In the view of this forest supervisor, the solution is more landscape-scale decisions (which we have discussed a few times, like here), and more categorical exclusions (which we have discussed a few times, like here.) But his deliberate effort to cut corners with the public is getting pushback from all sides.
All sides agreed that more details were needed to assess the impacts and justifications for the proposals. They wanted to know where projects would occur, and how and when they would be carried out. In short, they felt like Mark was going about this the wrong way.
After receiving that community feedback — and seeing other national forests get sued for similar landscape-level categorical exclusions — Mark put a pause on the proposals. “Some people are uncomfortable, and I knew that coming in,” he said. “But I guarantee you get another (fire) that’s threatening this ridge with a smoke cloud that’s 30,000 feet in the air, I know you’re going to be uncomfortable.”
(To me, that feels a little bit like extortion.)
And then there is this – what I think of as the “bake sale” approach to forest management:
As part of the process, the Forest Service often offers large, fire-resistant trees — which are more valuable because of their size and tight grain — as an incentive for companies to bid on the thinning that, in many cases, is a sale’s true objective. “Something’s got to carry the load,” Mark said. “Otherwise, you’re not going to be able to sell the sale and you won’t get anything done.”
I suppose there is authority somewhere for the Forest Service to cut down trees because they are the most valuable, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a forest plan say this (and it’s sure contrary to pursuing ecological integrity).
Some interesting commentary on competing collaboration efforts in the article, too.
Bird is still declining.. have we learned anything? (original caption on TSW file photo)
This is what has happened to northern spotted owls north of the Canadian border without an Endangered Species Act. Could this happen here?
Spotted owls have all but vanished from B.C., the only place they were found in Canada. Biologists estimate there were once 1,000 spotted owls in southwestern B.C.’s old-growth forests of Douglas fir, western hemlock and western red cedar.
Today, following the destruction and fragmentation of much of their habitat, only three spotted owls are known to exist in the province’s wild. Until the breeding pair was discovered in the Spuzzum Valley, the three were thought to be individuals with no offspring.
“The northern spotted owl is back from the dead in Canada — where once there was a flat line there is now a shimmer of hope,” Foy said. “What Canada does next in the way of protecting habitat may just tip the balance in favour of life.”
The B.C. government has repeatedly said captive-bred spotted owls will be re-introduced to the wild. But not a single captive-bred owl has been released since the breeding program began more than a decade ago.
Pepper-Smith said the Spuzzum Valley spotted owl pair represents the only proven option for maintaining the wild population, given there is no evidence that owls raised at the breeding facility can be successfully introduced to the wild.
“This is the last known breeding pair — and I think it’s hard to over emphasize how important it is that they continue to survive and breed,” Pepper-Smith said in an interview.
In June, The Narwhal reported that the B.C. forests ministry issued more than 300 logging approvals — totalling almost 2,000 hectares — in the spotted owl’s range between October 2018 and May 2020.
An agreement to delay logging of an old-growth stand of British Columbia forest has given a one-year reprieve to one of Canada’s most endangered species.
But governments now have to come up with a permanent way to protect the vanishing spotted owl and other endangered species in the province, said Kegan Pepper-Smith of Ecojustice, which has been pushing the federal government on the issue.
B.C. claims about 281,000 hectares of protected spotted owl habitat. Pepper-Smith disputes that, saying much of that land is subject to logging.
It’s always interesting to compare how California, Oregon and Washington deal with forest issues. A new process in Oregon deals with developing a Habitat Conservation Plan for private forests by bringing all parties into a collaborative discussion with mediation, and then ultimately passing a bill in the State Legislature. It’s also interesting that as reported “by signing off on the memorandum, the parties agreed to stand down from pursuing legal challenges to the issues while the negotiation process is still ongoing.” But I guess that both sides have the opportunity to litigate afterwards? It will be interesting to watch how all this plays out.
— Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced the first of a series of negotiations Wednesday in a collaborative effort between conservation leaders, fishing organizations and forestry representatives to adapt statewide forest practices.
Brown brokered an agreement between the conservation groups and timber products entities in February 2020 to forgo a divisive ballot initiative battle in favor of “collaboratively developed changes to forest practices,” instituted through legislative efforts, according to a release from the governor’s office. These efforts are aimed at creating new protections for sensitive aquatic species on over 10 million acres of private forestland in Oregon without impairing the state’s timber industry.
