and white or Hispanic/Latino and black). Therefore, totals 6

will not sum to 100 percent. 7 b This category was not available on the 1990 census form. 8


14

1

Figure 3—Percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native populations in NWFP-area 2

counties, 2012. Credit: Clara Dair 3


15

1

Figure 4—Percentage of Asian and Pacific Islander populations in NWFP-area counties, 2012. 2

Credit: Clara Dair3


16

1

2

Figure 5—Percentage of black/African American populations in NWFP-area counties, 2012. 3

Credit: Clara Dair 4


17

(tables 4 to 6, fig. 6). The percentage of American Indian and Alaska Native, and black/African 1

American populations did not increase between 1990 and 2012, while the percentage of Asian 2

and Pacific Islander populations grew, and the percentage of Hispanic/Latino populations grew 3

substantially (table 2). The NWFP area had a higher percentage of the total population that was 4

American Indian or Asian and Pacific Islander compared with the nation as a whole in 2012, but 5

a substantially lower percentage of the total population that was black/African American or 6

Hispanic/Latino compared with the nation as a whole (tables 2 and 3). 7

Many poor counties in the plan area also have large shares of minority residents (fig. 7). 8

However, poverty is not limited to those areas having high concentrations of minorities. For 9

example, Josephine, Douglas, and Lane counties in Oregon and Trinity County in California 10

have some of the highest rates of poverty in the plan area (all exceed 20 percent), yet their 11

residents are predominantly white who are not of Hispanic/Latino origin. Similarly, low-poverty 12

counties in the greater San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle metropolitan areas have relatively 13

high concentrations of minorities. The coarseness of county-level data used for NWFP 14

socioeconomic monitoring over the past decade, and the data presented here, prevent finer-scale 15

comparisons (e.g., community-level) of minority status, poverty, and the relationship between 16

them. Examining how trends in minority group populations and poverty rates may be linked is 17

beyond the scope of this chapter. Nevertheless, at the national level, black/African American, 18

American Indian, and Hispanic/Latino populations in the United States experience significantly 19

higher rates of poverty than white and Asian populations (Macartney et al. 2013). 20

21

How Low-Income and Minority Populations Interact With Federal Forests in 22

the Plan Area 23

24

The demographic composition of the NWFP area is changing: the percentage of the total 25

population comprised of minority groups, especially Hispanic/Latino, is increasing, as are 26

poverty rates. Research indicates that to some degree, different populations maintain different 27

relations to federal forests, have different use preferences, and face different constraints that 28


18

1

Figure 6—Percentage of Hispanic/Latino populations in NWFP-area counties, 2012. Credit: 2

Clara Dair 3


19

1

2

Figure 7—Minority populations by NWFP-area county poverty rates, 2012. Credit: Clara Dair3

Peer Review Draft 09/15/16 “THIS INFORMATION IS DISTRIBUTED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRE-DISSEMINATION PEER REVIEW UNDER APPLICABLE INFORMATION QUALITY GUIDELINES. IT HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY DISSEMINATED BY [THE AGENCY]. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT ANY AGENCY DETERMINATION OR POLICY.”

20

influence their use, though variation within groups exists. They may also have different views of 1

the environment and resource management, and different environmental behaviors and values 2

(see Chapter 9). To comply with the 1994 Executive Order 12898 and to encourage use of 3

federal forests by environmental justice populations, it is important to understand these 4

differences and ways of overcoming constraints. The scientific literature from the Pacific 5

Northwest is limited in this arena, and focuses mainly on participation by low-income and 6

minority populations in gathering nontimber forest products, recreation use, and the 7

environmental work force. We address these topics below, and also note an emergent issue: the 8

presence of temporary residents—including homeless populations—on national forests, many of 9

whom are likely low income. We also discuss some connections between wildfire management 10

and environmental justice. 11

Nontimber forest-products gathering— 12

The gathering of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) in the Pacific Northwest for subsistence, 13

commercial, recreational, and cultural purposes is important and widespread, both in urban and 14

rural areas (Alexander et al. 2001; Alexander and Fight 2003; Charnley et al. 2007; Jones and 15

Lynch 2007; Lynch and McLain 2003; McLain et al. 2012; Poe et al. 2013, 2014). National 16

forests and BLM land are important sites for commercial NTFP harvesting, generally (Charnley 17

et al. 2008). Most commercial NTFP harvesting in the Pacific Northwest occurs in temperate 18

forests from the Cascade Crest west to the Pacific coast owing to high concentrations of 19

economically important species, more people, and infrastructure that makes access easier 20

(Charnley et al. 2008). Chapter 8 provides an overview of NTFP gathering in the plan area, 21

including common species harvested. 22

Low income and minority populations are often active in harvesting NTFPs for 23

commercial purposes, although subsistence and cultural uses are also important. For instance, on 24

Washington’s Olympic Peninsula—a focal point for the Northwest’s floral greens industry—the 25

harvester workforce was originally EuroAmerican, but shifted to being dominated by Southeast 26

Asian refugees in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and then shifted again in the late 1980s to 27

become dominated by immigrants from Mexico and Central America (McLain and Lynch 2010). 28

Asians are also active participants in commercial wild mushroom harvesting, particularly 29


21

matsutake (Tsing 2015). A survey from the early 1990s found that roughly half of the 1

commercial mushroom harvesters in the Northwest were white, followed by 37 percent Asians 2

and Pacific Islanders, and 9 percent American Indians (Schlosser and Blatner 1995). Our focus 3

here is on commercial gathering. Commercial NTFP harvesting for some people may be their 4

primary source of income, but for most it fills gaps or provides supplemental income in between 5

other seasonal jobs such as agricultural or forestry services work, or jobs in cities. 6

Beargrass is one example. Commercial harvesting of beargrass for its flowers and leaves 7

gained importance in the Pacific Northwest in the 1980s (Higgins et al. 2004, Lynch & McLain 8

2003), and it has since become one of the leading commercial NTFP species harvested in the 9

region, and a multimillion dollar industry (Charnley and Hummel 2011). Most commercial 10

beargrass harvesters in the Pacific Northwest are Southeast Asian and Latino immigrants (Hansis 11

1998). Despite the physical hardships, these groups may be drawn to gathering beargrass and 12

other NTFPs for the floral greens industry because it is work that does not require English 13

language skills; jobs in the forest may be more appealing than low-paying jobs in cities; the job 14

can be performed by and with families; payment is in cash; and it may provide cultural 15

continuity to gathering traditions from immigrants’ home countries (Hansis 1998, Charnley and 16

Hummel 2011). 17

Wild mushrooms are another example; matsutake, the most economically valuable 18

mushroom in the world (Tsing 2015), is a case in point. Three distinct populations harvest 19

matsutakes in the Pacific Northwest. Japanese Americans have been harvesting the mushroom in 20

the region for a century and pick them as part of their cultural heritage; Mt. Hood is a favorite 21

spot (Tsing 2013a). These are largely recreational pickers who distribute mushrooms among 22

their relatives and across the Japanese American community, which reinforces social relations 23

and their heritage. Matsutake gained commercial value for the export trade to Japan in the 1980s. 24

At that time, a second group started picking it, white men, such as workers who had lost jobs in 25

the timber industry and other rural residents. These pickers have since been largely displaced by 26

a wave of Southeast Asian refugees to the United States who entered the woods in the thousands 27

beginning in the late 1980s: the Khmer from Cambodia, and the Lao, Hmong, and Mien from 28

Laos (Tsing 2013a, 2013b). Many of these pickers migrate to the Pacific Northwest seasonally 29


22

from cities in California to harvest mushrooms between other seasonal or temporary jobs. 1

