Pacific Northwest

Research Station

Forest 

Service

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

General Technical Report

PNW-GTR-675

July 2006

Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay 

District and Three Local Communities

Northwest

Forest Plan

The First 10 Years (1994–2003)

Rebecca J. McLain, Lisa Tobe, Susan Charnley, Ellen M. Donoghue, 

and Cassandra Moseley
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national 

grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to 

a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Rebecca J. McLain is a policy analyst, Institute for Culture and Ecology, P.O. Box 6688, 

Portland, OR 97228-6688; Lisa Tobe is a social science researcher, Women’s Mountain 

Passages, P.O. Box 798, Quincy, CA 95971; Susan Charnley is an anthropologist and 

Ellen M. Donoghue is a sociologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208; and Cassandra 

Moseley is a political scientist, University of Oregon, 130 Hendricks Hall, Eugene, OR 

97403-5247.

This work was performed under PNW 03-JV-11261975-164.

Cover photographs by Frank Vanni.
Northwest Forest Plan—The 

First 10 Years (1994–2003): 

Socioeconomic Monitoring of 

Coos Bay District and Three 

Local Communities

Rebecca J. McLain, Lisa Tobe, Susan Charnley, 

Ellen M. Donoghue, and Cassandra Moseley

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-675

July 2006
ii

Abstract

McLain, Rebecca J.; Tobe, Lisa; Charnley, Susan; Donoghue, Ellen M.; Moseley, 

Cassandra; 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring of Coos Bay District and three local communities. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-675. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 144 p.

This case study examines the socioeconomic changes that took place between 1990 and 

2000 in and around lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay 

District in southwestern Oregon for purposes of assessing the effects of the Northwest 

Forest Plan (the Plan) on rural economies and communities in the Coos Bay region. The 

case study included an analysis of changes in the district’s programs, as well as socioeconomic changes that occurred within the communities of Coos Bay, Myrtle Point, and 

Reedsport. Data were gathered during 2003 and 2004 from multiple sources including 

U.S. census databases, county and state criminal justice and economic development 

databases, and BLM annual reports. Interviews with BLM employees and community 

residents provided additional insights on how the Plan affected local socioeconomic 

conditions and the district’s interactions with local communities. 

The study indicates that by the time the record of decision for the Plan was signed, 

the Coos Bay region’s timber sector had already lost a substantial portion of the wood 

products processing capacity and employment opportunities. Additionally, the changes in 

socioeconomic conditions that took place in the mid and late 1990s—an outflow of younger 

workers, inmigration of older workers and retirees, school closures, increased levels of 

educational attainment, declines in manufacturing sectors, and expansion of the services 

sector—are changes that took place during the same period in rural communities across 

much of the Western United States. It is thus likely that the types of overall socioeconomic 

changes observed in the Coos Bay region between 1990 and 2004 would have occurred 

with or without the Plan. 

Owing to legal challenges, the Coos Bay District was unable to provide a steady and 

predictable supply of timber from 1994 onward. District foresters shifted their focus toward 

developing thinning techniques for density management of stands less than 80 years old. 

Barring legal action, sales from these younger stands will enable the district to provide a 

predictable supply of smaller diameter timber in future years. In the post-Plan years, the 

Coos Bay District also significantly expanded its capacity to carry out multiple-use land 

management. It played a key role in community-based watershed restoration and recreation 

and tourism development efforts. As a result, the district is now in a much better position to 

provide the public, including residents of local communities, with a broad array of forest 

values and opportunities (i.e., improved fish habitat, more recreation sites, more cultural 

sites, etc.). Key factors in the success of post-Plan community-district partnerships included 

ongoing and substantial support from upper level leadership, a stable district budget (in 

marked contrast to the budget declines in neighboring national forests), and a relatively 

stable staffing level (in contrast to the downsizing that occurred in neighboring national 

forests). 

