117 



(1) High challenge. Counties with (a) loss of wood products employment between 

 1988 and 1992 that was equal to or greater than four percent of the total county 

 employment, (b) which had not added back at least two non-wood products jobs for every 

 job lost in the wood products industry, and (c) which had experienced a loss of average 

 employment earnings in the same period (average earnings growth was less than the 18 

 percent cost of living increase during this five-year interval). 



(2) Moderate challenge. Counties with (a) loss of wood products employment between 

 1988 and 1992 that was equal to or greater than four percent of the total county 

 employment, and (b) which had not added back at least two non-wood products jobs for 

 every job lost in the wood products industry. 



(3) Low challenge. Counties with (a) loss of wood products employment between 

 1988 and 1992 that was two percent or greater but less than four percent of the total county 

 employment, (b) which had not added back at least two non-wood products jobs for every 

 job lost in the wood products industry, and (c) which had experienced a loss of average 

 employment earnings in the same period (average earnings growth was less than the 18 

 percent cost of living increase during this five-year interval). 



(4) No challenge. Counties with loss of wood products employment between 1988 and 

 IS'92 that was less than two percent of the total county employment. 



Table 3 summarizes the relationship between the challenge of economic 

 revitalization and reliance on the wood products industry. Six of the eight highly or 

 moderately challenged counties were classified as relying most heavily on federal wood 

 supplies. Nine of the 15 counties facing a low to high economic challenge were also typed 

 as federally reliant. None of the densely populated or low density, non-wood products 

 rural counties face economic challenges related to decline in the wood products industry 

 (although there may be other causes for loss of income or jobs). Counties facing the 

 greatest challenges in revitalizing their economies are concentrated in southwest Oregon 

 where reliance on federal wood supplies has been greatest Similarly, counties most 

 challenged in Washington State are those that have been most reliant on federal wood 

 supplies, especially Skamania and Klickitat Identifiable economic challenges associated 

 with decline of the wood products industry in California are limited to Plumas County. 



Challenges faced by local communities within counties were overlooked by this 

 rating system, since it focused on the aggregate economic conditions of counties. Of 

 particular concern are highly challenged communities in counties where aggregate data 

 show a very low challenge of economic revitalization. The Oregon State Economic 

 Development Department has developed a trial method for rating communities as 

 "Distressed Areas" (see above), but gathering employment data by Zip Codes does not 

 provide reliable sources of community-level data for communities in the three-state region. 



There are several examples of counties where county-level information masks 

 substantial challenges of economic revitalization at the local level. Some of the most 

 noteworthy cases of communities facing high challenges are Forks in Clallam County, 

 Washington, and Aberdeen/Hoquium in Grays Harbor, Washington. Both have shown 

 signs of severe social and economic dislocation following the withdrawal of federal wood 

 supplies. A notable case in Oregon are the small wood-producing towns along the North 

 Fork of the Santiam River in Marion County. Social and economic conditions in these 

 communities eire even more challenging than most in neighboring and highly challenged 

 Linn County. In northern California, Hayfork and other small counties in Trinity County 

 illustrate how local conditions can be far more severe than indicated by county averages. 



