HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Prepared For
Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Implementation Team USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 11500 Quincy, CA 95971
Prepared By
4550 Montgomery Avenue Suite 300N Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 961-8800 Fax: (301) 469-3001 www.jfaucett.com
December 19, 2008 HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 2 2. INTRODUCTION...... 11 3. MONITORED COMMUNITIES ...... 12 4. MONITORED INDICATORS...... 16 4.1 PAYROLL JOBS: FOREST PRODUCTS AND TOURISM INDUSTRIES ...... 16 4.2 NONEMPLOYERS IN THE FOREST PRODUCT INDUSTRY ...... 23 4.3 FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY ROSTER SURVEY...... 25 4.4 HFQLG TIMBER SALE AND REMOVAL ACTIVITY...... 29 4.5 VALUE OF HFQLG SERVICE CONTRACTS...... 33 4.6 ELECTRICITY GENERATED FROM BIOMASS ...... 35 4.7 JOBS IN LOCALLY-OWNED BUSINESSES ...... 39 4.8 ESTABLISHMENTS BY YEARS IN BUSINESS...... 41 4.9 LODGING REVENUE...... 42 4.10 RETAIL BUSINESS ACTIVITY ...... 45 4.11 YOUTH EDUCATION ...... 46 4.12 FAMILY POVERTY ...... 48 4.13 POPULATION AGE STRUCTURE ...... 50 APPENDIX A: STATUS OF HFQLG SOCIOECONOMIC MONITORING ...... 51 APPENDIX B: 2008 FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY ROSTER...... 53
1 US Forest Service
HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
1. Executive Summary
This following provides a snapshot of the HFQLG Pilot Project’s progress and performance to date.
Project Summary
The purpose of this study is to comply with Section 401(j)(1)(D) of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act), which requires the U.S. Forest Service to provide annual status reports to Congress that describe the “economic benefits to local communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot project.” This report tracks socioeconomic changes since implementation of the Pilot Project in 1999 using the most recent available data. Monitored communities and the Pilot Project Area, also shown on the map below, include the following:
Bieber - Includes the Big Valley communities of Bieber and Nubieber in Lassen County and Adin and Lookout in Modoc County. Population (2000): 1,774. Burney - Covers most of eastern Shasta County and includes the Hat Creek and Fall River Valley communities of Burney, Cassel, Fall River Mills, Hat Creek, McArthur, and Old Station. Population (2000): 8,863. Susanville - Includes the Honey Lake Valley communities of Janesville, Litchfield, Milford, Standish, Susanville, and Wendel and the Eagle Lake area, all in Lassen County. Population (2000): 19,055 (not including incarcerated persons). Westwood - Includes Westwood in Lassen County and the Peninsula plus the east shore of Lake Almanor in Plumas County. Population (2000): 4,251. Chester - Includes Chester in Plumas County and Mill Creek and Mineral in northeastern Tehama County. Population (2000): 2,747. Greenville - Includes the Indian Valley communities of Crescent Mills, Greenville, and Taylorsville, and also includes Canyondam on Lake Almanor, all in Plumas County. Population (2000): 2,831. Quincy - Includes the Plumas County communities of Belden, Meadow Valley, Quincy, and Twain. Population (2000): 6,475. Portola - Includes the Upper Middle-Fork Feather River communities of Beckwourth, Blairsden, Clio, Graeagle, and Portola, all in Plumas County. Population (2000): 6,277. Loyalton - Includes the Sierra Valley communities of Chilcoot and Vinton in Plumas County and Calpine, Loyalton, and Sierraville in Sierra County. Population (2000): 2,828.
2 US Forest Service
HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
HFQLG Pilot Project Area and Monitored Community Boundaries
Counties
Pilot Project Area 299 Chester ÷ø 0 Miles 20 Loyalton Portola óô89 Lookout # # Adin Burney Bieber #Bieber 5 # N . Westwood # Nub ieb er ,- McArthur Greenville # 299 Fall Quincy ÷ø River Burney # W E Susanville # Cassel Mills # Hat Creek ÷ø13 9 S /(395 ÷ø299 Old Station# # Redding óô89 óô44 óô44
# Litchfield# Mineral Su sanville # # # # Chester Westwood Stand ish Wend el óô36 Mill óô36 ## # Janesville Creek Milford # Greenville # Canyondam # Crescent Mills # # 99 Taylorsville óô # 395 # Twain /( Belden 32 Qu incy óô # # 70 Meadow Valley óô 89 óô Beckwourth # Vinton# Blairsden # # # óô70 Portola Chilcoot # Clio # Chico #Calpine # Loyalton .5 óô49 ,- # Sierraville óô99 óô70 óô89 ,-.80
Jack Faucett Associates (JFA), a small veteran-owned business, was contracted to independently prepare the socioeconomic monitoring reports for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009. JFA worked closely with the HFQLG Pilot Project Implementation Team, which divided the Pilot Project Area into the nine monitored community areas defined by ZIP code areas. With the assistance of Forest Service staff, members of the Quincy Library Group (QLG), and Chico State University’s Northeastern California Small Business Development Center, 13 socioeconomic indicators were selected for annual monitoring. These socioeconomic impact indicators are:
1. Estimates of payroll jobs in the forest 10. Value of HFQLG service contracts, products and tourism sectors, 11. Youth education, 2. Non-employer statistics, 12. Family poverty and 3. Forest products industry roster 13. Population age structure (Census survey, data) 4. Estimates of jobs in locally-owned businesses, 5. Establishments by age, 6. Retail business activity, 7. Lodging revenue, 8. Electricity generated by biomass, 9. HFQLG timber sale and removal activities,
3 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
With the exception of the Forest Products Industry Roster, which entails conducting an annual telephone survey of businesses in the Pilot Project area and greater Sierra Cascade region, data for all indicators are regularly collected and released by public agencies.
Study Conclusions
The remainder of this section highlights key study conclusions. The detailed methodology and analysis narratives for each of the 13 indicators are available in their entirety within the body of the FY 2008 HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report.
Pilot Project Area Employment
Total Payroll Jobs: The estimated number of total payroll jobs has increased approximately 2.5 percent from the Pilot Project’s initiation in 1999 to 2006. However, the 2004 closure of the Sierra Pacific Industries sawmill in Susanville was the major cause of a 3.7 percent drop in payroll jobs in the Pilot Project Area in 2005. Census data for 2007 will be released in 2009.
Forest Products Industry Job Impacts: Since its implementation in late 1999, the Pilot Project has not offset the downturn in forest products industry employment within the Pilot Project Area. Sawmills, the area’s largest employers, have continued to shut down (Bieber and Loyalton in 2001, Susanville in 2004) and small businesses have had to search for work in other areas or close. However, a Burney sawmill survived a foreclosure in 2001 as a result of new private investment and the availability of HFQLG timber and the Bieber sawmill re-opened in 2007. The table below shows that the estimated total number of forest products industry jobs decreased 20.5 percent in the Pilot Project Area from 2005 to 2006. Since implementation of the Pilot Project in 1999, total forest product industry jobs have decreased 24.5 percent. Note that the sharp decrease in the Greenville area between 2005 and 2006 is likely the result of a 2005 Census data anomaly. Data for 2006 is more consistent with the historical trend.
Total Forest Products Industry Jobs (Estimated) % Change Community 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '05 to '06 Bieber 232 268 160 126 182 251 158 158 45 34 33 56 34 -39.3% Burney 435 437 425 409 361 376 360 361 300 266 342 317 344 8.5% Susanville 302 305 342 267 262 269 260 245 240 257 193 205 31 -84.9% Westwood 17 23 20 54 36 26 24 27 31 49 44 28 13 -53.6% Chester 195 212 277 197 209 185 166 169 43 146 152 150 143 -4.7% Greenville 32 20 27 50 37 46 48 19 6 16 6 85 24 -71.8% Quincy 262 304 434 426 382 373 329 347 324 296 332 321 329 2.5% Portola 31 25 23 36 13 20 40 54 7 16 43 39 23 -41.0% Loyalton 239 222 224 216 210 195 216 105 42 41 42 27 35 29.6% Total Pilot Project Area 1,513 1,548 1,772 1,655 1,510 1,490 1,443 1,327 993 1,087 1,154 1,228 976 -20.5% 4 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ZIP Code Business Patterns
Tourism Industry Job Impacts: Implementation of the Pilot Project has not negatively affected the tourism industry. The number of tourism industry jobs has generally grown throughout the Pilot Project Area since 2000. From 2005 to 2006, the Pilot Project Area witnessed a 5.6 percent growth in the number of tourism industry jobs. Job growth in the tourism sector has historically outpaced the growth in the forest products industry sector. Prior to 1999, the ratio of jobs between the two sectors was approximately one-to-one. This means for each job in the forest products sector there was at least one job in the tourism sector. In 2001, the balance began to tip toward the tourism sector. In 2006, there were 2.2 jobs in the tourism sector for every job in the forest products sector. This indicates diversification in the local economy.
Tourism Industry Jobs (Estimated) % Change Community 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 from ‘05 to ‘06 Bieber 7 13 5 7 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Burney 245 197 216 261 199 241 241 264 208 263 314 298 287 -3.7% Susanville 602 560 562 549 613 579 627 526 680 818 811 752 908 20.7% Westwood 60 54 68 205 215 213 194 207 217 211 251 186 187 0.5% Chester 126 110 99 148 142 135 147 142 127 102 109 95 111 16.8% Greenville 34 39 47 37 46 45 38 59 40 35 38 45 31 -31.1% Quincy 217 232 226 262 267 276 224 261 268 281 265 313 328 4.8% Portola 120 104 112 121 134 133 154 157 161 306 297 396 347 -12.4% Loyalton 16 14 28 30 20 35 26 16 32 36 36 28 33 17.9% Pilot Project Area Total 1,427 1,323 1,363 1,620 1,638 1,659 1,653 1,634 1,733 2,052 2,121 2,113 2,232 5.6%
Although the tourism industry has been relatively stable, the number of tourism jobs varies significantly among communities. For example, Bieber has little or no tourism business activity while Susanville has more than twice the number of tourism jobs of any other community in the Pilot Project Area. Tourism jobs are highly seasonal and the wages are lower those in the forest products industry. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual wage for workers for in the tourism industry across the nation is approximately $21,000. This is significantly lower than the $34,350 annual wage for workers in the forest products industry.
Transient occupancy tax (TOT) data also shows the Pilot Project has not negatively impacted the tourism sector. JFA compiled city and county tax data for FY 93/94 through 07/08 to estimate annual industry revenue. The value of accommodations has been stable in most communities in the Pilot Project Area; ranging from $20 to $23 million region-wide.
Local Business Environment
5 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Establishments by Age: Dun and Bradstreet data collected for 1998 through 2007 indicates a general downward trend in number of establishments in operation of all ages since 1998. Business closures indicate that the demand in these communities may have not been large enough to sustain them. The change between 1998 and 2007 was as follows: firms 0-5 years old (-39%); firms 6-15 years old (-26 %) and firms 15+ years old (+42%). The increase since 1998 in the number of businesses open for more than 15 years is a positive sign; it demonstrates that older businesses are enduring. Susanville, Burney, Greenville, and Westwood experienced some growth in the 0-5 year category from 2006 to 2007. Establishments opening in these areas indicate that new investment is occurring.
Jobs in Locally-Owned Businesses: From 1998 to 2007, the percentage of workers employed by locally- owned businesses in the manufacturing sector increased all communities within the Pilot Project Area except Greenville. This shift in jobs in the manufacturing sector to locally-owned businesses indicates growth in the local economy. This is a positive sign since wages in the manufacturing industry are higher than the retail and services industries. In contrast, the retail and services sector in most Pilot Project Area communities exhibited a decrease in the percentage of workers employed by locally- owned businesses from 1998 to 2007.
Nonemployer Establishments: Nonemployers are typically small family-owned and owner-operator businesses. Nonemployer forest products and non-forest products industries suffered losses immediately after the Pilot Project’s implementation in 1999. However, data collected from the U.S. Census shows that the number of all nonemployers and nonemployers in the forest products industry has since grown. The total number of nonemployers in all sectors rose by almost 21 percent from 2,810 firms in 1999 to 3,397 firms in 2006. Nonemployers in the forest products industry also experienced significant growth since the implementation of the Pilot Project. The number of forest products nonemployers grew from 305 to 329 firms or 8 percent over the same period. Despite the drop in the number of nonemployers from 2005 to 2006, the overall steady growth since 1999 indicates stability among family-owned, owner- operator, and other small businesses. The number of non-employer establishments has surpassed pre-project implementation levels. New data will be available in mid-2009 to gauge effects in 2007.
Nonemployer Firms in the Pilot Project Area 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
All 2,78 2,74 2,81 2,82 2,92 3,13 3,30 3,37 3,43 3,39 Nonemployers 6 0 0 3 4 4 4 0 8 7 Forest Products Industry 290 302 305 290 290 331 353 353 340 329 Source: U.S. Census, Nonemployer Statistics
Retail Business Activity: Growth of taxable sales transactions outperformed the rest of California in 2006 in Plumas County and in the cities of Portola and Loyalton. Taxable
6 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
sales in Lassen and Sierra counties and in Susanville grew more slowly than the rest of the state in 2006; lingering effects from the 2004 sawmill closure may be the major cause in Susanville and Lassen County. Data for 2007 will be available in 2009.
HFQLG Contract & Sales Activity
Service Contracts: The goal of the HFQLG Pilot Project is to sustain the local economy and support community stability by placing an emphasis on awarding contracts to local bidders within the Pilot Project Area. The Forest Service defines “local” as those firms in the Pilot Project Area and the Remainder of the Sierra Cascade Province (defined as northeast California, east of I-5 and north of I-80). Overall (FY 2000 through FY 2008), approximately 65 percent of contract value has been awarded to local contractors (Pilot Project Area 23.9 percent plus Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area 41.2 percent). In FY 2008, approximately 89.6 percent of contract value (Pilot Project Area 19.9 percent plus Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area 69.7 percent) has been awarded to local businesses. This is the highest share for local contractors since the beginning of the Pilot Project.
Service Contracts, Amount Awarded by Location of Awardees (Millions of Dollars, Rounded) % % FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Cumulative Share Share Area FY FY '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 FY 00-08 '08 00-08 Pilot Project Area $0.287 $2.680 $1.457 $3.883 $1.502 $1.793 $0.676 $ 0.217 $ 0.514 $13.009 19.9% 23.9% Remainder of Sierra Cascade Province $0.293 $ 7.005 $3.678 $1.195 $ 4.334 $ 2.272 $.123 $0.675 $1.805 $22.379 69.7% 41.2% Other/Non- local $0.471 $ 4.576 $1.987 $ 3.800 $3.523 $ 2.045 $1.328 $ 0.953 $0.269 $18.952 10.4% 34.9%
TOTAL $1.051 $14.261 $7.122 $8.878 $ 9.359 $ 6.109 $3.126 $1.846 $2.588 $ 54.340 100% 100% Source: USDA Forest Service, HFQLG FY 2000 through FY 2008 Contractor Lists.
Timber Sales: Timber sales declined precipitously in FY 2003, prior to approval of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) in January 2004. The 2004 SNFPA Record of Decision permitted removal of trees with larger diameters than allowed under the 2001 SNFPA Record of Decision. Consequently, timber sales recovered in FY 2004 and surged in FY 2005.
Appeals, litigation, and court decisions continue to affect the amount of sawlogs and biomass available for the Forest Products Industry. In FY 2008, approximately 90 percent of all Timber Sales or Service Contracts across the HFQLG Pilot Project Area were delayed due to SNFPA litigation. As a result, the volume of sawlogs sold declined
7 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008 more than 50 percent to its lowest level since 2003. Volume of biomass sold also was halved in FY 2008. The Forest Service is working collaboratively with plaintiffs to move projects forward.