Despite associated dangers such as the presence of hunters or the possibility of getting lost, 2

mushroom harvesting offers these populations, who often are poor, the ability to earn money as 3

entrepreneurs who only need a permit, transport, and camping equipment; and also provides a 4

sense of freedom (Tsing 2013b). Tsing (2015) describes this industry and the pickers who are 5

part of it in detail. 6

Salal, another major commercial product in the floral greens industry, is a third example. 7

Most salal harvesters are undocumented migrant workers from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin 8

America and Southeast Asian immigrants (Ballard and Huntsinger 2006). Research about these 9

harvesters finds that many have detailed local ecological knowledge related to stand conditions, 10

canopy cover, soil conditions, and disturbances that affect salal. 11

Other researchers have also found that NTFP harvesters may possess substantial local 12

ecological knowledge about the species they harvest, though this varies with experience 13

(Charnley et al. 2007, Tsing 2013a). These findings indicate the capacity of nontimber forest-14

product harvesters to contribute to sustainable forest management. However, environmental 15

justice populations who engage in NTFP harvesting, and NTFP harvesters more broadly—16

regardless of ethnic or racial identity—have been underrepresented in the process of developing 17

management guidelines and regulations for NTFPs (Charnley et al. 2007, Jones and Lynch 2007, 18

McLain and Jones 2001). Harvesters are highly dependent on public or large private lands for 19

gathering, making them subject to access and use regulations imposed by other landowners. 20

Moreover, other land uses (e.g., timber harvest, grazing) and management actions (e.g., fire 21

suppression) have an impact on the productivity and diversity of NTFP species. Thus, NTFP 22

harvesters have a strong interest and stake in federal forest management. 23

As commercial harvesting of NTFPs increases in response to market demand, conflict 24

with gatherers primarily interested in recreational, subsistence, and cultural uses has emerged in 25

some areas where there is competition over harvesting the same species (Charnley and Hummel 26

2011, Jones and Lynch 2007, Tsing 2015). For example, beargrass is highly valued for the floral 27

greens industry, but it is also a culturally important plant to American Indian tribes in the NWFP 28

area, especially for basketry (Charnley and Hummel 2011, Chapter 11). Leaf properties desirable 29


23

for commercial versus cultural purposes differ, as does forest stand management to promote the 1

desired properties (detailed in Charnley and Hummel 2011). These competing interests and 2

management requirements can cause conflict among users; some tribal members have expressed 3

concern over the impact of commercial beargrass harvesting on the plant (Charnley and Hummel 4

2011). Conflict among participants within specific sectors of the industry—such as the floral 5

greens industry—also exists, for example when some participants follow harvest regulations and 6

others do not (McLain and Lynch 2010). Moreover, some stakeholders do not support any 7

gathering activities that they perceive as threatening forest health, even if only for subsistence 8

use (Salazar 2009). A general lack of inventory and monitoring data about NTFP species 9

populations makes it difficult to assess the impacts of harvest activities on them and to develop 10

effective management guidelines (Jones and Lynch 2007). 11

For their part, harvesters have expressed a number of concerns related to NTFP gathering 12

and management. For example, Latino harvesters from the Olympic Peninsula who participated 13

in a natural resource values mapping exercise that included national forest lands stated that their 14

main concerns were: 15

(1) Encounters with immigration and law enforcement officers looking for undocumented 16

workers. 17

(2) The presence of hunters and target shooters who they perceived as acting irresponsibly in 18

places where they harvest, making them feel unsafe. 19

(3) Challenges associated with harvesters who do not comply with harvest regulations 20

(Biedenweg et al. 2014). 21

Other concerns revolve around labor relations within the industry. On the Olympic 22

Peninsula, commercial floral greens harvesting is often performed by people who gain access to 23

harvest sites through buying sheds (where the greens are purchased from harvesters, sorted, 24

quantified, and boxed up for shipping to wholesale distributors and exporters) that hold leases to 25

public or private forests where harvesting occurs (Lynch and McLain 2003, McLain and Lynch 26

2010). Ongoing legal debate over whether harvesters should thus be considered shed employees 27


24

has implications for their rights as workers, working conditions, and whether they receive fair 1

prices for their products. 2

Recreation— 3

Data on recreation visitation in the NWFP area are presented by national forest and BLM district 4

in the NWFP socioeconomic monitoring reports (Charnley 2006, Grinspoon et al. 2016). 5

However, these reports do not display recreation visitation data by income, racial, or ethnic 6

group. In this section we present recreation participation data for NWFP-area national forests in 7

aggregate by income, racial, and ethnic group, drawing on Forest Service National Visitor Use 8

Monitoring program data. Comparable data are unavailable for BLM districts. We also 9

synthesize what is known from the literature about participation by environmental justice 10

populations in the region and nationwide in outdoor recreation. See Chapter 9 for a broader 11

discussion of recreation in the NWFP area. 12

Low-income populations— 13

More than half of recreation visits to NWFP-area national forests are made by people whose 14

household incomes are less than $75,000 per year (table 8). Households with incomes under 15

$25,000 per year account for 11 to 12 percent of all recreation visits in the NWFP area, 16

consistent with national patterns. The only income group with a lower participation rate is 17

households having incomes of more than $150,000 per year (table 7). 18

Research from the Pacific Northwest about recreational use of public lands among low-19

income populations focuses on income levels and cost as determinants of participation. A general 20

survey of Washington and Oregon households (Burns and Graefe 2006) found that income is 21

positively correlated with interest and participation in outdoor recreation; as income increased, 22

so did the average number of visits to a national forest during the preceding year. The lowest 23

income group visited national forests significantly less than other income groups (Burns and 24

Graefe 2006); this may be due, at least in part, to the overall cost of a trip (Ostergren et al. 2005). 25

Regardless of urban or rural residency, the cost of recreation on federal forests includes 26

equipment and gear expenses, transportation costs to reach the recreation site, and in some 27

places, recreation fees. Of these expenses, federal land managers only have influence over 28

recreation fees. The Forest Service’s Recreation Fee Demonstration program, initiated in the late 29


25

Table 7—NWFP-area recreation visits by household income 1

Annual household

income

2005–2009 2010–2014 National

Percent

Under $25,000 11 12 11

$25,000 - $49,000 25 20 19

$50,000 - $74,999 24 23 23

$75,000 – $99,999 19 19 17

$100,000 - $149,999 14 16 15

$150,000 and up 7 9 14

Source: USDA Forest Service 2016. 2

3

4

1990s, established recreation fees at many dispersed areas on national forests that previously had 5

no site fees. Brown et al. (2008) found that recreation fees to park and access a wilderness area 6

on the Willamette National Forest had a greater negative effect on recreation visitation than did 7

high-severity fire within the wilderness area. In their survey from Washington and Oregon, 8

Burns and Graefe (2006) found that the lowest-income respondents in their study (earning less 9

than $10,000 per year) were the most likely to indicate that they could not afford to pay 10

recreation-use fees on national forests. 11

Minority populations— 12

Nearly all visits to NWFP-area national forests are by white visitors, consistent with national 13

trends (table 8). People of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity account for 4 percent of NWFP-area 14

national forest visits. Across all national forests, the vast majority of visits are also from white 15

visitors, and about 5 percent of visits nationally are from those of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. 16

17


26

Table 8—NWFP-area recreation visits by minority group 1

2005–2009 2010–2014 National

Percent

American Indian/Alaska Native 3 3 2

Asian/Pacific Islander 3 4 3

Black/African American 1 1 1

White 96 95 95

Hispanic/Latino 4 4 5

Source: USDA Forest Service 2016. 2

3

The National Outdoor Recreation Survey (Cordell 2012) indicates that American Indians have 4

activity participation patterns that are similar to whites, although American Indians have higher 5

rates of participation in backcountry activities (like primitive camping, backpacking, visiting 6

wilderness), and lower rates of nonmotorized winter recreation participation than whites (table 7

