Docstoc

20110527_FEIS_SocialEconomic_ks_jf

Document Sample
20110527_FEIS_SocialEconomic_ks_jf Powered By Docstoc
					DRAMVU- SOCIAL AND ECONOMICS
INTRODUCTION
The management of the Nez Perce National Forest (NPNF) has the potential to affect local
economies. People and economies are an important part of the ecosystem. Use of resources and
recreational visitation to the Forest generate employment and income in the surrounding
communities and counties. This section first describes the existing economy of the affected area
before describing some of the possible social and economic impacts from travel planning
decisions. Although impacts from this decision are expected to be small for the economy
operating in Idaho, Clearwater, Lewis, Latah, and Nez Perce counties, a few vendors and service
providers in those and neighboring counties (and possibly in other Idaho, Montana, eastern
Oregon or eastern Washington counties) may experience positive or negative impacts. The
degree to which the economy and social environment is affected will depend in part on travel
plan decisions in adjoining national forests.

Natural resources that attracted Native Americans and early explores, such as Lewis and Clark,
to the region remain important today (timber, minerals, grazing, and game habitat). Today, as
the American culture continues to develop technologically, has greater levels of wealth and more
leisure time, public lands have become and will continues to be important recreational, aesthetic,
and symbolic resources. Long-time residents and others often have strong historical and
emotional ties to the forest, leading to a “sense of place.” They want assurances that resources
and favorite areas will be protected, traditional uses will continue, and changes in management
will not have unacceptable impacts on their lifestyle and customs.

During initial scoping, comments concerned what kind of impacts changes in management could
have on their community’s social and economic well-being. National Forest System (NFS) lands
serve agricultural, industrial, business, recreational and residential uses. Outfitters/guides and
other recreation-based businesses rely on National Forests for all or part of their living. Also,
many local communities rely on employment and income generated from the existence and
management of forest resources.

CHANGES FROM DRAFT TO FINAL
      This section and analysis was added to the FEIS in response to comments on the DEIS.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 apply to off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands.

Amendments to 36 CFR Parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 address travel management and designated
routes and areas for motor vehicle use. The Final Rule requires National Forests to designate
those roads, trails and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. Once designation is complete for
an administrative unit or a ranger district, motor vehicles will not be allowed off the designated
system. The rule requires each National Forest to provide for public participation in route and
area designations. All relevant comments were considered in the development of this report.


                                            1
NEPA does not require a monetary benefit-cost analysis (40 CFR 1502.23) and given that most
of the costs and benefits associated with travel management are either non-market in nature or
highly dependent on analysis perspective, a cost-benefit analysis was not completed for Nez
Perce Travel Planning. However some budget information and cost estimates were provided to
respond to comments received during scoping and regarding the DEIS.

Table 3-1 Forest Plan Goals
Goal
           Subject Summary
Number
            Provide a sustained yield of resource outputs at a level that will help support the
    1
           economic structure of local communities and provide for regional and national needs.

           Provide a wide range of dispersed and developed recreation opportunities and
    5      experiences by providing access, facilities, and education necessary to meet public
           demand.
           Recognized and promote the intrinsic ecological and economic value of wildlife and
    6      wildlife habitats. Provide high quality and quality of wildlife habitats to ensure
           diversified recreational and public satisfaction.

Nez Perce Forest Plan Standards
The following standards apply to National Forest land administered by the Nez Perce National
Forest. They are intended to supplement, not replace, the National and Regional policies,
standards, and guidelines found in Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks and the Northern
Regional Guide.

Table 3-2 Forest Plan Standards
Standard
           Subject Summary
Number
           Analyze the economics of proposed access developments using proven tools, and
    2
           incorporate them into the project design.



ANALYSIS METHODS AND INDICATORS


This section describes the methods used to understand the existing economy of the Analysis Area
(subsequently referred to as the “economic impact area”), as well as the potential economic
impacts from the DRAMVU decision. The economic impact area is first described. Then
methods to describe the affected environment are summarized. This includes wildland
dependency information, data from the most recent national survey on recreation and the
environment, and a recreation economic contribution analysis based on Forest Service National
Visitor Use Monitoring data.




                                              2
Economic Impact Area

The Nez Perce National Forest economic impact area is delineated as Idaho, Clearwater, Lewis,
Nez Perce, and Latah counties, in Idaho. Access management activities within the Project Area
(Chapter 1) have the potential to mainly impact the economic conditions of the communities in
these counties. These counties grouped as Idaho County District 2, and selected by Adams-
Russell Consulting (2004) for their social assessment of the Nez Perce National Forest, are
displayed in Figure 3-1. Several recreational visitors also come from northern Idaho as well as
from western Montana. The main access to the Nez Perce National Forest from Montana is via
Route 12, the McGruder Road, and several diffuse points of access along the Montana-Idaho
state line from the Bitterroot Valley to Lookout Pass. The Analysis Area for the social resource
corresponds to the economic impact area, although social issues, especially ones present in this
analysis, (e.g., the value of an area being open for motorized use or not), are often not limited by
these geographic boundaries. For example some visitors from across the Northern Rocky
Mountain Region, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, the rest of the US, and other countries
have a sense of place and existence values that flow from the conditions of the north central
Idaho landscape and natural environments.

There are other communities within about a hundred mile radius of the boundaries of the Forest
including Spokane, Coeur d’Alene, Boise, and Walla Walla. These communities are not
addressed by this social/economic assessment, but they exert influence through their use of forest
resources and the actions of interest groups (Figure 3-2). The eastern edge of the project area is
adjacent to Ravalli County, Montana. This county differs in land area, population, and economy
and is included in the Lolo National Forest Economic Impact Area.




                                             3
Figure 3-1: The Nez Perce Travel Plan Economic Impact Area




                                          4
Figure 3-2: Large Communities in the Vicinity of the Nez Perce National Forest

                              Clearwater / Nez Perce National Forest 100 Mile Radius




Source: Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Washington State Department of Transportation, Montana Natural Information
System (NRIS), Oregon Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, and US Census Bureau.




                                                              5
Affected Environment Methods

Information used to describe the affected environment was compiled from various government
sources; there was no new data collected specifically for this analysis. Existing county-level and
national forest-level data was used to describe trends in the regional economy. County economic
profiles are available from the Headwaters Economics, Economic Profile System (EPS), which
compiles and digests primary population and economic data from a variety of government
sources into a report. Recent EPS reports, which include data up to 2006, describe the
population, employment, and income composition of the counties composing the economic
impact area for the Travel Planning Project. The recent economic conditions vary for the two
counties that have the majority of the National Forest System lands in the Project Area.
Highlights of the individual and aggregated EPS reports are presented below to describe the
economies that may be impacted by the DRAMVU decision. Some relevant unemployment
information became available since this report was first drafted, this additional information was
added to the employment section of the affected environment.

Wildland dependency data, based on the percent of total labor income (employee compensation
and proprietor (self-employed) income) earned in five resource areas, was obtained from Gebert
and Odell (2007). In these calculations the portion of labor income earned in all economic
sectors that is associated with each of five wildland resource areas was calculated for 1990 and
2000. Although these numbers cannot support thorough trend analysis, as they are only two
snapshots in time, they do provide some important information.

Recreation economic contribution analysis is also presented to show the existing contribution
that various Nez Perce National Forest recreation segments, as observed for 12 consecutive
months during 2005 and 2006 with the US Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring
(NVUM) program, make to the economic impact area. Expenditure profiles tied to all recreation
visitations were estimated to establish the total economic contributions made through recreation
activities on the Forest. Economic contributions tied to motorized and non-motorized activities
were estimated to address the economic impact issues tied directly to travel planning.

Input-output analysis was used to estimate the direct, indirect, and induced employment and
labor income effects stemming from motorized and non-motorized use. Input-output analysis is
a means of examining relationships within an economy both between businesses as well as
between businesses and final consumers. It captures all monetary market transactions for
consumption in a given time period. The resulting mathematical representation allows one to
examine the current contributions a sector makes to an economic impact area, as well as the
effect of a change in one or several economic activities on an entire economy. These
examinations are called “economic contribution analysis” and “economic impact analysis,”
respectively. Input-output analysis requires the identification of an economic impact area. The
economic impact area that surrounds the Nez Perce National Forest was previously defined, and
consists of five counties in central and north central Idaho.

Economic contributions can be categorized as direct, indirect, and induced. Direct effects are
changes associated with the initial spending by a recreation visitor, which simultaneously


                                             6
represent revenues, but not necessarily profits, to local businesses. Indirect and induced effects
are the multiplier or ripple effects resulting from subsequent rounds of spending in the local
economy.

The IMPLAN Pro input-output modeling system and 2007 IMPLAN data (recent data with
sectors bridged to NVUM data) were used to develop the input-output model for this analysis
(IMPLAN Professional 2003). The IMPLAN data and software translates changes in final
demand for goods and services into resulting changes in economic effects, such as labor income
and employment for the economic impact area. For the economic impact area, employment and
labor income contributions that were attributable to all current recreation use (wildlife and non-
wildlife activities) and only motorized and non-motorized activities for the Nez Perce National
Forest were generated.

The expenditure and use information collected by the calendar year 2001 and the fiscal year
2006 Nez Perce National Forest NVUM surveys are crucial elements in the economic analysis.
The expenditure information was collected by eight spending categories (Stynes and White
2005). NVUM results from each Forest are used to place that forest into one of three spending
categories, average, above average or below average. The Nez Perce National Forest was found
to be an average spending forest. The reported spending for each of the categories was allocated
to the appropriate industries within the IMPLAN model (the allocation process, also referred to
as “bridging,” was conducted by the USDA Forest Service, Planning Analysis Group in Fort
Collins, CO). The bridged IMPLAN files were used to estimate economic contributions (e.g.,
employment and labor income) related to existing spending.

Estimated existing Nez Perce National Forest recreation economic contributions (full and part-
time jobs and labor income) are displayed in the following ways:

      Estimated employment and labor income based on all, local, and non-local recreation
       visitation occurring on the Nez Perce National Forest; and

      Estimated employment and labor income by motorized and non-motorized, wildlife-
       related and all other activity types

Recreational National Forest Use, Social Issues, and Conflict is described using information
from the recent Social Assessment for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests (Adams-
Russell Consulting 2004). This description provides the deciding official with a snapshot of the
Nez Perce NF social environment allowing the official to consider the social backdrop for their
decision. In addition, an extensive public involvement process, with expanded scoping and
comment periods for the supplemental DEIS, were used to gather and listen to both overall and
site-specific concerns regarding travel management impacts to the social environment.
Recreation, in particular motorized and non-motorized travel, emerged as important issues for
most respondents. There is a desire for quality recreation experiences, and there appear to be
tradeoffs in the quality of recreation experienced by user groups with different interests. As
values increase for one user group, it is possible for values to decrease for others. Social well-
being could change based on future travel management. Site-specific impacts, especially
adverse, to any one user group are important parts of the process and are considered case-by-case
in the decision-making process.


                                             7
Economic Consequence Methods

Modeling of economic impacts (changes) using input/output analysis is often conducted to
estimate the expected changes in the contribution of jobs and income to local economies
resulting from management decisions. In order to model changes to jobs and income, specific
expectations for changes in forest visitation would be needed. Although current recreation
visitation contributions are provided for the Nez Perce National Forest, due to the uncertainty
regarding recreational visitation changes/displacement that may occur following the DRAMVU
decision, an economic impact analysis was not conducted for this assessment. Instead, response
coefficients are provided to help the reader estimate possible changes to the existing
contributions. These response coefficients show the impacts expected for every 1,000 fewer or
more party trips by activity, broken down as local / non-local and trips that are strictly day versus
those that involve an overnight. These response coefficients follow brief qualitative description
of the likely impacts to motorized and non-motorized party trips following implementation of the
various alternatives.

Job and labor income response coefficients would need to be multiplied by marginal or
incremental changes in 1,000 party trips for each activity to estimate any potential changes
associated with DRAMVU proposals. In other words, estimates of potential changes to
employment or labor income effects would be based on speculation of either increases or
decreases of 1,000 party trips to various motorized and non-motorized activities. For example if
the reader believes that hiking would increase by 500 local day party trips per year under
Alternative 3 with its non-motorized emphasis, the computations to derive effects would require
multiplying the hiking response coefficients by 0.5 (500/1,000 party trips) then adding this to
current economic contributions. The marginal effects (i.e. response coefficients) are useful for
assessing potential changes in the absence of high quality estimates regarding the impacts on
visitation under each alternative; two examples of these calculations are provided.

Insufficient information exists to quantitatively estimate changes that could impact the tradeoffs
involved in the quality of the recreation experiences for user groups. Additional management
tools will be required to address these conflicts.

Weaknesses, Limitations and Assumptions of Analysis Methods

As with nearly all economic reporting, there is a time lag associated with data collection which
prevents real-time reporting of economic conditions. The most recent data is typically two years
old by the time it becomes accessible. Therefore, efforts to describe the existing situation in
reality describe the recent past. This is normally not a large problem since many of the changes
happen slowly. However, occasionally changes happen rapidly, as was the case in the autumn of
2008 and spring of 2009, when massive structural changes impacted the US economy at large.
Much of the data needed to describe these changes will not be available for several years. As a
result, some of the data in the tools used in this analysis (e.g. IMPLAN data, or changes in
recreation visitor spending profiles) may change substantially in the future.

Along the lines of data time lags, one significant limitation regarding the existing economic
contributions and response coefficients, which are reported below, must be noted. Many
comments have been received stating that motorized use on National Forests has grown in recent


                                              8
years. To address this concern, the most recent participation rates have been pulled from the
report of Round 2 NVUM for the Nez Perce National Forest. However, the eight spending
profiles and the proportions of user segments (local day, local overnight on forest, local
overnight off-forest, non-local day, non-local overnight on forest, non-local overnight off forest,
and non-primary, as well as average visits per party trip) from Stynes and White (2005) were all
based on Round 1 NVUM data. However, similar data from Round 2 NVUM, just released in
2011, indicate that the spending profiles did not change notably between survey periods and the
Nez Perce National Forest remained an average spending forest (Table A-4, White and Stynes
2010, p. 35).

Another limitation of most economic data is the scale at which it is collected and summarized.
Many comments requested analysis of the impacts to their specific community, (e.g.,
Grangeville, Cottonwood, or Elk City). The smallest level most data is reported at is the county
level. Just as in any case where averaging occurs, county-level data essentially represents the
average of all the individuals and communities within that county. Depending on the variability
of economic conditions, county-level data may not capture significantly different community or
individual experiences and conditions across the county. A related limitation of this document is
the problem of reporting conditions for aggregated economic sectors versus reporting individual
industries. The reporting provided in this analysis was done with 2-digit aggregation of the North
American Industrial Classification System. Attempting to report data at any finer resolution
would cause data omission problems, due to disclosure problems in counties with few firms in
any single industry. Even if this data were available, the amount of text needed to cover this type
of detail would likely not be advisable given the small expected impacts to the economy from
DRAMVU.

One assumption used to estimate the current recreational economic contributions is that
expenditure profiles should be matched with primary activity participation. Some have
commented in the past that using total activity participation would change the results. This
concern has been voiced by people who feel that if they were surveyed, they might not list their
transportation mode of choice as their primary activity, but that due to this transportation
preference, their expenditure profile means they contribute more to the local economy. After
considering this concern it has been decided that the best way to handle this is to continue
modeling based on primary participation with the caveat that this is the assumption used and may
be a source of modeling error.




                                             9
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Social and Economic Environment

This section addresses the existing social conditions for the area potentially affected by the
DRAMVU. The key social factors evaluated in this analysis include: lifestyles, land
management perspectives, and recreation preferences. The combination of small towns and rural
settings, along with people from a wide variety of backgrounds, provide a diverse social
environment for the central Idaho geographical region. Local residents pursue a wide variety of
life-styles, but many share a common theme: an orientation to the outdoors and natural resources.
This is reflected in both vocational and recreational pursuits including employment in
agricultural, logging and milling operations; outfitter and guide businesses; hiking; hunting;
fishing; camping; skiing; snowmobiling, OHV riding, and many other recreational activities.

Tourism, sport fishing, timber harvest and processing, and agricultural industries are all
important to the economy of the local areas. Despite the common concern for, and some
dependence on natural resources within the local communities, social attitudes vary widely with
respect to public land management. Local residents hold a broad spectrum of perspectives and
preferences ranging from complete preservation to maximum development and recreational
utilization of natural resources.