8 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
HFQLG Timber Sale Activity – Volume & Value by Type % Chang Item 2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 e FY 07 - FY 08 Volume of Sawlogs Sold (ccf) 10,935 35,527 39,938 4,495 30,521 87,983 75,005 57,904 27,718 -52.1% Volume of Biomass Sold (ccf) 21,867 71,213 31,993 11,198 47,902 83,359 77,758 68,818 31,777 -53.8% Value of Sawlogs $12,93 $619,05 $664,59 $744,91 $1,740,09 $3,657,62 $1,770,44 $401,48 Removed($) 3 $83,981 7 4 8 1 7 5 7 -77.3% Value of Biomass $ $197,17 $352,52 $275,69 $532,74 $1,174,28 $114,63 Removed($) 2,843 7 2 0 4 5 $955,394 $277,936 3 -58.8% Volume of Sawlogs Removed (ccf) 1,410 5,524 35,288 32,811 31,769 67,310 107,230 53,603 31,608 -41.0% Volume of Biomass Removed (ccf) 4,343 28,876 57,592 26,801 30,023 155,460 84,645 28,932 35,930 24.2% Source: USDA Forest Service, Timber Sales Activity Statements * Data represents both 1999 and 2000. The data were combined due to minimal HFQLG timber sale activity in 1999. The abbreviation “ccf” stands for “hundred cubic feet.”
Timber & Biomass Removal: The small amount of sawlogs and biomass removed in FY 2007 and FY 2008 correlates to the appeals and litigation that have delayed the implementation of HFQLG projects. The total volumes of sawlogs and biomass removed in HFQLG projects decreased to 31,608 CCF (hundred cubic feet) and 35,930 CCF respectively. Approximately 70 percent of sawlog volume removed in the Pilot Project Area was from the Lassen National Forest; the remainder was removed from the Plumas National Forest. For biomass volume removed, the percentages were: Lassen – 69 percent and Plumas – 31 percent. There were no sawlogs or biomass values attributed to the Tahoe National Forest in FY 2008.
The value of sawlogs and biomass removed in the Pilot Project Area also decreased in FY 2008.The total value removed in HFQLG projects in FY 2008 was $717,000 in sawlogs and $168,000 in biomass. The value of sawlogs removed in FY 2008 is allocated to the national forests as follows: Lassen – 56 percent and Plumas – 44 percent.
Biomass Electricity Generation: Electric power generation from biomass declined in all Pilot Project Area communities except Bieber and Loyalton in 2006. As shown above, the volume of biomass removed under HFQLG contracts was nearly halved (-46%) in FY 2006 and declined 66 percent in FY 2007, forcing facilities to expand their “fuel circles” to obtain feedstock from distant locales. In addition, high diesel fuel prices increased the costs of harvesting, processing, and transporting feedstock for the power plants. California Energy Commission data for FY 2008 activity will be available in 2009.
9 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Forest Products Industry Roster Survey
In November 2008, a telephone survey was conducted targeting the approximately 232 businesses on the roster. Targeted businesses include those within the nine Pilot Project Area communities and several located in outlaying areas such as Chico, Redding, and Oroville. Eighty (80) businesses completed the telephone survey, yielding an overall response rate of 34.5 percent. Of the 70 businesses in the Pilot Project Area, 31 completed the survey (44.2 percent response rate). Respondents reflected the diversity of the industry, from sawmills to single-person logging operations. The survey provided local business perspectives of the HFQLG Pilot Project’s performance. Most survey respondents indicated that the level of economic activity generated by the national forests in the Pilot Project Area decreased in again in 2008. Continuing a multi-year trend, respondents stated that they have shifted their activities from public to private lands.
Social Health
There is little statistical connection between implementation of the Pilot Project and change in the two social indicators (Youth Education and Family Poverty). In the 2007- 2008 school year, participation in the free and reduced lunch program increased to its highest point since the beginning of the Pilot Project. However, most of this increase is due to a handful of schools in the Burney and Westwood areas. Five communities experienced decreases in program participation in the past year. Data shows those communities that lost sawmills, Loyalton (2001) and Susanville (2004), exhibited an increase in program participation. For example, in the 2000-2001 school year 27 percent of Loyalton students participated in the free and reduced lunch program compared to 33.2 percent participation in 2007-2008. Despite these spikes, region-wide free and reduced lunch program participation is relatively stable with fluctuations between 34 and 39 percent since 1999.
High school dropout rates have remained relatively stable across all nine communities. Since the Pilot Project began in late 1999, four communities have had minor increases in dropout rates (Bieber, Burney, Quincy and Loyalton) and four have had minor decreases (Susanville, Westwood, Greenville and Portola). High school enrollment in these communities is small, ranging from 100 to 1,200 students. The addition or loss of one student significantly affects the dropout rate.
10 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
2. Introduction
The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act) requires the U.S. Forest Service to provide status reports to Congress that include:
§401(j)(1)(D): A description of the economic benefits to local communities achieved by the implementation of the pilot project.
The Act requires annual monitoring of the socioeconomic changes in local communities during the course of a five-year Pilot Project between 1999 and 2004. Implementation of the Act was extended to 2012.
Jack Faucett Associates (JFA), a small, veteran-owned economics and public policy consulting firm, was contracted to prepare and update the socioeconomic monitoring report. The purpose of the report is to identify the socioeconomic conditions in local communities impacted by the HFQLG Act and to make a preliminary determination as to the extent to which implementation of the Act has influenced local socioeconomic performance.
In order to accomplish this, JFA worked closely with the HFQLG Pilot Project Implementation Team, which divided the Pilot Project Area into nine monitored community areas defined by ZIP code areas. With the assistance of Forest Service staff, members of the Quincy Library Group (QLG), and Chico State University’s Northeastern California Small Business Development Center, ten socioeconomic indicators were selected with data available at the community level to reasonably determine the extent the HFQLG Act has affected these communities. Timber sale activity, the value of service contracts awarded by Pilot Project forests, and retail business activity were also included as indicators. These indicators were selected to measure the impact of the project between FY 1999 and 2009.
For each of these 13 indicators, JFA collected community-level data and analyzed its utility for measuring the socioeconomic effects of the HFQLG Act. To ensure consistency in reporting and analysis, JFA employed the same methodology, community and industry definitions, and data sources of previous monitoring reports. This report clearly defines each indicator, data limitations, and timeframes for which the data is available. Historical data back to 1993, where available, is compared with the most recent available data. A vertical black line in graphic illustrations of each socioeconomic indicator marks the beginning of the HFQLG Act implementation and provides a breakpoint for analysis.
11 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
3. Monitored Communities
As described in the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal (Quincy Library Group, November 1993), the Pilot Project is intended to benefit the social and economic environment of rural forest communities. Accordingly, JFA monitored socioeconomic change in nine communities within the Pilot Project Area. The Community Stability Proposal specifically lists Bieber, Susanville, Chester, Greenville, Quincy, and Loyalton as communities that are “highly dependent” on the forest products industry. To enable the study of a contiguous area, this study also incorporates the communities of Burney, Westwood, and Portola. The following sections include a detailed description of each of these communities and a profile of recent economic trends. For each community, an analysis of recent economic events regarding sawmills, biomass power plants, and tourism is provided.
ZIP code boundaries define each of the nine communities examined in this report. Previous monitoring reports established community boundaries after close communication with QLG members and Forest Service staff. Data for each ZIP code were combined and included as part of the community analyzed. In most cases, ZIP code-level data were collected for the community area-level analysis. However, where ZIP code data are unavailable, county or city data are presented. A map is provided following these descriptions of monitored community areas.
Bieber - Includes the Big Valley communities of Bieber and Nubieber in Lassen County and Adin and Lookout in Modoc County. Population (2000): 1,774. The smallest community in the Pilot Project Area, Bieber suffered from decline in the livestock and timber industries in the 1990s. This community was hit hard by the closure of all of its lumber mills between 1996 and 2001. Thirty jobs were lost with the closure in 1996; the 2001 closure of the Big Valley Lumber-Bieber mill and cogeneration plant resulted in a loss of at least 65 jobs.1 However, Big Valley Power re-opened the power plant in 2005 and the sawmill in 2007, creating a total of thirty jobs on-site and thirty more jobs in the woods (mostly in the Modoc National Forest). The new Big Valley sawmill processes nine million board feet per year, a much smaller output than the facility that closed in 2001, and therefore has fewer employees.
Burney - Covers most of eastern Shasta County and includes the Hat Creek and Fall River Valley communities of Burney, Cassel, Fall River Mills, Hat Creek, McArthur, and Old Station. Population (2000): 8,863. Burney has been successful in attracting small employers outside of the forest products industry, which is fortunate because the forest products industry here has
1 “Big Valley Lumber closes Bieber mill,” Modoc Record, May 5, 2001. 12 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
been in decline since the mid-1990s. Despite this, overall economic growth has been positive in Burney since 1998. Burney has two lumber mills, operated by Sierra Pacific Industries and Shasta Green (the successor to the Big Valley Lumber-Burney mill). Three biomass power plants are also located in this community area.
Susanville - Includes the Honey Lake Valley communities of Janesville, Litchfield, Milford, Standish, Susanville, and Wendel and the Eagle Lake area, all in Lassen County. Population (2000): 19,055 (not including incarcerated persons). In 2004, a Sierra Pacific sawmill closed in Susanville, leaving 150 workers without jobs.2 The cogeneration plant at the mill closed soon after, although one additional power plant remains near Wendel (uniquely combining geothermal and biomass). Prison administration is now the lifeblood of the local economy. California Correctional Center opened in 1963 (1,200 employees). High Desert State Prison, east of Susanville, opened in 1995 (1,500 employees). In 2005, a federal prison opened in Herlong, just outside of the Pilot Project Area.
Westwood - Includes Westwood in Lassen County and the Peninsula plus the east shore of Lake Almanor in Plumas County. Population (2000): 4,251. Westwood was established circa 1912 as a company town of the Red River Lumber Company (later Fruit Growers Supply). It was once billed as the world’s largest pine lumber mill, but today there are no mills in this community. One biomass power plant operates near Westwood. Most of the economic activity in this community area occurs in the Lake Almanor area.
In the early 2000s, business investors started to gear up for the anticipated development of the Dyer Mountain ski resort near Westwood. In September 2007, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors certified the final environmental impact report and approved the development agreement for the resort. The project continues to be controversial and may still be in jeopardy for future implementation.
Chester - Includes Chester in Plumas County and Mill Creek and Mineral in northeastern Tehama County. Population (2000): 2,747. Chester's economy continues to grow slowly despite gradual decline in the forest products industry since 1996. A Collins Pine sawmill, re-built in 2002-03, and cogeneration power plant are located in Chester. Tourism and related industries have expanded rapidly in the Chester/Lake Almanor area. The Lassen Volcanic National Park headquarters and southwest entrance are located in this community area. Greenville - Includes the Indian Valley communities of Crescent Mills, Greenville, and Taylorsville, and also includes Canyondam on Lake Almanor, all in Plumas County. Population (2000): 2,831. Greenville was one of the first communities hit by a mill closure in the late 1980s (Louisiana Pacific in Crescent Mills). The community has recovered somewhat since then, evidenced by small increases in tourism and other industries, leading to an
2 http://www.reddingemployment.com/newsarchive/20031217toplo037.shtml 13 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
increase in overall jobs between 1995 and 1999. A small, family-run specialty sawmill is in Taylorsville (Indian Valley Lumber). No biomass power plants are in Indian Valley.
Quincy - Includes the Plumas County communities of Belden, Meadow Valley, Quincy, and Twain. Population (2000): 6,475. Quincy has regained most of the jobs it lost in the past decade, but forests products industry jobs are still below pre-Pilot Project levels. Quincy contains a Sierra Pacific lumber mill that houses a cogeneration facility.
Portola - Includes the Upper Middle-Fork Feather River communities of Beckwourth, Blairsden, Clio, Graeagle, and Portola, all in Plumas County. Population (2000): 6,277. The Portola area has seen the most economic success in the Pilot Project Area since 1998. The tourism industry has been gaining steadily here with the opening of new golf courses and resorts. Graeagle is responsible for many of the local gains in tourism. The Portola area is providing retail and personal services to commuters traveling to the Truckee and Reno areas. No mill or biomass power plant is located in this area; forest products industry jobs are limited to logging, woodworking and forestry support.
Loyalton - Includes the Sierra Valley communities of Chilcoot and Vinton in Plumas County and Calpine, Loyalton, and Sierraville in Sierra County. Population (2000): 2,828. Loyalton is in a transition phase after a Sierra Pacific sawmill closed in 2001, resulting in 180 lost jobs.3 The area has become attractive to commuters to Truckee and Reno because of lower home prices. Neither tourism nor any other industry has replaced forest project industry jobs here. The Sierra Pacific biomass power plant continues to operate here despite the mill closure.
3 http://www.fseee.org/index.html?page=http%3A//www.fseee.org/forestmag/0203quincy.shtml 14 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
HFQLG Pilot Project Area and Monitored Community Boundaries
Counties
Pilot Project Area 299 Chester ÷ø 0 Miles 20 Loyalton Portola óô89 Lookout # #Adi n Burney Bieber #Bieber 5 # N . West wood # Nubieber ,- McArthur Greenville # 299 Fall Qui ncy ÷ø River Burney # W E Susanville # Cassel Mills #Hat Cr eek ÷ø13 9 S /(395 ÷ø299 Old Station# # Redding óô89 óô44 óô44
# Litchfield# Mi ne ra l Susanville # # # # Chester We st wood Stand ish Wendel óô36 Mill óô36 ## #Janesville Creek Milford # Greenville # Canyondam # Crescent Mills # # 99 Taylorsville óô # 395 # Twain /( Belden 32 Qu inc y óô # # 70 Meadow Valley óô89 óô Beckwourth # Vi nt o n# Blairsden # # # óô70 Portola Chilcoot # Clio # Chico #Calpine # Loyalton .5 óô49 ,- #Sierraville óô99 óô70 óô89 ,-.80
15 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4. Monitored Indicators
The purpose of this annual report is to track year-to-year socioeconomic change in the Pilot Project Area since the implementation of the HFQLG Act in 1999. It contains analysis of the following 13 socioeconomic indicators:
1. Payroll Jobs Forest Products and Tourism Industries 2. Nonemployers in Forest Products Industry 3. Forest Products Industry Roster 4. HFQLG Timber Sale and Removal 5. Value of Service Contracts 6. Electricity from Biomass 7. Jobs in Locally-owned businesses 8. Establishment by years in business 9. Lodging Revenue 10. Retail Business Activity 11. Youth Education 12. Family Poverty 13. Population Age Structure
The following sections contain an overview of each indicator’s significance, an explanation of the methodology used to collect and assemble data, and an analysis of the current trends in the Pilot Project Area communities. Data for each indicator is illustrated graphically and accompanied by a table containing the raw data. Raw data is provided to enable trend analysis. Where applicable, data tables include a column highlighting the percent change from the previous to the most recent year. Due to the small size of these communities, year-to-year percent changes may fluctuate significantly. In most cases, figures for the entire Pilot Project Area are also provided. Readers may find this figure useful in tracking overall regional performance under the HFQLG Pilot Project.
4.1 Payroll Jobs: Forest Products and Tourism Industries
JFA used statistics published by the U.S. Census Bureau called ZIP Code Business Patterns to estimate the number of jobs by industry at the community level. ZIP Code Business Patterns provides information on the total number of establishments by firm size, employment and payroll for more than 40,000 five-digit ZIP code areas nationwide. Most ZIP codes are derived from the physical location address reported in Census Bureau programs. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides supplemental information. Although ZIP Code Business Patterns is published annually, there is two-year lag time from when statistics are collected (typically the week of March 12th) and officially released to the public. The most recent data series is 2006. Data for 2007 will be available in mid-2009.