9). Asian and Pacific Islanders, like most other groups, have high rates of participation in 8

activities at developed sites. A much higher percentage participate in viewing and photographing 9

nature than in backcountry activities, hunting and fishing, and motorized and nonmotorized 10

activities. Hispanic/Latino populations surveyed participate more in some activities than other 11

minority groups, and less in others, but the relative popularity of different activities is generally 12

similar between Hispanics and other groups. Black/African Americans have the lowest levels of 13

participation in outdoor recreation relative to the other groups surveyed. However, more than 14

half of respondents had visited developed sites and participated in viewing and photographing 15

nature (table 9). 16

17

18


27

Table 9—Nationwide percentage of participation in outdoor recreation activity by racial 1

and ethnic group 2

Activity American

Indian

Asian/

Pacific

Islander

Black/

African American

White Hispanic/

Latino

Percent

Visiting developed sites 84 82 69 80 75

Viewing and photographing

nature

79 73 59 78 71

Backcountry activities 60 34 21 46 43

Motorized activities 42 24 15 41 35

Hunting and fishing 38 19 21 38 32

Nonmotorized winter

activities

7 11

4 13

12

Nonmotorized water activities 21 21 7 24 19

Source: Adapted from White et al. (2014) and Cordell (2012) 3

4

Several variables influence participation in outdoor recreation by racial and ethnic 5

minorities. One national study found that, relative to other groups, ethnic minorities, older 6

people, women, and those living in rural places perceived higher constraints to participating in 7

outdoor recreation (Ghimire et al. 2014). The primary perceived barriers were lack of time or 8

money, concerns about personal safety, lack of transportation, and lack of multilingual signage. 9

Facility condition, perceived crowding, and environmental quality were infrequently seen as 10

barriers to outdoor recreation by these groups. Distance and cost to access recreation 11

opportunities on federal lands are key factors influencing outdoor recreation use (Cho et al. 2014, 12


28

Stevens et al. 2014). Because most minority groups live disproportionately in urban areas that are 1

farther from national forests, on average, distance and cost can be a barrier to their participation. 2

For example, Bowker et al. (2006), in a national study, found evidence that a central factor in 3

lower participation in outdoor recreation in primitive settings by minority groups is distance to 4

those settings. 5

Chavez (2008) points out the importance of understanding the distinct preferences, 6

expectations, and barriers to participation in outdoor recreation among Latino populations in the 7

United States. As table 2 shows, the share of the Hispanic/Latino population is large in 8

metropolitan counties of the NWFP area (see also Johnson and Stewart 2007), making 9

consideration of Hispanic/Latino preferences and barriers to access especially important for the 10

management of urban national forests. Some studies have found that Latinos tend to participate 11

in outdoor recreation activities with extended family members in natural areas close to urban 12

centers (Burns et al. 2008, Chavez 2008). Constraints to participation include distance to 13

recreation areas, lack of transportation, and lack of information (in Spanish and English) about 14

where to recreate and who to contact to learn about recreation opportunities (Burns et al. 2008). 15

Burns et al. (2008) conducted research using focus groups (small groups of select people 16

who discuss questions pertaining to specific research topics) with people belonging to different 17

minority groups in several Oregon cities. They found that Asian Americans in their study also 18

liked to recreate with the extended family, and preferred developed facilities having amenities 19

over camping. Safety concerns loomed large, however, especially the safety of children. African 20

Americans in the study disliked recreating in remote locations, preferring parks close to urban 21

areas having well-managed, clean facilities, aesthetically pleasing views, and amenities such as 22

picnic tables, places to barbeque, and areas to play sports. Constraints to recreating in parks and 23

on public lands included lack of information about these opportunities, especially information in 24

multiple languages for Asian Americans (Fig. 8). Metcalf et al. (2013) surveyed racial and ethnic 25

minorities (“nontraditional users”) visiting the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest about their 26

perceived constraints to outdoor recreation participation, and strategies they use to overcome 27

these constraints. The chief factors constraining recreation on national forests among these users 28

were preferences for other recreation activities, limited time and other obligations, and weather 29


29

conditions. Very few survey respondents reported that discrimination from other recreation users 1

or Forest Service employees limited their outdoor recreation participation. 2

3

Figure 8. Accessibility and recreation information in multiple languages are important for 4

encouraging recreation use of national forests by minority populations. 5

Credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/forestservicenw/24830055050/in/album-6

72157659796299964/ 7

Non-recreational camping and homelessness— 8

Accurate estimates of homeless individuals in the United States are difficult to achieve. One 9

study estimated 3.5 million homeless people in the United States each year, and one third of 10

these are children (The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty 2004). Some people 11

who are chronically or episodically homeless choose to live on public lands. These represent 12

vulnerable populations, both in terms of economic vulnerability and social vulnerability. Poverty 13

is the primary risk factor for homelessness (Ji 2006). Other economic risk factors include high 14

unemployment, lack of affordable housing, and a female-only head of household. Personal 15


30

setbacks, such as an accident, divorce, natural disasters, unpaid medical bills, sudden job loss, or 1

loss of a loved one can exacerbate these problems and increase a person’s vulnerability (Elliot 2

and Krivo 1991.) Social vulnerabilities include lack of access to adequate health care, unmet 3

mental health needs, domestic violence, and divorce (Elliot and Krivo 1991, Wasserman and 4

Clair 2010). Untreated mental health issues such as depression, addiction, post-traumatic stress 5

disorder, and others, can negatively impact personal resiliency and are associated with 6

homelessness. 7

Camping is a common recreational use of national forests and grasslands, and BLM lands 8

in the NWFP area. But many people camp on public lands for nonrecreational purposes, with 9

these lands serving as a temporary residence. Some nonrecreational or long-term campers are 10

homeless (with no permanent address), while others temporarily reside on public lands as a 11

lifestyle choice or in response to local economic conditions. Federal land management agencies 12

do not have accurate counts of how many people live on federal lands. A recent survey of 13

national forest law enforcement officers revealed that encounters with non-recreational campers 14

occur in every region of the United States, and that nonrecreational campers were most common 15

in national forests near urban areas (Cerveny and Bauer n.d.). For national forests and grasslands 16

in California (Region 5) and Oregon and Washington (Region 6), 41 percent of law enforcement 17

officers surveyed reported weekly encounters with non-recreational campers, and 85 percent 18

reported encounters at least monthly. These encounter rates were higher than for the nation as a 19

whole (39 percent weekly and 75 percent monthly). In addition, 47 percent of officers in Region 20

5, and 49 percent in Region 6 reported that encounters with long-term nonrecreational campers 21

had increased in the years since they had begun their current assignment (mirroring the national 22

average of 47 percent). 23

This survey identified 10 types of non-recreational campers who were using the national 24

forest as a residence. The most common type in Regions 5 and 6 were “separatists,” who were 25

alone and seeking solitude; “transient retirees” living in RVs and moving from place to place; 26

and “families.” The survey asked officers what they perceived as most often contributing to 27

people living in national forests on a long-term basis. The most commonly mentioned factors 28

associated with homelessness and long-term camping were substance abuse, mental health 29


31

issues, lack of employment, and lack of available housing (Cerveny and Bauer n.d.). These 1

results echo the risk factors mentioned above and suggest economic and social vulnerabilities. 2

National forests and grasslands are serving as a temporary home for people who are suffering 3

from health challenges, as well as victims of a changing economy. These results confirm a 4

finding from the Deschutes National Forest (Asah et al. 2012) that one ecosystem service not 5

commonly identified is the ability of national forests to serve as a temporary shelter for people 6

who are marginalized by dominant economic, social, and health care systems. The magnitude of 7

temporary residence as a phenomenon and management issue on federal forests, and the degree 8

to which it represents a problem for federal forest managers in the NWFP area are unknown; 9

research on these topics is only beginning to emerge. 10

The environmental workforce— 11

Forest workers in the Pacific Northwest perform a variety of labor-intensive tasks, such as 12

planting and thinning trees, performing other forestry services, and fighting wildland fires. In 13