Travel management, planning, and route designation largely involve social issues. DRAMVU
involves a lot of consideration and a lot of discussion, due to compatible and/or competing uses
and the needs to protect resources along with quality recreational experiences. Forest Service
roads and trails provide opportunities for all types of activities: motorized and non-motorized,
summer uses and winter uses, etc., for local users and for non-local visitors. People may use the
roads to drive toward the source of their employment (e.g. mining, forest management, outfitters
and guides, and grazing). People may use the roads to access areas where they can go beyond
motorized noises and recreate in quiet places. Others use the roads and trails to recreate and
drive on with their motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles. In addition, many people who visit
the Nez Perce National Forest have special attachments to certain activities and to certain places.
Consequently, limiting, changing and/or closing their type of access can produce strong
reactions. Nez Perce National Forest personnel made great efforts to understand people’s uses,
motivations, and tolerance for change, and to consider these in DRAMVU.

People do not necessarily have to be active users of National Forest System roads and trails in
order to hold values regarding access to the national forest, or to benefit from the existence (or
non-existence) of the road and trail system. These “passive-use values” are values or benefits
people receive from the existence of a specific place, condition, or thing – independent of any
intention or expectation of themselves participating in active use of it. For example, some
people believe that forest roads should be kept to a minimum because of negative ecological
impacts that are sometimes associated with roads. Others believe that it is important to maintain
large tracts of unroaded land in order to protect roadless and/or wilderness values, leaving a
legacy of undeveloped land for future generations to experience. Additionally, some people may
not use the Forest Service roads, but believe it is important to maintain that system for things
such as timber harvest, mining, fire protection, and tourism.



                                            10
The key economic factors evaluated in this analysis include population, employment, income,
economic diversity, natural resources dependency, and recreation patterns.

Population

Perhaps the most important attribute of any economy is the community of people who contribute
to production, services, trade, and consumption. The five counties in the economic impact area
had variable population experiences since the 1970s, where two counties lost populations while
three others gained population. All impact area counties experienced median age increases
during the last decade.

Population Summary for the Economic Impact Area

In aggregate from 1970 to 2006, the population of these five counties increased by 18,559 people
from 73,015 to 101,820, increasing by 22% in the 36 year period. The positive growth occurred
mainly in the late 1970s and early 1990s. In sum, these five counties had a year 2000 population
of 100,533. There were 10,358 additional residents or roughly 11.5% growth since 1990. The
population the five-county area also got older since 1990, where the median age was up roughly
3 years, from 33 years in 1990 to 36 years in 2000. That year, the largest age category was 20 to
24 year olds (9,447 people or 9.4% of the total). The age group that grew the fastest, as a share
of the total, was 50 to 54, up 2,217 people that decade; their share of the total rose by 1.7%. The
2000 population density in the five-county area was 7.5 people/square mile (BEA REIS 2006,
Table CA30 and US Census 1990 and 2000).

Idaho County

From 1970 to 2006, the population of Idaho County increased by 2,293 people from 12,964 to
15,257, a 17.7% increase, with positive growth highlighted by two periods, one in the mid 1970s,
and another in the 1990s. As an average annual rate, this represents an increase of 0.5%. Total
population in year 2000 was 15,511 people, up from 13,783 in 1990. The population also got
older since 1990. The 2000 median age was 42.3 years, up from 36.5 years in 1990. During
2000, the largest age category was 45 to 49 year olds (1,337 people or 8.6% of the total). The
age group that grew the fastest, as a share of the total, was also 45 to 49 year olds, up 515 people;
their share of the total rose by 2.7% during the decade. The 2000 population density in Idaho
County was 1.8 people/square mile (BEA REIS 2006, Table CA30 and US Census 1990 and
2000). Population centers in this county include: Clearwater, Cottonwood, Dixie, Elk City, Fenn,
Ferdinand, Grangeville (County Seat), Greencreek, Keuterville, Kooskia, Lowell, Lucile,
Pollock, Riggins, Stites, Syringa, Warren, and White Bird.

Clearwater County

From 1970 to 2006, the population of Clearwater County decreased by 2,638 people from 10,909
to 8,271, a 24% decrease, with negative growth highlighted by three periods in the mid 1970s,
late 1980s and early 2000s. As an average annual rate, this represents a decrease of 0.7%. Total
population in year 2000 was 8,930 people, up from 8,505 in 1990. The population also got older
since 1990. The 2000 median age was 41.7 years, up from 37.5 years in 1990. During 2000, the
largest age category was 45 to 49 year olds (735 people or 8.2% of the total). The age group that
grew the fastest, as a share of the total, was 50 to 54 year olds, up 168 people; their share of the


                                             11
total rose by 1.6% during the decade. The 2000 population density in Clearwater County was 3.6
people/square mile (BEA REIS 2006, Table CA30 and US Census 1990 and 2000). Population
centers in this county include: Ahsahka, Elk River, Greer, Headquarters, Lenore, Orofino
(County Seat), Pierce, and Weippe.

Lewis County

From 1970 to 2006, the population of Lewis County decreased by 293 people from 3,911 to
3,618, a 7% decrease, with negative growth highlighted by two periods one in the 1980s and
another since 1996. As an average annual rate, this represents a decrease of 0.2%. Total
population in year 2000 was 3,747 people, up from 3,516 in 1990. The population also got older
since 1990. The 2000 median age was 42.5 years, up from 36.6 years in 1990. During 2000, the
largest age category was 40 to 45 year olds (310 people or 8.3% of the total). The age group that
grew the fastest, as a share of the total, was 40 to 44 year olds, up 85 people; their share of the
total rose by 1.9% during the decade. The 2000 population density in Lewis County was 7.8
people/square mile (BEA REIS 2006, Table CA30 and US Census 1990 and 2000). Population
centers in this county include: Craigmont, Kamiah, Nezperce (County Seat), Reubens, and
Winchester.

Nez Perce County

From 1970 to 2006, the population of Nez Perce County increased by 8,170 people from 30,378
to 38,548, a 27% increase, with positive growth throughout the period but especially during the
1990s. As an average annual rate, this represents an increase of 0.75%. Total population in year
2000 was 37,410 people, up from 33,754 in 1990. The population also got older since 1990. The
2000 median age was 38.1 years, up from 35.5 years in 1990. During 2000, the largest age
category was 40 to 44 year olds (2,898 people or 7.7% of the total). The age group that grew the
fastest, as a share of the total, was 50 to 54 year olds, up 795 people; their share of the total rose
by 1.7% during the decade. The 2000 population density in Nez Perce County was 44.1
people/square mile (BEA REIS 2006, Table CA30 and US Census 1990 and 2000). Population
centers in this county include: Culdesac, Lapwai, Lewiston (County Seat), Peck, Spalding, and
Sweetwater.

Latah County

From 1970 to 2006, the population of Latah County increased by 11,027 people from 25,099 to
36,126, a 44% increase, with positive growth throughout the period but especially during the
early 1990s. As an average annual rate, this represents an increase of 1.2%. Total population in
year 2000 was 34,935 people, up from 30,617 in 1990. The population also got slightly older
since 1990. The 2000 median age was 27.9 years, up from 27.3 years in 1990. During 2000, the
largest age category was 20 to 24 year olds (5,818 people or 16.7% of the total). The age group
that grew the fastest, as a share of the total, was 45 to 49 year olds, up 827 people; their share of
the total rose by 1.8% during the decade. The 2000 population density in Latah County was 32.4
people/square mile (BEA REIS 2006, Table CA30 and US Census 1990 and 2000). Population
centers in this county include: Bovill, Deary, Genesee, Harvard, Helmer, Juliaetta, Kendrick,
Moscow (County Seat), Onaway, Potlatch, Princeton, Southwick, Troy, University, and Viola.




                                             12
Employment

Changes to access through travel management have the potential to slightly impact the existing
configuration of employment across numerous economic sectors that support tourism and
recreation in the five counties. Information available in EPS helps portray the recent employment
situation in these counties, which serves as part of the backdrop for DRAMVU. Providing
services employed the greatest portion (57%) of workers across the five-county area during
2000. Producing goods provided for 17% of all jobs. Government employment (15%) was also
high across the economic impact area during 2000. The Forest Service assembled some more
recent unemployment information for all parts of the country to help evaluate where to infuse
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project funding. Some more recent Bureau of Labor
Statistics information is included for counties where unemployment increased rapidly since
2008.



Employment Summary for the Economic Impact Area

In aggregate, over the period 1970 to 2006, growth of 28,488 jobs occurred in the five-county
area, representing an increase of 77.8% or an average annual rate of 2.2%. This was slower than
the state and the nation. From 1970 to 2000, the majority of job growth, 69% of new jobs, was in
wage and salary positions. For wage and salary employment, the category whose share of the
total employment gained the most was Services and Professional, which went from 41.7% in
1970 to 53.4% in 2000. In 1970, proprietors represented 19.2% of total employment; by 2000,
they represented 24.4% of all jobs (BEA REIS 2006). Government employment across the
economic impact area increased as a portion of total from 22.3% during 1970 to 23.4% during
2000. After losing 282 jobs during the 36 years, Manufacturing (including forest products) also
declined as a portion of total, from 19.5% (7,148 jobs) to 11% (6,866 jobs) during 2000. Farm
employment decreased between 1970 and 2000, down from 9% to 4.7%.

Wage and salary employment contributed 68.8% of new employment between 1995 and 2006.
The growth in both the number of operating firms by sector and the jobs by sector suggest that
wage earners in the Services, Retail, and Construction sectors explain much of the job growth in
the five-county area. Most firms operating in the five-county area are small in size. During
2005, the size category that had the greatest number of firms was 1-4 employees. The 20-49
employees firms were the category that grew the most between 1977 and 2005. In 2004, 90% of
firms had fewer than 20 employees. The largest four firms in the five-county area had 500-999
employees (Census County Business Patterns).

In 2006, the unemployment rate was 3.1%, compared to 2.7% (state) and 4.6% (nationally) The
monthly unemployment rate more than doubled from a low of 2.1% in September 2005 to a high
of 4.5% in January 2006 (Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics). This
information for 2004 to 2006 shows a clear trend of a doubling of summer seasonal
unemployment rate between fall and winter months, in the economic impact area. In more recent
years, each of the five counties continued to see their average unemployment rates climb,
indicating employment conditions continued to worsen through the start of 2011.




                                           13
Idaho County

Over the period 1970 to 2006, roughly 3,462 new jobs were added in Idaho County. This
represents 67.5% growth for the period, or an average annual increase of 1.9%. Job growth in
Idaho County did not keep pace with Idaho or the nation for the period. The majority of job
growth between 1970 and 2006, 62% of all new jobs, was in proprietors (people who work for
themselves). In 1970, proprietors represented 28% of total employment; this had changed
significantly by 2006 when they represented 41.6%. For wage and salary employment, the
category whose share of the total gained the most was Services and Professional, which went
from 32.1% in 1970 to 47.0% in 2000. The sector that decreased the most was Manufacturing
(including forest products) which fell from 19.0% during 1970 to only 11.4% during 2000. The
portion of employment in government declined from 24.5% during 1970 to 17.4% during 2000.
Farm employment also decreased from 19.7% of total in 1970 to 11.9% in 2000. (BEA REIS
2006).

Firms of various sizes operate in Idaho County. As a share of the total, the size category with the
most firms between 1977 and 2005 had 1-4 employees. This was also the category that grew the
fastest. In 2004, 95% of firms had fewer than 20 employees, although there were three firms with
between 100 and 249 employees (Census County Business Patterns).

In 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.5%, compared to 2.7% for Idaho and 4.6% nationally. In
2007, the monthly unemployment rate varied from a low of 2.5% in September to a high of 7.1%
in January (Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics), indicating more
than a doubling of the seasonal unemployment rate between fall and winter months. More recent
Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the Forest Service analysis of recent net change in
unemployment rates, by county from November 2007 to November 2008 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics) indicate an increase of 3.6% during this single year in Idaho County. Idaho County
saw the 8th fastest increase for any Northern Region (North Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
northwest South Dakota) county hosting NFS lands or administrative units. At 7.6%, this county
also had the 9th highest ending unemployment rate of any Northern Region county hosting NFS
lands or administrative units in November 2008. By 2009, the average annual unemployment
rate had climbed to 10.2 % (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). From January 2010 through
February 2011, the most recent county level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
unemployment rate averaged 14.3%, indicating that the labor force was still struggling to find
employment during that period.

Clearwater County

Over the period 1970 to 2006, roughly 371 jobs were lost in Clearwater County. This represents
a 6.7% decrease for the period, or an average annual decrease of 0.2%. Job growth in Clearwater
County did not keep pace with Idaho or the nation for the period. In 1970, proprietors
represented 13.5% of total employment; this had changed significantly by 2006 when they
represented 33.1%. For wage and salary employment, the category whose share of the total
gained the most was Services and Professional, which went from 22% in 1970 to 42.5% in 2000.
The portion of employment in government increased from 20.2% during 1970 to 25.5% during
2000. Farm employment also increased from 3.6% of total in 1970 to 5.29% in 2000. The sector



                                            14
that decreased the most was Manufacturing (including forest products) which fell from 29.4%
during 1970 to only 16.7% during 2000 (BEA REIS 2006).

Firms of various sizes operate in Clearwater County. As a share of the total, the size category
with the most firms between 1977 and 2005 had 1-4 employees. This was also the category that
grew the fastest. In 2004, 95% of firms had fewer than 20 employees, although there were two
firms with between 100 and 249 employees (Census County Business Patterns).

In 2007, the unemployment rate was 6.6%, compared to 2.7% for Idaho and 4.6% nationally. In
2007, the monthly unemployment rate varied from a low of 3.6% in September to a high of
11.5% in March (Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics), indicating
more than a tripling of the seasonal unemployment rate between fall and spring months. More
recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the Forest Service analysis of recent net change in
unemployment rates, by county from November 2007 to November 2008 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics) indicate an increase of 6.8% during this single year in Clearwater County, which was
the second fastest for any US county hosting NFS lands or administrative units. At 12.0%, this
county also had the second highest ending unemployment rate of any Northern Region and the
23rd highest of any US county hosting NFS lands or administrative units in November 2008. By
2009, the average annual unemployment rate had climbed to 13.8 % (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2011). From January 2010 through February 2011, the most recent county level data from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate averaged 17.4%, indicating that the labor
force was still struggling to find employment during that period.

Lewis County

Over the period 1970 to 2006, roughly 489 new jobs were added in Lewis County. This
represents 27.8% growth for the period, or an average annual increase of 0.8%. Job growth in
Lewis County did not keep pace with Idaho or the nation for the period. The majority of job
growth between 1970 and 2006 was in wage and salary (people who work for someone else). In
1970, proprietors represented 38% of total employment; this had fallen significantly by 2006
when they represented 28.9%. For wage and salary employment, the category whose share of the
total gained the most was Services and Professional, which went from 38.8% in 1970 to 49.9%
in 2000. The portion of employment in government increased from 17.6% during 1970 to 20.2%
during 2000. The sectors that decreased the most were Manufacturing (including forest products)
which fell from 15.2% during 1970 to only 8.8% during 2000 and Farming which fell from 24.9
to 12.0% during the same period.

Firms of various sizes operate in Idaho County. As a share of the total, the size category with the
most firms between 1977 and 2005 had 1-4 employees. The size category that grew the fastest
was 20-49 employees. In 2004, 94% of firms had fewer than 20 employees. There were two
firms with between 50 and 99 employees, but none with between 100 and 249 employees
(Census County Business Patterns).

In 2007, the unemployment rate was 2.3%, compared to 2.7% for Idaho and 4.6% nationally. In
2007, the monthly unemployment rate varied from a low of 1.6% in October to a high of 3.6% in
January (Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics), indicating although
rates remained low compared to adjacent counties and the nation, there was more than a doubling


                                            15
of the seasonal unemployment rate between fall and winter months. By 2009, the average annual
unemployment rate had climbed to 5.6 % (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). From January 2010
through February 2011, the most recent county level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the unemployment rate averaged 8.5%, indicating that the labor force was still struggling to find
employment during that period.