16 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Government employment, such as direct employment at prisons (an important sector in the Pilot Project area), is not included in this data series. These data also do not include self-employment statistics because they are not payroll jobs. Socioeconomic analysis on this group, classified as “nonemployers,” is provided in Section 3.2.
Business activity statistics are published by industry type as defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments developed NAICS to enable comparison of business activity across North America. Each business is classified by its primary activity and is assigned a NAICS code. Data is reported between two and six-digit NAICS code levels, where the two-digit level represents the aggregate of all sub-sectors within in an industry group and the six- digit level provides information on more specific business groups.4 All available economic data reported by the U.S. Census for communities within the Pilot Project Area were compiled and analyzed for this report.
This section examines three categories of payroll jobs:
1) All private sector businesses (All NAICS Codes), 2) The forest products industry (all businesses in NAICS Code 113, 321, and 484) and 3) The tourism industry (NAICS Codes 71 and 72).
Forest product industrial activity includes timber tract management, logging, forestry support activities, wood products, paper and allied products, furniture and related products. Also included is specialized truck transportation (NAICS Codes 484110 and 484220). Specialized trucks are often used to haul logs, lumber and forestry-related materials including soil and debris. The tourism sector businesses consist of arts and entertainment, amusement, recreation, accommodation, eating and drinking places, and sightseeing tours. The Indian casino near Susanville is not included because it is classified as tribal government.
Why is it important?
This information is used to empirically test the impact of the HFQLG Act's planning and implementation activities on the local economy.
How are Pilot Project communities doing?
Total Payroll Jobs
As seen in Exhibit 1 and Table 1, between 1995 and 1999, before implementation of the Pilot Project, four of the nine communities showed an upward trend in total payroll jobs
4 For example, NAICS Code 32 includes information on all businesses involved in manufacturing, NAICS Code 321 provides specific information on wood products manufacturing firms, and NAICS Code 321113, a six-digit code, offers micro-level detail on businesses engaged only in sawing dimension lumber, boards, beams, timbers, poles, ties, shingles, shakes, siding, and wood chips from logs or bolts. Definitions of all NAICS Codes can be accessed at http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html. 17 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
(Burney, Westwood, Greenville, and Portola) and only the community that lost a lumber mill during that period, Bieber, showed a downward trend. After Pilot Project implementation began, job growth in the nine communities generally contracted through 2002, but increased in 2003 and 2004. The 2004 closure of the Sierra Pacific Industries sawmill in Susanville was the major cause of a 3.7 percent drop in total payroll jobs for the Pilot Project Area in 2005.
From 2005 to 2006, the estimated total number of private sector payroll jobs in Pilot Project Area grew by less than one percent. Job losses occurred in the communities of Greenville, Westwood, and Quincy. According to Census data, Greenville, the community with the highest job loss, experienced the several business closures including a wood cabinetry manufacturing and specialized trucking business. Despite these losses, overall job growth in the Pilot Project Area was positive due to proportional growth occurring in Susanville, Bieber, and Loyalton.
Exhibit 1: Total Payroll Jobs in the Private Sector (Estimated) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ZIP Code Business Patterns
Í Pilot Project Begins
18 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Table 1: Total Payroll Jobs in the Private Sector (Estimated)
% Change Community 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '05 to '06
Bieber 489 539 415 396 384 384 294 265 177 188 187 193 203 5.2%
Burney 1,666 1,429 1,708 1,716 1,629 1,625 1,744 1,749 1,475 1,691 1,684 1,662 1,723 3.7%
Susanville 3,313 3,319 3,433 3,352 3,441 3,361 3,294 3,270 3,356 3,664 3,613 3,227 3,368 4.4%
Westwood 303 292 332 548 552 509 473 529 573 732 629 589 554 -5.9%
Chester 915 937 995 960 927 889 938 940 730 808 926 921 894 -2.9%
Greenville 281 252 305 351 386 415 394 398 342 393 376 399 341 -14.5%
Quincy 2,123 2,257 2,130 2,182 2,189 2,180 2,142 2,094 2,108 2,096 2,251 2,191 2,083 -4.9%
Portola 735 735 686 878 819 833 963 1,038 980 1,155 1,378 1,449 1,502 3.7%
Loyalton 418 425 433 497 426 432 459 359 267 275 198 198 223 12.6% Pilot Project Area Total 10,243 10,185 10,437 10,880 10,753 10,628 10,701 10,642 10,008 11,002 11,242 10,829 10,891 0.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ZIP Code Business Patterns
Forest Product Industry Jobs
The number of forest product jobs in Pilot Project Area communities fluctuates from year to year due to mill downtime, mill closures, and the availability of timber and forestry- related contracts. Those communities with a higher percentage of forest product jobs tend to be more vulnerable to shifts in total jobs. For example, Bieber's mill closures in 1996 and 2001, Loyalton's mill closure in 2001, and Susanville’s mill closure in 2004 produced sharp declines in forest product jobs in these communities (Table 2). A 1996 mill expansion in Quincy added approximately 150 forest product jobs in that community that year. A Burney sawmill survived a foreclosure in 2001 as a result of new private investment and the availability of HFQLG timber.
Exhibit 2 shows that all nine communities experienced a decline in forest product jobs after implementation of the Pilot Project. From 1999 to 2006, the estimated total number of forest product jobs decreased by 34.5. From 2005 to 2006, the Pilot Project Area experienced a 20.5 percent decrease in forest products industry jobs.
The significant drop in employment in Chester in 2002 is attributed to a temporary mill closure. The Collins Pine sawmill, originally built in 1943, closed for a major renovation in late November 2002 and re-started operations in September 2003. A Collins Pine manager estimated that 85 percent of the mill’s workforce returned to work when the mill reopened. As seen in Table 2, the 2003 re-opening of the mill restored forest product employment in that community to near its 2001 level. Exhibit 2: Total Forest Products Industry Jobs (Estimated)
19 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Í Pilot Project Begins
e Business Patterns
Table 2: Total Forest Products Industry Jobs (Estimated) % Change Community 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 '05 to '06 Bieber 232 268 160 126 182 251 158 158 45 34 33 56 34 -39.3% Burney 435 437 425 409 361 376 360 361 300 266 342 317 344 8.5% Susanville 302 305 342 267 262 269 260 245 240 257 193 205 31 -84.9% Westwood 17 23 20 54 36 26 24 27 31 49 44 28 13 -53.6% Chester 195 212 277 197 209 185 166 169 43 146 152 150 143 -4.7% Greenville 32 20 27 50 37 46 48 19 6 16 6 85 24 -71.8% Quincy 262 304 434 426 382 373 329 347 324 296 332 321 329 2.5% Portola 31 25 23 36 13 20 40 54 7 16 43 39 23 -41.0% Loyalton 239 222 224 216 210 195 216 105 42 41 42 27 35 29.6% Total Pilot Project - Area 1,513 1,548 1,772 1,655 1,510 1,490 1,443 1,327 993 1,087 1,154 1,228 976 20.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ZIP Code Business Patterns
The job losses resulting from the closure of the Susanville mill in 2004 are now reflected in the Census data. Forest product jobs in Susanville fell from 193 in 2004 to 31 in 2006.
The increase in the Bieber area seen from 2004 to 2005 mostly is due to re-activation of the Big Valley biomass power plant in June 2005. The re-start of the Big Valley sawmill will be reflected in the 2007 statistics, which will be released in mid-2009. Greenville’s job growth from 2004 to 2005 is the data anomaly. This increase is believed to be over- stated because local sources at the Indian Valley Chamber of Commerce are unable to
20 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008 identify any business responsible for the change.5 Job estimates developed using 2006 Census data is more consistent with Greenville’s historical trend.
Tourism Industry Jobs
The number of tourism industry jobs has grown steadily throughout the Pilot Project Area since 2000. Despite closures of food service and accommodation establishments in Greenville, Portola, and Burney, the Pilot Project Area witnessed a 5.6 percent growth in the number of tourism industry jobs from 2005 to 2006.
Job growth in the tourism sector has outpaced the growth in the forest products industry sector. Prior to 1999, the ratio of jobs between the two sectors was approximately one- to-one. This means for each job in the forest products sector there was one job in the tourism sector. In 2001, the balance began to tip toward the tourism sector. In 2006, there were an estimated 2.2 jobs in the tourism sector for every job in the forest products sector. This indicates a significant diversification in the local economy since the implementation of the Pilot Project.
Exhibit 3: Tourism Industry Jobs (Estimated)
Í Pilot Project Begins
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ZIP Code Business Patterns
5 The business at issue was classified to NAICS 321999 (All other miscellaneous wood product mfg), had a Crescent Mills ZIP code and had 50 to 99 employees. It may have been College Fund Forest Products, a small custom sawmill in Crescent Mills that produced cedar fencing circa 2005 and has since closed. However, a representative of the Indian Valley Chamber of Commerce, a local business organization familiar with the operation, said that it had fewer than 50 workers. 21 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Table 3: Tourism Industry Jobs (Estimated) % Change Community 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 from ‘05 to ‘06 Bieber 7 13 5 7 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Burney 245 197 216 261 199 241 241 264 208 263 314 298 287 -3.7% Susanville 602 560 562 549 613 579 627 526 680 818 811 752 908 20.7% Westwood 60 54 68 205 215 213 194 207 217 211 251 186 187 0.5% Chester 126 110 99 148 142 135 147 142 127 102 109 95 111 16.8% Greenville 34 39 47 37 46 45 38 59 40 35 38 45 31 -31.1% Quincy 217 232 226 262 267 276 224 261 268 281 265 313 328 4.8% Portola 120 104 112 121 134 133 154 157 161 306 297 396 347 -12.4% Loyalton 16 14 28 30 20 35 26 16 32 36 36 28 33 17.9% Pilot Project Area Total 1,427 1,323 1,363 1,620 1,638 1,659 1,653 1,634 1,733 2,052 2,121 2,113 2,232 5.6%
While relatively stable, tourism industry employment continues to show a significant degree of variation between communities. As illustrated in Exhibit 3 and Table 3, Bieber has little or no tourism business activity while Susanville has more than twice the tourism jobs of any other community in the Pilot Project Area. Since implementation of the Pilot Project, four communities had a significant increase in tourism jobs through 2006 (Burney, Susanville, Quincy, and Portola). Tourism jobs in Loyalton have fluctuated over time but rebounded to pre-implementation levels in recent years. Growth spurts in Susanville and Portola are attributed to new restaurants and resorts.
Note wages in the forest products industry are higher than those in the tourism industry. The 2007 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the average nationwide annual wage for workers in the forest product industry is approximately $34,350. This is significantly higher than the $ $20,540 average annual wage for workers in the tourism industry.6 This difference is due to the fact that the forest products sector involves more value-added production and skilled labor-intensive activities such as manufacturing and logging. These activities require more training for operating and maintaining specialized equipment and machinery. Tourism jobs are also highly seasonal and as a result some workers do not collect a full-year’s worth of wages.
6 Study staff collected national average wage data for the Forestry and Logging (NAICS 113) and Wood Product Manufacturing (NAICS 321) industries and compared it to the average of wage data reported in the Accommodation and Food Services sectors (NAICS 72). Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Survey Data is accessible at the following URL: http://stats.bls.gov/oes/oes_data.htm 22 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.2 Nonemployers in the Forest Product Industry
Nonemployers are small businesses and private contractors that have no payroll. The U.S. Census Bureau defines a nonemployer business as one that has no paid employees, produces annual business receipts of $1,000 or more and is subject to federal income taxes. This business classification is informally known as the “lone wolves.” Nonemployer statistics are collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and are based on information from self-employment income tax returns submitted to the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Census Business Registry.
Exhibit 4 presents the total number of all nonemployer firms and the total number of nonemployer firms in the forest products industry sector (defined here as NAICS codes 11, 31-33 and 48-49). The definition of the “forest products industry” is broader in this section. It includes all nonemployers in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (NAICS 11), Manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) and Transportation and Warehousing (NAICS 48-49). The forest products industry dominates these sectors, even though not all firms in these sectors are in the forest products industry.
Census data for 2006 was aggregated for Lassen, Plumas and Sierra counties. Data for 2007 will be available in 2009. County-level data was used because the Census Bureau does not report nonemployer data at the ZIP code-level. The data is presented using an index, a numerical scale used to compare variables with one another or with a reference number. In this case, the data show change in the number of nonemployer firms relative to 1997.
Why is it important?
Nonemployer statistics serve as an indicator of the Pilot Project’s impact on small businesses. Timber falling and log hauling operations are typically small, family-owned and/or owner-operator establishments. These statistics include independent truck drivers and family-owned wood working operations.
How are Pilot Project communities doing?
The number of all nonemployers and nonemployers in the forest products industry has grown since the implementation of the Pilot Project. As shown in Exhibit 4 and Table 4, the total number of nonemployers in all sectors rose by almost 21 percent from 2,810 firms in 1999 to 3,397 firms in 2006. Nonemployers in the forest products industry also experienced significant growth since the implementation of the Pilot Project. The number of forest products nonemployers grew from 305 to 329 firms or 8 percent over the same period. Despite the small drop in the number of nonemployers from 2005 to 2006, the overall growth since 1999 indicates stability among family-owned, owner- operator, and other small businesses.
23 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Exhibit 4: Index of Nonemployers Firms in the Project Area
Í Pilot Project Begins
Table 4: Nonemployer Firms in the Pilot Project Area
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
All Nonemployers 2,786 2,740 2,810 2,823 2,924 3,134 3,304 3,370 3,438 3,397 Forest Products Industry 290 302 305 290 290 331 353 353 340 329 Index (1997=100) All Nonemployers 100.0 98.3 100.9 101.3 105.0 112.5 118.6 121.0 123.4 121.9 Forest Product Sectors 100.0 104.1 105.2 100.0 100.0 114.1 121.7 121.7 117.2 113.4 Source: U.S. Census, Nonemployer Statistics
24 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.3 Forest Products Industry Roster Survey
In 2001, the Center for Economic Development at Chico State University (CED) developed a list of businesses located in the Pilot Project Area and adjacent counties (Butte, Lassen, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Tehama, and Yuba) that operate in the forest products industry. This list was created and updated using a combination of the Dun & Bradstreet business database, the contractors list for HFQLG contracts and timber sales, and other businesses known to exist in the industry. To ensure consistency, JFA has continued the methodology. The Forest Products Industry Roster is Appendix B.
In November 2008, a telephone survey was conducted targeting the approximately 232 businesses on the roster. Targeted businesses include businesses within the nine Pilot Project Area communities and several located in neighboring areas such as Chico, Redding, and Oroville. Eighty (80) businesses completed the telephone survey, yielding an overall response rate of 34.5 percent. Of the 70 businesses in the Pilot Project Area, 31 completed the survey (44.2 percent response rate). Respondents reflected the diversity of the industry, from sawmills to single-person logging operations.
Employment data was collected in four forest product industry job categories: (1) full- time year-round jobs – to show the number of permanent, stable jobs available; (2) full- time seasonal jobs – to show the degree of fluctuation in annual employment, (3) total jobs (including part-time) – to provide a cross-check to the job totals in Indicator 1 and (4) jobs with fringe benefits. Survey respondents were also asked to describe how the HFQLG Pilot Project has affected their business in the past year and to give their general impressions and opinions of the program.
Why is it important?
The survey is the most direct means for assessing how the HFQLG Pilot Project has affected forest products industry establishments. Data from other sources are subject to a multi-year reporting lag, making recent changes in HFQLG implementation difficult to measure. The survey also is a valuable source of qualitative data about Project effects.
How are Pilot Project communities doing?
Tables 5 through 8 are compilations of the job-related information collected during interviews in the past six years. The data presented are compiled from a voluntary survey – not a “census” – of forest industry businesses. Businesses have responded in some years, but not in others (for example, major employers did not respond in Burney and Loyalton in 2007). It is also important to note that local perceptions may affect what these companies report on the surveys. Business representatives may underreport economic activity if they feel frustrated with the current situation. This is especially important in light of the downturn of the U.S. economy in 2008.