Keywords: Social assessment, economic assessment, regional planning, rural 

development, Coos Bay.
iii

Preface

In the early 1990s, controversy over harvest of old-growth forests led to sweeping 

changes in management of federal forests in western Washington, Oregon, and northwest 

California. These changes were prompted by a series of lawsuits in the late 1980s and 

early 1990s, that effectively shut down federal timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest. In 

response, a Presidential summit was held in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. This summit led 

to issuance by President Clinton of a mandate for federal land management and regulatory 

agencies to work together to develop a plan to resolve the conflict. The President’s guiding 

principles followed shortly after the summit in his Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy 

and Sustainable Environment,1 now called the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan). 

Immediately after the summit, a team of scientists and technical experts were convened to conduct an assessment of options.2 This assessment provided the scientific basis 

for the environmental impact statement and record of decision (ROD)3 to amend Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the 

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). 

The ROD, to be implemented across the 24 million federal acres (9.7 million hectares), 

put in place a whole new approach to federal land management. Key components of the 

ROD included a new map of land use allocations—late-successional reserves, matrix, 

riparian reserves, adaptive management areas, and key watersheds. Plan standards and 

guidelines provided the specific management direction regarding how these land use 

allocations were to be managed. In addition, the Plan put in place a variety of strategies 

and processes to be implemented. These included adaptive management, an aquatic 

conservation strategy, late-successional reserve and watershed assessments, survey and 

manage, an interagency organization, social and economic mitigation initiatives, and 

monitoring. 

Monitoring provides a means to address the uncertainty of our predictions and 

compliance with forest management laws and policy. The ROD clearly states that 

monitoring is essential and required: 

Monitoring is an essential component of the selected alternative. It ensures that 

management actions meet the prescribed standards and guidelines and that they 

comply with applicable laws and policies. Monitoring will provide information 

to determine if the standards and guidelines are being followed, verify if they are 

achieving the desired results, and determine if underlying assumptions are sound. 

1Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A., Jr. 1993. The Forest Plan for a sustainable economy and a sustainable 

environment. In: Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.; Moriwaki, C.B. 1996. The 

Northwest Forest Plan: a report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Office of Forestry and Economic Assistance: 231–238. App. A.

2Forest Ecosystem Management Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an 

ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. 

Department of the Interior [et al.]. [Irregular pagination].

3U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest 

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 74 p. 
iv

Finally, Judge Dwyer reiterated the importance of monitoring in his 1994 decision 

declaring the Plan legally acceptable:4

Monitoring is central to the [Northwest Forest Plan’s] validity. If it is not funded, 

or done for any reason, the plan will have to be reconsidered.

The ROD monitoring plan provided a very general framework to begin development of 

an interagency monitoring program. It identified key areas to monitor, initial sets of questions, types and scope of monitoring, the need for common protocols and quality assurance, 

and the need to develop a common design framework. In 1995, the effectiveness monitoring 

program plan5 and initial protocols for implementation monitoring6 were approved by the 

Regional Interagency Executive Committee. Approval of the effectiveness monitoring plan 

led to the formation of technical teams to develop the overall program strategy and design7

and monitoring protocols for late-successional and old-growth forests (older forests),8

4Dwyer, W.L. 1994. Seattle Audubon Society, et al. v. James Lyons, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, 

et al. Order on motions for Summary Judgment RE 1994 Forest Plan. Seattle, WA: U.S. District Court, 

Western District of Washington.

5Mulder, B.; Alegria, J.; Czaplewski, R. [et al.]. 1995. Effectiveness monitoring: an interagency program 

for the Northwest Forest Plan. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management [et al.]. Research and Monitoring Committee, 

Regional Ecosystem Office. 51 p. + appendixes.

6Alegria, J.; Hyzer, M.; Mulder, B.; Schnoes, B.; Tolle, T. 1995. Guidance for implementation monitoring 

for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth-related species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. Draft. On file with: Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 

97204.

7Mulder, B.; Noon, B.; Spies, T.; Raphael, M.; Palmer, C.; Olsen, A.; Reeves, G.; Welsh, H. 1999. The 

strategy and design of the effectiveness monitoring program for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-437. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 138 p.