“In the past year––despite the disruptions of a global pandemic and historic wildfire devastation which made face-to-face meetings very difficult––this group has made steady progress in establishing common ground,” Brown said in a written statement. “Together, we can build a future for Oregon with healthy forests, fish, and wildlife and economic growth for our forest industry and rural communities at the same time.”
The negotiations between the stakeholders could be finalized in a statewide “Habitat Conservation Plan” from federal agencies for threatened and endangered species. State lawmakers hope the cooperatively developed plan will lead to long-term conservation benefits for the state’s wildlife while establishing greater regulatory certainty for landowners.
The state’s strategy for addressing the concerns and priorities of the involved parties was outlined in a memorandum which was mediated and released by the governor’s office. In the memorandum, the parties agreed they have incentive to reach a compromise on the “historically difficult issues” and that “any compromise must be built on mutual trust and respect.”
“Oregon’s forests are a precious resource that provide extraordinary beauty and recreational opportunities and a source of good, year-round employment and economic opportunity for small, family-owned businesses,” Heath Curtiss of Hampton Lumber said in a written statement. “Our goal is to ensure a vibrant and sustainable Oregon forest products industry, now and into the future, while avoiding the tragic community losses we saw in rural Oregon when federal forest harvest plummeted.”
Curtiss continued, “It will be delicate work, but if we focus on good science, specific problem statements, and the least burdensome measures to help remedy those problems, we’ll get there. It will require compromise on all sides, and a recognition that forestry is only one piece of the puzzle.”
Consequently, the parties hope to come to an agreement that ensures greater business certainty for forest landowners and industries and greater environmental certainty for the protection of threatened and endangered species and “aquatic resources,” according to the memorandum.
Simply put, the conservation entities want advanced protections for drinking water and wildlife and the business entities do not want these changes to compromise the state’s manufacturing infrastructure.
Further, the memorandum outlines a new process for resolving subsequent conflicts. By signing off on the memorandum, the parties agreed to stand down from pursuing legal challenges to the issues while the negotiation process is still ongoing.
One of the many things that went into the Trump dump the last couple of weeks was the amendment of the Forest Service Eastside Screens old growth protection standard: “Forest Management Direction for Large Diameter Trees in Eastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington.” We discussed that at length here. The Forest Service documentation for the amendment is here. The standard prohibiting harvest of trees >21” dbh has been replaced by this guideline (“LOS” is late and old structure, and it refers to “multi-stratum with large trees” and “single-stratum with large trees”):
Outside of LOS, many types of timber sale activities are allowed. The intent is still to maintain and/or enhance a diverse array of LOS conditions in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible, by adhering to the following plan components: Managers should retain and generally emphasize recruitment of old trees and large trees, including clumps of old trees. Management activities should first prioritize old trees for retention and recruitment. If there are not enough old trees to develop LOS conditions, large trees should be retained, favoring fire tolerant species where appropriate. Old trees are defined as having external morphological characteristics that suggest an age ≥ 150 years. Large trees are defined as grand fir or white fir ≥ 30 inches dbh or trees of any other species ≥ 21 inches dbh. Old and large trees will be identified through best available science. Management activities should consider appropriate species composition for biophysical environment, topographical position, stand density, historical diameter distributions, and Adapting the Wildlife Standard of the Eastside Screens 5 spatial arrangements within stands and across the landscape in order to develop stands that are resistant and resilient to disturbance.
The proper way to read a guideline is that its purpose is a standard: “Managers must maintain and/or enhance a diverse array of LOS conditions in stands subject to timber harvest as much as possible.” It’s not clear to me how you maintain LOS “outside of LOS,” so maybe only “enhance” is applicable, but even that term assumes what you are enhancing is already there to a degree. This is also weakened by the qualifier “as much as possible.” This could be interpreted to allow timber harvest even if enhancing LOS conditions is not possible.
The rest of the boldface language should be interpreted as actions that would always be allowed because they would always promote the LOS purpose. This means that a decision to NOT retain all old and large trees could only be made if it is demonstrated that LOS is enhanced. “Generally emphasize” allows probably unlimited discretion regarding recruitment. A decision to NOT prioritize old trees (i.e. to log any old tree before logging large trees) could also only be made if it is demonstrated that LOS is enhanced. This could be reasonably effective, but it puts a significant burden on project analysis and documentation to deviate from the terms of the guideline. This is as it should be. The last part of the guideline lists things that “should be considered,” which shouldn’t be given much weight.
There are also changes in standards and guidelines for snags, green tree replacement and down logs.