Nez Perce County

Over the period 1970 to 2006, roughly 12,384 new jobs were added in Nez Perce County. This
represents 84% growth for the period, or an average annual increase of 2.3%. Job growth in Nez
Perce County did not keep pace with Idaho or the nation for the period. The majority of job
growth between 1970 and 2006, 79% was in wage and salary (people who work for someone
else). In 1970, proprietors represented 15% of total employment; this had increased slightly by
2006 when they represented 17.5%. For wage and salary employment, the category whose share
of the total gained the most was Services and Professional, which went from 53.1% in 1970 to
60.7% in 2000. The portion of employment in government increased from 13.9% during 1970 to
16.4% during 2000. The sectors that decreased the most were Manufacturing (including forest
products) which fell from 23.3% during 1970 to only 14.8% during 2000 and Farming which fell
from 5.2 to 2.2% during the same period.

Firms of various sizes operate in Nez Perce County. As a share of the total, the size category
with the most firms between 1977 and 2005 had 1-4 employees. The size category that grew the
fastest was 5-9 employees. In 2004, 87% of firms had fewer than 20 employees. There were five
firms with between 250-499 and four firms with between 500 and 999 employees (Census
County Business Patterns).

In 2007, the unemployment rate was 2.7%, which matched 2.7% for Idaho and was lower than
4.6% nationally. In 2007, the monthly unemployment rate varied from a low of 2.1% in
September to a high of 4.1% in January (Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor
Statistics), indicating although rates remained low compared to adjacent counties and the nation,
there was nearly a doubling of the seasonal unemployment rate between fall and winter months.
More recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data from the Forest Service analysis of recent net change
in unemployment rates, by county from November 2007 to November 2008 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics) indicate that the increase in the number of unemployed people (385) of in Nez Perce
County, Idaho was the 10th fastest for any Northern Region (North Idaho, Montana, North
Dakota, northwest South Dakota) county hosting NFS lands or administrative units. By 2009,
the average annual unemployment rate had climbed to 6.2 % (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011).
From January 2010 through February 2011, the most recent county level data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate averaged 8.9%, indicating that the labor force was still
struggling to find employment during that period.

Latah County

Over the period 1970 to 2006, roughly 12,524 new jobs were added in Nez Perce County. This
represented 132% growth for the period, or an average annual increase of 3.7%. Job growth in
Nez Perce County did not keep pace with Idaho but exceeded that of the nation for the period.
The majority of job growth between 1970 and 2006, 74% was in wage and salary (people who


                                           16
work for someone else). In 1970, proprietors represented 20.7% of total employment; this had
increased slightly by 2006 when they represented 23.7%. For wage and salary employment, the
category whose share of the total gained the most was Services and Professional, which went
from 41.2% in 1970 to 50% in 2000. The portion of employment in government decreased from
36.2% during 1970 to 35% during 2000. The sectors that decreased the most were Manufacturing
(including forest products) which fell from 9.0% during 1970 to only 4.8% during 2000 and
Farming which fell from 9.3 to 4.4% during the same period.

Firms of various sizes operate in Nez Perce County. As a share of the total, the size category
with the most firms between 1977 and 2005 had 1-4 employees. The size category that grew the
fastest was 5-9 employees. In 2004, 89% of firms had fewer than 20 employees. There were
eight firms with between 100-249 employees and one firm with between 250 and 499 employees
(Census County Business Patterns).

In 2007, the unemployment rate was 2.4%, lower than 2.7% for Idaho and 4.6% nationally. In
2007, the monthly unemployment rate varied from a low of 1.6% in September to a high of 3.4%
in March (Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics), indicating although
rates remained low compared to adjacent counties and the nation, there was a doubling of the
seasonal unemployment rate between fall and spring months. More recent Bureau of Labor
Statistics data from the Forest Service analysis of recent net change in unemployment rates, by
county from November 2007 to November 2008 (Bureau of Labor Statistics) indicate that the
increase in the number of unemployed people (408) of in Latah County, Idaho was the 9th fastest
for any Northern Region (North Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, northwest South Dakota) county
hosting NFS lands or administrative units. By 2009, the average annual unemployment rate had
climbed to 6.0 % (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). From January 2010 through February 2011,
the most recent county level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate
averaged 8.1%, indicating that the labor force was still struggling to find employment during that
period.

Income

Total personal income (TPI) and per capita personal income (PCPI) are often used to proxy
standard of living. Not surprisingly, Latah and Nez Perce and Counties, with larger populations,
outpaced more sparsely populated Idaho, Clearwater, and Lewis Counties in TPI and PCPI
growth rates. Although PCPI for all counties was below the national average, this can be
explained by the fact that non-metro PCPI is almost always lower than metro PCPI, and this
higher income reflects the higher costs associated with living in metro areas which represent a
large portion of the national average. All counties saw an increase in the portion of income from
non-labor sources (dividends, interest and rent as well as transfer payments from governments to
individuals including Medicare, welfare, disability insurance payments, and retirements) but
simultaneous decreases in average real earnings per job. Goods producing jobs continue to pay
more than service providing jobs in general. However, Federal and state jobs although they are
often only a small portion of the workforce for a county, lead in pay per job.




                                            17
Income Summary for the Economic Impact Area

From 1970 to 2006, annual personal income for the economic impact area increased $1.3 billion
in real ($2006) terms. The average annual real growth rate of 2.4%, was slower than both the
state and national rates. The income category whose share of the total gained the most was non-
labor income, which went from 23% in 1970 to 40% in 2006, with even higher percentages than
this between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. In those 36 years, non-labor sources grew at an
average annual rate of 3.3%, outpacing labor sources which grew at a 1.1% rate. The labor
income categories whose share of the total decreased the most were manufacturing (including
forest products) and farming which went from 22.8% and 9.1% in 1970 to 13.5 and 0.7% in
2000, respectively. Of the new income in that period, 58.9% was from non-labor sources. In
2005, 65% of transfer payments were from age-related sources (retirement, disability, insurance
payments, and Medicare). That year, welfare represented 6.5% of transfer payments and 1.3% of
total personal income. This was down slightly from 1970 and down slightly from 1980 (BEA
REIS 2006 Table CA35).

Per capita personal income (PCPI), adjusted for inflation, rose from $18,033 in 1970 to $27,470
in 2005. After this 52% growth during the 36-year period, the 2006 PCPI in the economic impact
area ($27,470) was lower than the state ($29,015) and the nation ($34,471).

Average earnings per job, adjusted for inflation, fell from $35,814 in 1970 to $29,843 in 2005. In
2005, average earnings per job in the economic impact area at $29,843 were lower than the state
($32,258) and substantially lower than the nation ($45,817). During the 36-year period, average
wage and salary disbursements fell at an average annual rate of -0.3% (adjusted for inflation),
whereas average non-farm proprietors' income fell annually by -2.2%.

Idaho County

From 1970 to 2006, annual total personal income in Idaho County increased $141 million in real
($2006) terms, or roughly 64%. The average annual real growth rate was 1.8%. The income
category whose share of the total gained the most was non-labor income, which went from 25%
in 1970 to 50% in 2006. Between 1970 and 2006, non-labor income grew at an annual rate of
3.4%, outpacing labor sources which grew at a 0.2% rate. Of all the new income in 2006
compared to 1970, 89.3% was from non-labor sources, and 10.7% came from labor sources. The
labor income categories whose share increased the most between 1970 and 2000 were Services
and Professional, as well as Government with 19% and 21% of new income, respectively. The
sectors where income fell the most as a portion of the total were Manufacturing and Farming
which both lost shares of the total between 1970 and 2000. In 2006, welfare represented 6.4% of
transfer payments and 1.6% of total personal income. This was down from 1970 and from 1980
(BEA REIS 2005 Table CA35).

Per capita personal income (PCPI), adjusted for inflation, rose from $17,058 in 1970 to $23,753
in 2006. After this 39% growth during the 36-year period, the 2006 PCPI in Idaho County
($23,753) was lower than the state ($29,920), and the nation ($36,714).

Average earnings per job, adjusted for inflation, fell from $34,111 in 1970 to $22,727 in 2006. In
2006, average earnings per job in Idaho County at $22,727, were lower than the state ($35,431)



                                            18
and significantly lower than the nation ($47,286). During the 36-year period, total wage and
salary disbursements fell at an average annual rate of -0.3% (adjusted for inflation), falling
slower than non-farm proprietors' income, which fell by -3.4% per year. Of the categories that
have data, the highest paying wage earning sectors were Federal government, State government,
Manufacturing, Mining, and Professional and Business Services, and Construction. These
accounted for 9%, 3%, 10%, 2%, and 2% of total employment and paid averages of $51,802,
$37,607, $36,591, $35,928, and $33,040 per year, respectively. Goods-producing employees
(1,021 jobs) were paid an average of $31,655. Service-providing employees (2,210 jobs) were
paid an average of $22,361.

Clearwater County

From 1970 to 2006, annual total personal income in Clearwater County increased $19 million in
real ($2006) terms, or roughly 9%. The average annual real growth rate was 0.25%. The income
category whose share of the total gained the most was non-labor income, which went from 15%
in 1970 to 47% in 2006. Between 1970 and 2006, non-labor income grew at an annual rate of
3.4%, outpacing labor sources which fell at an annual rate of 1.0%. The labor income categories
whose share increased the most between 1970 and 2000 were Government and Services and
Professional. The sectors where income fell the most as a portion of the total were
Manufacturing and Farming which both lost shares of the total between 1970 and 2000. In 2006,
welfare represented 6.8% of transfer payments and 1.8% of total personal income. This was
down slightly from 1970 and from 1980 (BEA REIS 2005 Table CA35).

Per capita personal income (PCPI), adjusted for inflation, rose from $19,082 in 1970 to $27,405
in 2006. Even after this 44% growth during the 36-year period, the 2006 PCPI in Clearwater
County ($27,405) was lower than the state ($29,920), and the nation ($36,714).

Average earnings per job, adjusted for inflation, fell from $43,152 in 1970 to $27,587 in 2006. In
2006, average earnings per job in Clearwater County at $27,587, were lower than the state
($35,431) and significantly lower than the nation ($47,286). During the 36-year period, total
wage and salary disbursements fell at an average annual rate of -1.0% (adjusted for inflation),
falling slower than non-farm proprietors' income, which fell by -2.9% per year. Of the categories
that have data, the highest paying wage earning sectors were Federal government, Construction,
State government, Agricultural Forestry Fishing and Hunting, and Manufacturing. These
accounted for 7%, 5%, 11%, 9%, and 10% of total employment and paid averages of $52,579,
$37,817, $37,462, $33,696, and $32,433 per year, respectively. Goods-producing employees
(757 jobs) were paid an average of $34,071. Service-providing employees (1,296 jobs) were paid
an average of $22,349.

Lewis County

From 1970 to 2006, annual total personal income in Lewis County increased $10 million in real
($2006) terms, or roughly 11%. The average annual real growth rate was 0.3%. The income
category whose share of the total gained the most was non-labor income, which went from 24%
in 1970 to 54% in 2006. Between 1970 and 2006, non-labor income grew at an annual rate of
2.5%, outpacing labor sources which fell at an annual rate of -1.1%. The labor income categories
whose share increased the most between 1970 and 2000 were Government and Transportation


                                           19
and Public Utilities. The sectors where income fell the most as a portion of the total were
Manufacturing and Farming which both lost shares of the total between 1970 and 2000. In 2006,
welfare represented 6.2% of transfer payments and 2.1% of total personal income. This was up
from 1970 but down from 1980 (BEA REIS 2005 Table CA35).

Per capita personal income (PCPI), adjusted for inflation, rose from $22,950 in 1970 to $27,576
in 2006. Even after this 20% growth during the 36-year period, the 2006 PCPI in Lewis County
($27,576) was lower than the state ($29,920), and the nation ($36,714).

Average earnings per job, adjusted for inflation, fell from $36,995 in 1970 to $21,952 in 2006. In
2006, average earnings per job in Lewis County at $21,952, were lower than the state ($35,431)
and significantly lower than the nation ($47,286). During the 36-year period, total wage and
salary disbursements fell at an average annual rate of -0.3% (adjusted for inflation), falling
slower than non-farm proprietors' income, which fell by -2.0% per year. Of the categories that
have data, the highest paying wage earning sectors were Federal government, Manufacturing,
and State government. These accounted for 3%, 9%, and 4% of total employment and paid
averages of $47,066, $30,759, and $29,845 per year, respectively. Goods-producing employees
(307 jobs) were paid an average of $26,538. Service-providing employees (580 jobs) were paid
an average of $19,624.

Nez Perce County

From 1970 to 2006, annual total personal income in Nez Perce County increased $543 million in
real ($2006) terms, or roughly 92%. The average annual real growth rate was 2.6%. The income
category whose share of the total gained the most was non-labor income, which went from 24%
in 1970 to 39% in 2006. Between 1970 and 2006, non-labor income grew at an annual rate of
3.2%, outpacing labor sources which grew at a 1.2% rate. Of all the new income in 2006
compared to 1970, 54.6% was from non-labor sources, and 45.4% came from labor sources. The
labor income categories whose share increased the most between 1970 and 2000 were Services
and Professional, as well as Government with 46% and 22% of new labor income, respectively.
The sector where income fell the most as a portion of the total was Farming which share of the
total fell from 5.8 to 0.8 between 1970 and 2000. In 2006, welfare represented 6.6% of transfer
payments and 1.4% of total personal income. This was down from 1970 and from 1980 (BEA
REIS 2005 Table CA35).

Per capita personal income (PCPI), adjusted for inflation, rose from $19,427 in 1970 to $29,405
in 2006. After this 51% growth during the 36-year period, the 2006 PCPI in Idaho County
($29,405) was slightly lower than the state ($29,920), and far lower than the nation ($36,714).

Average earnings per job, adjusted for inflation, fell from $36,958 in 1970 to $34,729 in 2006. In
2006, average earnings per job in Nez Perce County at $34,729, were lower than the state
($35,431) and significantly lower than the nation ($47,286). During the 36-year period, total
wage and salary disbursements fell at an average annual rate of -0.1% (adjusted for inflation),
falling slower than non-farm proprietors' income, which fell by –1.8% per year. Of the
categories that have data, the highest paying wage earning sectors were Federal government,
Mining, Professional and Business services, Manufacturing and Agricultural Forestry Fishing
and Hunting. These accounted for 1%, 1%, 6%, 13%, and 1% of total employment and paid


                                            20
averages of $51,768, $47,738, $44,681, $43,291, and $41,401 per year, respectively. Goods-
producing employees (3,813 jobs) were paid an average of $41,392. Service-providing
employees (13,259 jobs) were paid an average of $28,349.

Latah County

From 1970 to 2006, annual total personal income in Nez Perce County increased $582 million in
real ($2006) terms, or roughly 148%. The average annual real growth rate was 4.1%. The
income category whose share of the total gained the most was non-labor income, which went
from 25% in 1970 to 34% in 2006. Between 1970 and 2006, non-labor income grew at an annual
rate of 3.5%, whereas labor sources grew at a 2.2% rate. Of all the new income in 2006
compared to 1970, 40.1% was from non-labor sources, and 59.9% came from labor sources. The
labor income categories whose share increased the most between 1970 and 2000 were Services
and Professional, as well as Government with 22% and 38% of new labor income, respectively.
The sector where income fell the most as a portion of the total was Farming which share of the
total fell from 10.3 to 0.8 between 1970 and 2000. In 2006, welfare represented 6.4% of transfer
payments and less than 1% of total personal income. This was up from 1970 and from 1980
(BEA REIS 2005 Table CA35).

Per capita personal income (PCPI), adjusted for inflation, rose from $15,655 in 1970 to $26,980
in 2006. After this 72% growth during the 36-year period, the 2006 PCPI in Idaho County
($26,980) was lower than the state ($29,920), and far lower than the nation ($36,714).

Average earnings per job, adjusted for inflation, fell from $30,479 in 1970 to $27,927 in 2006. In
2006, average earnings per job in Nez Perce County at $27,927, were lower than the state
($35,431) and significantly lower than the nation ($47,286). During the 36-year period, total
wage and salary disbursements remained stable whereas non-farm proprietors' income fell by –
1.8% per year. Of the categories that have data, the highest paying wage earning sectors were
Federal government and Manufacturing. These accounted for 2% and 3% of total employment
and paid averages of $45,966, and $38,913 per year, respectively. Goods-producing employees
(1,405 jobs) were paid an average of $34,374. Service-providing employees (7,489 jobs) were
paid an average of $20,484.