8Hemstrom, M.; Spies, T.; Palmer, C.; Kiester, R.; Teply, J.; McDonald, P.; Warbington, R. 1998. Latesuccessional and old-growth forest effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-438. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 37 p.
v

northern spotted owls,9 marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoraturs),10 tribal,11 and 

watershed condition.12 Socioeconomic monitoring protocols continue to be tested.13

Periodic analysis and interpretation of monitoring data is essential to completing the 

monitoring task. This important step was described in the overall monitoring strategy 

(see footnote 7), and the regional interagency executive committee approved a 5-year 

interpretive reporting cycle. In 2005 and 2006, 10-year reports were published that contain 

the first comprehensive analysis and interpretation of monitoring data since the ROD.

This report is linked to the socioeconomic monitoring 10-year interpretive report 

(see footnote 13). It contains detailed results from one of four case-study areas in which 

local-scale monitoring was conducted to complement regional-scale monitoring, the focus 

of the interpretive report.

9Lint, J.; Noon, B.; Anthony, R.; Forsman, E.; Raphael, M.; Collopy, M.; Starkey, E. 1999. Northern 

spotted owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-440. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 43 p.

10Madsen, S.; Evans, D.; Hamer, T.; Henson, P.; Miller, S.; Nelson, S.K.; Roby, D.; Stapanian, M. 

1999. Marbled murrelet effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-439. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 51 p.

11U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 2002. Tribal monitoring under the Northwest Forest Plan. Interagency executive letter. http://www.reo.gov/. (August 31, 2004).

12Reeves, G.; Hohler, D.; Larsen, D.; Busch, D.; Kratz, K.; Reynolds, K.; Stein, K.; Atzet, T.; Hays, P.; 

Tehan, M. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring for the aquatic and riparian component of the Northwest 

Forest Plan: conceptual framework and options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 71 p.

13Charnley, S., tech. coord. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan: the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 vols.
vi

Executive Summary

In 2003 and 2004, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) commissioned an assessment of the socioeconomic impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan (hereafter, 

the Plan) on rural economies and communities within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

The Forest Service and BLM adopted the Plan in 1994 to address a federal court injunction 

to provide adequate protection for the northern spotted owl, a federally endangered species. 

The Plan was put forth as a solution to a decade of intense controversy over the harvesting 

of old-growth timber on federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. The socioeconomic assessment was commissioned to respond to two socioeconomic monitoring questions posed in 

the Plan record of decision (ROD). The first focused on use levels of natural resources: 

“Are predictable levels of timber and non-timber resources available and being produced?”1

The second evaluation question related to rural economies and communities: “Are local 

communities and economies experiencing positive or negative changes that may be associated with federal forest management?” (see footnote 1).

To answer these two questions, the socioeconomic monitoring team conducted indepth case studies of three national forests (Olympic, Mount Hood, and Klamath) and the 

BLM’s Coos Bay District as well as three communities associated with each of the four 

management units. This report describes case-study results from the Coos Bay District and 

the communities of Greater Coos Bay, Greater Myrtle Point, and Greater Reedsport. Data 

were gathered during 2003 and 2004 from multiple sources including U.S. census databases, county and state criminal justice and economic development databases, and BLM 

annual reports. Interviews with BLM employees and community residents provided additional insights on how the Plan affected local socioeconomic conditions and the district’s 

interactions with local communities. 

The key changes in terms of forest commodity outputs from the Coos Bay District 

between 1994 and 2002 were a tenfold drop in the volume of timber sales and a fourfold 

drop in the volume of salvage and firewood sales. Sales of most nontimber forest products, 

such as floral greens, boughs, and wild mushrooms, were not affected by the Plan. The 

off-take of forage, minerals, and game also did not change substantially. 