The last part of the “decision” is to adopt an “Adaptive Management Strategy.” This strategy proposes monitoring and thresholds intended to trigger additional restrictions on large tree removal:
If large trees are not increasing in number with appropriate composition, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across the whole analysis area or by national forest or potential vegetation zone.
If effectiveness monitoring does not occur, the Regional Forester will impose the Age Standard Alternative across all six national forests.
However, under the Planning Rule, these are not plan components and are not mandatory. While there are “requirements” for regional forester review every five years, this is not a plan component either. Since none of this “strategy” is enforceable it is of much less benefit than if it had been included as plan components like standards.
(For those interested in how the “natural range of variation” (NRV) is used in forest planning, there is a desired condition for the amounts of LOS in different habitat groups and it is based on NRV. These new amendments leave in place the desired conditions for LOS previously determined in accordance with the original amendments in 1995. An appendix in the decision notice includes a “Table 3” that is “only an example” of NRV because, “The number and kind of biophysical environments and the historic and current distribution of structural conditions vary by landscape.” In order to fully understand the effects of this amendment on a particular landscape, we would need to see the definitions of LOS and actual desired conditions for LOS incorporated into a plan for that landscape. I didn’t find them in or see them referred to in the amendment documentation, I suppose because they are not changing).
I’ve been wondering if there is a straightforward answer to the question of how to best manage forest lands to sequester carbon for the foreseeable future to reduce potential climate change impacts. We’ve beaten around that bush a few times, such as here.
I thought such an answer might be found in the kind of forest management activities carbon offset programs are willing to pay for. I recently ran across this example, which describes two new programs for small forest landowners.
“Forest carbon projects have historically faced skepticism around their additionality and potential for leakage — that is, the shifting of tree removals to nearby acreage. The concern is that despite paying a landowner to keep trees on one parcel, the same number will simply be removed elsewhere, resulting in a null offset with no net change in carbon storage. Yet SilviaTerra believes this problem can be addressed by creating a market in which all landowners are eligible to receive carbon payments as an alternative to timber revenues… Payments are scaled to target the timeframe when forests have matured to a point of likely timber harvest… SilviaTerra believes that timber harvest deferrals hold the potential for removing over a billion tons of atmospheric carbon within the United States in the coming decade, or 4.3 billion tons globally.”
SilviaTerra is paying landowners to not harvest mature trees now, and presumably they would continue to do that indefinitely for a parcel because, (according to this article on the carbon value of old forests), “We now know that the concept of overmature forest stands, used by the timber industry in reference to forest products, does not apply to carbon.” The Family Forest Carbon Program pays for “improved forest management practices,” “such as removal of invasive species or limiting thinning.” Both seem to treat the answer to my question as obvious – the best management for carbon is “don’t cut down trees.”
Here is what the Forest Service has had to say about the best available science. This 2017 General Technical Report covers a lot of the pros and cons and questions and considerations and reservations that we have previously discussed, such as wood products, wood energy and fire risk, but if the goal is to “maintain and increase carbon stocks,” the best answer appears to be “decrease carbon loss:”
“Decreasing the intensity of forest harvest is one way to decrease carbon losses to the atmosphere (McKinley et al. 2011, Ryan et al. 2010). Across diverse forest systems, the “no harvest” option commonly produces the highest forest carbon stocks (Creutzburg et al. 2015, Nunery and Keeton 2010, Perez-Garcia et al. 2007).”
The Report was written for a broad audience of landowners and managers, so it also discusses options for managed stands:
“Managed stands typically have lower levels of forest biomass than unmanaged stands, even though the annual rate of sequestration may be higher in a younger forest. In managed forests, reducing harvest intensity, lengthening harvest rotations, and increasing stocking or retention levels will generally increase the amount of carbon stored within forest ecosystem carbon pools in the absence of severe disturbance (D’Amato et al. 2011, Harmon 2001, Harmon and Marks 2002, McKinley et al. 2011, Taylor et al. 2008b).”
However, they also provide caveats and qualifiers associated with obtaining overall carbon benefits from any strategy that removes trees, which make it clear this would likely be a second-best strategy for carbon sequestration.
With regard to national forests, the Report recognizes the role of NFMA and forest plan revisions:
“Assuming carbon is one of these key ecosystem services, the plan should describe the desired conditions for carbon in the plan area that may vary by management or geographic area. In developing plan objectives, the interdisciplinary team should consider the linkage between carbon and how plan objectives would contribute to carbon storage or sequestration. Standards and guidelines may also be needed to achieve desired outcomes for carbon.”