Economic Diversity and Natural Resource Dependency

One measure of economic success and resilience is economic diversity, or the lack of
overspecialization. Some communities that are heavily reliant on only a few industries are
economically vulnerable to disruptions. The EPS Economic Diversity Index documents one
measure of specialization based on employment data from the 2000 Census. For this index, the
number of employees in each two-digit industry is first divided by the total number of employees
in the county. This fraction is then squared for the given industry. Results for all industries in the
county are then summed. This means that the more even the distribution of employees across all
possible industries, the smaller the score; small scores imply greater diversity and large scores
imply specialization.

Listed from least to most specialized, Nez Perce County scored 36, Idaho County scored 183,
Clearwater County scored 218, Lewis County scored 236, and Latah County scored 624 (versus



                                             21
a median of 961 for all 3,209 US counties). The main reasons Latah County is more specialized
than peer counties is over reliance on Educational Services (31.0% compared to 8.8% in the US)
and Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (5.5% compared to 1.5% in the US) and under
representation in both Manufacturing (5.5% compared to 14.1% in the US) and Finance and
Insurance (2.0% compared to 5.0% in the US). Lewis County has over reliance on Agriculture,
Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (15.3% compared to 1.5% in the US) and Public Administration
(7.2% compared to 4.8% in the US), but under representation in Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services (2.5% compared to 5.9% in the US) and Health Care and Social Assistance
(8.3% compared to 11.2% in the US). Clearwater County is very similar to Lewis County in that
is also has over reliance on Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (13.6% compared to 1.5%
in the US) and Public Administration (9.4% compared to 4.8% in the US) but under reliance on
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (2.0% compared to 5.9% in the US) and Retail
Trade (8.0% compared to 11.7% in the US).

Collectively, these five counties scored 125. In general, the economic impact area is over reliant
on Educational Services (17.1% compared to 8.8% in the US), and Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting (6.5% compared to 1.5% in the US) but under reliant on Manufacturing (10.9%
compared to 14.1% in the US) and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (3.4%
compared to 5.9% in the US).

Wildland dependency data (Gebert and Odell 2007) for 2000, based on the percentage of total
labor income (employee compensation and proprietor income) earned in five wildland resource
areas: timber, mining, grazing, recreation and wildlife, and federal wildland-related employment,
is available in Table 3-3 for the five economic impact area counties. First the percentage of labor
income attributable to direct impacts from each wildland group is presented. These are summed
into a direct sum, a percentage for each county. The multiplier labor income percentages
associated with the entire group are presented as multiplier (indirect and induced) for each. The
last column “Total” is the percentage attributable to all direct and multiplier percentages. The
portion of labor income earned in economic sectors associated with each resource area was
calculated for 1990 and 2000, as was the change over the decade. As the economies in the
communities in each county have grown, and labor income has increased in general, some
wildland industries have grown and others have shrunk relative to the larger county-wide labor
income picture. Although these numbers cannot support thorough trend analysis, as they are only
two snapshots in time and fit into the larger dynamic economy, they do provide some important
information.




                                            22
Table 3-3: Wildland Dependency Percentages by Resource for 2000 and Change Between 1990
and 2000.

                                             Direct       Direct              Multiplier
                                             Federal    Recreation            (Indirect
             Direct     Direct    Direct    Wildland       And       Direct      and
  County    Grazing Timber Mining          Government    Wildlife     Sum     Induced)     Total
Idaho Co.      1.96      17.70     3.66        5.93        6.56      35.80      20.49      56.29
Change        -5.28      +3.17    +1.58       -4.95       -3.20      -8.68      -0.84      -9.52
1990-2000
Clearwater     0.29      29.83     0.04       6.56         3.01      39.73      20.10      59.83
Co.
Change        -0.61      -14.18   +0.04       -2.19       -0.85      -17.79     -4.13        -
1990-2000                                                                                  21.92
Lewis Co.      0.63      16.56     0.00        1.26        0.16      18.61      12.16      30.77
Change        -0.18       -1.82   -0.05       -0.74       -0.10      -3.04      +0.59      -2.45
1990-2000
Nez Perce      0.05      19.75     0.40       0.23         0.11      20.54       27.4      47.94
Co.
Change        -0.10       -7.04   +0.11       -0.07       -0.07      -7.16     +15.78      +8.62
1990-2000
Latah Co.      0.15        7.12    0.90        0.75        0.19       9.12       5.57      14.69
Change        -0.32       -3.99   +0.86       -0.92       -0.24      -4.61      -1.00      -5.61
1990-2000
(Source: Gebert and Odell, 2007).


With the exception of mining, the direct labor income dependence fell for most wildland
resource industries for all five counties between 1990 and 2000. For example, Clearwater
County’s dependence on direct timber industry labor income fell substantially by 14.2% from
1990 to 2000. Nez Perce had a similar decrease in the portion of all labor income coming directly
from the timber industry. Despite these changes, the timber industry continued to provide the
largest portion of wildland labor income for each of the counties in 1990 and 2000. Federal
Wildland Government was also a notable contributor in Idaho and Clearwater Counties. Note
that Idaho County had the highest 2000 direct recreation and wildlife labor income dependence
of the five counties shown with 6.6%. All of the counties experienced decreases in direct
recreation and wildlife dependence between 1990 and 2000, and Idaho County also saw the
largest reduction in dependence on that industry group. Clearwater County was the most
dependent on wildland related labor income with roughly 40% of direct and 60% of total labor
income derived from these categories. Despite having fallen from 58% direct and 82% total labor
income dependence, this remained higher than the 36% dependence on direct and 56%
dependence on total wildland related labor income in Idaho County. Although direct wildland
labor income dependence fell by 7.2% for Nez Perce County, the increase in multiplier effects
associated with a more robust economy in 2000 compared to 1990 translated into an actual
increase in the total labor income dependence for Nez Perce County by 2000. Lewis County was
the fourth most wildland labor income dependent with 18.6% direct and 30.8% total dependence.
Latah County remained the most wildland independent of the five counties with direct dropping
from 13.7 to 9.1% and total dropping from 20.3 to 14.7%.




                                               23
Idaho ranks fourth highest for all States in the percentage of public land ownership with
approximately 63.1% of all land owned by the Federal Government (Idaho Association of
Counties 2003). There are approximately 20.4 million acres managed by the Forest Service in
Idaho, accounting for about 38% of the state’s land area. Idaho County ranks 1st in the state in
the amount of Forest Service land. There are 5,346,843 acres of NFS lands in the five North
Central Idaho counties. The amount of federal lands in these counties has direct fiscal
implications related to federal payments such as Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), Secure Rural
Schools Act payments, and Idaho State timber taxes.

Payments to States

Payments to states are composed of two sources, Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self Determination Act payments. Many counties have more than one
source of payments to states, including multiple Federal agencies. Some of the NPNF counties
also contain portions of the Clearwater National Forest lands. Prior to year 2000, 25 percent of
all Forest Service revenues were returned by the NPNF to the counties in which NPNF has land
holdings. The amount that was paid to each county reflected the percentage of NPNF land that
was within that county, regardless of the geographic source of revenues for the Forest. In 2000,
the federal government enacted the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination
Act (SRSA) to mitigate the variability in these returns. A county could either stay with the 25
percent return or could choose to accept a stable yearly payment that amounted to the average of
the county’s three highest payments in the previous 14 years (1986 to 1999). All Northern
Region counties in Idaho, chose the stable payment system. Therefore, the return to the counties
located within the NPNF has not been affected recently and would not be affected by Travel
Management decisions under SRSA. The initial SRSA ran through fiscal year 2006. However,
in May 2007, Congress extended the Act for an additional year and in October 2008 the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Energy Improvement and Extension Act of
2008, and Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 (P. L. 110-343)
reauthorized the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act for four years,
2008-2012.

SRSA payments for Fiscal Year 2009 (with NPNF amounts in parentheses) were as follows:
Clearwater County $1,645,006 ($0); Idaho County, 10,762, 414($4,969,195); Latah, $295,118
($0); Lewis $0 ($0) and Nez Perce $3,725 ($0). PILT payments for Fiscal Year 2009 were as
follows: Clearwater County $513,280; Idaho County, $1,422,343; Latah, $208,268; Lewis
$7,224 and Nez Perce $72,721.

These payments are not expected to change based on DRAMVU alternative selection before
2012 at the earliest. Even if SRSA expires after 2012, recreation fee contributions to these
payments are such a small portion that payments to the counties that contributions to schools are
not expected to change noticeably, and are therefore not described in the consequences section.

The Western US OHV User Community

A recent report estimated that national participation rates in OHV activities may have peaked
during 2003, and that US residents over 16 years of age averaged roughly 28 days per year of
motorized recreation between 2005 and 2007. In Idaho, between 1999 and 2007, an estimated


                                           24
34.2% of residents 16 years and older (the 95 % confidence interval was 30.6 - 37.8%)
participated in OHV recreation. This ranked Idaho residents 2nd among all states for the
participation rate, and amounted to approximately 377,100 participants, who collectively
represent just less than 1% of all US participants (Cordell et al 2008). Cordell et al. (2008)
described some OHV user demographics by region:




                                             25
        “The West had the highest OHV participation rate (28%) of all the regions especially
       among young people where more than 40% under age 30 were OHV users. This was
       more than two-and-a-half times the rate of people over age 50 (15%). Males living in the
       West were more likely to participate just as in the other regions, but in this region, the
       female rate of 23% was considerably higher than the female rate in other regions.
       American Indians (32%) and Whites (31%) led participation among racial and ethnic
       groups, but Hispanics in the West (24%) participated at a much higher rate than
       Hispanics in the two eastern regions and also at a rate higher than the Midwest Hispanic
       rate. All but the lowest income category participated at 20% or higher. People in all
       income groups between $25,000 and $150,000 participated at more than a 30% rate.
       Similarly, all education classes, except post-graduates, participated at more than 25%.
       Still, post-graduates in the West participated at considerably higher rates than their
       counterparts elsewhere in the country. More than one in three non-metropolitan residents
       participated in OHV recreation as compared with about one in four metropolitan residents
       saying they participated in OHV recreation.” (Cordell et al. 2008, p. 29)

        “Interestingly, the West, which led all regions with 28% of people 16 and older
       participating, had the next-to-smallest average annual days of OHV use with 23.2 days
       for participants, ahead of only the Pacific. Differences by age group were slight, but the
       highest average was for the 51 years and older age group. That was not true for either of
       the eastern regions or the Midwest. Male activity days were about six days higher than
       for females, however, data were not sufficient to estimate days by all income classes.
       High school graduates (26.1 days) and people with bachelor’s degrees (23.7 days) led
       other educational attainment groups by a slender margin. Another interesting result for
       this region is the large difference in average days by non-metropolitan residents (35.3
       days) compared to metropolitan dwellers (19.1 days). This is probably an indication of
       the convenient and ready access to OHV opportunities on public land in the rural West.”
       (Cordell et al. 2008, p. 36)

In addition to the quotes above, Cordell et al. (2008) also compared participation rates between
OHV users and the general public based on responses to the National Survey on Recreation and
the Environment (NSRE). They describe participation rates for each of the 47 outdoor recreation
activities across five OHV user segments and the general public. What they found is that, “As a
whole, OHV users are more active in every single recreation activity relative to the general U.S.
population age 16 and older. For some activities, OHV users participate at more than twice the
national rate. In particular, OHV users were about three times more likely to participate in the
three types of hunting–big game, small game, and migratory bird–than was the general public”
(Cordell et al. 2008, p .41).




                                           26
Idaho Trends in Motorized Use

Idaho Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP)

Every five years the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation (IDPR) goes through the
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP) process to identify
outdoor recreation and tourism needs and inventory recreation facilities. SCORTP is an analysis
of supply and demand as well as an overview of outdoor recreation in the state. It is a required
element to retain eligibility to participate in the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) grant program administered by the National Park Service. Data used for the 2006-2010
SCORTP was gathered mostly in 2004 and 2005. Even in that short amount of time between
2002 and 2004/5 public preferences have changed enough in some areas to warrant watching, as
Figure 3-4, below illustrates. Only activities with at least a 10% increase or decrease in
participation are listed. The 26% participation increase in ATV riding will likely come as a
surprise to those following the activity only because it isn’t higher, but consider that 4-wheel
driving is also listed separately at 10% change.

Registration of ATVs and motorbikes in Idaho increased 75% from 2001 to 2006. However, the
increase in registrations from 2002 to 2004—the time period of the comparative surveys—was
29%, closely matching the reported increase in participation.

Figure 3-3: Recreation Activity Participation Rates in Idaho




                                            27
The following information in Figure 3-4 was taken from Idaho’s 2006-2010 SCORTP. During
survey efforts Idahoans were asked to rate the importance of 35 outdoor recreation issues ranging
from grazing on public land to providing outdoor recreation education. Participants were asked
how important each issue was on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being “Not At All Important” and 7
being “Very Important.” Figure 3-6 compares the top 15 issues from the 2002 and 2005 surveys.
“Protecting water quality remained slightly higher than “Protecting existing access to public
lands,” which remained the second highest ranking. “Keeping motorized vehicles on trails and
roads” moved from the 15th to the 12th position.

Figure 3-4: Idaho’s 2006-2010 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan
(SCORTP).




Figures 3-5, 3-6, 3-7 and 3-8 show participation rates in motorized recreation activities of those
surveyed in the SCORPT. These figures show the most users preferred backcountry roads and
trail, with the exception of snowmobiling, which had a high use of off trail riding, yet not as high
as groomed trail riding.




                                             28
Figure 3-5: Snowmobile rider responses in Idaho’s 2006-2010 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP).




                                         29
Figure 3-6: All terrain vehicle rider responses’ in Idaho’s 2006-2010 Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP).




Figure 3-7: Four-wheel drive rider responses in Idaho’s 2006-2010 Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP)




                                           30
Figure 3-8: 200 Motorcycle rider responses in Idaho’s 2006-2010 Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP)




The 2004 Idaho Outdoor Recreation Survey report found that Idaho had the second highest OHV
participation rate in the country; only Wyoming was slightly ahead. It estimated that 52.4% of
Idaho adult residents participate in some form of OHV recreation, 36.8% participate in "four-
wheel driving," 33.7% participate in ATV riding, 14.0% participate in dual sport or dirt bike
motorcycling, and 21% participate in snowmobiling (IDPR 2007c). The survey also found that
North Central Idaho had the highest ATV participation rate in the State.

Other surveys have found that at least one-third of Idaho adults participate in some form of OHV
recreation, and indicate that at least 17% of nonresident visitors to Idaho participate in OHV
recreation while in Idaho, the same percentage participate in snowmobiling (Cook 2008).
However, recent statistics at the national level shows a flat or declining trend in OHV and
snowmobile recreation participation (Roper ASW 2004, Sporting Goods Manufacturers
Association 2003). Registration of Recreational Vehicles in Idaho for 2008 shows this trend,
there was not substantial growth between 2007 and 2008.

Figure 3-9 shows the trend in the number of off-highway vehicles, all-terrain vehicles and
motorbikes registered in Idaho. Figure 3-10 displays the trend in the number of off-highway
vehicles, all-terrain vehicles and motorbikes registered in Idaho County, Idaho and the five-
county economic impact area for the period 1995-2010 (Idaho Department of Parks and
Recreation). This information is useful in gauging the popularity of outdoor activities that use
this equipment since trend information is difficult to obtain for these types of dispersed activities.


                                             31
In general, the data supporting Figure 3-11 indicates a steep upward trend in registration in this
part of Idaho. The stunning average annual growth rates for ATVs, OHVs, and motorbikes from
1988-2006 were 264% for Idaho County, 173% for the five North Central counties and 84% for
Idaho State. This compares to an average annual population growth rate in this five-county
portion of Idaho of approximately 0.6% during this time period. The registration growth trend
continued during 2006 and 2007 for both OHVs and snowmobiles according to recent data from
the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, but has leveled off since 2008 . The growth rate
in registration far exceeded the state population growth rate, indicating that either those activities
that 1) use this motorized equipment are gaining popularity 2) compliance with registration
requirements has increased, or 3) a combination of both has occurred. More recent registration
numbers seen in Table 3-4 were provided by IDPR (2011).



Figure 3-9: Registered OHVs in Idaho. Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation 2011.


                Idaho OHV Registrations 1973-2010
     140,000

     120,000

     100,000

      80,000

      60,000

      40,000

      20,000

           0




                                                 32
Figure 3-10: Registered Motorbikes and All Terrain Vehicles in Idaho and North Central Idaho
(Idaho, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Lewis and Latah Counties) from 1995-2010.