Between 1990 and 2000, all three case-study communities experienced sharp declines 

in the number of jobs in manufacturing primarily owing to the loss of jobs in the wood 

products sector. Some of the decline in wood products employment, particularly the loss of 

jobs in small mills that had specialized in processing larger diameter logs originating on 

federal land, is attributable to changes in forest management linked to the Plan. However, 

the contraction in forest-products-related employment within the three communities was 

already in full swing in the 1970s and was linked primarily to mechanization, off-shoring 

of processing operations, and a shift toward the use of smaller diameter wood. Similarly, 

1U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. 

Standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest 

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. Page E-9. 
vii

small mills in the area started to shut down in the 1960s and 1970s, well before the Plan and 

even before the Endangered Species Act. The evidence thus suggests that forest industry 

jobs would have declined and many mills would have shut down in the Coos Bay area during the 1990s regardless of how much timber the district had offered for sale. Nonetheless, 

interviews with community members suggest that if the district had been able to provide 

the maximum permissible allowable sales quantity (ASQ), or a volume close to it, the 

transition would have been more gradual and less disruptive of the overall social fabric. 

In the realm of noncommodity forest uses, the district now offers a much more diverse 

set of opportunities than it did prior to the Plan, particularly in recreation and environmental education. In the 1990s, district recreation employees refurbished existing managed 

recreation sites and added four new sites. They also expanded the miles of maintained trail 

from virtually none prior to the Plan to nearly 30 miles. In addition, the district has greatly 

expanded the number of nationally significant cultural and natural history interpretive 

sites that it operates, typically in partnership with community groups or federal and state 

agencies. Many community members stated that the rehabilitation of existing sites and the 

development of new sites had added an important dimension previously missing from the 

region’s tourism infrastructure. 

Also difficult to quantify, but nonetheless important, are the socioeconomic benefits 

associated with the district’s investments in the production of scientific knowledge about 

local forest and aquatic ecosystems. As a result of the Plan’s survey and manage program, for example, biologists now have a much more detailed understanding of the range 

of plants, bryophytes, fungi, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians present on the 

district’s holdings. These data provide a foundation for scientific management of a broad 

range of forest resources. Likewise, stream surveys and fish population monitoring work 

have provided data necessary for evaluating the effects of watershed restoration techniques. 

In the long run, the capacity to acquire and analyze such data has the potential to improve 

the district’s ability to manage its holdings for multiple forest values. In the short run, 

inventory and monitoring programs have enhanced the quality of interpretive programs 

available to local communities and tourists.

The Coos Bay District’s budget remained relatively stable between 1993 and 2003 

despite the drop in the volume of timber harvested. The number of jobs in the district 

declined in the 1990s, but stabilized at roughly 160 full-time permanent positions in the 

early 2000s. The 15-percent drop in full-time positions was partially compensated for 

through an increase in seasonal jobs. The Coos Bay District thus continued to provide 

nearly 200 high-paying family wage jobs at a time when neighboring Forest Service 

offices experienced substantial workforce reductions. 

Between 1990 and 2000, Greater Coos Bay, Greater Myrtle Point, and Greater 

Reedsport experienced outmigration of younger, largely blue collar workers and families 

and inmigration of older retireees or professional service workers. Unemployment levels 

decreased in the three communities, but the number of individuals living in poverty 

increased. Both Greater Reedsport and Greater Myrtle Point experienced an overall decline 

in population, as well as substantial decreases in school enrollments. Greater Coos Bay, 
viii

which had the most diverse economy of the three communities prior to the Plan, had a 

slight increase in population and school enrollments. The economic structures of the three 

communities also changed substantially during this period, with declines in the manufacturing and wholesale trade sectors and growth in the health and education services sectors. 

These changes mirror trends observed in rural communities throughout the United States. 

It is thus likely that changes of this type would have occurred in these communities with or 

without the Plan, although the Plan may have played a role in accelerating the changes.

The communities of Greater Coos Bay, Greater Myrtle Point, and Greater Reedsport 

benefited from three economic mitigation measures associated with the Plan: Owl payment 

guarantees, Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative (NEAI) grants, and Jobs-in-theWoods (JITW) funding. County payments declined through the mid and late 1990s, but the 

drop occurred gradually rather than all at once because of the owl adjustment payments. In 

2001, the level of county payments nearly doubled as a result of the decoupling of county 

payments from timber receipts under the Secure Rural Schools Act. 