2014, there were an estimated 6,400 forest workers in Oregon alone during peak season 14

(Wilmsen et al. 2015). Since the late 1970s, forest workers in the Pacific Northwest have been 15

primarily Latino, marking a shift away from what was previously a white workforce toward one 16

that is now predominately composed of low-income Latino immigrants and undocumented 17

workers (Casanova and McDaniel 2005; Moseley et al. 2014; Sarathy 2006, 2012). In the mid-18

2000s, Mexican immigrants constituted the largest proportion of immigrant forest workers on 19

federal lands in the Pacific Northwest (Sarathy 2008). The “Latinization” of labor-intensive 20

forest work originated in a confluence of public policy (e.g., Small Business Administration set-21

asides for minority-owned businesses), and social networks (i.e., recent immigrants enter the 22

sector because of relationships with earlier immigrants who work in forestry services) (Sarathy 23

2006). In contrast, minorities are underrepresented in the white-collar environmental workforce 24

that offers higher job quality; one probable explanation is the low participation in university 25

environmental programs (Weintraub et al. 2011). 26

With this change in workforce came a series of working condition concerns that 27

disproportionately impacted immigrant forest workers, especially those without legal 28

immigration status (Sarathy 2008). These forest workers are often Latino, and have been referred 29


32

to as “pineros” by the U.S. media (a Spanish word meaning “man of the pines” or “someone who 1

works in the woods”) to describe the race of the worker and the type of work that they do (see 2

Sarathy 2012, Knudson and Amezuca 2005). Job quality among forest contractors is typically 3

low, measured by lack of employment stability, low wages, no benefits, and distance from home. 4

While both white and Latino workers face low job quality, Latino workers are more likely to 5

work far from home and seasonally, and less likely to receive health insurance through their 6

employers (Moseley 2006). 7

Research from Oregon shows that Latinos also often face poorer working conditions than 8

their non-Latino counterparts, such as disrespectful treatment, uncompensated injuries, little 9

opportunity for advancement, and retribution if they complain (Sarathy 2012). High injury and 10

fatality rates, low, unpaid, or stolen wages, lack of training, decline of union protection, and 11

dangerous work environments also characterize this sector (Campe et al. 2011, Moseley et al. 12

2014, Sarathy 2012, Wilmsen et al. 2015). Latino immigrants often face a particular 13

disadvantage owing to language barriers and limited access to legal recourse; fear of deportation 14

makes it less likely that forest workers will report labor exploitation or dangerous working 15

conditions (Campe et al. 2011; Sarathy 2008, 2012; Sarathy and Casanova 2008). Many of these 16

concerns have been hidden from elected officials, the general public, and decisionmaking bodies, 17

with scholarship, media, and public policy focusing disproportionately on the concerns of white, 18

native-born loggers (Sarathy 2008). 19

Two deaths of forestry services workers in on-the-job accidents in southern Oregon in 20

2011 are a recent reminder of the dangers found in this workplace (Wilmsen et al. 2015). Poor 21

working conditions for forest workers have persisted over the past two decades. The issues are 22

particularly prominent in the Pacific Northwest; for example, forest workers in Oregon were 23

found to have higher rates of occupational injury, illness, and fatality than the workforce at large 24

(Hayford 2013, Wilmsen et al. 2015). Moreover, documented rates are thought to be low 25

estimates due to historical underreporting of such problems by workers and employers alike 26

(Azaroff et al. 2002, Ruser 2008, Sarathy 2012, Wilmsen et al. 2015). Increased media attention 27

on working conditions for forest workers has led to more Congressional oversight and labor law 28

enforcement, but this political attention has been inconsistent as other issues arise (Moseley et al. 29


33

2014). Some groups representing forest workers such as the Northwest Worker Justice Project 1

and Alliance of Forest Workers and Harvesters advocate for better federal labor and contracting 2

law enforcement to improve working conditions. But as Moseley et al. (2014) explain, the 3

persistence of poor working conditions despite decades of political attention and advocacy 4

suggests that changing labor laws alone will be insufficient for improving job quality. The 5

vulnerability of immigrant workers, public lands policy, and federal contracting regulations also 6

potentially impact working conditions, and deserve attention (Moseley and Reyes 2008). 7

The debate regarding how to address poor working conditions, punctuated by political 8

controversy and advocacy, is as of yet unresolved. In recent research in southern Oregon (a 9

region having a high proportion of forest workers), forest workers (mainly Spanish-speaking 10

Latino immigrants) still reported workplace practices that are inconsistent with labor laws 11

(Wilmsen et al. 2015). Workers’ vulnerable economic status, lack of legal status, and fear of 12

retaliation still remain some of the largest drivers of marginalization for the increasing immigrant 13

labor force in the Pacific Northwest (Campe et al. 2011, Moseley et al. 2014, Sarathy 2008, 14

Wilmsen et al. 2015). This situation can cause the most marginal and vulnerable groups to 15

shoulder a disproportionate level of risk, and find ways to navigate the system invisibly 16

(Moseley et al. 2014, Wilmsen et al. 2015). 17

Although there have been some job quality improvements for Latinos in recent years, 18

these have mainly occurred in the arena of fire suppression work, including compensation for 19

travel and training (Moseley et al. 2014). Fire suppression work is historically more profitable 20

and less price competitive than federal forestry work, in which contractors are pressured to cut 21

costs to get contracts (Moseley et al. 2014). Additionally, firefighter safety and preparedness 22

have become a high priority for federal land management agencies, and a culture of firefighter 23

safety has been integrated into the incident command structure in which contractors operate 24

(Moseley et al. 2014). Contract firefighters also work closely with federal, state, and local 25

government employees on fire incidents, making it difficult to hide workplace safety issues. In 26

contrast, working conditions for other forest workers have received inconsistent attention; labor 27

and safety law enforcement is dispersed across a variety of state and federal labor and land 28

management agencies; and workplace safety issues are less visible (Moseley et al. 2014). 29


34

Most workplace health and safety strategies have traditionally focused on improving the 1

physical safety of the workplace, which is particularly relevant for improving the safety of 2

working in the woods (e.g., hardhats, correct equipment and gear). However, the broader well-3

being of workers is also important. Research suggests that once basic physical safety conditions 4

for forest workers are addressed, there should be more explicit consideration of employee well-5

being in order to improve retention, morale, and staff stability (Mylek and Schirmer 2015). 6

Wildfire management and environmental justice— 7

Under Executive Order 12898, the Forest Service and BLM must make environmental justice a 8

part of their mission by identifying and addressing any disproportionately high and adverse 9

human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and actions on minority and 10

low-income populations. But existing environmental justice-related forestry research focuses 11

mainly on urban issues, for example, the distribution of urban tree cover in relation to the social 12

and economic characteristics of people living in different city neighborhoods (e.g., Schwarz et al. 13

2015). A tendency to think about environmental justice as an urban issue challenges federal 14

forest managers to consider how their actions may impact environmental justice populations in 15

rural settings. Wildfire management is a case in point. Relevant research addressing wildfire and 16

low-income and minority populations in the United States, some of it from the Pacific 17

Northwest, finds the following: 18

(1) The rural poor living in fire-prone areas in the wildland-urban-interface have fewer resources 19

for creating defensible space around their homes, investing in fire-resistant building materials, 20

purchasing insurance, and adopting other wildfire mitigation strategies than middle- and high-21

income rural residents (Collins 2005, 2008). 22

(2) Communities having high wildfire risk and high social vulnerability (e.g., below poverty line, 23

nonwhite, low education) are less engaged in wildfire mitigation programs than communities 24

having high wildfire risk and low social vulnerability (Gaither et al. 2011, Ojerio et al. 2011, 25