   Motorcycle & ATV Registration Statistics                              Idaho County
                1995-2010                                                North Central Idaho

                          12,000

                          10,000
     # of Registrations




                           8,000

                           6,000

                           4,000

                           2,000

                              0




Table 3-4: OHV Registrations in Economic Impact Area Counties, 2006-2010

                                                      ATV Registrations
                                                                                               2006-2010 %
                          County                  2006   2007    2008      2009      2010
                                                                                                 Change
                          Clearwater             1,203   1,326   1,396     1,455     1,378             15%
                          Idaho                  1,700   1,977   2,066     2,257     2,211             30%
                          Latah                  1,760   1,994   1,955     2,307     2,248             28%
                          Lewis                    599     631     642       744       725             21%
                          Nez Perce              2,845   2,994   2,984     3,589     3,529             24%
                          North Central Total    8,107   8,922   9,043    10,352    10,091             24%
                                                   Motorcycle Registrations

                                                                                               2006-2010 %
                          County                  2006   2007    2008      2009      2010
                                                                                                 Change
                          Clearwater               236     266     294      227        211            -11%
                          Idaho                    256     257     293      286        293             14%
                          Latah                    390     399     334      379        340            -13%
                          Lewis                     66      70      62       63         55            -17%
                          Nez Perce                370     405     423      476        473             28%
                          North Central Total    1,318 1,397 1,406        1,431      1,372              4%
                                                Specialty Vehicle Registrations




                                                          33
                                                                            2009-2010 %
        County                     2006    2007     2008   2009    2010
                                                                              Change
        Clearwater                                             0       1           100%
        Idaho                                                  3       3             0%
        Latah                                                  0       3           300%
        Lewis                                                  1       2           100%
        Nez Perce                                              0       1           100%
        North Central Total            0        0      0       4      10           150%



This more recent data from IDPR (2011) shows that motorbike registration increased every year
from 2007 (1,397) to 2009 (1,432), but fell rapidly in four of the five counties leading to a 2010
North Central Idaho total of 1,372. As one of the North Central Idaho counties, motorbike
registrations in Idaho County increased during 2007 (266) and 2008 (293), fell slightly in 2009 to
289 but increased in 2010, returning to 2008 levels of 293. The ATV registrations increased for
the group of North Central Idaho counties, including Idaho County, during 2007(8,922), 2008
(9,043), and 2009 (10,352) but fell during 2010 to 10,091. Only Latah County saw a decrease in
ATV registrations during 2008, but registration there increased again in 2009. All North Central
Idaho counties saw decreases in ATV registrations during 2010. Snowmobile registrations in
North Central Idaho increased during 2007 to a maximum of 2,782, but then fell during 2008 and
by 2009 at 2,088 they were below 2005 levels. Utility Type Vehicle (UTV) registrations also
increased dramatically in all North Central Idaho counties from 147 during 2007 to 495 by 2009,
and 587 by 2010. As a total, OHV registrations across the five North Central Idaho counties
declined by 1.8% between 2009 and 2010. (IDPR 2011 -
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/datacenter/recreation_statistics.aspx, accessed 4/27/2011).

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM)

The NSRE and SCORTP research described above estimate recreation occurring statewide on all
land ownerships. For example, various sources of information were used to display use and
trends in motorized and non-motorized use in Idaho and the counties of central Idaho that host
the Nez Perce National Forest. Vehicle registration data from the Idaho Department of Parks and
Recreation was used to understand the county, economic impact area and state-wide trends in
snowmobiles, ATVs, and motorcycles.

One of the issues raised through DEIS comments during DRAMVU is the economic
contributions (i.e., economic impacts) of motorized and non-motorized uses. This can be
accomplished by analyzing results from a statistically rigorous sampling regime used by the
Forest Service, called the National Visitor Use Monitoring survey (NVUM). Results from
NVUM are displayed to describe total Nez Perce National Forest use (visits) and this use is
apportioned as various motorized, non-motorized, and all other activities on National Forest
System lands. Note that as total use estimates are broken down by activity, the confidence
intervals increase indicating greater uncertainty with these more specific recreation activity
estimates. Nez Perce National Forest staff observations also Nez Perce indicate that NVUM may
underreport some activity types, including OHV and other motorized use.




                                           34
From October 2005 through September 2006, the Nez Perce National Forest participated in its
second round NVUM survey process. Examples of information provided in the Nez Perce
National Forest report include: 1) total number of visits; 2) overall and main activity
participation rates; and 3) user satisfaction. The survey also collected information regarding user
party spending within approximately 50 driving miles of the National Forest boundary. Users
reported expenditures for various spending categories, such as groceries, restaurants, gas/oil, and
lodging. The specific spending profiles and expenditures are found in Stynes and White (2005).
Note these spending profiles do not include any durable goods that are used for multiple
recreation experiences. For example, hiking boots or ATV purchases are not included in
spending profiles since these items are retained and used repetitively after the visit to the national
forest. This omission is consistent with contribution analysis and impact analysis theory.

The NVUM results report point estimates of 256,200 total site visits and 213,500 National Forest
visits. The 90% confidence interval for annual Nez Perce National Forest visits ranges from
189,600 to 237,400. Given 365 days in a year, a range of 520 to 652 average daily visits occurred
on the Nez Perce National Forest during the survey period. Table 3-6 presents participation rates
by activity. The column titled Total Activity Participation % presents the overall participation
rates by activity. Participation rates greatly exceed 100% since visitors can participate in
multiple activities during a given visit. Relaxing (56.5%), viewing natural features (55.9%),
viewing wildlife birds and fish (53.3%), hiking and walking (46.5%), and driving for pleasure
(38.6%) led all activities in percent participation. For participation in additional categories of
motorized activities, motorized trail activity (9.1%) had highest participation, followed by OHV
use (8.6%), snowmobiling (6.3%) and motorized water travel (2.8%). Several of these popular
uses can conflict with each other. For instance, hikers may prefer not to hear the noises
associated with motorized vehicles, and horseback riders can have conflict with hikers, dogs, and
motorized vehicles.
The Percent as Main Activity column presents the participation rates in terms of visitors’ self-
selected main or primary activity. The column indicates that the ten most popular primary
activities were: 1) relaxing (15.2%), 2) hiking / walking (11.7%); 3) hunting (10.0%); 4) viewing
natural features (9.7%), 5) driving for pleasure (6.3%), 6) snowmobiling (5.9%); 7) other non-
motorized activity (e.g., swimming) (5.6%); 8) non-motorized water travel (5.5%); 9) viewing
wildlife, birds, and fish (5.0%), and (10%) OHV use and motorized trail activity combined
(4.6%).
The primary activity participation rates (Percent as Main Activity) were used to estimate use by
activity. For this analysis, motorized and non-motorized use are defined as follows: 1)
motorized = OHV use (which includes motorized trail activity), snowmobiling, driving for
pleasure, and other motorized activities, and 2) non-motorized = backpacking, hiking / walking,
horseback riding, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and other non-motorized activities. Table 3
indicates that, as aggregates, visitors listing motorized use as the primary activity represented
17% of the visiting population, visitors listing non-motorized use as the main activity represented
22.6% of the visiting population. It is also notable that 27.3% of all Nez Perce National Forest
visitors listed nature and wildlife related recreation (viewing wildlife, birds, and fish, fishing,
hunting, and nature study, visiting nature centers, and viewing natural features) as their primary
activity.




                                             35
Table 3-6. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, Nez Perce National Forest FY2006
 Activity                                   Activity Emphasis for            Total Activity          Percent as Main
                                                                                                                     3/4
                                              Road & Trail Use                Participation           Activity (%)
                                                                                      1/2
                                                                                  (%)
  Snowmobiling                                     Motorized                                6.3                         5.9
  Driving for Pleasure                             Motorized                               38.6                         6.3
  OHV Use                                          Motorized                                8.6                         2.2
  Other Motorized Activity                         Motorized                                9.1                         2.6
                                                                        Motorized Subtotal                               17
  Hiking / Walking                              Non-motorized                              46.5                       11.7
  Bicycling                                     Non-motorized                               3.5                         0.9
  Other Non-motorized                           Non-motorized                              15.6                         5.6
  Cross-country Skiing                          Non-motorized                               2.3                         2.1
  Backpacking                                   Non-motorized                               8.5                         2.0
  Horseback Riding                              Non-motorized                               2.1                         0.3
                                                                  Non-motorized Subtotal                              22.6
  Downhill Skiing                                    Other                                  0.0                         0.0
  Fishing                                            Other                                 18.8                         2.2
  Viewing Natural Features                           Other                                 55.9                         9.7
  Relaxing                                           Other                                 56.5                       15.2
  Motorized Water Activities                         Other                                  2.8                         0.7
  Hunting                                            Other                                 11.8                       10.0
  Non-motorized Water                                Other                                  6.5                         5.5
  Developed Camping                                  Other                                 24.3                         4.5
  Primitive Camping                                  Other                                 12.6                         1.1
  Picnicking                                         Other                                 19.1                         3.1
  Viewing Wildlife                                   Other                                 53.3                         5.0
  Sightseeing                                        Other                                  0.0                         0.0
  No Activity Reported                               Other                                  1.4                         0.6
  Resort Use                                         Other                                  4.5                         1.4
  Visiting Historic Sites                            Other                                 19.8                         2.5
  Nature Study                                       Other                                 10.1                         0.0
  Gathering Forest Products                          Other                                 15.3                         3.7
  Nature Center Activities                           Other                                  5.6                         0.4
                                                                              Other Subtotal                          65.6
                                                                                          Total                     105.2
1
  Survey respondents could select multiple activities so this column may total more than 100%.
2
  The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated participation in this activity.
3
  Survey respondents were asked to select just one of their activities as their main reason for the forest visit. Some
respondents selected more than one, so this column may total more than 100%.
4
  The number in this column is the percent of survey respondents who indicated this activity was their main activity.
5
  The 2007/2008 category of “motorized trail activity” was added to OHV use for this analysis.




                                                             36
Recreational National Forest Use, Social Issues, and Conflict

Social issues and impacts regarding management activities on National Forest System lands are
often addressed according to the potential effects that Forest Service management may have on
local, county, and regional social and economic systems, and also on the people using and
valuing the resources and opportunities the National Forests provide. People use the Nez Perce
National Forest for a variety of reasons. Although improvements in methods increased the
accuracy of Round 2 estimates, making the comparison of the two Round inappropriate, it
appears that the estimated visitation to the Nez Perce National Forest may have decreased from
Calendar year 2000 to FY 2006 (Oct 2005-Sept 2006) survey. The point estimates of all (primary
and non-primary) Nez Perce National Forest visits fell from 630,270 to 256,200 per year (total
estimated visits from 2006 NVUM).

Strong preferences for specific recreation settings are leading to competition for the recreational
resources available (English et al. 1999). The combination of increases for some activity types,
diversified uses, and attachment to certain places combined with the need to provide for healthy
and sustainable environments, along with limited road and trail maintenance budgets, makes for
a challenging balancing act.

Social issues concerning DRAMVU on the Nez Perce National Forest have much to do with the
variety of uses and allocations, and the values people hold toward those uses, allocations, and
places and the potential conflicts between these uses and underlying values. People are
concerned about the effects to wilderness characteristics, and also law enforcement, safety, and
natural resource conditions (particularly in riparian areas). Some conflict does exist between
different types of users, mainly between motorized versus non-motorized, hunting and fishing
versus non-consumptive uses, local recreational uses versus tourism, and resource preservation
versus resource extraction. Another issue raised by forest users locally and nationally is that
with an aging population, perhaps roads should not be decommissioned so that they can be
walked or ridden with motorized vehicles providing increased access for older and/or disabled
persons. For the Nez Perce National Forest, one issue concerns motorized and non-motorized
uses, and the conflicts which can and often do arise between these uses.

Motorized and non-motorized use can be broken down into summer versus winter uses.
Motorized winter use is done via snowmobiles, while motorized summer use is generally done
via OHVs including motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, utility type vehicles, and full-size vehicles
and by driving standard vehicles on system roads. Non-motorized winter use primarily involves
cross-country skiing, backcountry skiing, and snowshoeing, and non-motorized summer use runs
the gamut of recreational opportunities, especially hiking, backpacking, bicycling, and horseback
riding.

The conflict between motorized and non-motorized use is somewhat self-explanatory: motorized
users (including snowmobiles, OHVs, and motorcycles) like to travel the land on their motorized
vehicles. Non-motorized users (including hikers, bicyclists, backpackers, wildlife viewers,
stock users, and cross-country skiers) value the “natural experience,” one which does not include
noise and the intrusion of machines. Both groups tend to value their uses for similar reasons, and
often desire the same types of settings and experiences. People like to use the forest with their
friends and family; they appreciate activities out-of-doors; they appreciate the beauty of the area


                                             37
and the challenges presented by each activity. Both groups usually seek destinations, scenery,
loop trails, and/or roads.

The conflicts usually arise because of differences in recreationists' attitudes about noise and
intrusion of the modern world (e.g., machines) into nature, and the environmental effects of
motorized use that reduce the pleasure of non-motorized visitors, and sometimes results in their
displacement (Stokowski and LaPointe 2000).

Travel Management Economic Contribution Analysis

Visitors are determined to be either local or non-local based on the miles from the visitor’s
residence to the Forest boundary. If the user reported living within 50 miles of the boundary,
they are considered local; if over 50 miles, they are considered non-local. The majority of
primary Nez Perce National Forest visitors were non-local (61.6%) with fewer local visitors
(38.4%). There is also a small percentage of non-primary users (1.7%).
Based on economic surveys conducted as part of NVUM, visitors to the Nez Perce National
Forest are considered average spending visitors compared with peers at all national forests across
the country. Table 3-7 indicates the number of party trips and the expenditures (2008$ per party
trip) for the different motorized and non-motorized activities occurring on the Nez Perce
National Forest. Note that the number of visits (or people visiting in each group) varies by
activity. Each activity group has a set of unique number of visits per party trip estimated by local
/ non local and day use or overnight use. Calendar year 2000 NVUM data is used for some of
this analysis since fiscal year 2006 data with this level of detail is not yet available.




                                            38
Table 3-7. Number of Party Trips and Expenditures by Activity Type used for Travel
Management Economic Contribution Analysis

Activity                    Use (Party Trips)1                    Expenditures (2008$ per Party Trip)2
Non-motorized               Local Day         Non-local Day       Local Day         Non-local Day
                            (Overnight)       (Overnight)         (Overnight)       (Overnight)
 Horseback Riding3             213 (17)           23 (45)              20 (87)            37 (246)
 Backpacking                   NA (796)          NA (734)             NA (94)            NA (105)
 Hiking / Walking3            8,311 (648)       905 (1,755)            20 (87)            37 (246)
 Bicycling3                    639 (50)          70 (135)              20 (87)            37 (246)
 Cross-country Skiing          1001 (74)         152 (472)             34 (201)           53 (335)
 Other non-motorized3         3,978 (310)        433 (840)             20 (87)            37 (246)

Motorized
 OHV4                          1,072 (313)        234 (411)            38 (97)               60 (162)
 Driving for Pleasure          5,043 (174)        365 (443)            24 (94)               37 (173)
 Snowmobiling                  2,967 (556)        381 (623)            68 (193)             108 (322)
 Motorized Trail 4             1,266 (369)        276 (485)            38 (97)               60 (162)



1. Nez Perce National Forest, National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, February 2009;
2. Stynes Daniel J.; White Eric M. 2005. Spending Profiles for National Forest Recreation Visitors by Activity.
3. These activities share the same spending profile.
4. These activities share the same spending profile.
Of the non-motorized activities, cross-country skier parties spend the most per party trip (ranging
from $34 for local day use parties to $201 for non-local overnight use parties). The use data
indicates that 1001 local day and 74 local overnight party trips/year of cross country skiing occur
annually on the Nez Perce National Forest. The majority of non-motorized use is hiking/walking
(8,311 local day, 648 local overnight party trips) by local visitors who spend roughly $20 per
party trip for day use and $87 per party trip for overnight use.
From the standpoint of motorized activities, snowmobilers spend the most per visit (ranging from
$68 for local day use party trips to $322 for non-local overnight part trips) The 2006 use data
also indicates that 5.9% of primary Nez Perce National Forest visitors list snowmobiling as their
main activity. Driving for pleasure had 6.3% of primary visitors listing it as their main activity
and this is associated with the greatest number of summer visits.