The BLM did not have a program for funding economic diversification through the 

NEAI. However, the district played an important role in helping organizations in Greater 

Coos Bay, Greater Myrtle Point, and Greater Reedsport obtain tens of millions of dollars in 

NEAI funds from other agencies. NEAI funds enabled the communities to develop a variety of locally important projects, such as improvements to the Winchester Bay marina near 

Reedsport, development of a business incubator and computer training programs in North 

Bend and Coos Bay, and the construction of a university extension office in Myrtle Point. 

The district also contributed several million dollars for watershed restoration contracts 

carried out through the JITW program. The majority of these contracts went to locally 

based contractors working independently or through local watershed associations. Although the JITW program employed displaced timber and fishery workers, the number 

of full-time jobs provided was insignificant relative to the demand for woods-based 

employment in all three study communities. 

Owing to legal challenges to the Plan, the Coos Bay District has been unable to provide 

a steady and predictable supply of timber since 1994. To address this issue, district foresters have shifted their management focus toward developing density management sales in 

stands less than 80 years old. Such sales are less likely to be subjected to appeals by environmental groups. The district anticipates that sales from these younger stands will provide 

a predictable supply of smaller diameter timber in future years. In the post-Plan years, the 

Coos Bay District also significantly expanded its capacity to carry out multiple-use land 

management. It played a key role in community-based watershed restoration and recreation 

and tourism development efforts. As a result, the district is now in a much better position 

to provide the public, including residents of local communities, with a broad array of forest 

values and opportunities (i.e., improved fish habitat, more recreation sites, more cultural 

sites, etc.). Key factors in the success of post-Plan community-district partnerships included 

ongoing and substantial support from upper-level leadership, a stable district budget, and a 

relatively stable level of staffing. 
ix

Contents

1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Northwest Forest Plan Socioeconomic Assessment

3 Methods

4 Selection of Case-Study Forests

5 Selection of Case-Study Communities

6 Census Statistics

6 Interviews

7 Archival Data

7 Analysis

8 Limitations of the Study

8 Presentation of Case-Study Findings

11 Chapter 2: The Coos Bay Cluster Area

11 Physiography and Ecology

11 Land Ownership Patterns

11 The Bureau of Land Management, Coos Bay District

12 Other Public Forest Holdings

12 Private and Tribal Forest Holdings

12 Historical Overview

12 The Suppression of Indigenous Cultures: The 1850s

13 Constructing an Industrial Economy: 1850–1900

13 The Rise of an Industrialized Wood Products Economy: 1900–1950

15 Getting Out the Cut: 1950–1990

16 Transitioning to a Services-Oriented Economy: 1980–2004

19 Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Benefits From the District