We shouldn’t have to just assume the importance of carbon sequestration, since that is a decision a forest plan could make. With an incoming administration that has said it would integrate climate change into everything it does, a good question to ask them would be why should the Forest Service not establish in its forest plans the desired outcome to “maintain and increase carbon stocks.” This should create a presumption or default that trees should not be removed unless the Forest Service can demonstrate scientifically that it would improve carbon sequestration (apparently difficult to do), or if it would meet some other goal that the planning process has determined is a higher priority than climate change (such as public safety). Climate change mitigation has typically been diverted to a side-channel during forest planning, but there doesn’t seem to be any excuse now for why at least managing for carbon sequestration isn’t mainstream.
“Use every damn tool you’ve got,” he said. “If we could have beavers on crack out there I’d be donating to that process — anything that will speed up the pace and scale of this thing.”
This webinar may be of interest. It seems like some academics are saying we shouldn’t cut trees for carbon reasons, while others are saying we should cut them and use them instead of other products, and that will be better for reducing carbon in the atmosphere. As we’ve discussed here a number of times. Mass timber also has the possibility of changing the conversation as it can use smaller diameter material. If that could become commercially feasible in dry western forests, the conversation could change around “fuel treatments would be OK if the FS didn’t take big trees, but the FS is tempted to take out too many big trees to make a sale commercially feasible.”
In the description it says that “the majority of future population growth will occur in cities.” I don’t think that we know that.. in our area, people are moving from other states to get more open space due to Covid. Changes like working at home, buying online and so on may make cities less attractive. I guess at this point in time it’s hard to tell if Covid is a blip on the screen of trends, or somehow a reset button for how we live and work. If anyone is available to watch this and write a summary, please send to me. Here’s a link to registration
This virtual conference is co-convened by the Hixon Center for Urban Ecology, Yale School of Architecture, Yale School of the Environment, and the Center for Industrial Ecology and will focus on the potential of mass timber as a primary building material in cities. There is growing evidence that replacing traditional urban building materials such as steel and concrete with mass timber has multiple benefits, ranging from reduced environmental impacts to structural resilience and cost savings. In fact, using mass timber at scale in urban areas offers the chance for much needed short term carbon emission reductions in the building sector; the majority of future population growth will occur in urban areas, and most of the buildings to host this growing population still need to be built. A transition from mineral to biogenic building materials then offers a double carbon benefit, the upstream carbon savings in material production and the long-term carbon storage over a building’s lifetime. This half-day conference will explain the potential of mass timber and how it differs from other construction (session 1) before it explores the environmental implications of substituting building materials (session 2).
At 1:30 ET they’ll have this session, which looks particularly interesting.
Session 2: The implications of material selection in building design on the carbon budget
This session presents the carbon benefits of biogenic building materials in urban areas compared to current steel and concrete applications, discusses to what extent existing forests could meet a potentially sharp increase in timber demand, and the importance of sustainable end-of-life management options for mass timber applications, namely component reuse and recycling. As an alternative path towards low-carbon buildings it will also discuss the potential of novel low-carbon technologies for steel and concrete to become less carbon-intensive materials.
Recent posts in this blog have advocated cessation or reduction of logging as a cure for poor water quality, erosion and other problems that may occur with timber harvesting. The three decade nationwide decline in timber harvesting on our national forests has been a long-term test of the validity of this proposal. This de facto experiment has revealed the critical need for more active management of the timber resource.
While this 30 year decline occurred nationwide, the impacts have been most severe in the West.
Figure 1 graphically depicts the changes that occurred on western forests during this period of limited harvest.
In the west in the early 1990s the United States Forest Service was cutting about 40% of the growth while 30% died.
In 2016 the USFS in the west cut 7% of the growth while 75% died.
Fig. 1
Figure 1 tells its story clearly and succinctly. On a more localized scale, Figure 2 reveals the recent condition of the timber resources in the Northern Region of the U.S. Forest Service (R-1). It is an example of the how this involuntary virtual shut-down of logging is playing out in the real world.
The results are clear: a tiny cut, massive mortality, and negative net growth.
The enormous economic and social impacts of this operational shift have been documented extensively elsewhere.
However, the effect of widespread tree mortality on climate change often is overlooked. The large reduction in oxygen producing leaf area plus the addition of a huge volume of decomposing (CO2 generating) dead trees only can accelerate this unfolding global calamity.