Poudyal et al. 2012). 26

(3) Poor communities may have fewer fire suppression resources than more affluent 27

communities (Lynn and Gerlitz 2006, Mercer and Prestemon 2005). 28


35

(4) Fuel reduction treatments may be concentrated in places where property values are high, 1

although they may be ineffective at reducing wildfire risk because, aesthetically, homeowners 2

favor dense forest stands (Roberts 2013). 3

(5) Poor households usually outnumber wealthier households near federal lands, but tend to be 4

located in areas having low housing density that do not meet the threshold for wildland-urban-5

interface delineation (Lynn and Gerlitz 2006, Radeloff et al. 2005). Thus, they receive fewer 6

benefits from fire hazard mitigation activities and suffer longer wildfire response times. 7

(6) Research from the southern United States (Gaither Johnson et al. 2015) found that smoke 8

plumes from wildfires and prescribed fires did not disproportionately adversely affect socially 9

vulnerable populations (defined using an index of indicators including poverty, minority status, 10

renters, and age and education-related variables). These populations experienced no more smoke 11

exposure than populations who are not socially vulnerable. Comparable research about the 12

impacts of smoke on environmental justice populations from the Pacific Northwest is lacking. 13

(7) Finally, decades of disaster research by social scientists reveals that the effects of natural 14

hazards, such as wildfire, are not experienced equally within a community. It is the most socially 15

vulnerable people who have the most difficulty coping and recovering from the hazard event and 16

adapting afterward (e.g., Oliver-Smith 1996). 17

Research about the location of hazardous fuels reduction treatments on national forests in 18

relation to the distribution of nearby environmental justice populations in the Pacific Northwest 19

is currently underway (Adams and Charnley), but results are not yet available. 20

21

Research Needs, Uncertainties, Information Gaps, and 22

Limitations 23

24

This chapter has provided information about general trends in environmental justice populations 25

in the NWFP area between 1990 and 2012 using readily available, county-level data. More 26


36

recent, detailed, or geographically specific trends in low-income and minority populations could 1

be identified using U.S. Census data as part of the socioeconomic assessment to support 2

revisions of the NWFP. Much of the research reported here comes from Washington and 3

Oregon; the literature about how environmental justice populations relate to federal forests is 4

more limited for the California portion of the NWFP area, except for American Indian tribes (see 5

Chapter 11). Literature for BLM lands is also scarce. There is a reasonably substantive literature 6

about how minority populations relate to national forests around work (e.g., forestry services 7

work, commercial NTFP harvesting). However, most of the literature on NTFP harvesting is 8

from the 1990s or early 2000s. Little information is available about recreational, subsistence, and 9

cultural uses of NTFPs by environmental justice populations apart from American Indians. More 10

broadly, apart from recreation, little information is available about noneconomic relations 11

between environmental justice populations and federal forests. Although research is beginning to 12

fill the gap in knowledge about the environmental justice implications of Forest Service 13

hazardous fuels reduction activities, there is a lack of information about how fire – managed, 14

prescribed, or wild – and associated smoke affect low income and minority populations in the 15

Plan area. 16

These gaps could potentially be filled through additional research, including using 17

methods such as focus groups with populations of interest that include participatory values 18

mapping exercises (e.g., Biedenweg et al. 2014). It is also uncertain whether the research 19

findings presented here are relevant locally, and reflect the nature of interactions between 20

environmental justice populations and federal forests on specific national forest and BLM units. 21

Research pursued at finer scales would help address this uncertainty. Changes in environmental 22

justice populations throughout the NWFP area call for reassessing earlier findings, and ongoing 23

research into how these populations relate to federal forests and are affected by their 24

management. 25

26

Conclusions and Management Considerations 27

28


37

Environmental justice populations in the NWFP area are growing. Monitoring data and a handful 1

of studies from different parts of the plan area provide insight into the changing demographics of 2

the region, and how some members of low-income and minority populations interact with federal 3

forests. When thinking about these relationships, it is important to avoid overgeneralizing and 4

creating stereotypes about the values, uses, preferences, and behaviors of specific groups. Rather, 5

the research synthesized here can be used to raise awareness and flag potentially relevant topics 6

for agency staff. 7

8

NTFP Harvesting 9

Despite the long history and continued prevalence of NTFP gathering in the Pacific Northwest, 10

federal forest managers have been slow to meaningfully consider NTFPs in management (Jones 11

and Lynch 2007). Ballard and Huntsinger (2006), Biedenweg et al. (2014), Charnley et al. 12

(2007), Jones and Lynch (2007), McLain (2008), McLain and Jones (2001), and McLain and 13

Lynch (2010) offer numerous insights for how to address issues associated with NTFP gathering 14

and management on public forest lands in the Pacific Northwest, and for how to better engage 15

harvesters in management and decisionmaking associated with NTFPs in the region. Many of 16

these are relevant to all harvesters, regardless of race, ethnicity, or class (see chapter 8). Those 17

pertaining specifically to issues raised by environmental justice populations include addressing 18

harvesters’ safety concerns associated with NTFP gathering (for example, encouraging 19

harvesters to wear blaze orange vests), and examining how policies, including tenure 20

arrangements for NTFP harvesting on federal forests, affect the working conditions and earnings 21

of harvesters. Consideration of how federal forest management activities affect the abundance, 22

distribution, diversity, and quality of economically and culturally important NTFP species also 23

warrants more attention in the planning process. 24

25

Recreation 26

Management considerations discussed here focus on how to foster more recreation participation 27

by environmental justice populations on federal forests in the NWFP area. Several strategies to 28


38

help alleviate cost barriers to recreation participation on national forests by low-income visitors 1

have been suggested: (1) offer people who can’t afford to pay visitor-use fees the opportunity to 2

do volunteer work on a national forest in exchange for a fee waiver; (2) set aside areas where 3

visitor-use fees are not required; (3) establish days or times when site fees are waived; and (4) 4

provide financial assistance to low-income visitors, for example by giving them free annual 5

recreation passes (Burns and Graefe 2006, Scott 2013). Some of these practices are already in 6

place in the Pacific Northwest (Burns and Graefe 2006). 7

The growing ethnic and racial diversity of the American population, reflected in NWFP 8

area statistics reported here, has important implications for recreational uses of federal forests 9

because recreation patterns are shaped by cultural norms and preferences (Sheffield 2012). 10

Minority and low-income populations are currently under-represented among national forest 11

visitors nationwide (Roberts et al. 2009). To ensure that all populations can enjoy federal forests, 12

and to broaden the base of support for public lands, finding ways to increase recreation use by 13

environmental justice populations is important. Roberts et al. (2009) provide a resource guide to 14

help land management agencies better serve culturally-diverse populations in California; the 15

suggestions are relevant to the NWFP area as a whole. Constraints that are important to address 16

include a lack of information about available recreation opportunities; improving transportation 17

options to urban national forests; and a shortage of recreation opportunities that match these 18

users’ preferences (Metcalf et al. 2013). For example, Spanish-language materials, developed 19

recreation sites that accommodate large groups, and outreach to Hispanic/Latino communities 20

related to volunteer and employment opportunities could strengthen the relationship between 21

federal forests and Hispanic/Latino populations (Chavez 2008). Burns et al. (2008) make a 22

number of suggestions for improving outreach to Latinos, Asian Americans, and African 23

Americans to increase their recreation participation on national forests. Key among these are 24

increasing information about available opportunities in multiple languages, working with media 25

outlets that target these populations in doing so. Improving facilities so that they accommodate 26

user preferences is also important. For groups concerned about safety, safety concerns could be 27

addressed by increasing the visibility of law enforcement officers and access to agency and 28

emergency personnel (Ghimire et al. 2014). 29


39

1

Non-recreational Camping and Homelessness 2

U.S. Forest Service law enforcement officers surveyed by Cerveny and Bauer (n.d.) reported that 3

the frequency of homelessness and long-term camping on national forests is increasing, and that 4

the greater share of responsibility for addressing the issue seems to be on patrol officers. The 5

officers typically respond on a case-by-case basis by issuing citations for “stay violations,” 6