19 Overview of the Northwest Forest Plan

20 Resource and Recreation Outputs and Investments

20 Timber Resources

22 Nontimber Forest Products

26 Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plants

27 Landscape-Level Planning

29 Range Resources

30 Energy and Minerals

31 Recreation

34 Heritage and Cultural Resources

34 Scenic Quality
x

35 Fire Management

36 Roads

38 Invasive Species

39 Jobs and Income Associated With District Management Activities

39 Changes in the District Budget

40 Changes in District Employment

41 Changes in Contracting

50 Jobs-in-the-Woods and Watershed Restoration

52 Grants

53 Payments to County Governments

56 Collaborative Efforts

57 Volunteer Program

58 Summary and Synthesis

63 Chapter 4: Community-Level Change, 1990–2003

63 Introduction

63 Greater Coos Bay

65 Community Change and the Effects of Forest Management Policy

77 Community Adaptation to Change and the Role of District Assistance

80 Changing Relationships Between the Community and the Coos Bay District

82 Greater Myrtle Point

84 Community Change and the Effects of Forest Management Policy

92 Community Adaptation to Change and the Role of District Assistance

94 Changing Relationships Between the Community and the Coos Bay District

96 Greater Reedsport

97 Community Change and the Effects of Forest Management Policy

104 Community Adaptation to Change and the Role of District Assistance

108 Changing Relationships Between the Community and the Coos Bay District

109 Chapter 5: Communities and Forest Management

109 Collaboration and Joint Stewardship

109 Federally Mandated Collaborative Efforts

110 Community-Based Stewardship Efforts

116 Nature-Based Tourism and Environmental Education

121 District-Tribal Collaborations

122 Incentives for and Challenges to Community Collaboration

122 Protecting Noncommodity Forest Values
xi

122 Environmental Values

124 Recreational/Subsistence/Spiritual/Quality-of-Life Values

124 Issues and Concerns Relating to Forest Management

124 Timber Harvesting Concerns

125 Structure of Contracts

125 Road and Off-Road Access

125 Environmental Protection Concerns

125 BLM’s Ongoing Identity Crisis

125 Local Views of the Plan

125 Ecosystem Management Provisions

126 Retraining and Employment

126 Watershed Restoration

127 NEAI Projects

129 Chapter 6: Meeting the Plan Goals and Expectations

129 Goal 1—Predictable Supply of Products and Opportunities

129 Goal 2—Contribution to Community Stability and Well-Being

130 Goal 3—Promotion of Economic Development and Diversification

131 Goal 4—Protection of Environmental Qualities and Values

131 Goal 5—Collaboration Between Agencies and Communities

133 Chapter 7: Lessons Learned

133 Timber Resources

133 Nontimber Forest Products

134 Noncommodity Forest Values

134 Community Economic Assistance

134 Collaboration

134 Looking Ahead

135 Acknowledgments

135 English Equivalents

135 References

140 Acronyms

141 Appendix A: Interviewees

143 Appendix B: Scientific and Common Names
xii
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Northwest Forest Plan 

Socioeconomic Assessment

This case study was undertaken as part of the Northwest 

Forest Plan Socioeconomic Monitoring Program. It is one 

of four case studies conducted during 2003 for the purpose 

of assessing the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan (the 

Plan) on rural economies and communities within the range 

of the northern spotted owl (see app. B for species scientific 

names). This document is a supplement to Charnley (2006), 

which presents socioeconomic monitoring results for the 

Plan area (i.e., Washington, Oregon, and parts of northern 

California) from 1990 to 2003.1 It contains local details 

about socioeconomic changes that took place between 

1990 and 2000 in and around land managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay District in southwestern Oregon. 

This report centers on identifying the changes that 

took place on the Coos Bay District during the 1990s. The 

report also examines the changes that took place in three 

communities located near the Coos Bay District. The three 

communities include Greater Coos Bay, which encompasses 

Coos Bay, North Bend, and Empire; Greater Reedsport, 

which encompasses Reedsport, Winchester Bay, and 

Gardiner; and Greater Myrtle Point, which encompasses 

the town of Myrtle Point and several outlying settlements 

(see fig. 1). To the extent possible within the financial and 

timing constraints imposed upon the researchers, the study 

also assessed the degree to which the changes occurring on 

the district and in the three communities were related to 

the Plan. 

The USDA Forest Service and BLM adopted the Plan 

in 1994 to address a federal court injunction requiring 

adequate protection for the northern spotted owl (see 

app. B for scientific names), a federally endangered species. 

The Plan was put forth as a solution to a decade of intense 

controversy over the harvesting of old-growth timber on 

federal forests in the Pacific Northwest. This case study 

was developed to respond to two socioeconomic monitoring 

questions posed in the Plan record of decision (ROD). The 

first focuses on use levels of natural resources: “Are predictable levels of timber and non-timber resources available and 

being produced?” (USDA and USDI 1994: E-9). The second 

evaluation question relates to rural economies and communities: “Are local communities and economies experiencing 

positive or negative changes that may be associated with 

federal forest management?” (USDA and USDI 1994: E-9).