The majority of respondents indicated that contracts and timber originating from the HFQLG Pilot Project has dwindled in 2008. Forest Service contracts and activity was
25 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
limited in FY 2008 for two distinct reasons. First, the 2007 Plumas National Forest fires destroyed a considerable quantity of timber and biomass that was intended for sale in FY 2008 through 2010. In September 2007, the Moonlight fire devastated 41,000 acres of the Plumas and Lassen National Forest northeast of Greenville, with 14,000 acres of private lands being consumed for a total of 65,000 acres. The Antelope Complex fire burned 23,000 acres in the Antelope Lake area. Secondly, litigation involving recent court challenges to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment enjoined most major projects in 2008.
The low levels of Pilot Project Area activity resulting from ongoing litigation has been the chief frustration of survey respondents in 2008. A representative of a biomass energy plant said, “HFQLG may be the last great hope for intelligent management of the Federal Forests. The forces opposing HFQLG, however, may succeed in destroying it. We have to get forestry out of the courts and back into the hands of professionals!”
The local forest products industry perception of the HFQLG has improved since previous surveys. It appears that the communities are more aware of the Forest Service’s inability to initiate projects due to litigation. A sawmill representative stated, “The HFQLG continues to promise great things but deliver very little, mostly due to litigation from the environmentalists. We would very much desire to help implement some of these planned forest health projects.” One bio-mass electricity producer expressed a similar sentiment saying, “Our biomass plant in Westwood is highly dependent on Forest Service sales that are purchased by logging/chipping contractors and in turn sell us chips, some of which are generated by logging debris. Due to court litigation with each sale that is put up it takes years to see the end product...”
Several respondents expressed frustrations about the initiation of timber salvage and re- planting operations in the burnt areas. One logging company representative stated, “I think that the Forest Service could be more expeditious in giving out work for us timber people to go in a cut after such fires as the Moonlight fire, instead of letting the timber go bad…”
From the perspective of most survey respondents, the level of economic activity generated by the national forests in the Pilot Project Area decreased in 2008. Continuing a multi-year trend, respondents indicated that they are shifting their activities away from the national forests towards private lands. 7 A sawmill representative said, “Nothing was sold by the Forest Service under HFQLG this year resulting in us having to purchase wood from other sources.” A logging company representative stated, “We haven't had any work out of the Forest Service for the past three years. All our business has been on private lands.” Growth in reported employment illustrated in the tables below is attributed to projects occurring on private land.
7 California State Board of Equalization timber tax statistics reveal the extent to which timber harvested from government lands has decreased relative to private lands. From 1994 to 2005, the share of timber volume harvested from public lands in Lassen and Plumas counties decreased from 42% to 22% and from 37% to 15% respectively. See: http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/yr3694to05.pdf. 26 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Many survey respondents stated that several small family-owned and single-person logging operations have closed down. Some are multi-generational businesses that have not been able to survive the recent curtailment of public timber removal and limited forest-related service contracts. One respondent, who recently closed down his land surveyor business, said, “We were getting 85 percent to 90 percent [of annual work from HFQLG projects] when we were in business.” Some respondents noted many businesses that “close” do not officially go out of business, but rather shift to another economic opportunity. “I use to haul water but that was no good so I decided to haul wood chips and that was a losing business. Now we haul equipment,” said a truck operator.
Many Pilot Project area respondents said that too few of the contracts are awarded to local small businesses. An unsuccessful Pilot Project bidder stated he appreciated HFQLG contract opportunities, but believed small business could not compete with large businesses. Another unsuccessful bidder recommended the Forest Service place more emphasis on best value and local community benefits when awarding contracts.
Many respondents, including critical ones, expressed hope that the HFQLG Pilot Project will be successful. Some expressed appreciation for the contracts and other benefits that they have seen from the project and anticipate more business in the future. “I'd like to see more contracts coming out -- would certainly help stimulate local economy as well as reduce unemployment rate.” said one respondent. “I think that the HFQLG is attempting to do its best what with everything tied up in court,” said a forestry services company representative.
Table 5: Forest Products Industry Year-Round, Full-Time Employees Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Dec. Nov. Community 2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 Bieber 99 5 20 26 36 36 Burney 299 131 167 116 68 101 Susanville 249 189 53 31 31 31 Westwood 34 32 22 23 23 32 Chester 218 194 180 149 151 161 Greenville 3 5 4 1 7 4 Quincy 362 313 323 302 306 320 Portola 8 7 6 6 9 10 Loyalton 6 26 25 19 1 1 PILOT PROJECT AREA 1,278 902 800 673 632 696 Source: Annual Survey (response rate varies year to year)
Table 6: Forest Products Industry Seasonal Full-Time Employees Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Dec. Nov. Community 2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 Bieber 32 6 31 47 5 66 Burney 104 169 124 64 66 102 Susanville 34 2 29 0 0 1 Westwood 58 55 21 47 38 27
27 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Chester 56 62 9 14 5 15 Greenville 10 4 9 5 0 11 Quincy 45 20 15 0 3 19 Portola 34 7 5 1 21 39 Loyalton 64 79 31 0 10 0 PILOT PROJECT AREA 437 404 274 178 148 280 Source: Annual Survey (response rate varies year to year)
Table 7: Forest Products Industry Jobs With Fringe Benefits Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Dec. Nov. Community 2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 Bieber 78 0 40 57 31 46 Burney 284 204 243 109 25 58 Susanville 259 191 58 27 31 28 Westwood 18 35 22 18 19 18 Chester 71 77 0 140 150 160 Greenville 1 6 1 0 4 7 Quincy 405 328 326 301 300 318 Portola 39 14 10 0 1 1 Loyalton 76 47 2 19 0 0 PILOT PROJECT AREA 1,231 902 702 671 561 636 Source: Annual Survey (response rate varies year to year)
Table 8: Forest Products Industry All Jobs (Including Part-Time) Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Dec. Nov. Community 2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 Bieber 131 11 51 78 41 111 Burney 405 306 292 181 136 244 Susanville 285 191 82 31 31 32 Westwood 96 90 43 70 61 69 Chester 280 276 192 163 156 179 Greenville 14 10 13 7 14 26 Quincy 408 334 339 302 310 345 Portola 43 14 11 7 30 49 Loyalton 71 105 56 19 11 1 PILOT PROJECT AREA 1,733 1,337 1,079 858 790 1,056 Source: Annual Survey (response rate varies year to year)
28 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.4 HFQLG Timber Sale and Removal Activity
Timber includes sawlogs and biomass. The Forest Service offers timber sales contracts under the Pilot Project to companies to remove marketable timber from the Lassen and Plumas National Forests and the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. The following data is from these contracts and from quarterly invoices submitted to the Forest Service by contractors as marketable timber is removed. Timber sold is not necessarily removed in the year of sale; it is typically removed within three years after sale. As a result, the volume of sale and volume of removal may not correspond in any given year.
Why is it important?
The Pilot Project seeks not only to improve forest health by restoring fire-adaptive ecosystems, but also to maintain local economic stability by removing marketable timber from designated areas. The volume and value of timber removed are the most tangible indicators of the Pilot Project’s performance. Removal of sawlogs and biomass in HFQLG projects drives the local economy by generating jobs and products in the logging, milling, biomass power production, and other forest-related industries.
This report evaluates data for the HFQLG Pilot Project Area as a whole. Community- level data is not available due to timber industry establishments, such as Sierra Pacific Industries, operating multiple establishments in the Pilot Project Area. Even if such data were available, reporting would possibly disclose proprietary information due to the small size and the limited number of establishments in these communities.
How are Pilot Project communities doing?
Pilot Project implementation began in FY 2000. As illustrated in Exhibit 5 and detailed in the Table 9, timber sales declined in FY 2003, prior to approval of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) in January 2004. The 2004 SNFPA Record of Decision permitted removal of trees with larger diameters than allowed under the 2001 SNFPA Record of Decision. Consequently, timber sales recovered in FY 2004 and surged in FY 2005, reaching new peaks for volume and value for both sawlogs and biomass since implementation of the Pilot Project.
In FY 2006, litigation hampered timber sales with significant volume and acreage. Lawsuits stopped five timber sales in the Lassen National Forest. Six timber sales ceased in the Plumas National Forest after three Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents were appealed and needs for additional analysis identified. No timber was sold in FY 2006 in the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest because an EIS had additional analysis identified. The timber sales that were sold and not litigated generally had smaller amounts of sawlogs and larger amounts of biomass, which affected the values that were sold.
29 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
During FY 2007, appeals and litigation continued to affect the amount of sawlogs and biomass available for the Forest Products Industry. The Forest Service attempted to award projects however were taken to court by the SNFPA plaintiffs. In September 2007, the Eastern District Federal Court denied injunctions to stop the Empire, Slapjack and Basin pilot projects in the Plumas National Forest; however, those projects were later enjoined by appeals to the 9th Circuit Federal Court.
In FY 2008, appeals and litigation continue to affect the amount of sawlogs and biomass available for the Forest Products Industry. The volume of sawlogs sold declined more than 50 percent to its lowest level since 2003. Volume of biomass sold also was halved in FY 2008. Approximately 90 percent of all Timber Sales or Service Contracts across the HFQLG Pilot Project Area were delayed due to SNFPA litigation. The Forest Service is working collaboratively with plaintiffs to move projects forward.
Exhibit 5: Volume of Sawlogs & Biomass Sold in the Pilot Project Area (ccf)
Source: USDA Forest Service, FY 2007 HFQLG Accomplishments, FY 2000-08 Timber Sales Activity Statements
Removal of timber could occur in a later year than the original date of when a timber sale is sold. As shown in Exhibit 6 and Table 9, removal activity of sawlogs expanded dramatically in both FY 2005 and FY 2006, but declined significantly in FY 2007 and FY 2008. The volume of biomass removed plummeted in FY 2006 and FY 2007, but increased in FY 2008 due to projects treating smaller diameter trees to avoid litigation. (Note that these statistics cover biomass removed from the national forests through timber sales. These statistics do not include incidental amounts of biomass removed through service contracts in the HFQLG Pilot Project Area.)
30 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Exhibit 6: Volume of Sawlogs & Biomass Removed in the Pilot Project Area (ccf)
Source: USDA Forest Service, HFQLG FY 2000-2008 Timber Sales Activity Statements
In FY 2008, the total volumes of sawlogs and biomass removed in HFQLG projects were 31,608 CCF (hundred cubic feet) and 35,930 CCF respectively. Approximately 70 percent of sawlog volume removed in the Pilot Project Area was from the Lassen National Forest; the remainder was removed from the Plumas National Forest. For biomass volume removed, the percentages were: Lassen – 69 percent and Plumas – 31 percent. No sawlogs or biomass were removed from the Tahoe National Forest in FY 2008. The small amount of sawlogs and biomass removed in FY 2007 and FY 2008 correlates to the appeals and litigation that have delayed the implementation of HFQLG projects.
As shown in Exhibit 7 and Table 9, the value of sawlogs and biomass removed in the Pilot Project Area decreased in FY 2008.
Exhibit 7: Value of Sawlogs & Biomass Removed in the Pilot Project Area
31 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Source: USDA Forest Service, HFQLG FY 2000-2007 Timber Sales Activity Statements The total value removed in HFQLG projects in FY 2008 was $717,000 in sawlogs and $168,000 in biomass. The value of sawlogs removed in FY 2008 is allocated to the national forests as follows: Lassen – 56 percent and Plumas – 44 percent. This could be explained by the Lassen having closest proximity to a biomass processing and power plant. There were no sawlogs or biomass values attributed to the Tahoe National Forest in FY 2008.
Table 9: HFQLG Timber Sale Activity – Volume & Value by Type % Change Item 2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FY 07 - FY 08 Volume of Sawlogs Sold (ccf) 10,935 35,527 39,938 4,495 30,521 87,983 75,005 57,904 27,718 -52.1% Volume of Biomass Sold (ccf) 21,867 71,213 31,993 11,198 47,902 83,359 77,758 68,818 31,777 -53.8% Value of Sawlogs Removed($) $12,933 $83,981 $619,057 $664,594 $744,918 $1,740,091 $3,657,627 $1,770,445 $401,487 -77.3% Value of Biomass Removed($) $ 2,843 $197,177 $352,522 $275,690 $532,744 $1,174,285 $955,394 $277,936 $114,633 -58.8% Volume of Sawlogs Removed (ccf) 1,410 5,524 35,288 32,811 31,769 67,310 107,230 53,603 31,608 -41.0% Volume of Biomass Removed (ccf) 4,343 28,876 57,592 26,801 30,023 155,460 84,645 28,932 35,930 24.2% Source: USDA Forest Service, Timber Sales Activity Statements * Data represents both 1999 and 2000. The data were combined due to minimal HFQLG timber sale activity in 1999. The a bbreviation “ccf” stands for “ hundred c ubic feet.”
32 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.5 Value of HFQLG Service Contracts
The Pilot Project forests award HFQLG service projects to do planning work (including environmental studies and surveys) and implementation work (including prescribed burns and removal of underbrush). These contracts are awarded to qualified firms located throughout the United States, but mostly in the Sierra Cascade Province. This socioeconomic indicator measures service contract awards by location.
JFA classified service contract awardees into three location categories:
1) “Pilot Project Area,” defined as firms with mailing addresses located within the Pilot Project Area ZIP Codes or within the Pilot Project forest areas; 2) “Remainder of Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area,” defined as firms with mailing addresses located outside of the Pilot Project Area, but within California east of Interstate Highway 5 and north of Interstate Highway 80 (firms in communities that straddle Interstates 5 or 80, such as Weed, Redding, Red Bluff, Sacramento, Roseville, and Truckee are included within the Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area); and 3) “Other/Non-Local,” defined as firms with mailing addresses that are not located within the Sierra Cascade Province.
The goal of the HFQLG Pilot Project is to sustain the local economy and support community stability by placing an emphasis on awarding contracts to local bidders within the Pilot Project Area. The Forest Service defines “local” as the Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area, which includes the “Pilot Project Area” and “Remainder of Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area.” The use of mailing addresses of contract awardees likely undercounts activity that occurs in the local area. The mailing address often is the location of the firm headquarters; payroll and other firm expenditures may occur in the local area. Also, awardees may hire sub-contractors within the local area that are not reflected in these statistics.
Why is it important? The dollar value of contracts awarded to firms located in the Pilot Project Area has a greater local economic impact than the value of contracts awarded to firms located elsewhere. Although outside firms may spend money locally on hotels, restaurants, and hired labor, local firms spend much more in payroll, business, and living expenses. Fewer dollars awarded to Pilot Project Area firms will be exported. This indicator also measures the degree to which the Forest Service is successful in meeting its goal of awarding 80 percent of contract value to “local” contractors.
How are Pilot Project communities doing? The value of service contracts awarded by the HFQLG program increased considerably in FY 2008 to $2.59 million. Pilot Project Area firms received contracts for environmental surveys, transportation planning and riparian restoration, among other services.
33 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
As previously stated, the Forest Service defines “local” as those firms in the Pilot Project Area and the Remainder of the Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area. As shown in Table 10, the percent share of total contract dollars awarded to local companies in FY 2008 was 89.6 percent (Pilot Project Area 19.9 percent plus Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area 69.7 percent). Overall (FY 2000 through FY 2008), approximately 65 percent of contract value has been awarded to local contractors (Pilot Project Area 23.9 percent plus Sierra Cascade Province Contracting Area 41.2 percent). This is the highest share for local contractors since the beginning of the Pilot Project.