Table 3-8 displays the estimated employment and labor income contributions for all recreation
visitation (i.e. wildlife and non-wildlife visitation) to the Nez Perce National Forest. There were
a total of 213,500 visits to the Nez Perce National Forest during the FY2006 sampling period
(Note: The number of primary visits is slightly less than the total visits reported in the NVUM
report). Non-primary visitation to the Nez Perce National Forest was isolated in the economic
contribution analysis since these users were not coming primarily to recreate on the Forest. The
2000 Nez Perce NVUM data describing party sizes, and segment portions (local day use, local
overnight, non-local day use, non-local overnight) were the most recent available. So these
estimates and Round 1 average spending expenditure profiles were applied with the more recent
fiscal year 2006 participation data to estimate the current economic contributions. All dollar
estimates are provided in 2008 currency.




                                                    39
The results indicate that there were roughly 40 total jobs (direct plus multiplier effect) and
$949,140 of total labor income (direct plus multiplier effect) attributable to the total (non-
wildlife plus wildlife) recreation that year. Of this, there were roughly 20 total jobs (direct plus
multiplier effect) and $466,133 of total labor income (direct plus multiplier effect) attributable to
local visitation. There were also approximately 20 total jobs (direct plus multiplier effect) and
$483,007 of total labor income (direct plus multiplier effect) attributable to non-local recreation
users. There was an additional single total job and 28,263 in labor income associated with non-
primary use of the national forest.

Table 3-8. Estimated Employment and Labor Income Effects for All Current Recreation
Use Reported by NVUM

Economic Effects Based on Local Use (56,364 party trips)
                             Direct             Indirect &
                                                                  Total Effects
                             Effects            Induced Effects
Jobs                         15                 5                 20
Labor Income (M $)           $318,559           147,574           466,133
Economic Effects Based on Non-local Use (23,892 party trips)
                             Direct             Indirect &
                                                                  Total Effects
                             Effects            Induced Effects
Jobs                         15                 5                 20
Labor Income (M $)           336,956            146,051           483,007
Note: Labor Income is reported in $2009.
Totals reflect decimals rounded in this table

In the five-county economic area, the total employment in 2007 was 59,596 jobs with $2.72
billion dollars in labor income (IMPLAN 2007). Therefore, all employment and labor income
attributable to recreation activities on the Nez Perce National Forest accounted for 0.07%
of the total employment and 0.03% of total labor income in the five-county economic
impact area.

Motorized and Non-motorized Use
Table 3-9 displays the estimated employment and labor income effects for current use levels
reported by NVUM for local and non-local motorized and non-motorized activities. In general,
the estimated economic contributions are a function of the number of visits and the dollars spent
by the visitors. For example, non-local users typically spend more money per visit than local
users. Also, activities that draw more visitors will be responsible for more economic activity in
comparison to activities that draw fewer visitors, holding constant spending per visit.




                                                   40
         Table 3-9. Employment and Labor Income Contributions by Activity Type
                                                Employment Effects           Labor Income Effects
                                               (full & part-time jobs)             ($2008)
Non-motorized Use                              Direct           Total        Direct        Total
  Local Horseback Riding (day)                      0.020           0.027       416.64        617.35
  Local Horseback Riding (overnight)                0.006           0.007       128.12        184.16
  Non-local Horseback Riding (day)                  0.004           0.005        90.22        127.47
  Non-local Horseback Riding (overnight)            0.036           0.047       853.79      1,198.18
  Local Backpacking (overnight)                     0.378           0.500     8,853.66     12,736.77
  Non-local Backpacking (overnight)                 0.398           0.516     9,090.50     12,858.69
  Local Hiking / Walking (day)                      0.798           1.036    16,249.11     24,076.79
  Local Hiking / Walking (overnight)                0.222           0.290     4,996.87      7,182.09
  Non-local Hiking / Walking (day)                  0.159           0.204     3,518.39      4,971.28
  Non-local Hiking / Walking (overnight)            1.421           1.843    33,297.91     46,728.84
  Local Bicycling (day)                             0.061           0.080     1,249.93      1,852.06
  Local Bicycling (overnight)                       0.017           0.022       384.37        552.47
  Non-local Bicycling (day)                         0.012           0.016       270.65        382.41
  Non-local Bicycling (overnight)                   0.109           0.142     2,561.38      3,594.53
  Local Cross-country Skiing (day)                  0.131           0.172     2,900.60      4,228.97
  Local Cross-country Skiing (overnight)            0.037           0.048       862.28      1,219.01
  Non-local Cross-country Skiing (day)              0.031           0.041       693.08      1,010.47
  Non-local Cross-country Skiing (overnight)        0.396           0.514     9,150.13     12,935.57
  Local Other Non-motorized (day)                   0.382           0.496     7,777.35     11,523.94
  Local Other Non-motorized (overnight)             0.106           0.139     2,391.67      3,437.58
  Non-local Other Non-motorized (day)               0.076           0.098     1,684.01      2,379.41
  Non-local Other Non-motorized (overnight)         0.680           0.882    15,937.46     22,365.94
    Total                                           5.483           7.125   123,358.14    176,163.96
    Total (including non-primary)                   5.582           7.254   125,431.35    179,217.80




                                                41
                                                    Employment Effects            Labor Income Effects
                                                   (full & part-time jobs)              ($2008)
Motorized Use
 Local OHV / Motorized Trail Use (day)                    0.209          0.271     4,157.43      6,213.45
 Local OHV / Motorized Trail Use (overnight)              0.135          0.177     2,959.22      4,325.21
 Non-local OHV /Motorized Trail Use (day)                 0.072          0.093     1,426.45      2,131.88
 Non-local OHV /Motorized Trail Use (overnight)           0.296          0.389     6,481.39      9,473.17
 Local Driving for Pleasure (day)                         0.603          0.779    11,437.51     17,305.73
 Local Driving for Pleasure (overnight)                   0.050          0.066     1,113.12      1,602.51
 Non-local Driving for Pleasure (day)                     0.069          0.089     1,302.09      1,970.12
 Non-local Driving for Pleasure (overnight)               0.213          0.277     4,709.83      6,780.49
 Local Snowmobiling (day)                                 1.059          1.369    20,516.41     30,831.20
 Local Snowmobiling (overnight)                           0.264          0.342     5,330.63      7,904.56
 Non-local Snowmobiling (day)                             0.188          0.242     3,499.50      5,301.21
 Non-local Snowmobiling (overnight)                       0.493          0.638     9,950.64     14,755.22
 Local Other Motorized Act.(day)                          0.247          0.320     4,913.33      7,343.17
 Local Other Motorized Act.(overnight)                    0.160          0.210     3,497.26      5,111.61
 Non-local Other Motorized Act.(day)                      0.085          0.110     1,685.81      2,519.49
 Non-local Other Motorized Act.(overnight)                0.350          0.459     7,659.82     11,195.56
    Total                                                 4.495          5.831    90,640.44    134,764.59
    Total (including non-primary)                         4.772          6.189    96,000.30    142,828.08


        Table 3-9 indicates that approximately 6 direct and 7 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) and
        $179,218 in total labor income is attributable to non-motorized activities each year on the Nez
        Perce National Forest, with about 39% due to local users and 59% to non-local users and 2% due
        to non-primary users. Hiking/walking is the non-motorized activity with the strongest economic
        contribution producing (47%) of all non-motorized jobs.
        Motorized activities are responsible for approximately 5 direct and 6 total jobs (direct, indirect,
        and induced) and $142,828 in total labor income (direct, indirect, and induced), each year with
        57% of these jobs and income associated with local use. Snowmobile use on the Forest
        accounted for approximately 2-3 total jobs and $63,976 total labor income (45% of the
        motorized totals). Driving for pleasure on Nez Perce National Forest accounted for
        approximately 1 total job and $29,670 in total labor income (21% of the motorized total). Off-
        highway vehicle use combined with other motorized activity (including motorized trail activity)
        on the Nez Perce National Forest accounted for approximately 2 total jobs and $49,183 in total
        labor income (34% of the motorized totals).
        Together, this subset of all activities grouped as either motorized and non-motorized accounted
        for approximately 32% of the jobs and 34% of labor income associated with all primary and non-
        primary recreational activity on the Nez Perce National Forest, with strictly motorized activities
        accounting for around 18% of jobs and 19% labor income. Meanwhile, strictly non-motorized
        activities accounted for 15% of jobs and labor income for all recreational activity on the Nez
        Perce National Forest.




                                                     42
Nez Perce National Forest Budget Trend

Several comments were received concerning the costs and affordability of various alternatives,
some even offered protocols to compare implementation costs across alternatives. Table 3-10
displays the budget for the Nez Perce National Forest from 2000 through 2010 (Nez Perce
National Forest 2011). The budget consists of all line items available to fund activities on the
Forest. The data indicates that the budget declined strongly over the period since 2004. The
inflation adjusted budget has declined by approximately 22% between 2003 and 2010. This
budget decline restricts the Forest’s use of appropriated funds to accomplish needed work on the
Forest. Forest stewardship contracting, a toolkit frequently applied on the Nez Perce, allows the
Forest to retain receipts from vegetation projects. The retained receipts can be used for
vegetation management treatments and required design criteria and other non-timber activities
such as road and trail work. However, the amount of work that can be accomplished is also
being cut with personnel reductions. Records of full-time equivalent (FTE) employment for the
Nez Perce National Forest show similar declines of roughly 17% between 2000 and 2007, with
average annual declines of 6.3% in the seasonal FTEs and 1.0% declines in the permanent FTEs
during this period 2000-2007.

3-10. Total Nez Perce National Forest Budget in Non-inflation Adjusted and Real Dollars
by Year
                              Fiscal Year Budget                 Inflation Adjusted Budget
Year
                           (Not adjusted for inflation)                    ($2010)

2000                           14,791,000
                                                                    18,516,000
2001                           15,589,000
                                                                    19,062,000
2002                           15,661,000
                                                                    18,838,000
2003                           17,396,000
                                                                    20,499,000
2004                           16,840,000
                                                                    19,348,000
2005                           13,234,000
                                                                    14,725,000
2006                           14,639,000
                                                                    15,748,000
2007                           14,745,000
                                                                    15,399,000
2008                           14,609,000
                                                                    14,912,000
2009                           15,441,000
                                                                    15,553,000
2010                           14,887,000
                                                                    14,887,000




                                               43
Table 3-11 shows the part of the Nez Perce National Forest budget currently allocated for trail
maintenance and improvement. Road work is accomplished mainly through Best Management
Practices during projects implementation. In addition to these sources of funding there is
abundant work done through volunteer programs. The following groups have held official
voluntary work participating agreements for trails on the Nez Perce National Forest in recent
years: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, Idaho County, Backcountry Horsemen of
North Central Idaho, Twin Rivers Backcountry Horsemen, and Idaho Pathfinders.

Table 3-11. Estimates for Annual Nez Perce National Trail Capital Improvement Program

                   Capital Improvement Program Budget              CIP Budget (Inflation
Fiscal Year
                        (Not adjusted for inflation)                 Adjusted $2010)
2000                            52,000                                  65,096
2001                               0                                      0
2002                               0                                      0
2003                           230,000                                 271,025
2004                           305,000                                 350,430
2005                           389,000                                 432,812
2006                           386,000                                 415,251
2007                           364,000                                 380,152
2008                           341,000                                 348,068
2009                           385,000                                 387,794
2010                           335,000                                 335,000




ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
National Travel Management Rule Benefit Cost Analysis

When the travel management rule was developed, the Forest Service considered the
consequences in a qualitative cost benefit analysis. The following text and Table 3-10 are
extracted from that analysis.

“The benefits and costs of the final rule are described qualitatively because the rule is procedural.
Actual transportation decisions will be made at the local level with public input and appropriate
environmental analysis and documentation. Neither the costs nor benefits are readily
quantifiable, and thus this analysis discusses the costs and benefits to the extent information is
available (see Table 3-12). The benefits of the final rule include gains to users, the agency, and
the environment. Sustainable, reliable, high-quality public access to National Forest System
lands will lead to enhanced recreation opportunities for visitors. In addition, both users and the
agency will benefit from improved public communication, more effective law enforcement, and
improved travel management planning. Other benefits include reduced environmental damage
and a more consistent and defensible travel planning framework. The costs of the final rule
include reductions in unconstrained cross-country motor vehicle use for those that value this


                                             44
activity, and short-term agency planning costs as many National Forests launch travel planning
efforts following adoption of the rule.”

Table 3-12: Costs and Benefits of Final Travel Management Rule

    Potential
    Impacts                Current Rule                                  Final Rule
                   User confusion from
                   inconsistent policy among          Increased user benefits and decreased agency
 Public            national forests.                  management costs due to increased public
 Communication     Lack of compliance due to          involvement, user awareness, cooperation with
                   uncertainty and inconsistency      user groups, access, and route management.
                   of policy.
                   Unmanaged user-created             Increased public safety due to better trail design
                   routes have potential safety       and management.
                   issues. Law enforcement
 Public Safety
                   effectiveness limited by           Increased law enforcement effectiveness and
                   inconsistent regulatory            increased user benefits due to consistent
                   framework.                         regulatory framework
                   Many unmanaged,
 Travel System                                        Decreased loss of environmental benefits result
                   unmaintained routes result in
 Maintenance and                                      from a sustainable system of managed,
                   deterioration of routes and
 Management                                           maintained and enforced routes
                   environmental impacts.
                   Increased agency planning
                   costs as National Forests take
 Short Run                                            Increased agency planning costs because many
                   on travel management issues
 Planning Costs                                       National Forests will launch travel planning
                   individually without
                   consistent framework.
                   Travel management costs
 Long Run                                             Decreased agency planning costs because of
                   continue at high levels
 Planning Costs                                       known framework and established system.
                   without national direction.
                                                      Increased user benefits, including enhanced
                                                      recreation opportunities, improved natural
                                                      environmental setting, reduced user conflicts,
                   Potential loss of recreation       and enhanced opportunities for cooperative
                   opportunities over time as use     construction and maintenance of routes because
 User Benefits     conflicts and environmental        of long-term sustainability and legitimacy of
                   damage lead to route and area      route system.
                   closures
                                                      Potential decrease in some user benefits because
                                                      of loss of unconstrained cross-country motor
                                                      vehicle use.
                   Erosion, sedimentation, and
                                                      Increased environmental benefits due to
                   damage to fish and wildlife
                                                      reduction in erosion, sedimentation, and habitat
 Environment       habitat from unmanaged
                                                      destruction that result from unmanaged cross-
                   cross-country motor vehicle
                                                      country motor vehicle use.
                   use.




                                                 45
Social Impacts

The effects on the social environment are indirect impacts on relationship between various
geographic communities and communities of interest, flowing from indirect effects following
changes to access and the effects on user experiences, physical, ecological, cultural and
economic conditions and the values people attach to these conditions. However, insufficient
information exists to accurately estimate changes which could impact the tradeoffs involved in
the quality of the recreation experiences for user groups. Additional management tools will be
required to address these conflicts. One way to consider these changes is to explore the economic
impacts described below in combination with the anticipated effects found in other sections of
the FEIS. For example, the impacts to recreational opportunities, wildlife populations, wilderness
character and roadless character can all affect individuals’ sense of place.

The public participation process included expanded comment periods which were used to listen
to site-specific concerns regarding travel management impacts on the social environment. The
public meetings and comments received have been addressed and substantive comments will be
factored into the selection of an alternative.

Economic Impacts

The assessment of potential economic impacts attempts to identify possible effects that
DRAMVU may have on regional economic systems. In particular, this analysis is used to
address the question: would changes in the recreation management changes for the Nez Perce
National Forest (e.g., the amount of change in the motorized/non-motorized designation of
Forest roads and trails) be large enough or significant enough to cause measurable economic
changes? Information about the existing conditions above and the small response coefficients
listed for all activities below (Table 3-12), suggest that the overall economy of the local area has
multiple recreation attractions and is robust enough that the proposed changes will be regionally
insignificant although they will likely be felt in very specific segments of the local economy
(e.g., businesses in the Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Sector).

Indicators

The summary of each alternative is first provided. This is followed by a paragraph supplying
qualitative expectations of the economic contribution of motorized and non-motorized recreation
opportunities on the Nez Perce National Forest for the Nez Perce National Forest economic and
social impact area. Impacts are considered changes from the recent contributions described in the
recreational economic contribution analysis portion of the affected environment.