“illegal residence” violations, or other violations (e.g., sanitation, litter, or drug possession). 7

However, the same individuals repeatedly return to the forest, often to the same sites, or they 8

may shift between national forest land and other nearby public lands. Recognizing the resource 9

impacts and social effects associated with long-term camping by agency management would 10

spotlight the concerns raised by law enforcement. Treating homelessness as a chronic and 11

systemic phenomenon in which the agency plays a critical role potentially would lead to greater 12

acceptance of responsibility and potential action. Law enforcement officers in the study 13

described creative solutions that involved partnerships with public health agencies, social 14

services, municipal police, and citizen groups to identify safe housing options in local 15

communities. 16

The Environmental Workforce 17

As the demographic composition of the NWFP area continues to change, and the forestry 18

workforce is increasingly represented by Latinos and other environmental justice populations, it 19

is important that federal forest managers address the issue of working conditions for forest 20

workers. Doing so means considering contracting markets and contract oversight, which include 21

bidding on, awarding, and monitoring compliance for projects. Suggestions for improving 22

working conditions for forest workers include: 23

(1) Examining how the beneficial features of fire-suppression contracting could be incorporated 24

into other, non-fire contracts (e.g., specific contract requirements and more oversight). 25

(2) Strengthening agency policies to make labor-law-compliance inspection more consistent, 26

combining these inspections with technical specification inspections, and increasing agency 27

inspector training (Wilmsen et al. 2015). 28


40

(3) Changing the competitive low-cost bid process to reduce contractor incentives for cutting 1

costs, and explicitly incorporating the costs of safety trainings and daily safety briefings into 2

contract awards (Moseley et al. 2014, Wilmsen et al. 2015). 3

Other considerations that emerge from the literature pertain to increasing the ability of forest 4

communities to capture contracting opportunities on nearby federal forests to contribute to local 5

economies. For example, agencies might structure contracts in ways that allow local 6

communities to benefit by facilitating local training opportunities, or changing contracting 7

guidelines. They might also consider using local restoration contracting service providers for fire 8

suppression to support local forest contracting capacity, and the ability of local contractors to 9

capture contracts during potential fires. Agencies could also identify how to address potential 10

obstacles, such as wildfire contracting policies, that inhibit local contractors’ participation. 11

Having a trained local workforce with the capacity to respond to wildfire rapidly and perform 12

forest restoration work could help increase community preparedness for wildfire. 13

Wildfire Management 14

Whether reducing hazardous fuels or engaging in other forest management activities, managers 15

are required to consider how their actions may adversely affect environmental justice populations 16

disproportionately. It is also worth considering whether certain populations disproportionately 17

benefit from forest management actions such as wildfire risk mitigation, so that these benefits 18

may be equitably distributed. Research indicates that low-income and minority populations may 19

be more vulnerable to wildfire than other populations. This finding suggests that not only is it 20

important for fuel reduction treatments be proportionately distributed to places where low-21

income and minority populations border fire-prone federal forests; but treatments might favor 22

these locales because social vulnerability to wildfire from federal forests is higher there. 23

Furthermore, given research that indicates low-income and minority populations may have less 24

access to assistance programs, directing outreach, and financial and technical assistance to these 25

populations may help them increase fire-safe practices around their homes for greater protection 26

from high-severity fire.27


41

References 1

2

Adams, M. and S. Charnley. n.d. Who Benefits from Forest Service Hazardous Fuels Reduction? 3

(Ongoing project). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland 4

Forestry Sciences Lab. 5

Alexander, S. J. and R. D. Fight. 2003. Managing access to nontimber forest products. Pages 6

383-400 in R. A. Monserud, R. W. Haynes, and A. C. Johnson, editors. Compatible 7

Forest Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. 8

Alexander, S. J., R. McLain, and K. Blatner. 2001. Socio-economic research on non-timber 9

forest products in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 95-103 in M. R. Emery and R. McLain, 10

editors. Non-Timber Forest Products: Medicinal Herbs, Fungi, Edible Fruits and Nuts, 11

and Other Natural Products from the Forest. Food Products Press, New York. 12

Asah, S., D. J. Blahna, and C. M. Ryan. 2012. Involving forest communities in identifying and 13

constructing ecosystem services: millennium assessment and place specificity. Journal of 14

Forestry 110:149-156. 15

Azaroff, L., C. Levenstein, and D. Wegman. 2002. Occupational injury and illness surveillance: 16

Conceptual filters explain underreporting. American Journal of Public Health 92:1421-17

1429. 18

Ballard, H. L. and L. Huntsinger. 2006. Salal Harvester Local Ecological Knowledge, Harvest 19

Practices and Understory Management on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Human 20

Ecology 34:529-547. 21

Biedenweg, K., L. Cerveny, and R. McLain. 2014. Values mapping with Latino forest users: 22

contributing to the dialogue on multiple land use conflict management. Practicing 23

Anthropology 36:33-37. 24

Blatner, K. A. and S. Alexander. 1998. Recent price trends for nontimber forest products in the 25

Pacific Northwest. Forest Products Journal 48:28-34. 26

27

28


42

Bowker, J. M., D. Murphey, H. K. Cordell, D. B. K. English, J. C. Bergstrom, C. M. Starbuck, C. 1

J. Betz, and G. T. Green. 2006. Wilderness and primitive area recreation participation and 2

consumption: an examination of demographic and spatial factors. Journal of Agriculture 3

and Applied Economics 38:317-326. 4

Brown, R. N. K., R. S. Rosenberger, and J. D. Kline. 2008. Visitor preferences for managing 5

wilderness recreation after wildfire. Journal of Forestry 1/2:9-16. 6

Burns, R. C., E. Covelli, and A. R. Graefe. 2008. Chapter 11: Outdoor recreation and 7

nontraditional users: results of focus group interviews with racial and ethnic minorities 8

Pages 123-137 in D. J. Chavez, P. L. Winter, and J. D. Absher, editors. Recreation 9

Visitor Research: Studies of Diversity. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 10

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 11

Burns, R. C. and A. R. Graefe. 2006. Toward understanding recreation fees: impacts on people 12

with extremely low income levels. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 24:1-13

20. 14

Campe, J., L. Hoare, A. Hagopian, and M. Keifer. 2011. Using Community-Based Methods and 15

a Social Ecological Framework to Explore Workplace Health and Safety of bloqueros on 16

the Olympic Peninsula. 54:438-449. 17

Casanova, V. and J. McDaniel. 2005. ‘‘No sobra y no falta’’: Recruitment networks and guest 18

workers in southeastern U.S. forest industries. Urban Forestry 34:45. 19

Cerveny, L.K. and J. Bauer. n.d. At Home in the Forest: Long-term Non-recreational Camping in 20

National Forests and Grasslands. A National Survey of Law Enforcement 21

Professionals. (Ongoing Project). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 22

Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Lab. 23

Charnley, S. 2006. Socioeconomic monitoring results Volume II: Timber and nontimber 24

Resources. Page 74 in S. Charnley, editor. Northwest Forest Plan- the first 10 years 25

(1994-2003): Socioeconomic monitoring results. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 26

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 27

Charnley, S., A. P. Fischer, and E. T. Jones. 2007. Integrating traditional and local ecological 28

knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology 29

and Management 246:14-28. 30


43

Charnley, S., A. P. Fischer, and E. T. Jones. 2008. Traditional and local ecological knowledge 1

about forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 2

Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 3

Charnley, S. and S. Hummel. 2011. People, plants, and pollinators: the conservation of beargrass 4

ecosystem diversity in the western United States. Pages 127-154 in J. L. Pujol, editor. 5