Table 10: Service Contracts, Amount Awarded by Location of Awardees (Millions of Dollars, Rounded) % % FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Cumulative Share Share Area FY FY '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 FY 00-08 '08 00-08 Pilot Project Area $0.287 $2.680 $1.457 $3.883 $1.502 $1.793 $0.676 $ 0.217 $ 0.514 $13.009 19.9% 23.9% Remainder of Sierra Cascade Province $0.293 $ 7.005 $3.678 $1.195 $ 4.334 $ 2.272 $.123 $0.675 $1.805 $22.379 69.7% 41.2% Other/Non- local $0.471 $ 4.576 $1.987 $ 3.800 $3.523 $ 2.045 $1.328 $ 0.953 $0.269 $18.952 10.4% 34.9%
TOTAL $1.051 $14.261 $7.122 $8.878 $ 9.359 $ 6.109 $3.126 $1.846 $2.588 $ 54.340 100% 100% Source: USDA Forest Service, HFQLG FY 2000 through FY 2008 Contractor Lists.
Table 11 provides information on the number of service contracts awarded to contractors by location. Data shows that cumulatively from FY 2000 to FY 2008, local contractors were awarded approximately 63 percent of all service contracts (Pilot Project Area 22.2 percent plus Remainder of Sierra Cascade 41.1 percent).
Table 11: Number of Service Contracts by Location of Awardees FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Cumulative % Share ‘00* ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 FY 00-08 FY 00-08 Pilot Project Area 2 16 19 33 30 23 10 6 6 145 22.2% Remainder of Sierra Cascade Province 9 65 46 32 50 27 12 13 15 269 41.1% Other/Non-local 13 52 39 32 37 29 18 13 7 240 36.7% TOTAL 24 133 104 97 117 79 40 32 28 654 100.0% * Data represents both 1999 and 2000. The data were combined due to minimal HFQLG contract activity in 1999. Source: USDA Forest Service, HFQLG FY 2000 through FY 2008 Contractor Lists.
34 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.6 Electricity Generated From Biomass
Biomass electric power plants combust sawmill woodwaste (hog fuel) and in-forest wood-chipping and residues to generate heat and power for sawmill operations and/or to produce electricity for sale to utilities. The bio-energy sector consumed almost half of wood residues generated by California’s primary wood products industry in 2000.8
Nine biomass power plants currently operate in seven Pilot Project Area communities, ranging in size from 7.5 to 35 megawatts (small in comparison to fossil fuel-burning power plants). No plants are located in Greenville and Portola. Spurred by passage of the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act of 1978, by standardized purchase power agreements (the California Public Utilities Commission’s Interim Standard Offer No. 4) in the early 1980s, and by tightening air quality regulations against disposal of sawmill waste through teepee burners, all nine active biomass plants in the Pilot Project Area went on-line in the 1980s. No new biomass power plants have been built or announced in the Pilot Project Area in the past decade.
The California Energy Commission (CEC) collects data on the amount of electricity generated from biomass that is contributed to the power grid. A state program subsidizes qualified power providers when the wholesale price of electricity is below a certain level. CEC statistics understate actual power generation because plants are not required to report all of their generation to the CEC.9 The CEC statistics do not include electricity produced at cogeneration facilities that is consumed at neighboring sawmills.
Why is it important? The Pilot Project is anticipated to increase woodwaste and in-forest residues (e.g., from thinning projects) available for generation of electricity. The Pilot Project’s architects assumed that most woodwaste would be combusted in electricity generation rather than in other uses, such as production of fiberboard. Changes in the amount of electricity generated are indicators of the degree to which implementation of the Pilot Project has increased the amount of biomass.
How are Pilot Project communities doing? Exhibit 8 and Table 12 below present the most recent statistics published by the CEC. Electric power generation from biomass declined in all Pilot Project Area communities in 2006 except Loyalton. As discussed below in Section 3.11, the volume of biomass removed under HFQLG contracts declined during FY 2006 and 2007, forcing facilities to expand their “fuel circles” to obtain feedstock from distant locales.10 In addition, high
8 Todd A. Morgan, et al., California’s Forest Products Industry: A Descriptive Analysis (U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-615, July 2004), p. 34. 9 During parts of 2001, wholesale electricity prices exceeded the threshold price and, therefore, most power plants did not submit their electricity generation statistics to the CEC. This resulted in an artificial drop in reported biomass power generation for 2001. 10 Note that the year is defined as January through December for power generation versus October through September for volume of biomass removed. 35 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
diesel fuel prices increased the costs of harvesting, processing, and transporting fuel supply for the power plants.11 According to interviews with plant managers, excess demand for fuel supply is a long-run concern. Several biomass plants are seeking permission from regulators to burn agricultural and urban waste. Some facilities are operating at a loss, but continue to produce power because shutdown is prohibitively costly under their long-term contract obligations to utilities. Early termination of these contracts carries penalties in excess of several million dollars. A forester noted that the market price for woody biomass fuel is $40 to $45 per bone dry ton, but his company is spending $60 per ton in order to obtain adequate fuel supply to satisfy a power contract. More biomass removal is occurring on private lands that are remote or not fully grown.
In Burney and Westwood, electricity generated from biomass has increased dramatically since the Pilot Project began in FY 1999-2000, but most of the fuel supply is from private forestlands. Generation capacity at Burney Mountain Power slightly expanded after a boiler was retrofitted with a natural gas co-fire unit in 2000. Ownership of the Burney Forest Products facility changed in early 2006, but this action is unlikely to significantly affect operations. The Westwood plant now operates year-round; it previously idled in winter.
Exhibit 8: Electricity Generated from Biomass (Thousands of MWh)
450 Pilot Project Begins 400 Í
350 300 250
200 150 100
Thousands of Megawatt Hours 50 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year
Bieber Burney Susanville Westwood Chester Quincy Loyalton
11 The retail price of diesel fuel in California rose 40 percent from 2004 to 2006, from $2.09 per gallon to $2.92 per gallon. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly U.S. On- Highway Diesel Fuel Prices (twelve-month average). 36 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Source: California Energy Commission, Big Valley Power, Collins Pine.
37 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Table 12: Electricity Generated from Biomass (Thousands of MWh) % Change Community 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2005 to 2006 Bieber* 12.9 27.0 21.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 24.3 197.5% Burney 163.3 259.0 245.7 193.8 400.0 296.5 370.2 368.1 357.6 -2.9% Susanville 109.1 190.7 191.1 130.1 241.4 240.7 189.3 163.3 145.6 -10.8% Westwood 24.5 24.7 44.6 28.7 73.4 73.7 76.3 77.5 69.8 -10.0% Chester 21.1 26.7 18.4 9.9 20.0 17.1 20.8 22.7 14.5 -36.0% Quincy 48.5 136.4 152.4 107.3 159.4 153.7 142.0 138.6 130.7 -5.7% Loyalton 46.5 82.7 53.1 46.8 83.3 79.9 80.9 83.3 84.3 1.1%
Pilot Project Area Total 425.9 747.2 726.7 521.9 977.4 861.6 879.5 861.8 826.9 -4.1% Sources: California Energy Commission, Big Valley Power, Collins Pine. *Data for Bieber for 2005 and 2006 are gross power production, not net sales to power grid.
Electric generation in Chester has declined from its 1999 peak, in part because the sawmill has produced less woodwaste since its renovation in 2003. The decline in Susanville since 2003 is due mostly to closure of the Sierra Pacific sawmill and cogeneration plant in 2004. HL Power in the Susanville area lost a month of production in 2006 due to a turbine overhaul.
Although two Pilot Project Area sawmills closed in 2001, their cogeneration plants remain in operation. The power plant in Bieber closed along with the sawmill in 2001, but was re-activated as Big Valley Power in June 2005. Its primary fuel supply is the Big Valley Sustained Yield Unit of the Modoc National Forest. Although the Loyalton sawmill closed in 2001 and has been dismantled, its power plant remains in operation, supplying the Nevada-based Sierra Pacific Power Company. Generation at the Loyalton plant has been stable since 2002.
38 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.7 Jobs in Locally-Owned Businesses
Locally-owned businesses help keep dollars circulating within the community since business owners are residents and residents tend to spend locally. Examining the mix of business ownership and shares of employment between locally- and non-locally-owned businesses provides a good indicator of the economic health of the Pilot Project Area communities.
For this indicator, a locally-owned business is defined as single location or a headquarters operating within the Pilot Project Area. Establishment data was compiled for the manufacturing sector and for the retail/service sector. Upon consultation with Forest Service staff, this study categorized Sierra Pacific Industries and Collins Pine as locally- owned because much of the management of individual facilities is based locally and a majority of their sales dollars are spent in the communities in which their sawmills are located.
The tables below contain business establishment data collected and maintained by Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), a financial analysis company called. The D&B database provides information on the location of a business and whether the business is a single operation, a headquarters, or a branch location. D&B data is collected by aggregating available public records, phone and mail surveys, and information submitted and updated by businesses. D&B releases its database in the fourth quarter of each year. Data presented here were published in October 2008. However, changes in the current business environment may take up to one year to appear in D&B’s data. As a result, this data is likely to only reflect changes up to 2007.
Why is it important? In most cases, the revenue from branch locations is often transferred to a business' headquarters before being spent, producing little benefit to the local economy. Data for the manufacturing sector represents the potential impact of increased forest product industry activity. In the Pilot Project Area, most forest product jobs are in manufacturing, and most manufacturing jobs are in the forest product sector. The retail/service sector represents the potential impact of increased tourism. With forest products business dominating manufacturing activities, growth in this sector has more potential to impact the local economy than the retail and service sector, which is composed of tourism-related businesses.
How are Pilot Project communities doing? As seen in the tables below, from 1998 to 2007, the percentage of workers employed by locally- owned businesses in the manufacturing sector increased in all communities within the Pilot Project Area except Greenville. This shift in jobs in the manufacturing sector to locally-owned businesses indicates growth in the local economy since wages in the manufacturing industry are higher than the retail and services industries. In contrast, the retail and services sector in most Pilot Project Area communities exhibits a decrease in the percentage of workers employed by locally owned businesses from 1998 to 2007.
39 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Table 13: Percent of Manufacturing Workers Employed by Locally-Owned Businesses 1998 2005 2006 2007 Bieber 96.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 Burney 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Susanville 92.6 100.0 90.9 93.6 Westwood 91.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Chester 95.5 90.9 99.0 99.0 Greenville 92.9 100.0 95.6 95.2 Quincy 96.4 91.7 100.0 100.0 Portola 82.5 92.9 85.7 86.2 Loyalton 96.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Dun and Bradstreet (4th Qtr. 1998, 2006, 2007, 2008) Data compiled by Center for Economic Development, CSU Chico
Table 14: Percent of Retail and Service Workers Employed by Locally-Owned Businesses 1998 2005 2006 2007 Bieber 91.5 100.0 99.1 99.1 Burney 67.2 65.7 69.5 66.6 Susanville 71.5 66.1 76.5 71.2 Westwood 84.5 77.2 78.3 80.5 Chester 77.8 82.3 73.7 72.1 Greenville 89.1 84.0 76.5 78.0 Quincy 80.5 81.7 77.1 75.2 Portola 80.8 84.6 89.6 89.7 Loyalton 82.7 76.9 89.5 83.9 Source: Dun and Bradstreet (4th Qtr. 1998, 2006, 2007, 2008) Data compiled by Center for Economic Development, CSU Chico
40 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.8 Establishments by Years in Business
The following data were collected from the D&B database by the research staff at the Center for Economic Development-Small Business Development Corporation Partnership (CED-SBDC) at Chico State University. The D&B database includes information on the year during which an establishment began operating and how long it has been in business. D&B categorizes businesses by age: 1) less than five years old, 2) five to 15 years old and 3) more than 15 years old.
As previously stated, D&B collects data from available public records, survey results, and information submitted and updated by businesses. Data presented here is from the October 2008 database update. This data, though released in 2008, is likely to only reflect changes up to 2007 because changes in the business sector may take up to one year to be recorded.
Why is it important? Business age statistics illustrate two points. First, increasing numbers of new businesses indicate a growing economy with positive activity in business investment. Second, for an economically isolated region such as the Pilot Project Area, decreasing numbers of established businesses can signify a loss of local support for existing businesses or increased competition from new businesses.
How are Pilot Project communities doing? Table 15 indicates a general downward trend in number of establishments in operation of all ages since 1998. Business closures indicate that the demand in these communities may have not been large enough to sustain them. The change between 1998 and 2007 was as follows: firms 0-5 years old (-39%); firms 6-15 years old (-26 %) and firms 15+ years old (+42%). The increase since 1998 in the number of businesses open for more than 15 years is a positive sign; it demonstrates that older businesses are enduring. Susanville, Burney, Greenville, and Westwood experienced growth in the 0-5 year category from 2006 to 2007. Establishments opening in these areas indicate that new investment is occurring.
Table 15: Number of Pilot Project Area Establishments by Age Bracket Establishments open for 15 or More Establishments open for 0-5 Years Establishments open for 6-15 Years Years 1998 2005 2006 2007 1998 2005 2006 2007 1998 2005 2006 2007 Bieber 5 1 4 5 Bieber 19 5 9 6 Bieber 33 21 50 52 Burney 63 21 31 38 Burney 84 40 78 75 Burney 135 104 184 171 Susanville 102 47 58 75 Susanville 180 129 148 135 Susanville 187 228 281 278 Westwood 24 18 24 25 Westwood 43 46 41 36 Westwood 53 67 85 65 Chester 38 22 21 18 Chester 60 57 55 43 Chester 61 76 64 88 Greenville 16 9 15 18 Greenville 37 16 24 24 Greenville 40 37 59 60 Quincy 64 34 37 33 Quincy 104 78 79 73 Quincy 148 160 176 184 Portola 73 32 37 21 Portola 115 45 79 84 Portola 85 92 156 155 Loyalton 12 5 8 8 Loyalton 23 6 15 13 Loyalton 35 27 47 47
TOTAL 397 189 235 241 TOTAL 665 422 528 489 TOTAL 777 812 1,102 1,100 Source: Dun and Bradstreet Database (Data released 4th Quarter, 2008)
41 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.9 Lodging Revenue
Lodging revenue is a measure of the degree to which tourism is increasing or decreasing in a region. Lodging is purchased for a number of reasons, including business and family visits, temporary work and recreation. Lodging for family visits usually changes little from year to year. Lodging for temporary work increases when a large, short-term source of employment exists, such as a major construction project or a major forest fire.
Most California jurisdictions impose a transient occupancy tax (TOT) on lodging for up to 30 days. Within the Pilot Project Area, the TOT rate varies from zero to ten percent of lodging value (the City of Loyalton presently does not have a TOT). The scope of the TOT, commonly known as the “bed tax” or “hotel tax,” differs across jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions impose the TOT only on hotel/motel rooms (e.g., Tehama County), while others also levy the TOT on vacation homes, lodges, cabins, resorts and ranches, campgrounds, and recreational vehicle spaces (e.g., Plumas County). In some jurisdictions, the TOT also is collected at campgrounds operated directly by the Forest Service.
JFA compiled localized TOT revenue data from tax collector offices in Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, and Tehama counties and in the cities of Susanville and Portola. Data are for fiscal years (July through June) for all jurisdictions except for Plumas County, which only reports localized TOT data on a calendar year basis. JFA used this data and the relevant TOT rates to estimate lodging revenue in the nine Pilot Project communities. JFA deflated the estimates to 2008 dollars with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers).
Why is it important? Increasing revenue from lodging, if temporary work and family visits can be discounted, is a direct result of increasing tourism. Tourism that utilizes lodging is important because, unlike day trips, overnight stays often involve additional purchases such as meals and entertainment.
How are Pilot Project communities doing? Adjusted for inflation, lodging revenue has been stable in most communities in the Pilot Project Area, as demonstrated in Exhibit 9 and Table 16. Two communities show a clear upward trend since the start of the Pilot Project in 1999: Westwood and Chester. The Burney area’s accommodation industry declined slightly in FY 2007-08. McArthur Burney Falls, Lassen Volcanic National Park, and Lassen National Forest are major attractions.