The predicted economic impacts are generally based on the amount of changes in the miles of
roads and trails available to motorized and non-motorized users. When looking at potential
impacts, consider the total (direct, indirect and induced) response coefficients for economic
impacts associated with any increase or decrease of 1,000 party trips for each activity presented
in Table 3-30. These response coefficients apply to any changes that could happen as a result of
implementing any of the DRAMVU alternatives. An example of the methods which can be used
to estimate these impacts can be located below in the Response Coefficients by Activity Type,
found in the Effects Common to All Alternatives section of Environmental Consequences.



                                             46
We reviewed past NEPA decisions that determined forest access within this analysis. Following
these reviews, any inconsistencies were corrected, and databases updated. These changes are
reflected in Alternatives 1 and 1A.

Alternative 1 – No Action. This alternative represents the existing legal access on roads and
trails (Pre-Travel Mgt Rule). Alternative 1 would retain 2,710 miles of open roads and trails for
yearlong or seasonal motorized use. Routes open to motorized use would include 2,025 miles of
road and 684 miles of trails. Additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,700 miles of
road and 396 miles of trails, outside of wilderness areas. The total acres open to motorized cross
country travel would be approximately 1,001,428 acres. Motorized access for dispersed camping
would remain the same.

The annual economic contributions from recreation on Nez Perce National Forest lands are not
expected to change at all if this alternative is selected.

Alternative 1A – Proposed Action. Only action to meet the basic requirements of the Travel
Management Rule would be taken. This alternative would designate for motorized use the road
and trail system in Alternative 1 (existing legal access), and have no cross country use allowed.
Alternative 1A would retain 2,710 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal
motorized use. Routes open to motorized use would include 2,025 miles of road and 684 miles of
trails. Additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,700 miles of road and 396 miles of
trails, outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles inside wilderness areas. Motorized access for
dispersed camping would be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 0 feet from trails, following
the conditions of use.

The main impacts under this alternative might be a reduction in cross country summer motorized
use, and a greater reliance on motorized visitors to restrict their travel to routes designated open
on the Motorized Vehicle Use Map, MVUM. Annual economic contributions from recreation on
Nez Perce National Forest lands are not expected to change significantly if this alternative is
selected.

Alternative 2 – Modified Current Condition. Alternative 2 would respond the intent of past
decisions by providing a system of roads and trails for motorized, and have no motorized cross
country use.

Alternative 2 would retain 2,375 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal
motorized use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,979 miles of road and 396 miles of
trails. Additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,746 miles of road and 684 miles of
trails, outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles inside wilderness areas. Motorized access for
dispersed camping would be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 100 feet from trails,
following the conditions of use.

The annual economic contributions from recreation on Nez Perce National Forest lands are not
expected to change significantly if this alternative is selected.




                                             47
Alternative 3 – Response to Requests for Decreased Motorized Use. This alternative would
emphasize non-motorized use of trails in all Inventoried Roadless areas and have no motorized
cross country use. Motorized use would also be reduced on some roads and trails by adjusting
to a shorter season of use. A reduction of use would also be though a change in the type of
vehicle allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from motorized to non-
motorized, or from large to smaller vehicle types.

Alternative 3 would retain 2,106 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal
motorized use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,942 miles of road and 165 miles of
trails. Additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,784 miles of road, 915 miles of
trails outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles inside wilderness areas. Motorized access for
dispersed camping would be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 0 feet from trails, following
the conditions of use.

The annual economic contributions from recreation on Nez Perce National Forest lands would
likely shift slightly from motorized use towards more non-motorized use. Due to both the
persistence of some motorized opportunities and the substitution opportunities, the net change in
these overall economic contributions is impossible to predict accurately, but some businesses
specializing in motorized sports may see declines in revenues, and others emphasizing non-
motorized sports may see increases in revenues. If either of these is substantial there may be exit
or entry into the recreation related sectors in these five counties, with small impacts on
employment, labor earnings and taxes.


Alternative 4 – Response to Requests for Increased Motorized Use. This alternative would
emphasize designation for motorized use on road and trails across the forest and have no
motorized cross country use. Motorized use would be increased on some routes by adjusting to a
longer season of use. An increase of motorized use would occur though changing the type of
vehicle allowed on a route. Road and trail designation would change from non-motorized to
motorized, or from small to larger vehicle types. Five routes that were proposed by the public
would be added to the system for motorized use.

Alternative 4 would retain 2,552 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal
motorized use with an addition of 3.3 miles of trail for yearlong use. Routes open to motorized
use would include 2,037 miles of road and 515 miles of trails. In additional routes open to non-
motorized use include 1,692 miles of road, 565 miles of trails outside of wilderness areas and
640 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. Motorized access for dispersed camping would be
allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 0 feet from trails, following the conditions of use.

The annual economic contributions from recreation on Nez Perce National Forest lands would
likely shift slightly from non-motorized use towards motorized use, or motorized impacts may
simply expand following an increase in the number of and spending by the motorized visitors.
Due to both the persistence of non- motorized opportunities and the substitution opportunities,
the net change in these overall economic contributions is impossible to predict accurately, but
some businesses specializing in non-motorized sports may see declines in revenues, and others
emphasizing motorized sports may see increases in revenues. If either of these is substantial



                                            48
there may be exit or entry into the recreation related sectors in these five counties, with small
impacts on employment, labor earnings and taxes.

Alternative 5 - Preferred Alternative. This alternative would respond to public comments about
providing motorized and non-motorized use opportunities, while moving toward the standards
and objectives for wildlife resources, and other management areas. There would be no motorized
cross country use on the forest. Road and trail designations would reduce the number of miles
available for motorized use by designations and a change in the season of use. Three new routes
that were proposed by the public would be added to the system for motorized use.

Alternative 5 would retain 2,347 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal
motorized use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,962 miles of road and 264 miles of
trails. In additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,763 miles of road, 696 miles of
trails outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. Motorized
access for dispersed camping would be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 300 feet from
trails, following the conditions of use. In addition 18 miles of road and 28 miles of trail would
have 0 feet of motorized access for dispersed camping.

Depending on the response of the visitors, the annual economic contributions from recreation on
Nez Perce National Forest lands could expand or contract slightly. Due to both the small changes
to management affecting both motorized and non- motorized opportunities and the substitution
opportunities, the net change in these overall economic contributions is impossible to predict
accurately, but based on the visitation response some businesses specializing in either motorized
non-motorized sports may see changes in revenues. If these changes are substantial there may be
exit or entry into the recreation related sectors in these five counties, with small impacts on
employment, labor earnings and taxes.


Alternative 6 – Response to Effects to Wildlife Habitats and Forest Plan direction. This
alternative would emphasize Forest Plan standards and objectives for protecting elk, deer and
moose habitat; Municipal watersheds other forest plan standards. Consistency on motorized
designations with adjacent forest and land managers would be provided on several roads and
trails. There would be no motorized cross country use on the forest. Motorized opportunities are
generally reduced though a reduction in the season of use available on designated roads or
trails in important habitat or areas.

Alternative 6 would retain 2,085 miles of open roads and trails for yearlong or seasonal
motorized use. Routes open to motorized use would include 1,923 miles of road and 162 miles of
trails. In additional routes open to non-motorized use include 1,802 miles of road, 918 miles of
trails outside of wilderness areas and 940 miles of trail inside wilderness areas. Motorized
access for dispersed camping would be allowed up to 300 feet from roads and 0 feet from trails,
following the conditions of use. In addition, 20 miles of road would have 0 feet of motorized
access for dispersed camping.

The annual economic contributions from recreation on Nez Perce National Forest lands would
likely shift slightly from motorized use towards non-motorized use. Due to both the persistence
of some motorized opportunities and the substitution opportunities, the net change in these


                                             49
overall economic contributions is impossible to predict accurately, but some businesses
specializing in motorized sports may see declines in revenues, and others emphasizing non-
motorized sports may see increases in revenues. If either of these is substantial there may be exit
or entry into the recreation related sectors in these five counties, with small impacts on
employment, labor earnings and taxes.


Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Because specific recreation impacts in (expected changes to annual party trips by activity)
associated with each of the alternatives have not been quantified, specific economic impacts have
not been estimated for DRAMVU. In general, it is believed that people that engage in recreation
on the NPNF will continue to find opportunities to enjoy themselves, and will continue to
support the types of businesses that cater to their needs. Fluctuations in number of visitors to the
NPNF can cause positive or negative economic impacts to local businesses; but these
fluctuations are also influenced by much larger trends. The economy and social aspects are
affected by a variety of factors including population growth, location of new magnet industries,
recession, tax and other economic policies, the amount of wildfires and smoke in the area, the
strength of the national economy, and even changing preferences like people preferring several
short vacations rather than one long vacation. When compared with these kinds of variables, the
management of motorized travel on the NPNF is expected to have a relatively small effect to the
economic and social aspects of the local area.

Economic Response Coefficients by Activity Type

Detailed quantified speculation of changes to tourism and recreation visitation in the two
economic impact area counties would be required to estimate the direct and multiplier (indirect
and induced) economic impacts of any changes in management. This data is not available, and
there is no literature suggesting how travel management specifically influences overall use and
spending. We provide the tools for the reader to produce their own estimates of impacts and
future economic contributions.

Table 3-11 displays the estimated annual employment and labor income response coefficients
(employment and labor income per 1,000 party trips) for local and non-local motorized and non-
motorized activities. The response coefficients indicate the annual number of full and part-time
jobs and dollars of labor income per 1,000 party trips by activity type. The response coefficients
are useful in: 1) understanding the economic effects tied to a given use level; 2) understanding
projected employment effects for various use scenarios described in other sections of this report,
and; 3) understanding the differences in employment and labor income effects by activity type.

These response coefficients are specific to the five-county economic impact area, in that they use
observed empirical economic data to represent direct and multiplier impacts of changes in 1,000
party trips and the associated economic activity in the economic impact area. When spending
occurs, some of the money is retained locally as a margin, the remainder leaks to the larger state
or national economy. Leakage occurs when indirect purchases are made from vendors outside the
economic impact area. In other words, when food is grown, or petroleum is extracted and refined
outside the economic impact area, very little of the money spent by Nez Perce National Forest


                                            50
recreational visitors to purchase these goods is retained and circulated in the local economy.
Note that all durable goods, such as recreational vehicles, binoculars, and hiking boots are
excluded from these analyses, because these items are used in many settings and therefore cannot
be attributed to a single party trip.

Nez Perce National Forest party sizes average 2.4 visits per party, but range by activity type and
user category (e.g., local overnight, non-local day use) from 1.3 to 3.1 (for OHV and/or
motorized trail use: local day = 2.0, non-local day = 2.1, local overnight = 2.0 and non-local
overnight = 2.5 visits per party trip). To simplify the response (impact) calculations, take any
expected change in the number of activity visits to the Nez Perce National Forest, associated
with travel management, and divide these by the appropriate average number of visits per party
trip, and then divide by 1,000. Then multiply the result with the response coefficients. Or you
can start from the existing number of party trips found in Table 3-5.

For example, suppose someone expected a reduction representing one half of the estimated
existing local day OHV party trips each year, from roughly 1,072 party trips each year down to
536. For this example, full implementation of this alternative could be expected to lead to
roughly 536 fewer non-local OHV day use party trips each year. Divide this by 1,000 to match
up with the 1,000 party trip response coefficients (536/1000 = 0.536).

Estimates in the Recreation Economic Contribution Analysis in the project record suggest that an
approximate employment response coefficient would be 0.253 jobs per 1,000 non-local party
trips. Likewise, an approximate labor response coefficient would be $5,697 per 1,000 non-local
party trips.

The result is the reduction of less than one fewer job (0.253 * 0.536 = 0.135) and roughly
$3,054 less in labor income each year ($5,697*0.536). To calculate the new level of
contributions, these jobs and labor income figures would need to be subtracted from the totals
presented in the existing condition section. For example, spending associated with local day
OHV use on the Nez Perce National Forest provided 0.27 total jobs (0.21 direct and 0.06 indirect
and induced jobs). You would subtract 0.135 from this total and derive a new total of 0.135 total
jobs per year. You would do the same for labor income; subtract $3,054 from $6,213, for an
estimated $3,159 in labor income each year. Note there is small rounding error here, explaining
why removing half of the use did not cut the contributions exactly in half. This is because
numbers presented for reader calculations were all rounded before recalculating. This
demonstration explains how to estimate the impacts for changes any individual expects from any
alternative and recalculate annual contributions.

If additional national forest visits are anticipated than impacts would be additions to estimates of
existing contributions instead of subtractions from estimates of existing contributions. For
another example, if a reader expected an increase of 25% in the number of local hikers following
implementation of an alternative with non-motorized emphasis the same approach can be used.
Suppose someone expected a increase representing one half of the estimated existing local
hiking/walking party trips each year, from roughly 8,311 party trips each year up to 12,467. For
this example, full implementation of this alternative could be expected to lead to roughly 4,156
more local hiking day use party trips each year. Divide this by 1,000 to match up with the 1,000
party trip response coefficients (4,156/1000 = 4.156). (Note if you prefer to think about any


                                             51
change in terms of visits not party trips. You can use the Nez Perce National Forest party sizes
for the hiking/walking/biking activity type and user category to make the conversions needed to
apply party trip response coefficients: local day = 1.8, non-local day = 2.1, local overnight = 2.2
and non-local overnight = 2.3 visits per party trip).

Estimates in table 3-14 from the Recreation Economic Contribution Analysis in the project
record suggest that an approximate employment response coefficient would be 0.125 jobs per
1,000 local hiking party trips). Likewise, an approximate labor response coefficient would be
$2,847 per 1,000 local hiking party trips. The result of this 50% increase in local hiking party
trips is roughly half of an additional job (0.125 * 4.156 = 0.52) and roughly $11,832 more in
labor income each year ($2,847*4.156). To calculate the new level of contributions, these jobs
and labor income figures would need to be added to the totals presented in the existing condition
section. For example, local day hiking use provided 1.036 total jobs (0.798 direct and 0.238
indirect and induced jobs). You would add 0.52 to this total and derive a new total of 1.556 total
jobs per year. You would do the same for labor income; add $11,832 to $24,077 for an estimated
$35,909 in labor income each year. (Again, note there is small rounding error here, explaining
why adding 50% more party trips did not increase the contributions exactly by 50%. This is
because numbers presented for reader calculations were all rounded before recalculating. This
demonstration further explains how to estimate the impacts for changes any individual expects
from any alternative and recalculate annual contributions.

As shown in Table 3-14, the economic effects tied to local visitation are generally lower than for
non-local visitation. This is a result of local visitors spending less per visit in comparison to non-
local visitors (see Table 3-7 above). Additionally, economic effects vary widely by activity type.
Based on response coefficients, the strongest employment effect modeled is tied to non-local
overnight cross-country skiing, followed closely by the shared response coefficient for most non-
local, overnight non-motorized activities and non-local overnight snowmobiling. Of the local day
response coefficients, local snowmobiling provides the highest response coefficients, followed
by local OHV / Motorized Trail day use and then by cross country skiing. Smaller local day
response coefficients are associated with local day horseback riding, backpacking,
hiking/walking, and bicycling (Note: the response coefficients are identical for several of these
categories since they share the same spending profiles). In general, economic effects associated
with any change in management vary mainly by the total amount of spending and by the type of
activity, but it cannot be generalized that motorized or non-motorized activities in general
contribute more or less to the local economy on a per visit basis.