The Importance of Biological Interactions in the Study of Biodiversity. InTech, Rijeka, 6

Croatia. 7

Chavez, D. J. 2008. Serving the needs of Latino recreation visitors to urban-proximate natural 8

resource recreation areas. Pages 53-62 in D. J. Chavez, P. L. Winter, and J. D. Absher, 9

editors. Recreation Visitor Research: Studies of Diversity. General Technical Report 10

PSW-GTR-210. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 11

Research Station, Albany, CA. 12

Chavez, D. J., P. L. Winter, and J. D. Absher. 2008. Recreation visitor research: studies of 13

diversity. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-210. USDA Department of Agriculture, 14

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 15

Cho, S.-H., J. M. Bowker, D. B. K. English, R. K. Roberts, and T. Kim. 2014. Effects of travel 16

cost and participation in national forest visits. Forest Policy and Economics 40:21-30. 17

Clinton, W. J. 1994. Executive order 12898: Federal actions to address environmental justice in 18

minority populations and low-income populations. Federal Register 59:7629–7635. 19

Collins, T. W. 2005. Households, forests, and fire hazard vulnerability in the American West: a 20

study of a California community. Environmental Hazards 6:23-37. 21

Collins, T. W. 2008. The political ecology of hazard vulnerability: marginalization, facilitation 22

and the production of differential risk to urban wildfires in Arizona's White Mountains. 23

Journal of Political Ecology 15:21-43. 24

Cordell, H. K. 2012. Outdoor recreation trends and futures: a technical document supporting the 25

Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. Asheville, NC. 26

Council on Environmental Quality, C. 1997. Environmental justice guidance under the National 27

Environmental Policy Act. 28

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-29

EJGuidance.pdf . (Accessed January 21, 2014). 30


44

Economic Research Service (ERS). 2012. Farm Labor. 1

Elliott, M. and L. J. Krivo. 1991. Structural determinants of homelessness in the United States. 2

Social Problems 38:113. 3

Gaither, C. J., N. C. Poudyal, S. Goodrick, J. M. Bowker, and S. Malone. 2011. Wildland fire 4

risk and social vulnerability in the Southeastern United States: An exploratory spatial 5

data analysis approach. Forest Policy and Economics 13:24-36. 6

Gaither, C. J., S. Goodrick, B. E. Murphy, and N. Poudyal. 2015. An Exploratory Spatial 7

Analysis of Social Vulnerability and Smoke Plume Dispersion in the U.S. South. Forests 8

6:1397-1421. 9

Ghimire, R., G. T. Green, N. C. Poudyal, and H. K. Cordell. 2014. An analysis of perceived 10

constraints to outdoor recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 32:52-11

67. 12

Grinspoon, E., D. Jaworski, and R. Phillips. 2016. Social and economic status and trends. U.S. 13

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, OR. 14

Grinspoon, E., J. Schaefers, R. Periman, J. Smalls, C. Manning, and T. L. Porto. 2014. Striving 15

for Inclusion: Addressing Environmental Justice for Forest Service NEPA. USDA Forest 16

Service, Washington, DC. 17

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: non-timber forest products in the Pacific 18

Northwest. Human Ecology 26:67-86. 19

Hayford, C. 2013. Oregon forest industry: A comparison of occupational safety and health 20

measures, 2012. Information Management Division, Department of Consumer and 21

Business Services, State of Oregon. Available online at 22

www4.cbs.state.or.us/ex/imd/external/reports/index.cfm?fuseactiondir&ItemID3303. 23

Higgins, S., K. Blatner, B. Kerns, and A. Worthington. 2004. Relationship between Xerophyllum 24

tenax and canopy density in the southern Cascades of Washington. Western Journal of 25

Applied Forestry 19:82-87. 26

Ji, Eun-Gu. 2006. A study of the structural risk factors of homelessness in 52 metropolitan areas 27

in the United States International Social Work 49:107-117. 28

29


45

Johnson, K. M. and S. I. Stewart. 2007. Demographic trends in national forest, recreational, 1

retirement, and amenity areas. Proceedings: National Workshop on Recreation Research 2

Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 3

Research Station, Portland, OR. 4

Jones, E. T. and K. A. Lynch. 2007. Nontimber forest products and biodiversity management in 5

the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 246:29-37. 6

Knudson, T. and H. Amezcua. 2005. The Pineros: Men of the Pines. The Sacramento Bee, 7

November 13-15, www.sacbee.com/content/news/projects/pineros. 8

Lynch, K. A. and R. McLain. 2003. Access, labor, and wild floral greens management in western 9

Washington's forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 10

Research Station, Portland, OR. 11

Lynn, K. and W. Gerlitz. 2006. Mapping the Relationship between Wildfire and Poverty.in 12

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Portland, OR. 13

Macartney, S., A. Bishaw, and K. Fontenot. 2013. Poverty Rates for Selected Detailed Race and 14

Hispanic Groups by State and Place: 2007-2011. 15

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf. 16

McLain, R., M. Poe, P. T. Hurley, J. Lecompte-Mastenbrook, and M. R. Emery. 2012. Producing 17

edible landscapes in Seattle's urban forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 11:187-18

194. 19

McLain, R. J. 2008. Constructing a wild mushroom panopticon: the extension of nation-state 20

control over the forest understory in Oregon, USA. Economic Botany 62:343-355. 21

McLain, R. J. and E. T. Jones. 2001. Expanding non-timber forest product harvester/buyer 22

participation in Pacific Northwest forest policy. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 13:147-23

161. 24

McLain, R. J. and K. Lynch. 2010. Managing floral greens in a globalized economy: resource 25

tenure, labour relations, and immigration policy in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Pages 26

265-286 in S. A. Laird, R. J. McLain, and R. P. Wynberg, editors. Wild product 27

governance: finding policies that work for non-timber forest products. Earthscan, 28

Washington, D.C. 29


46

Mercer, D. E. and J. P. Prestemon. 2005. Comparing Production Function Models for Wildfire 1

Risk Analysis in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Forest Policy and Economics 7:782-795. 2

Metcalf, E. C., R. C. Burns, and A. R. Graefe. 2013. Understanding non-traditional forest 3

recreation: the role of constraints and negotiation strategies among racial and ethnic 4

minorities. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism: 29-39. 5

Moseley, C. 2006. Ethnic differences in job quality among contract forest workers on six 6

national forests. Policy Sciences 39:113. 7

Moseley, C. and Y. E. Reyes. 2008. Forest Restoration and Forest Communities: Have Local 8

Communities Benefited from Forest Service Contracting of Ecosystem Management? 9

Environmental Management 42:327. 10

Moseley, C., G. Sandoval, and E. J. Davis. 2014. Comparing Conditions of Labor-Intensive 11

Forestry and Fire Suppression Workers. Society & Natural Resources 27:540. 12

Mylek, M. R. and J. Schirmer. 2015. Beyond physical health and safety: supporting the 13

wellbeing of workers employed in the forest industry. Forestry 88:391. 14

Ojerio, R., C. Moseley, K. Lynn, and N. Bania. 2011. Limited involvement of socially vulnerable 15

populations in federal programs to mitigate wildfire risk in Arizona. Natural Hazards 16

Review 12:28-36. 17

Oliver-Smith, A. 1996. Anthropological research on hazards and disasters. Annual Review of 18

Anthropology 25:303-328. 19

Ostergren, D., F. I. Solop, and K. K. Hagen. 2005. National Park Service fees: value for the 20

money or a barrier to visitation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 23:18-36. 21