42 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Exhibit 9: Lodging Revenue Subject to Transient Occupancy Tax (Millions of 2008 Dollars)
$7.00 Í Pilot Project Begins $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 Millions of 2008 Dollars $-
7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 / 0 1/ 0 96/ 9 97/ 98/ 9 99 00/ 0 0 02/ 0 03/ 0 04/0 05/0 06/0 07/0 Fiscal Year Bieber Burney Susanville Westwood Chester Greenville Quincy Portola Loyalton
Table 16: Lodging Revenue Subject to Transient Occupancy Tax (Millions of 2008 Dollars) % Change 96/ 97/ Community 98/ 99 99/ 00 00/ 01 01/ 02 02/ 03 03/ 04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 06/07 to 97 98 07/08 Bieber $0.09 $0.08 $0.07 $0.09 $0.10 $0.12 $0.10 $0.09 $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 $0.08 -27.9% Burney N/A N/A N/A $2.63 $2.86 $3.03 $2.98 $2.91 $3.16 $3.08 $2.98 $2.91 -2.2% Susanville $4.95 $4.55 $4.73 $5.08 $5.39 $5.55 $5.74 $5.66 $5.42 $5.52 $5.97 $5.65 -5.2% Westwood $2.68 $2.75 $2.75 $2.96 $3.11 $3.00 $3.39 $3.56 $3.42 $3.41 $3.23 $3.24 0.4% Chester $1.48 $1.71 $1.55 $1.73 $1.71 $2.04 $2.01 $2.14 $2.20 $2.13 $2.61 $3.06 17.3% Greenville $0.15 $0.29 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.26 $0.27 $0.32 $0.31 $0.26 $0.24 $0.23 -4.3% Quincy $2.25 $2.29 $2.28 $2.21 $2.05 $2.34 $2.75 $2.32 $2.23 $2.18 $2.29 $2.22 -3.0% Portola $4.26 $4.51 $4.44 $5.00 $5.58 $5.81 $5.99 $5.70 $5.47 $5.18 $4.62 $5.24 13.4% Loyalton $0.57 $0.47 $0.60 $0.71 $0.77 $0.75 $0.73 $0.76 $0.69 $0.72 $0.91 $0.85 -6.2%
Pilot Project Area Total N/A N/A N/A $20.68 $21.86 $22.90 $23.96 $23.47 $23.02 $22.60 $22.96 $23.50 2.3% Source: Data compiled by JFA Staff from County and City Tax Collector Offices
The mainstays of Susanville’s lodging industry are travelers on U.S. Highway 395 and visitors to inmates at three local prisons (two state and one federal). Peaks in lodging revenue are attributable to housing of non-local construction workers on major projects: High Desert State Prison was completed in August 1995 and expanded in the early 2000s, Banner Lassen Medical Center opened in May 2003, and the federal prison in Herlong opened in early 2005. According to a local motel owner, the rise of Indian gaming in communities throughout the western United States has decreased lodging in Susanville. Before the existence of Indian casinos, many tourists from the Pacific Northwest en route to Reno on U.S. Highway 395 stayed overnight in Susanville. The Indian casino near Susanville opened a 70-room hotel in September 2008.
43 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Lodging revenues in Westwood and Chester have expanded significantly since FY 1998-99 as Lake Almanor has become an increasingly popular vacation destination. Plumas County’s first “chain” hotel opened in Chester in early 2006. The lodging industry in Westwood proper is minimal; most of the lodging activity associated with that community occurs at vacation rental homes and resorts/ranches in the Lake Almanor area. TOT revenues in the Westwood area now are decreasing because lakeside resorts (such as Lassen View and Little Norway) are being converted to condominiums.
Since implementation of the Pilot Project, lodging revenues in Greenville and Quincy have remained stable. The lodging industry in the Portola area has fluctuated since implementation of the Pilot Project. Rental of private vacation homes is a big business in the Mohawk section of the Portola area. New resorts, golf courses, and other major tourist- and vacationer-oriented projects have been completed in recent years, especially in the Graeagle/Lakes Basin section of the Portola area. Lodging revenue for the Portola area declined in 2005 and 2006 because a major facility in Blairsden (Feather River Inn) changed ownership and closed for renovation.
Lodging in the Loyalton/Sierra Valley area consists of hotels/motels in Sierra County and trailer/mobile home parks in Plumas County, especially at Frenchman Lake. Data from the City of Loyalton are not included in the table because that jurisdiction does not levy a TOT.
More than three-quarters of Plumas County is national forest and other federal lands. The 2002 U.S. Economic Census found that Plumas County has one of the greatest concentrations of recreational and vacation camps in the state. This industry (NAICS 721214) comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating overnight recreational camps, such as children’s camps, family vacation camps, hunting and fishing camps, and outdoor adventure retreats that offer trail riding, white-water rafting, hiking, and similar activities.
In 2002, Plumas County’s seven recreational/vacation camps accounted for 3.5 percent of California’s sales ($4.6 million) and 5.1 percent of California’s annual payroll ($2.0 million) in that industry. For comparison, Plumas County contains just 0.07 percent of California’s population. This was a significant increase from the previous census in 1997 when Plumas County’s recreational/vacation camps accounted for 1.8 percent of California’s sales ($1.8 million) and 2.4 percent ($0.7 million) of California’s annual payroll in that industry. The Census Bureau is now collecting data for 2007.
44 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.10 Retail Business Activity
Sales tax is imposed on most sales transactions in California. It is levied on the gross receipts of retailers from the sale of tangible personal property. The tax also applies to some rental transactions and many occasional and nonrecurring sales by persons who otherwise would not be regarded as “retailers.” Food products (e.g., unprepared food purchased at grocery stores) and lodging, among other items, are exempt. (However, lodging is subject to the transient occupancy tax in most jurisdictions.) The State Board of Equalization (BOE) publishes taxable sales data at the county and city levels each calendar year. The table below presents data for 2006, which is the most recent data available. Data is adjusted to 2006 dollars with the BOE’s Taxable Sales Deflator Index.
Why is it important? Taxable transactions are an indicator of personal and business consumption in a given jurisdiction. As economic activity in an area increases, residents and businesses increase their purchases of tangible personal property that are subject to sales tax. As the economy contracts, taxable transactions decrease or expand more slowly. However, taxable transactions are an imperfect measure of consumption in the Pilot Project Area because residents and business agents tend to travel to retail outlets in the Sacramento Valley and Reno area to purchase “big ticket” items (e.g., motor vehicles) and for shopping excursions.
How are Pilot Project communities doing?
Growth of taxable sales transactions outperformed the rest of California in 2006 in Plumas County and in the cities of Portola and Loyalton. Taxable sales in Lassen and Sierra counties and in Susanville grew more slowly than the rest of the state in 2006; lingering effects from the 2004 sawmill closure may be the major cause in Susanville and Lassen County.
Table 17: Taxable Sales in the Study Area (Total All Outlets) (Millions of 2006 Dollars)* % Change Area 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2005 to 2006 Lassen County $221.4 $230.4 $236.2 $254.6 $262.7 $267.3 $285.5 $286.5 0.3% Susanville City $119.0 $128.1 $126.3 $132.0 $134.5 $134.8 $138.9 $139.8 0.7% Plumas County $178.6 $195.2 $201.3 $212.4 $213.1 $231.9 $244.6 $253.0 3.4% Portola City $13.7 $15.5 $15.0 $14.9 $16.0 $17.3 $17.2 $19.4 12.8% Sierra County $21.2 $20.9 $21.4 $25.9 $22.0 $23.8 $26.0 $26.0 -0.1% Loyalton City $5.3 $6.2 $6.2 $6.8 $5.4 $6.6 $6.7 $7.5 11.5% California $419,220.3 $460,331.3 $460,532.6 $465,003.2 $485,469.0 $519,824.5 $546,125.3 $559,652.4 2.5% Source: California State Board of Equalization Data for counties include cities therein. *Tax data was adjusted to 2006 dollars using BOE’s Taxable Sales Deflator Index
45 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.11 Youth Education
Youth education is measured in this report using high school dropout rates, which are calculated by dividing the number of dropouts by total enrollment in grades nine through 12. Statistics on high school dropouts are published annually by the California Department of Education. Due to the small size of the communities a few student dropouts have the potential to significantly skew year-to-year percent changes. Therefore, a three-year moving average was calculated to more reasonably portray youth education trends in the study area. Data points were calculated by averaging the percentage dropout rate for the selected school year, the year before and the year after. Beginning with the 2006-07 school year, the Department of Education substantially revised the methodology for calculating dropout rates. Consequently, dropout rates had the appearance of doubling that year in many California communities, thereby increasing the three- year average shown for “2005/06.” As a result, statistics for “2005/06” are not directly comparable to earlier three-year averages.
Why is it important? High school students who drop out have fewer opportunities for employment and social advancement. Higher dropout rates indicate a young population that is less prepared to enter the workforce and a community that is less prepared to capture local economic impact because fewer local educated workers are qualified to accept new jobs.
How are Pilot Project communities doing? There is little statistical connection between implementation of the Pilot Project and youth education. High school dropout rates have remained relatively stable across all nine communities. Since the Pilot Project began in late 1999, four communities have had minor increases in dropout rates (Bieber, Burney, Quincy and Loyalton) and four have had minor decreases (Susanville, Westwood, Greenville and Portola). High school enrollment in these communities is small, ranging from 100 to 1,200 students. The addition or loss of one student significantly affects the dropout rate.
46 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Exhibit 10: High School Dropout Rates (Three-Year Moving Average)
6.0% Pilot Project Begins Î Bieber 5.0% Burney 4.0% Susanville Westwood 3.0% Chester Greenville 2.0% Quincy 1.0% Portola Loyalton 0.0%
Source: California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System, Annual Reported Data 1992 though 2006.
Table 18: High School Dropout Rates (Three-Year Moving Average) 93/ 94/ 95/ 96/ 97/ 98/ 99/ 00/ 01/ 02/ Community 03/04 04/05 05/06 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 Bieber 1.2% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 1.1% 1.7% 2.3% 2.7% 2.4% 2.6% Burney 3.3% 3.2% 2.6% 2.6% 2.1% 2.9% 2.5% 2.1% 1.2% 1.8% 2.5% 3.8% 3.9% Susanville 2.1% 2.4% 3.0% 3.1% 3.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 1.7% 1.5% 1.3% Westwood 3.4% 1.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 2.0% 1.8% 2.2% 1.4% 1.1% 0.7% 1.4% Chester 2.7% 1.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 1.1% 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% 2.3% Greenville 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.3% 0.8% 0.9% Quincy 0.8% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.9% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 2.5% Portola 3.9% 5.5% 4.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.2% 4.3% 3.3% 2.9% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% 3.1% Loyalton 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.8% 0.9% 1.1% 3.6% Source: California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System, Annual Reported Data 1993 though 2005
Loyalton’s increased dropout rate in 2005/06 is mostly due to major student turnover at a continuation high school (250 percent dropout rate). Susanville’s dropout rate actually has decreased since the closure of the community’s last sawmill in 2004.
In the 2001/02 through 2005/06 school years, the Westwood Charter School primarily served students in other parts of the state. The school was contracted to educate at-risk youth and former dropouts in San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and other urban areas. Data for this school were omitted because the majority of the school’s students resided outside the Pilot Project Area. According to the Superintendent of the Westwood Unified School District, the District undertook this arrangement to compensate for declining local enrollment and funding.
47 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.12 Family Poverty
Family poverty is measured in this report with enrollment rates in free and reduced-price breakfast and lunch programs. Enrollment figures for these programs are available for all public schools in the Pilot Project Area from the California Department of Education (CDE). To participate, families must claim income eligibility. In accordance with the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, the USDA Food and Nutrition Service establishes eligibility guidelines. These guidelines, which vary by household size, are set using poverty standards developed by the U.S. Census and are adjusted annually. The table below provides a snapshot of eligibility guidelines in effect for the 2007-2008 school year.
Table 19: USDA Free & Reduced Lunch Eligibility Guidelines (2007-2008 School Year) Household Income Ceiling Size Reduced Lunch Free Lunch 1 $18,889 $13,273 2 $25,327 $17,797 3 $31,765 $22,321 4 $38,203 $26,845 Source: USDA National School Lunch Program
Study staff collected CDE data on total enrollment and free and reduced lunch program participation for schools located in the Pilot Project Area communities. Percentages plotted in Exhibit 11 were calculated by dividing the number of free/reduced program participants by the total number of enrolled students.
Why is it important?
Families with income levels that are low enough to be accepted into free and reduced-price school meal programs can be considered poor families. Higher participation levels indicate higher family poverty levels. Measuring the number of poor families is a way to gauge local economic performance.
How are Pilot Project communities doing?
In the 2007-2008 school year, program participation increased to its highest point since the beginning of the Pilot Project. However, most of this increase is due to a handful of schools in the Burney and Westwood areas. Five communities experienced decreases in program participation in the past year. Data shows those communities that lost sawmills, Loyalton (2001) and Susanville (2004), exhibited an increase in program participation. For example, in the 2000- 2001 school year 27 percent of Loyalton students participated in the free and reduced lunch program compared to 33.2 percent participation in 2007-2008. Despite these spikes, region-wide free and reduced lunch program participation is relatively stable with fluctuations between 34 and 39 percent since 1999.
48 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Exhibit 11: Percentage of Enrolled Students Participating in Free & Reduced Lunch Programs
Í Pilot Project Begins
Source: California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System. Note: 2001/2002 data for Loyalton is unavailable; 2002/03 data for Westwood likely is an anomaly.
Table 20: Percentage of Enrolled Students in Free & Reduced Lunch Programs
School Year Community 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 Bieber 54.5% 57.6% 50.5% 54.6% 50.2% 60.8% 50.2% 47.4% 56.7% 54.4% Burney 41.2% 41.1% 41.4% 40.9% 55.7% 46.2% 45.3% 45.1% 44.3% 54.0% Susanville 30.6% 27.5% 29.1% 29.7% 29.9% 31.9% 36.6% 34.9% 34.8% 33.9% Westwood 48.4% 50.1% 49.4% 47.8% 18.1% 34.3% 43.1% 44.5% 35.1% 40.4% Chester 34.8% 29.9% 31.6% 32.4% 38.0% 32.8% 33.2% 34.5% 40.2% 38.4% Greenville 53.0% 49.7% 53.4% 45.7% 40.2% 39.3% 40.1% 46.4% 55.5% 48.9% Quincy 29.6% 33.3% 31.8% 30.9% 32.4% 32.8% 36.1% 32.6% 35.7% 37.1% Portola 30.4% 35.9% 36.9% 35.1% 35.9% 33.6% 34.5% 40.9% 41.8% 40.3% Loyalton 22.6% 29.1% 27.0% N/A 37.4% 32.3% 35.4% 37.4% 32.7% 33.2% Pilot Project Area Total 34.8% 34.4% 34.8% 34.8% 33.4% 35.6% 38.6% 38.6% 38.5% 39.5% Source: California Department of Education, California Basic Educational Data System. Note: 2001/2002 data for Loyalton is unavailable; 2002/03 data for Westwood likely is an anomaly.
49 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
4.13 Population Age Structure
The U.S. Census Bureau tabulates age distribution of the population. The decennial census is the only base data on population collected by age at the community level. Three age groups are given below: children (Age 0-17), working-age adults (age 18-64), and senior citizens (age 65+).
Why is it important?
Age structure indicates the degree to which communities have a higher concentration of families, non-family workers, or retired citizens. Higher percentages of children indicate a concentration of families, higher percentages of working-age adults (without the high percentage of children) indicate a concentration of non-family workers, and a high percentage of senior citizens indicate a concentration of retired persons. Increasing employment is more likely to benefit communities with families and non-family workers and less likely to benefit communities with higher concentrations of retirees.
How are Pilot Project communities doing?
The highest concentration of families is in Susanville and Loyalton, two communities that have lost sawmills since the Pilot Project began. Non-family workers are more concentrated in communities where lumber mills dominate employment (Chester and Quincy). Retired citizens are more concentrated in communities around Lake Almanor (Chester, Westwood and Greenville).