The solution to these problems is not less management but better management: the universal use of Better Management Practices and the corrections of the many causes of management impotence.
Among the most frequently cited of these causes are:
under-funding
over-regulation (a tangle of shifting, restrictive, unclear, and often conflicting laws, regulations, executive orders, written and unwritten policies, and judicial mandates)
serial litigation
over planning and analysis (appeal-proofing proposals and reports)
A combined effort by timber interests, the environmental community and the USFS aimed at removing these impediments could be a productive strategy moving towards prudent husbandry of our public lands.
Logging opponents are urged to study the charts and consider their implications. Comments would be welcomed.
On the site, you can hover over the line on each graph and get the value for each year.
Thanks (or maybe not) to Steve Wilent for sending me down the curious Timber Data trail with his post on the three letters on Montana timber sales here. He simply asked “does anyone know the facts?”. I thought naively, “how hard could it be to get no-bid and sale data from the Forest Service? After all, the latter is all to be found in cut and sold reports, right?
With regard to the Garrity letter, there were two specific claims of interest, one about no-bid, and one about the percentage increase in timber volume sold. This all can be very confusing, so I tried my best to dig down into it.
Here’s Garrity’s original paragraph:
In fact, the “supply” from national forests is more than just good. Last year the Forest Service received no bids on 17.5% of the timber it offered, up from 15.6% that received no bids in 2018. That’s 615 million board feet that weren’t cut in 2019 because the timber industry did not bid on it. The truth is that Region 1 of the Forest Service, which includes Montana, has increased the amount of timber offered by 141% in the last 10 years and the cost to taxpayers continues to climb to staggering heights.
The way the Garrity letter is written, it was unclear (to me and some others) that Garrity was talking about national no-bid figures and regional offer figures. I currently have an information request in with the WO.
And here is the post about Region 1’s no-bid sales.
Going on to Garrity’s second claim.
“The truth is that Region 1 of the Forest Service, which includes Montana, has increased the amount of timber offered by 141% in the last 10 years and the cost to taxpayers continues to climb to staggering heights.”
Garrity is talking about timber offered. Region 1 provided info about timber sold in their reply.
Looking at the data, we sold 161% more volume in 2019 (409.2 million board feet) vs. 2010 (253.4 million board feet). Comparing one specific year to another is seldom informative in my view as each year can fluctuate for any number of reasons (market factors, litigation, budgets, targets, fire seasons, etc).
What’s more helpful is trends. Over the past 20 years, and by extension the previous 10, the amount of volume sold annually in the Region has increased incrementally. This is one of many indicators of the efforts underway, and success being achieved, in the Agency and Region to increase the pace and scale of restoration efforts to address wildfire risk, forest health, and other vegetation objectives. If the reasons for no bids was due to lack of capacity or demand from mills, you would expect to see an increase in volume going no bid as the amount sold increases. Clearly in the other set of data provided, this is not the case.
My bold.
Another interesting thing is how Garrity and Region 1 both talk about increases, e.g. “161% more volume”. In the case of the 2010 and 2019 numbers, I’d tend to subtract 253.4 from 409.2 and say they had a 61% increase in volume from 2010.
Now, looking at the actual data from R-1 is interesting, and despite my pleas, I could find no volunteers willing to help me pluck the right numbers out of Excel for a graph. Hereis the spreadsheet as is.
Here are the numbers for Region 1 from their spreadsheet of MMBF sold:
I think it’s interesting to look at raw data instead of percentages. It looks like quite some year-to-year variation, as stated in the R-1 reply above, (e.g. 2005, 2009), with a definite increasing trend starting in 2014. One of the problems with these data is that it’s hard for many of us to imagine what the difference between 310 and 355 (for example) MMBF might look like in terms of area or trees or …. Again, maybe some timber experts can help us out.
HOWEVER, in talking to Mark Haggerty of Headwaters Economics about PILT and SRS figures, following up on the Oregonian/OPB/Propublica article, he clued me in to a wonderful presentation of timber data that Headwaters provides to the public via an interactive map (yay, Headwaters!). A problem is that the handy graphs by region show only sold, not offered, so can’t be compared to Garrity’s claims.
I also compared the Region 1 spreadsheet and the Headwaters info for 2018 Idaho and they did not seem to match. Region 1 has Idaho sold 148.2, and Headwaters has 205.2, as far as I can tell. I am hoping some timber data expert can come to my rescue in explaining what seems to be a discrepancy, or that Headwaters and the Forest Service will look into this.