Poe, M., J. LeCompte, R. McLain, and P. T. Hurley. 2014. Urban foraging and the relational 22

ecologies of belonging. Social & Cultural Geography:1-19. 23

Poe, M., R. McLain, M. R. Emery, and P. T. Hurley. 2013. Urban forest justice and the rights to 24

wild foods, medicines, and materials in the city. Human Ecology 41:409-422. 25

Poudyal, N., C. Johnson-Gaither, S. Goodrick, J. M. Bowker, and J. Gan. 2012. Locating spatial 26

variation in the association between wildland fire risk and social vulnerability across six 27

southern states. Environmental Management 49:625-635. 28


47

Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S. Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry. 1

2005. The wildland-urban interface in the United States. Ecological Applications 15:799-2

805. 3

Roberts, J. 2013. "What are we protecting out here?" A political ecology of forest, fire, and fuels 4

management. Capitalism Nature Socialism 24:58-76. 5

Roberts, N. S., Chavez, D. J., Lara, B. M., and E. A. Sheffield. 2009. Serving Culturally Diverse 6

Visitors to Forests in California: A Resource Guide. General Technical Report PSW-7

GTR-222. Albany, CA, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 8

Southwest Research Station. 76 p. 9

Ruser, J. 2008. Examining evidence on whether BLS undercounts workplace injuries and 10

illnesses. Monthly Labor Review 131:20-32. 11

Salazar, D. J. 2009. Saving nature and seeking justice: environmental activists in the Pacific 12

Northwest. Organization & Environment 22:230-254. 13

Sarathy, B. 2006. The Latinization of forest management work in Southern Oregon: A case from 14

the Rogue Valley. Journal of Forestry 104:359-365. 15

Sarathy, B. 2008. The marginalization of pineros in the Pacific Northwest. Society and Natural 16

Resources 21:671. 17

Sarathy, B. 2012. Pineros: Latino labour and the changing face of forestry in the Pacific 18

Northwest. UBC Press. 19

Sarathy, B. and V. Casanova. 2008. Guest workers or unauthorized immigrants? The case of 20

forest workers in the United States. Policy Sciences 41:95-114. 21

Schlosser, W. E. and K. A. Blatner. 1995. The Wild Edible Mushroom Industry of Washington, 22

Oregon, and Idaho. Journal of Forestry 93:31-36. 23

Schwarz, K., M. Fragkias, C. G. Boone, W. Zhou, M. McHale, J. M. Grove, J. O'Neil-Dunne, J. 24

P. McFadden, G. L. Buckley, D. Childres, L. Ogden, S. Pincetl, D. Pataki, A. Whitmer, 25

and M. L. Cadanasso. 2015. Trees Grow on Money: Urban Tree Canopy Cover and 26

Environmental Justice. PLoS ONE 10.1371/journal.pone.0122051. 17 p. 27

Scott, D. 2013. Economic inequality, poverty, and park and recreation delivery. Journal of Park 28

and Recreation Administration 31:1-11. 29


48

Sheffield, E. A. 2012. Five Trends Shaping Tomorrow Today. Parks and Recreation July 2012: 1

16-17. 2

Stevens, T. H., T. A. More, and M. Markowski-Lindsay. 2014. Declining national park 3

visitation: an economic analysis. Journal of Leisure Research 46:153-164. 4

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. 2004. Homelessness in the United 5

States and the Human Right to Housing. January 2004. Available at 6

https://www.nlchp.org/documents/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet. 7

Tsing, A. 2013a. Dancing in the mushroom forest. PAN: Philosophy, Activism, Nature 10:6-14. 8

Tsing, A. L. 2013b. Free in the forest: popular neoliberalism and the aftermath of war in the US 9

Pacific Northwest. Pages 20-39 in Z. Gambetti and M. Godoy-Anativia, editors. 10

Rhetorics of Insecurity: Belonging and Violence in the Neoliberal Era. New York 11

University Press, New York. 12

Tsing, A. L. 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World. Princeton University Press, 13

Princeton. 14

U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Explanation of Race and Hispanic Origin Categories. 15

https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/rho.txt (Accessed August 11, 2016). 16

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. How poverty is calculated in the ACS. 17

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty-cal-in-acs.pdf . (Accessed January 21, 18

2014). 19

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1997. USDA Departmental Regulation No. 5600-002, 20

Environmental Justice. http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/DR5600-21

002.pdf. 22

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results. 23

http://apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/ (Accessed February 24, 2016). 24

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 2013. Annual update of the HHS 25

poverty guidelines: A notice by the Health and Human Services Department on 26

01/24/2013. Federal Register 2013-01422:5182–5183. 27

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Environmental Justice. 28

http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ (Accessed July 10, 2013). 29

https://www.census.gov/population/estimates/rho.txt

http://apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/nvum/results/


49

Wasserman, J. A. and J. M. Clair. 2010. At home on the street: People, poverty, and a hidden 1

culture of homelessness Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, CO. 2

Weigand, J. 2002. Overview of cultural traditions, economic trends, and key species in 3

nontimber forest products of the Pacific Northwest Pages 57-64 in E. T. Jones, R. J. 4

McLain, and J. Weigand, editors. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 5

University of Kansas Press, Kawrence, KS. 6

Weintraub, M., A. Park, and S. Jang. 2011. Diversifying the environmental workforce: 7

addressing an early environmental justice challenge. Environmental justice 4:27-44. 8

White, E. M., J. M. Bowker, A. E. Askew, L. L. Langner, J. R. Arnold, and D. B. K. English. 9

2014. Federal outdoor recreation trends: effects on economic opportunities. Washington, 10

D.C. 11

Wilmsen, C., D. Bush, and D. Barton-Antonio. 2015. Working in the Shadows: Safety and 12

Health in Forestry Services in Southern Oregon. Journal of Forestry 113:315-324.13


50

Appendix: Counties in the Northwest Forest Plan area (2012 1

designation) 2

CA, Colusa County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Polk County (metropolitan) CA, Del Norte County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Sherman County (nonmetropolitan) CA, Glenn County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Tillamook County (nonmetropolitan) CA, Humboldt County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Wasco County (nonmetropolitan) CA, Lake County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Washington County (metropolitan) CA, Lassen County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Yamhill County (metropolitan) CA, Marin County (metropolitan) WA, Adams County (nonmetropolitan) CA, Mendocino County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Benton County (metropolitan) CA, Modoc County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Chelan County (metropolitan) CA, Napa County (metropolitan) WA, Clallam County (nonmetropolitan) CA, Shasta County (metropolitan) WA, Clark County (metropolitan) CA, Siskiyou County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Cowlitz County (metropolitan) CA, Sonoma County (metropolitan) WA, Douglas County (metropolitan) CA, Sutter County (metropolitan) WA, Franklin County (metropolitan) CA, Tehama County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Grant County (nonmetropolitan) CA, Trinity County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Grays Harbor County (nonmetropolitan) CA, Yolo County (metropolitan) WA, Island County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Benton County (metropolitan) WA, Jefferson County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Clackamas County (metropolitan) WA, King County (metropolitan) OR, Clatsop County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Kitsap County (metropolitan) OR, Columbia County (metropolitan) WA, Kittitas County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Coos County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Klickitat County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Crook County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Lewis County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Curry County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Mason County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Deschutes County (metropolitan) WA, Okanogan County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Douglas County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Pacific County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Hood River County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Pierce County (metropolitan) OR, Jackson County (metropolitan) WA, San Juan County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Jefferson County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Skagit County (metropolitan) OR, Josephine County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Skamania County (metropolitan)


51

OR, Klamath County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Snohomish County (metropolitan) OR, Lane County (metropolitan) WA, Thurston County (metropolitan) OR, Lincoln County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Wahkiakum County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Linn County (nonmetropolitan) WA, Walla Walla County (nonmetropolitan) OR, Marion County (metropolitan) WA, Whatcom County (metropolitan) OR, Multnomah County (metropolitan) WA, Yakima County (metropolitan)

1

2

Date post:	27-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungcong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

Chapter 10: Environmental Justice, Low Income and Minority ... · for Forest Service staff to help...

Documents