                                             52
Table 3-14. Employment and Labor Income Response Coefficients by Activity Type

                                                 Employment                      Labor Income
                                          (Jobs / 1,000 Party Trips)        ($ / 1,000 Party Trips)
                                          Day
 Non-motorized Use                        Total       Overnight Total    Day Total    Overnight Total
   Local Horseback Riding                   0.125                0.448      $2,847            $10,897
   Non-local Horseback Riding               0.226                1.050      $5,400            $26,161
   Local Backpacking                          NA                 0.628         NA             $15,719
   Non-local Backpacking                      NA                 0.703         NA             $17,220
   Local Hiking / Walking                   0.125                0.448      $2,847            $10,897
   Non-local Hiking / Walking               0.226                1.050      $5,400            $26,161
   Local Bicycling                          0.125                0.448      $2,847            $10,897
   Non-local Bicycling                      0.226                1.050      $5,400            $26,161
   Local Cross-country Skiing               0.172                0.654      $4,153            $16,160
   Non-local Cross-country Skiing           0.271                1.090      $6,523            $26,937
   Local Other Non-motorized                0.125                0.448      $2,847            $10,897
   Non-local Other Non-motorized            0.226                1.050      $5,400            $26,161
 Motorized Use
   Local OHV / Motorized Trail Use          0.253               0.568       $5,697              $13,598
   Non-local OHV Motorized Trail Use        0.398               0.946       $8,957              $22,660
   Local Driving for Pleasure               0.154               0.376       $3,372               $9,031
   Non-local Driving for Pleasure           0.243               0.627       $5,299              $15,053
   Local Snowmobiling                       0.461               0.615      $10,209              $13,971
   Non-local Snowmobiling                   0.635               1.025      $13,672              $23,285
   Local Other Motorized Act.               0.253               0.568       $5,697              $13,598
   Non-local Other Motorized Act.           0.398               0.946       $8,957              $22,660



In summary, for the five-county economic impact area used in this analysis, the total economic
contributions of recreation overall, and specifically recreation tied to motorized and non-
motorized activities, are very small compared to the total economic activity in the area. Though
changes in use attributable to the alternatives outlined in this report are difficult to estimate, even
large changes in recreation use would have little effect on the overall economy of the five-county
area.

The potential recreational impacts such as displacement noted in the Recreation section of the
FEIS may impact individual vendors and service providers in the economic impact area.
However, detailed quantified speculation of changes to tourism and recreation visitation in the
five economic impact area counties would be required to estimate the direct and multiplier
(indirect and induced) economic impacts. This data is not available. Some substitute recreation
and travel opportunities persist inside and near the economic impact area suggesting that any
changes to the miles of roads and trails affected by the decision will have minimal impact on the
overall economy of these two counties. It is important to remember that the lands affected by the
Nez Perce Travel Management decision are only a small part of the recreation and tourism
opportunities in these two counties (compared with rafting, guided and unguided fishing, and
hunting opportunities in areas like the Salmon, Snake, Selway, Lochsa, and Clearwater, Rivers
and the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness. Detecting exact economic impacts of travel management


                                              53
decisions in the future would be hard, as it would be tough to isolate these impacts from other
larger economic trends and other cumulative effects of similar land management and travel
planning efforts occurring in North Central Idaho.

Collectively, all Forest Service employment and program expenditures generally contribute
roughly one to three percent of the jobs and labor income in the economic impact areas of the
Northern Region (estimates from comprehensive contribution analyses in forest plan revision
efforts for the national forests of Montana and Northern Idaho). The small change in type and
quantity of use in the Nez Perce National Forest would likely do little to affect county-level
economic indicators (i.e., total employment, total personal income, average annual
unemployment rate, wildland dependency) for the five-county area. However, impacts that do
occur may be felt strongly by a few vendors and service providers. The 2000 county percentages
of economic dependence on recreation and wildlife (ranging from 0.11 – 6.56%) may increase or
decrease slightly in the short-term. This could be considered a normal part of the shifts in
economic dependence, typical among highly natural resource dependent counties. Curtailment of
motorized activity in multiple locations across the Northern Region could cumulatively have
stronger long-term impacts on jobs and income than is expected from each individual travel plan
decision alone.

Trail Management Costs

Several DEIS comments requested that the Nez Perce National Forest attempt to display the
costs of implementing each alternative. Like most forest management, travel management
involves many joint costs and benefits, making clean accounting very challenging. DRAMVU
simply sets the policy under which many smaller projects will accomplish the objectives and
targets through mapping, signage, and some ground disturbing activity. Each of the projects will
consider options and the costs of these options will be analyzed site specifically. Future budgets
will inform selection of various options to implement the selected DRAMVU alternative.
Maintenance of road and trails is a priority and like other aspects of Forest Management, the Nez
Perce National Forest is always stretching limited resources to accomplish as much work as
possible. The Legacy Roads and Trails program holds some potential for augmenting
transportation system budgets, as does the Selway-Middle Fork Clearwater Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Proposal for a portion of the Nez Perce National Forest. Financial and in-
kind contributions from partner and volunteer organizations can also help reduce agency
transportation system management costs. However, a detailed cost comparison across
alternatives was not prepared as the methods to achieve objectives of the alternatives are not all
determined yet, and the magnitude of the marginal changes in actual expenditures expected
between alternatives is considered small compared to the existing expenditures.

Regardless of which alternative is selected and implemented, there will be general unit costs
associated as changes (if any) are made from existing trail conditions. Rough trail maintenance
cost estimates are provided for future project work under any of the alternatives (Table 3-15)
with the following caveats:




                                            54
          A well designed motorized trail could cost less than this estimate.
          Estimate is using actual figures for maintaining at less than optimum trail design.
          Trails passing through burns will always cost more to maintain.
          Estimates based on contracting costs.
          Estimates do not take Forest crew costs into account.

Table 3.-15. Approximate trail maintenance and construction costs for the Nez Perce
National Forest ($2008)
Trail Category                                                                Annual Maintenance Cost
Trails open to motorcycle seasonally                                          $90 / mile
Trails open to Motorcycle yearlong                                            $150 / mile
Trails open to 50" or less seasonally                                         $500 / mile
Trails open to 50" or less yearlong                                           $750 / mile
New trail construction for 60 inch width*                                     $17,000 / mile
    * Trails constructed as connectors of roads or trails for OHV use (60" width tread, pack and saddle standard clearing limit:
    8'x10', includes clearing, grubbing, excavation and rolling dip construction at 100' intervals. Mobilization cost/mile and
    Contracting officer’s representative time for administration both included in this estimate.

There is no road decommissioning specifically proposed by any of the travel management
alternatives, which explains why no cost estimates are provided for this activity. As with other
changes proposed under the travel management alternatives, the pace of implementation would
depend on budgets and how travel management adjustment implementation compares with other
National Forest management priorities.

In addition to the traditional trail management and improvement costs, there will be some costs
associated with the signing of areas, which differs from what has been done in the past. Cost
estimates from the national headquarters can be seen in Table 3-16. These costs would apply to
all miles of open trail and road, with either a route marker or a junction sign needed roughly
every mile.

Table 3-16: Route Marker and Junctions Sign Costs ($2008)

                                                                                                            Unit
Sign Type                                  Sign Components                                                 Cost
Route           Two sided flexible fiberglass post                                                        $8.60/ea.
Markers
                Decal numbers ($1.10 ea. X 3/sign)                                                        $3.30/ea.
                Forest Service Shield                                                                     $1.00/ea.
                Anchor                                                                                    $2.00/ea.
                Installation                                                                             $20.00/ea.
                Vehicle/Overhead at 20%                                                                   $7.00/ea.
                Total Cost Per Post                                                                      $42.00/ea.
Junction        Signs                                                                                    $40.00/ea.
Signs
                Post                                                                                     $20.00/ea.
                Installation (Drive to and from work area – 2 hours 6 hours to install, at 1             $38.30/ea.
                sign/hour or $230/day for 2 person crew)
                Vehicle/Overhead at 20%                                                                  $19.66/ea.
                Total Cost Per Sign                                                                       $118/ea.




                                                         55
56
Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

The cumulative effects area includes the economic impact area identified for both the Clearwater
and the Nez Perce National Forests, as well as the adjoining national forests (Bitterroot NF,
Idaho Panhandle NF, and Lolo NF). Travel planning and normal management activities
occurring on these five forests cumulatively affect the social and economic environment.
However, changes in use attributable to the alternatives outlined in this report are difficult to
estimate, even large changes in recreation use would have little effect on the overall economy of
the five-county area. Therefore, cumulative effects which were found to be common to all
alternatives are not expected to be detectable with demographic, social or economic indicators at
the county level. There may however, be cumulative impacts felt by specific vendors who could
see increases or decreases in business activity.

Ongoing and future activities such as prescribed burning, rehabilitation of campgrounds, and
trail/road maintenance will continue and will have cumulative effects upon the economy/social
aspects of the local area. In addition, travel planning is now occurring on the Clearwater,
Bitterroot and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Since Nez Perce National Forest shares the
same economic impact area with the Clearwater National Forest, the cumulative results of each
plan could lead to lesser or greater impacts than each individual plan, depending on the decisions
and the recreational visitors’ responses. The same is true, but to a lesser extent for travel
planning to the east on the Bitterroot National Forest and to the north for travel planning on the
Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The Lolo National Forest adjusted travel management as part
of the Forest Planning process many years ago, so travel management cumulative effects are not
expected from that National Forest.

CONSISTENCY WITH FOREST PLANS, LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Forest Plan direction is described in Chapter 2, showing how the proposals analyzed in this
report are consistent with the Nez Perce Forest Plan. It is clear that there is a balancing act
required to provide goods and services while protecting important values that flow from the
conservation of National Forest lands. With the exception of Alternative 1, all alternatives are
consistent with Travel Plan laws and regulations.

Table 3-17 Forest Plan Compliance, Goals
Goal
            Subject Summary                                 Compliance Achieved By
Number
Forest Plan Goal
             Provide a sustained yield of resource
            outputs at a level that will help support the   Outputs relevant to DRAMVU are
    1       economic structure of local communities         recreation visits and party trips and are
            and provide for regional and national           analyzed.
            needs.
            Provide a wide range of dispersed and
                                                            Outputs relevant to DRAMVU are
            developed recreation opportunities and
                                                            recreation visits and party trips by
    5       experiences by providing access, facilities,
                                                            activity type and are analyzed.
            and education necessary to meet public
                                                            Comments were considered.
            demand.



                                                57
            Recognized and promote the intrinsic
            ecological and economic value of wildlife
                                                          Alternatives emphasizing intrinsic
            and wildlife habitats. Provide high quality
    6                                                     ecological and economic wildlife
            and quality of wildlife habitats to ensure
                                                          values are evaluated.
            diversified recreational and public
            satisfaction.

Nez Perce Forest Plan Standards
The following standards apply to National Forest land administered by the Nez Perce National
Forest. They are intended to supplement, not replace, the National and Regional policies,
standards, and guidelines found in Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks and the Northern
Regional Guide.

Table 3-2 Forest Plan Compliance, Standards
Standard
            Subject Summary                               Compliance Achieved By
Number
Forest Plan Standard
            Analyze the economics of proposed access
                                                          Not considered because no alternatives
    2       developments using proven tools, and
                                                          propose access developments.
            incorporate them into the project design.



SUMMARY
In general, the economic impact area profiled in this section appears fairly healthy with positive
population growth during the last several decades, increases in employment and real personal
income, and substantial increase in per capita personal income during the period from 1970 to
2006. Leading up to 2006 all counties had winter unemployment rates, roughly twice that of the
annual low, occurring in September and October. The national recession has hit four of the
counties particularly hard . It is notable that there has been a sharp short-term unemployment
increase associated with the national recession during 2008 -2011 in all five counties of the
economic impact area. Change is a constant in many areas, especially for those areas dependent
on natural resources. Undulations in both the labor income and the growing portion of non-labor
income may generate some instability for many of the economic indicators used to proxy
economic well-being. The influence of the global economic recession will be difficult to tease
out from land and resource management decisions in some of these variables. Trends, like
growth in service sector employment and income found in these counties, are shared by most
peer counties across the Rocky Mountain west. These growth trends are largely driven by
population growth of both permanent and seasonal residents.

Idaho, and especially North Central Idaho has extremely high OHV participation rates. It is noted
above that Idaho is second only to Wyoming for all US states in OHV participation. This is also
observable in the dramatic increase in OHV registrations in recent years, at least up until 2009.
The community in this economic impact area is certainly getting older, and OHV research
indicates this may contribute to lower participation rates, but greater days of use per year for
users as people get older.



                                               58
When standard, conservative, input-output modeling approaches are used to estimate the
contribution that the recreation on the Nez Perce National Forest makes to the five county
economic impact area, the overall contribution that all Nez Perce National Forest recreation
activities and associated spending make to the jobs and labor income of the economic impact
area are currently less than one percent, indicating that small changes to these spending levels
would not have significant impacts to the impact area. Strictly motorized and non-motorized
activities appear to contribute roughly the same number of jobs and labor income to the five-
county area, but both contribute far less than wildlife related recreation and all other activities on
the Nez Perce National Forest. Any DRAMVU changes are expected to affect a few vendors and
service providers based on site-specific changes to non-motorized and wheeled recreation
opportunities and visitation responses which are not possible to accurately predict. Proposed
travel management changes may curtail some and promote other business opportunities in the
long-term. These localized impacts would be far more observable than impacts to the regional
economic indicators.



REFERENCES CITED
Adams-Russell Consulting. 2004. Social Assessment: Clearwater National Forest and Nez Perce
National Forest. Final Report, April 2004.

Bureau of Census, 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census
http://www.census.gov
Tel. 303-969-7750

Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
County Business Patterns (CBP)
http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html
Tel 301-763-2580

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Regional Economic Information
System (REIS). http://bea.gov/bea/regional/data.htm

Bureau of Labor Statistics
Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS)
http://www.bls.gov/LAU
Tel. 202-691-6392 BLS 2011, accessed 4.13.2011.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty09.txt


Cook, Philip S. and O’Laughlin, Jay. 2008 Off-Highway Vehicle and Snowmobile Management
in Idaho. Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho. Policy Analysis Group — College of Natural
Resources.

Cordell, H. Ken, Carter J. Betz, Gary T. Green and Becky Stephens, 2008. Off-Highway Vehicle
Recreation in the United States and its Regions and States: A National Report from the National


                                              59
Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). 101pp.
http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IRISRec/IrisRec1rpt.pdf

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz, G. Green, and M. Owens. 2005. Off-highway vehicle recreation in the
United States, regions and states: A national report from the National Survey on Recreation and
the Environment (NSRE). <http://www.idahoparks.org/assets/content/docs/

Ehinger, Paul F. 2001. Columbia basin socio-economic assessment phase II- forest products data
1989-2000. Eugene, Oregon: Barney and Worth and U.S. Department of

English, Donald B. K., H. Ken Cordell, and J. M. Bowker. 1999. “Implications of this
Assessment”, pgs. 433-440, IN: Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A National Assessment
of Demand and Supply Trends, H. Ken Cordell, Prin. Investigator, Sagamore Publ., Champaign,
IL. 449 p.

Gebert, Krista and Odell, Susan. 2007. A Descriptive Analysis of Change in Eligibility Status
for the USDA Forest Service’s Economic Recovery Program. 35 p.

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2002. Idaho Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP),

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2007a. Idaho motorbike/ATV registration
statistics 2002-2006.http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/
assets/content/docs/Registration/06MotorbikeATVRegs.pdf

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2007b. Idaho snowmobile registration
designation statistics 2003-2007.
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Registration/07snowmobile.pdf

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2007c. Idaho Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism Plan (SCORTP), 2006-2010.
http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/assets/content/docs/Comp Planning/Final Plan 2006-
2010.pdf>.

IDPR (Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation). 2008. OHV
education.http://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/recreation/ohveducation.aspx

Minnnesota IMPLAN Group 2003. IMPLAN Pro Version 2.0 User’s Guide, Analysis Guide,
Data Guide. 418pp.

Roper ASW 2004,

Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. 2003. Outdoor recreation in America.
http://www.sgma.com/associations/5119/files/Outdoor 2003.pdf




                                           60
Stokowski, P.A.; LaPointe, C.B.; 2000. Environmental and Social Effects of ATVs and ORVs:
An Annotated Bibliography and Research Assessment, November 2000. Burlington VT: School
of Natural Resources, University of Vermont. 32 p.

Stynes, Daniel J. and Eric M. White. 2004. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, 2002
Update. Joint venture agreement between the USDA Forest Service, Inventory and
Monitoring Institute and Michigan State University.

Stynes, Daniel J. and Eric M. White. 2005. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors,
NVUM Four Year Report. 44pp.

USDA Forest Service. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project,, and United
States. Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Economic and social conditions of communities
economic and social characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin communities and an estimation of
effects on communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River Basin
draft environmental impact statements : a report. Walla Walla, Wash.: Interior Columbia Basin
Ecosystem Management Project.

USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 2002. Nez Perce National Forest, National Visitor Use
Monitoring Results, Data collected CY 2000 and FY 2006. February 2009

White, Eric M. and Daniel J. Stynes, 2010. Updated Spending Profiles for National Forest
Recreation Visitors by Activity. 40pp.




                                           61

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:5/16/2012
language:English
pages:61
fanzhongqing fanzhongqing http://
About