Exhibit 12: Percent of Total Population by Age, 2000 70 63 60 59 58 59 60 58 57 57 57
50
40 29 27 30 25 25 25 24 24 21 23 20 19 17 17 19 18 20 15 14 11 10
0 Bieber Burney Susanville* Westwood Chester Greenville Quincy Portola Loyalton
Age 0-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+ *Excludes incarcerated persons
Source: U.S. 2000 Census.
50 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Appendix A: Status of HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring
The following is a summary of HFQLG monitoring effort. The objectives for socioeconomic monitoring are to:
1) Supply socioeconomic information and analysis for the Annual Status Report to Congress pursuant to Section 401(j)(1)(D), described in the introduction.
2) Supply socioeconomic information and recommendations to the scientific panel pursuant to Section 401(k)(1) described below:
§401(k)(1): The Secretary [of the U.S. Department of Agriculture] shall establish an independent scientific panel to review and report on whether, and to what extent, implementation of the pilot project under this section achieved the goals stated in the Quincy Library Group-Community Stability Proposal, including … community stability.
Monitoring History
Originally, the HFQLG Implementation Team collected annual spending data and contracted with the Center for Economic Development at Chico State University (CED) to use IMPLAN models to predict the economic benefits to the area that resulted from this spending. Through internal discussions and meetings with a citizen group, the HFQLG Implementation Team decided that monitoring data must be “empirical” rather than "theoretical" in the annual Status Report to Congress. Therefore, the Implementation Team decided not to have CED run an economic impact analysis, but rather to use monitoring resources to study socioeconomic indicators as they become available.
In 2003, Congress extended the Pilot Project to 2009. This allowed time to determine a better socioeconomic monitoring strategy, as well as time to collect better data for the scientific panel to analyze at the end of the project. In 2005, the HFQLG Implementation Team contracted with Jack Faucett Associates with support from CED to continue the socioeconomic monitoring study. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 extended implementation of the HFQLG Pilot Project to September 30, 2012.12
Data originally collected for the HFQLG Act Environmental Impact Statement was to be used as a baseline for socioeconomic monitoring. Unfortunately, this information may not be the most useful to the scientific panel. A more reliable analysis requires some information be collected at a later time, and other information be collected through annual surveys. There are two types of data that can be used as a socioeconomic indicator: secondary data and survey data.
12 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (H.R.2764), Division F – Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Section 434. 51 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Secondary Data
Official economic and demographic estimating organizations, such as the California Department of Finance and the U.S. Department of Commerce update their time series annually. Therefore, for the scientific panel, it will not be necessary to collect data every year because future data revisions will render data collected in the past moot. Ideally, this information would not be collected until 2010, when the most accurate information available throughout the timeframe for implementation of the HFQLG Act will be available.
Survey Data
Survey data collected under this effort will be necessary for the scientific panel in two cases:
1) Current data will not be available in the future Historical data for the Forest Products Industry Roster may not be available in the future. If forest product businesses shut down, it will be difficult or impossible to survey owners to obtain employment data. As a result, the Forest Products Industry Roster is currently being surveyed annually.
2) Future secondary data will not be available in time for the Final Status Report to Congress If substantial activity in implementing the Pilot Project does not occur until 2009, a survey will be necessary to collect enough business and household data for the scientific panel to use in 2010. Normally, economic data is not available until 1.5 to two years in the future (i.e., 2007 data will be available in mid-to late-2009). Secondary data for 2009 likely will not be available in time for the Final Status Report to Congress in 2010. In this case, a more in-depth and resource intensive business and household survey may be necessary to collect data for the scientific panel to analyze. As discussed above, the HFQLG Act was extended until September 2012.
52 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Appendix B: 2008 Forest Products Industry Roster
*Probably working in forest products industry, but unable to contact or declined to participate in 2008 survey. +Denotes out of forest products industry or disconnected telephone number in 2008 survey.
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Bieber Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone Continental Resource Solutions (formerly Big Valley Power) Sawmill & power generation Bieber 96009 Glenn Zane 246-2455 Del Logging Inc Conventional logging and biomass 101 Punkin Center Rd Bieber 96009-0246 Leanna Hawkins 294-5522 Road maintenance and forestry Graham Logging ( x Logging and trucking) 661525 Bunselmeier Rd Bieber 96009-0555 Gary Graham 294-5237 Diamond Ring Ranch Dirt moving restoration (x Pit River (x Mechanical piling) Contracting) Bieber 96009 John Britton 294-5757 Kurt Dowell Custom Shearing Forestry Services (opened 2007) 667-200 A 2 Rd Bieber 96009 Kurt S. Dowell 294-5642
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Burney Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone Power generation from wood Burney Forest Power 35586-B Hwy 299E Burney 96013 Milton Schultz 335-5104 chips Power generation from wood Highway 299 & Energy Burney Mountain Power Burney 96173 Charlie Knight 224-3300 chips Drive Bzb Logging Conventional logging 37373 Blue Bird Ln Burney 96013-1332 Lonnie Blunt 335-3939 Carpenter Trucking Lumber (log) trucking, local P O Box 71 McArthur 96056-0071 Larry Carpenter 336-5256 530-100 Little Valley Claude C Morris Forestry services- fuels reduction McArthur 96056-7600 Claude Morris 336-6232 Rd Connective Operating Power generation from wood 35586-B Hwy 299E Burney 96013 Don Binger 335-5104 Services company chips *Fred Ryness & Forestry services-RPF 20277 Marquette St Burney 96013-4471 Fred Ryness 335-4324 Associates Hatcreek Construction Construction 24339 Hwy 89 N Burney 96013 335-5501 Impact Resources Llc Logging 19787 Cinder Pit Rd Burney 96013-1292 Tony Welander 335-4065 *J & S Developments Inc Log hauling P O Box 2526 Burney 96013-2526 Jon Eilts 335-3601 Sierra Pacific Industries Sawmill Hwy 299 E Burney 96013-2677 Ed Fisher 335-3681 *Todd Sloat Bio Forestry services Fall River Mills 336-5436 Consultant Warner Enterprises Inc Mechanical logging 1577 Beltline Rd Cassel 96016-0188 Paul Warner 241-4000 Doug *Witherspoon Logging Conventional logging 20341 Grogan St Burney 96013-2182 335-2937 Witherspoon +B&BE logging Conventional logging P.O. 1305 Burney 96013 Ellie Rashe 335-5153 +David Hinds Forestry services 528-575 Benzel Ln McArthur 96056-8667 David Hinds 336-5956 Fletcher Forest Products Logging-Logging camps and 28435 Metzger Rd Fall River Mills 96028-9735 Kenneth Fletcher 336-6263 Inc contractors *Lc Beebe Jr Trucking Log and chip hauling 21690 Oregon St Burney 96013-9784 335-4965 *Randy Starr Timber 39900 Jim Brewster Logging Fall River Mills 96028-9741 Rany Starr 336-6762 Falling Rd Bruce Olson/Keith *Shasta Green Sawmill Burney 549-4924 Tiner Conventional and mechanical Tubit Enterpries Inc 21640 S Vallejo St Burney 96013-1019 Douglas Lindgren 335-5085 logging
53 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Susanville Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone *Evergreen Resource 909-337- Consulting Susanville Management 2840 Hester Karon Fire fighting services, forest 472-900 Chappuis Ln Litchfield 96117 Karon Hester 254-6240 *Hidden Valley Ranch Fire prevention services, forest P O Box 538 Susanville 96130-0538 John Fitzgerald 257-3659 Honey Lake Power Electricity production from wood chips Wendell 96136 221-8797 *Leann Smith Forestry services 701-090 Richmond Rd E Susanville 96130-5012 Leann Smith 251-5384 *Lil' Bit Logging Janesville T & T Truss Components Wooden trusses Susanville 96130-8958 Joanne Tinnin 257-6366 +Butler Forest Products Logging 502 main St. Susanville 257-8362 +Tracy J Porter Fire fighting services, forest 697-000 Hwy 36 N 8 Susanville 96130 Tracy Porter 257-3502
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Westwood Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone Alderman Forest management services P O Box 760 Westwood 96137-0760 David Alderman 256-2254 Holt Logging Inc Conventional and mechanical logging Hwy 36 & Delwood Westwood 96137-0789 Tim Holt 256-3104 Medici Logging Inc Conventional and mechanical logging Hwy 36 Westwood 96137-0969 Roger Medici 256-3177 Mt Lassen Power Electricity production from wood chips County Road A-21 Westwood 96137 256-3155 +Diversified Timber Logging P O Box 1173 Westwood 96137-1173 Laura Palmer 258-6339
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Chester Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone Collins Pine Company Sawmill & power generation 500 Main St Chester 96020-0796 Mary Beth Collins 258-2111 +Cory Van Meter Logging Mechanical logging and biomassing 741 Main St. Chester 96020 Cory Van Meter 258-3007 +Taffi Forest Management Co Logging 750 1st Ave Chester 96020-3080 Robert Mac Gregor 258-2410
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Greenville Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone Dianne Mccombs Greenville 95947 Dianne Mccombs 284-6614 Indian Head Logging Logging P.O. Box 306 Greenville 95947 Warren Gorbette 284-6292 *Thayer, David Logging 29649 Hwy 89 Canyondam 95923 284-6505 +Thomas Rahn Forestry services - fire fighting 5797 N Valley Rd Greenville 95947-9800 Thomas Rahn 284-6542 *Winningham Forest Danny Forestry services 7250 Diamond Mountain Rd Greenville 95947-9641 258-9530 Management Winningham
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Quincy Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone North Valley Resource Management (xBrian Wayland Forestry services-RPF 118 Clough St Quincy 95971-0374 Daniel Banchio 284-1800 Consulting Forester) Survival exams, RPF - THP Jim Marty P.O. Box 859 Quincy 95971 283-0630 consulting Jones Bob Forestry services 371 3rd St Quincy 95971-3052 Bob Jones 283-2921 *Professional Slashbusting Svcs. Forestry services-fuels reduction 1088 Pioneer Rd Quincy 95971-4238 Chet Burgess 283-2160 Sierra Pacific Industries Sawmill & power generation 1538 Lee Rd Quincy 95971-0750 Randy Lilburn 283-2820 *Thompson's Flameproofing Local trucking 591 Bucks Lake Rd Quincy 95971-1179 Tim Thompson 283-1778 Windward Forestry Forestry services P O Box 4100 Quincy 95971-4100 Stephen Windward 283-4473
54 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Portola Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone Bill Banka Forestry Consulting RPF,THP consulting 79746 Panoramic Rd Portola 9612 Bill Banka 832-5123 Fischer, John Trucking P.O. Box 384 Blairsden 96103 836-2282 (now Joan Donvan Trucking) Graeagle Timber Logging 1 Apache Dr Blairsden 96103-0006 Peter Thill 836-2751 Sierra Valley Truss Company- William Prefabricated wood buildings 190 Industrial Way Portola 96122-1390 832-5159 Pearson Bros Inc Pearson Conventional and mechanical Wirta Logging P.O. Box 1356 Portola 96122 832-1054 logging
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Loyalton Community Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone *Hood Logging Logging-Logging camps and contractors 63051 Hwy 49 Loyalton 96118-1107 Edward Hood 993-1410 L Gallagher Trucking Log hauling 511 S Lincoln Sierraville 96126 994-3354 Sierra Pacific Industries Power generation Railroad Ave Loyalton 96118-0208 Mark Lathrop 993-4402
Forest Products Industry Establishments in the Nine Counties Surveyed – Outside Pilot Project Area Business Name Category Address City Zip+4 Contact Phone +Aero Union Inc Fire fighting services 100 Lockheed Ave Chico 95973 Terry Unsworth 896-3000 +Allen Jacobs and Associates Resource consulting Chico 343-1947 5520 Mountain View +Alpine Land Info Svcs Forestry services Redding 96049-4789 Randy McCabe 222-8100 Dr *Amundson Tom Tmber Flling Logging-Timber, cut at logging Thomas 14615 River Oaks Dr Red Bluff 96080-9338 529-0504 Cntr camp Amundson +Arroyo Chico Resources 894-3320 *Atchley timber falling Forestry services 1169 De Moll Dr Redding 96002-3223 Joseph Atchley 223-0846 +Beckett Logging Logging 13650 Oak Run Rd Oak Run 96069-9624 David Beckett 472-3630 Mr.William +Berryman Trucking Log hauling 1229 Feather Ave Oroville 95965-4214 533-3275 Berryman *Best, Roland Lumber and timber trucking P.B. Box 48 Anderson 945-5182 Conventional and helicopter *Big Hill Logging & Rd Building 915 Hutchins Dr Gridley 95948-9451 Macarthur Siller 846-4848 logging Conventional logging & tree +Bigelow Land and Timber P.O. Box 2751 Oroville 589-1000 service +Borden Mfg Wooden frame maker 6240 Grange Rd Cottonwood 96022-1030 Ralph Borden 824-6864 Forestry services - trail +Boucher Joel Trail Rcnstrction 15 Lake St Sierra City 96125-0124 Joel Boucher 862-1339 construction *Bracken Trucking Log hauling 23000 Bracken Ln Red Bluff 96080-8869 Terry Bracken 527-4155 *Ca-Mil Trucking Equipment hauling 3035 Twin Vw Redding 96099-2008 Bruce Miller 245-0127 *Chris' Forest Products Bark & mulch processing PO Box 2137 Paradise 877-7774 Continental Resouce Solution/ RPF 1615 continal Redding 96099-0218 Brad Seaburg 246-2455 Mason, Bruce & Girard Logging-Logging camps and *Crane Mills P O Box 318 Corning 96021-0318 Robert Crane 824-5427 contractors Lawrence Cumpton Trucking Inc Lumber hauling 13565 Highway 36 E Red Bluff 96080-8840 527-4102 Cumpton *Dan Kennedy Timber Timber estimating services 800 Cynthia Ln Paradise 95969-2552 Daniel Kennedy 872-1651 Consultant +Dave Dial Logging Logging 478-0456 Debbie Partida Fire fighting services, forest 149 Inglewood Dr Oroville 95966-7120 Debbie Partida 533-9224 *Del Terra Inc Surveying 1168 Industrial St. Redding 96002 241-8050 Housing Sector *Denco 2771 Old Stage Rd Oak Run 96069-0024 Dennis Strawn 472-3270 (x Timber valuation services)