***************
Yes, this is a wandering trail. It started with Steve’s question about no-bid. We’re still waiting with the FS-WO on national no-bid.
Region 1 gave us all the data on sold, but Garrity was talking about offer, so we couldn’t compare those figures.
We have a great spreadsheet with all kinds of useful data from R-1.
Headwaters has a great and easy to use interactive map of cut and sold reports.
As far as I can tell so far, until someone helps me out here, they do not entirely match (R-1 and Headwaters).
Would really appreciate some help from The Smokey Wire timber experts.. you know who you are.
Some of the photos in this OOPro story seem unusually dark. There also look to be many sticks in this barren industrial forest. Is that really a sapling?
As my professors used to say when I’d critique something… “if you’d written the paper, you could have done it your way.” Even if we agree on facts, calculations, or projections, they don’t necessarily lead to only one possible narrative. One of the things I like to do on TWS is to explore different ways of looking at the same facts. So let’s look at the OPB/Oregonian/Propublica piece titled Big Money Bought the Forests:Small Logging Communities are Paying the Price.
In this case, the numbers aren’t really “facts” but calculations. I’m not enough of an economist to dig in to how they were calculated, but Here’s a link to a piece describing it.
I will say this, though. The tagline on the webpage is “A data investigation by OPB, The Oregonian/OregonLive and ProPublica found that timber tax cuts have cost counties at least $3 billion in the past three decades”, but they also later explain, adding “Since then, the department estimates the total loss from forestland property taxes to be about $806 million.” Since most states tax agricultural and forest land at lower rates, I’m not sure that adding this amount in is appropriate for this analysis, so I’ll call it “severance+.” Here’s Polk County’s explanation of the farm and forest deferrals.
I copied the analysis, and calculated a difference and a ratio of fed/severance+ losses for each county. It would be appreciated if someone would check my figures. After a while of looking at them, I wondered if the differentials (between fed and severance+ losses) could be attributed to the proportion of federal to private land in each county. I couldn’t find that, but I could find the % public land here. A problem with that data for our use here is that State land is also included. Even so, there seems to be a high correlation between bad impacts to counties with lots of federal land from the fed payment loss, and bad impacts to counties with lots of private land from the severance+ tax loss. If someone has just the federal land %, I will fix the table.
You could conclude, as the authors did, that half the counties did just as badly from severance as they had from federal payment loss.
Half of the 18 counties in Oregon’s timber-dominant region lost more money from tax cuts on private forests than from the reduction of logging on federal lands, the investigation shows.
You could conclude that taken across counties, more was lost to Oregon counties from lost federal payments than from severance+.
You could conclude that some counties have had a really bad double whammy. Douglas, Lane and Linn. It would have been interesting to interview people in those counties.
But I haven’t lived in Oregon for a long time, and never on the west side, so I’m hoping others will weigh in with other ideas and conclusions.
Estimated Revenue Losses in Oregon’s Western Counties Since 1991
Est Fed Payment Loss
Est Severance+ Tax Loss
Difference
Ratio Fed/Sev
%Public Land
Benton
$51.7m
$85.0m
-$33m
.60
24.4
Clackamas
$252.4m
$94.1
$158.3
2.68
54.5
Clatsop *
$-334.7k
$170m
-$170.3
?
29
Columbia
$29.9m
$135m
-$105.1
.22
8
Coos
$88.2m
$208.9m
-$120.7
.42
28.8
Curry
$162.1m
$63.8
$98.3
2.54
61.7
Douglas
$968.7m
$355.0m
$613.7
2.72
52.2
Hood River
$68.2m
$13.7m
$54.5
4.97
74.9
Jackson
$414.6m
$72.4m
$342.2
5.72
52.1
Josephine
$223.9m
$21.1m
$202.8
10.61
68
Lane
$981.1m
$368.4m
$612.7
2.66
58.5
Lincoln
$108.3m
$122.1m
$-13.8
.88
34.6
Linn
$287.0m
$189.6m
$97.4
1.51
39.6
Marion
$116.3m
$51.8m
$64.5
2.25
29.2
Polk
$28.7m
$106.0m
-$77.3
.27
11.9
Tillamook
$63.6m
$72.1m
-$8.5
.88
73
Washington
$9.1m
$93.4m
-83.9
.10
14.8
Yamhill
$25.3m
$82.2m
-56.9
.31
16.5
$1607.9
*Clatsop County’s federal payments are estimated to have increased slightly since 1991.