55 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
*Elam Oliver Land & Timber Logging P O Box 5213 Oroville 95966-0213 533-8224 *Enplan Enviromental consulting 1840 Churn Creek Rd. Redding 96002 221-0440 Fire Behavior Predictive Services Fire prevention services 2060 Amanda Way Chico Craig Carter 896-0644 *Firestorm Wildland Fire Suppre Fire fighting services P O Box 495 Chico 95927-0495 James Wills 898-8153 Grass Foresters Co-Op Forestry services 95945 Tom Amesbury 273-8326 Valley 10780 Whispering *Foster & Sons Trucking Log hauling Nevada City 95959-1818 Ronne Foster 265-2153 Pines Ln +Franklin Logging Logging 11906 Wilson Way Bella Vista 96008-1303 Ralph Franklin 549-4924 Galloway Consulting Resource consulting Chico 343-8327 Logging-Logging camps and *Greg Caldwell Logging 2251 Alden Ave Redding 96002-2336 222-1163 contractors Grass George *Harrison George Timber Falling Timber falling 12444 McCourtney Rd 95945-0198 272-7959 Valley Harrison *Havers Survey Stakes Wooden stakes 7540 cutler avenue orland 95963 Julie brcaulz 865-0105 Herrick, Tom Fire fighting services 4082 Via Maria Lane Chico 899-3705 *High Sierra Fire Inc Forestry services 2847 Foxglove Ln Redding 96001-5713 Jerry Vice 243-7222 Howell It Is Forestry Gridley 846-7962 *J&J Logging Logging 320 Black Bart Rd Oroville 95966-8984 Joey Jackson 589-0385 *Jackson and Wright Enterp Conventional logging 1845 Mount Ida Rd Oroville Jerold Wright 589-1720 +James Fillmore Timber Fall Forestry services 20391 Jellys Ferry Rd Anderson 96007-9718 James Fillmore 365-4620 James L Morgan Forestry services 4080 Hildale Ave Oroville 95966-9502 James Morgan 589-0999 Jennings, Dan Fire prevention services 241 Apple Valley Chico 95973 345-8891 Jim Dias Trucking Inc Equipment hauling 7540 Cutler Ave. Orland 95963 Jim Dias 345-8114 *John L Smith & Sons Land Grass Logging 13320 Orton Rd 95945-8612 John Smith 273-8832 Clrng Valley Conventional, cable, and 13570 State Highway John Wheeler Logging Inc Red Bluff 96080-0339 Dave Holder 527-2993 mechanical logging 36 E +Jones & Wagenfuhr Logging Conventional logging 3700 Marguerite Ave Corning 96021-9651 Tom Jones 824-2547 Wood chip hauling, now hauls +K M Snodgrass Trucking 1511 Keko St Oroville 95965-4230 K Snodgrass 533-4700 logs *Kennie C Knowles Trucking Lumber hauling 3411 S Market St Redding 96099-4732 Kennie Knowles 243-1366 +Knox Logging Forestry services P.O. Box 155 Doyle Ramond Knox 827-3380 Grass *Kubich Forest Products Log hauling 10972 Mountaineer Trl 95945-8517 Mark Kubich 272-3226 Valley Sawmills and planing mills, Grass Kubich Lumber 11099 Mountaineer Trl 95945-8517 Dave Kubich 272-8540 general Valley Lassen Forest Products Bark & mulch processing 22829 Casale Rd Red Bluff 96080-1502 Pete Brunello 527-7677 +Lawrence Jones Fire fighting water truck 6601 Stoney Dr Redding 96002-9653 Lawrence Jones 378-0646 +Lawson Enterprises Inc Wood chip hauling 35 Southview Dr Oroville Mark Lawson 533-3871 +Leo Murrer Forestry services P O Box 548 Red Bluff 96080-0548 Leo Murrer 529-6628 *Levy David Forestry Forestry services 305 Railroad Ave Ste 7 Nevada City 95959-2854 David Levy 273-4578 *Linnet, Shirley Forestry services 20205 Hucklebury Corning 518-5370 Forest Lola Spees- Lolas Fire Wtr & Tankard Svc Fire prevention services, forest P O Box 522 95942-0522 873-3867 Ranch Finley Lonnie Johnson & Son Inc Lumber hauling 2965 Louis Ave Oroville 95966-9336 Lawrin Johnson 533-3369 Loren D Stocks Timber, cut at logging camp 214 White Rd Red Bluff 96080-2920 Loren Stocks 527-1480 Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Mfg wooden I beams 11500 Reading Rd Red Bluff 96080-9745 Richard Rist 527-4343 Sawmills and planing mills, Shasta Mayo Lumber and Millwork P O Box 3550 96019 Michael Mayo 275-8394 general Lake Robert *McCollum Tree Service Forestry services 1337 Bruce Street Chico 343-9726 McCollum Sawdust and waste hauling *Monty Bettendorf Enterprizes 20348 Lords Ln Redding 96003-8106 365-1954 from mills
56 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
*Moss Lumber Co Inc Truss manufacturing 5321 Eastside Rd Redding 96099-1450 Gregory Moss 244-0700 Forestry services-Fuels 10031 Joerschke Dr Grass *Mountain Clearing and Brushing 95945 Hollas Day 273-8370 reduction Suite F Valley Forestry services-fire 3777 Meadow View Dr Mountineers Fire Crews Redding 96002-9767 Thomas Wesley 365-9128 suppression C Forestry services - cone *Natures Bounty 1824 Heller Ln Redding 96001-4424 Bruce Hughes 243-9010 collection 250 Romano Ranch +Neubert Milling Lumber General-Planning mills Sierra City 96125-0096 Richard Neubert 862-1348 Rd 5000 Bechelli Ln.Suite *North State Resources inc Consulting Redding 96002 222-5347 203 Forest *PA & PA Enterprises Timber falling 7580 Humboldt Rd 95942-9719 Paul Adams 873-6932 Ranch Electricity production from *Pacific Oroville Power Inc 3050 S 5th Ave Oroville 95965 224-3300 wood chips +Pacific Wood Fuel Sawmills and planing 532-0832 Logging camps and Shasta Petrey Logging Inc P O Box 1517 96019-1517 Wayne Logan 275-3273 contractors Lake *Phillips Transport Lumber (log) trucking, local 935 Sunrise Dr Red Bluff 96080-2835 Eddie Phillips 529-0741 +Premdor Wood Products Door manufacturing 22885 South Ave Corning 96021-0285 Stan Figgins 824-2121 *Randy Vasques Forestry Oroville 95966 Randy Vasques 534-5229 Logging camps and Richard *Richard Halcome 35269 Deer Flat Rd Shingletown 96088-9544 474-1714 contractors Halcome Round +Rick Everett Contracting Fire fighting services, forest 29185 Park Rd 96084 Rick Everett 337-6854 Mountain Rick Russell Forestry services 715 Oleta Dr Redding 96003-2222 Rick Russell 242-6254 Rios, John Fire fighting services 860 E 16th Chico 879-9318 293 Lower Grass Mowell Robinson Enterprises Inc Conventional logging Nevada City 95959-3101 265-5844 Valley Rd Robinson Rod Short Logging Logging 2658 Oak Knoll Way Oroville 95966-7105 Rod Short 532-0287 Wood carving 20491 Woodpecker Grass *Ron Ramsey 95945-8825 Ron Ramsey 477-9456 ( x Sawmills and planning Ravine Rd Valley mills, general) *Ronda K Holmes Forestry services 9173 Irish Creek Ln Redding 96001-9747 Ronda Holmes 244-4502 Shasta *Rudy Mendoza Forestry services 5034 Kevin Ln 96019-9741 Rudy Mendoza 275-8467 Lake Dewight *Sanders Trucking Local trucking, without storage 23640 Gyle Rd Gerber 96035-9609 824-3809 Sanders Grass *Saya Company Forestry services P O Box 3145 95945-3145 Joanne Jenkins 274-8266 Valley Setzer Forest Products Inc Sawmill 1980 Kusel Rd Oroville 95966-9528 Terry Dunn 534-8100 Shasta Land Management 1229 South St. Redding 96002 225-8900 *Shasta Lumber Transport, C S Shasta Lumber and log hauling 4401 Indian Ave 96079-1106 Calvin Stanley 275-3349 Stanley Inc Lake *Sierra Cedar Products, LLC Sawmill (cedar & white wood) 1401 Melody Road Marysville 95901 741-8090 Sierra Pacific Industries Millwork 3025 South 5th Avenue Oroville Mark Lathrop 532-6630 Sierra Pacific Industries Millwork 11400 Reading Rd Red Bluff 96080-8460 Greg Thom 529-5108 Sierra Pacific Industries Sawmill 19758 Riverside Ave Anderson 96007-1939 Jerry Harrington 378-8350 Sierra Pacific Industries Sawmill 19794 Riverside Ave Redding 96049-6028 A Emmerson 378-8000 Shasta Sierra Pacific Industries Sawmill 3735 El Cajon Ave 96019-9211 Darrell Dearman 275-8851 Lake Sierra Pacific Industries Sawmill/ Timber tracts Stirling City 95978-0039 Jack Bean 873-0530 Sierra Pacific Industries Forestry division Redding 96040 Conventional and mechanical 206 Sacramento St # Sierra Timber Products Inc Nevada City Frank Pendola 271-0768 logging 201
57 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
*Siskiyou Forest Products Lumber remanufacturing Anderson 96007 378-6980 North San *Skoverski Logging Conventional logging 12212 Robinson Rd 95960-0183 John Skoverski 292-3393 Juan Forestry services- 7036 Westside Rd Ste 535-365- +Sound Forest Technologies Llc Redding 96099-7068 Randy McDaniel Reforestation 103 1000 +Sound Stud, Siller Brothers Inc Sawmill 2497 Latona Rd Anderson 96007-1488 Andrew Siller 365-0112 +Spar Tree Forestry Inc Cable logging 16748 Excelsior Ditch Nevada City 95959 James Miller 265-8733 French Stan Leach Timber Incorporated Logging P O Box 280 96033-0280 Stan Leach 359-2249 Gulch Round Stephen R Paull Forestry services P O Box 310 96084-0310 Stephen Paull 337-6294 Mountain +Striebel, Jody Forestry services 24683 Dale Road Corning 824-1681 Grass Summit Forestry Svc Forestry services- RFP 16178 Greenhorn Rd 95945 272-8242 Valley +Susan E Partida Fire fighting services, forest 149 Inglewood Dr Oroville 95966-7120 Susan Partida 533-5622 Randolph Tahoe Sugarpine Co Forestry services- thinning 1847 Robinson St Oroville 95966-0663 534-5229 Vasquez 15106 Oak Meadow *Timber Pros Logging Penn Valley 95946-9363 Larry Beaver 477-2475 Rd Grass +Torgie Tree Topplers Inc Timber falling 215 Hill St 95945-6312 Eric Torgrimson 273-2525 Valley Trinity River Lumber co Sawmill 680 Cal Oak Rd Oroville 95965-9621 532-0621 PMB 203, P.O. Box *Western Coal andTimber Red Bluff 96080 589-5245 1502 Westgate Hardwoods Inc Millwork 2300 Park Ave Ste B Chico 95928-6787 Ivan Hoath 893-0411 +Wheelabrator Shasta/ Electricity production from Jerry 20811 Industrial Road Anderson 96007 365-9172? Wheelabrator Hudson wood chips Robenstine Forestry services-Fire +Wildland Fire Management 11543 Via Vis Nevada City 95959-9639 David Nelson 265-3933 prevention William *William M Chrisman Logging P O Box 58 Berry Creek 95916-0058 589-3472 Chrisman +Woolery Logging/Violetti Conventional logging 1397 Montgomery Rd Red Bluff 96080-1502 Gary Violetti 529-2121 Brothers Logging Co *A W Beeson & Associates Inc Forestry services 13320 Evergreen Dr Nevada City 95959-9642 Allan Beeson 265-5489 851 Mssion De Oro *Amanda S Evans Forestry services Redding 96003 Amanda Evans 223-3314 Apt 102 541-915- *Barry Brown Inc Fire fighting services, forest 2205 Hilltop Dr 6014 Redding 96002-0511 Barry Brown 4200 +Bevan Chilcott Enterprises Logging Redding 96003-9656 Bevan Chilcott 223-5528 *Bob Havens Trucking Lumber and log hauling 16655 Evergreen Rd Cottonwood 96022-1439 Bob Havens 347-6126 *Brummer Dan Consulting Fire prevention services, forest Redding 96001-4917 Dan Brummer 246-3325 Forester Charles Stauft c&m Reforestation services Redding 96002-9794 Charles Stauft 221-4866 *Chip Lighthouse Company Logging Redding 96003-4142 Ed Coontjer 243-3805 *Dasilva Brothers Timber Log hauling 19175 Terry Rd Cottonwood 96022-9387 347-5453 *Dennis Elliott Logging Logging 13596 Gracie Rd Nevada City 95959-1942 Dennis Elliott 272-0755 530-251- *Eastside Logging Inc Cottonwood 96022-1140 2524 *Forest Granite Inc Logging 1700 Market St Redding 96001-1932 William Potter 244-8474 10055 Round Valley *Forestry Professional Svcs Grass valley Terry Rogers 268-2725 Rd Tony Shwan *Frutado AG Construction Forestry services P.O. Box 1435 Corning 824-1102 Furtado Mathew *Gerspacher Brothers Logging Logging 2903 Neal Rd Paradise 95969-6169 872-8711 Gerspacher Logging-Logging camps and +Independent Check Scaling 5887 Fagan Dr Redding 96001-4603 Robert Foote 246-2278 contractors
58 US Forest Service HFQLG Socioeconomic Monitoring Report Fiscal Year 2008
+Isringhausen Logging & Eqp Logging 18887 River Ranch Rd Anderson 96007-9492 F Isringhuasen 243-4990 Nicole +J & K Logging Incorporate Conventional logging 4850 Caterpillar Rd Redding 96003-1402 247-3200 McCollum +Jane Kane Logging Logging camps 22940 Adobe Rad Cottonwood 347-3661 5050 Cohasset Rd +Joe D Smailes Forestry Inc Rfp Chico 95927-0398 Joe Smailes 898-8000 Bldg 5a +John Dittes Consulting Chico 895-0439 *Klamath Wildlife Services 1760 Kenyon Drive Redding 96001 244-5632 13908 Bear Mountain Lansing *Lansing Thorton Silviscript Forestry services Redding 96003-7813 275-0626 Rd Thornton *Lapast Inc Logging 6536 Oak Bottom Anderson Anthony Cramer 365-4800 *Larry Harrington Cone collection 481 1/2 6th ave Chico 95926 Larry Harrington 899-1953 +Lasha Trucking Log and chip hauling 9871 Deschutes Rd Palo Cedro 96073-8617 Delmar Scott 547-5577 +Latona Lumber Co, Wisconsn- Sawmill 19214 Latona Rd Anderson 96007-0972 William Berry 241-8310 Clifornia Forest Pdts Matt *Matt Anchordoguy Co Fire prevention services, forest 4030 Rowles Rd Vina 96092 839-2292 Anchordoguy Logging-Logging camps and Patrick +McCaffree Logging 14624 Deerhaven Ln Nevada City 95959-9298 265-3930 contractors McCaffree +Mora Reforestation, La Sierrita 2640 Green Meadows Reforestation Services, Salvador Forestry services-reforestation Corning 96021-3307 Hilda Lucatero 824-4101 Ln Birrada Reforestation Services Logging-Logging and log Ms.Robbie +North West Logging Redding 245 0290 hauling Cattanach *Penland Enterprises Forestry services P O Box 303 Big Bend 96011 Randy Penland 337-6471 *Pyro Silviculture 96017-0175 Michael Resain 238-8766 Robbie +Robbie Cattanach Trucking Lumber hauling 7211 Sands Ln Redding 96049-4220 245-0290 Cattanach +Shasta Paper Company Paper mills 21091 Hawes Rd Anderson 96007-0637 Gary Haden 378-6200 Logging-Logging camps and *Simonis Logging 22509 Knollwood Dr Palo Cedro 96073-9525 Walter Simonis 547-4226 contractors +Taylor Richard C Trucking Log and chip hauling 19919 Alexander Ave Anderson 96007-4940 Richard Taylor 365-6173 Logging-Logging camps and *Thomes Creek Logging Inc 10971 Oak Run Rd Palo Cedro 96073-0739 David Slagle 547-3131 contractors *Thurman, Robert W. Forestry services 16939 Blue Horse Anderson 357-4117 *Tim Weston Falling Forestry services 19370 Executive Corning 824-1559 *Top Dog Timber Falling Forestry services 10925 W River St Truckee 96161-0327 Ralph Rosellen 582-9331 +Tree Care Unlimited P.O. Box 711 Berry Creek 95916 521-9325 West Mountain Timber Forestry services 222 Rio Bravo Ct Corning 824-1845 +Winegar Jim, Winegar Jim Chip hauling 9481 Cedro Ln Palo Cedro 96073-0147 James Winegar 547-4810 Trckg Palo Cedro *Wisconsin-California Forest Sawmill 8013 E Side Rd Redding 96099-2125 William Berry 241-8310 Pdts Norman *Wolverton Trucking Inc Log hauling 4659 Rhonda Rd Anderson 96007-1107 365-4050 Wolverton
59 US Forest Service