The evaluation questions posed in the record of 

decision are based on a set of goals and expectations 

that were associated with the Plan when it was designed. 

One goal was to produce a predictable and sustainable 

supply of timber, nontimber forest resources, and recreation 

opportunities. These would then help meet a second goal: 

to maintain the stability of local and regional economies on 

a predictable and long-term basis (USDA and USDI 1994: 

26), and contribute to community well-being. Third, where 

timber sales could not proceed, the goal was to minimize 

adverse impacts on jobs by assisting with long-term 

economic development and diversification opportunities in 

the rural communities most affected by cutbacks (USDA 

and USDI 1994: 3). The Northwest Economic Adjustment 

Initiative (NEAI) aimed to promote this goal and was 

expected to provide both immediate and long-term relief to 

rural people, businesses, and communities suffering from 

reductions in federal timber harvests (Tuchmann et al. 1996: 

155–156). The fourth socioeconomic goal of the Plan was 

to establish a system of terrestrial and aquatic reserves that 

would protect forest values and environmental qualities 

associated with late-successional forest ecosystems (USDA 

and USDI 1994: 8–10). Fifth, the Plan aimed to usher in a 

new approach to federal forest management. In particular, 

the Plan called for federal agencies to collaborate with one 

another in managing federal forests in the Pacific Northwest (Tuchmann et al. 1996: 6, 44–48). It also emphasized 

1The Plan calls for the Forest Service and BLM to monitor the 

socioeconomic impacts of the Plan. However, the agencies did not 

identify socioeconomic indicators for monitoring, nor did they 

conduct a baseline study of socioeconomic indicators that could 

form the basis of a monitoring effort. In 2001, the Forest Service 

commissioned a pilot study to develop recommendations for how 

the agencies could structure a long-term socioeconomic monitoring program (Jackson et al. 2004). However, implementing the suggested recommendations would have required a level of funding 

not forthcoming from the Forest Service and BLM. Consequently 

the two agencies limited the socioeconomic monitoring portion, 

of which this case is one element, to a one-shot study rather than a 

full-fledged monitoring effort. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Figure 1—Coos Bay District and three case-study communities.

Greater Reedsport

Greater

 Myrtle Point

0 5 10 Miles o

Case-study Bureau of 

 Land Management districts

Case-study community 

 boundaries

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

Major lakes and rivers

 Major roads

Coos Bay District, 

Bureau of Land

Management

Lakeside

Dunes City

Florence

Reedsport

Bandon

Coquille

Myrtle Point

Drain

Yoncalla

Sutherlin

Roseburg

Riddle

Winston

Myrtle

Creek

Eugene Veneta

Elkton

Port Orford

U.S. Highway 101

U.S. Highway 101

Sixes River U.S. Highway 99

Coquille River

Coos Bay

Umpqua River

Siuslaw River

Siuslaw River

Smith River

State Highway 38

I-5

I-5

Greater

 Coos Bay

Charleston Coos

 Bay

North Bend

Greater Reedsport

Greater

 Myrtle Point

Greater

 Coos Bay

Lakeside

Dunes City

Florence

Reedsport

Bandon

Coquille

Myrtle Point

Drain

Yoncalla

Sutherlin

Roseburg

Riddle

Winston

Myrtle

Creek

Eugene Veneta

Elkton

Port Orford

U.S. Highway 101

U.S. Highway 101

Sixes River U.S. Highway 99

Coquille River

Coos Bay

Umpqua River

Siuslaw River

Siuslaw River

Smith River

State Highway 38

I-5

I-5

Charleston Coos

 Bay

North Bend

Powers

Greater Reedsport

Greater

 Myrtle Point
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

greater collaboration in forest management between agencies and citizens (Danks and Haynes 2001: 54).

One component of the monitoring program uses case 

studies to investigate how the Plan has been implemented 

on individual national forests and BLM districts within 

the Plan area. It also examines how the shifts in forest 

management have affected forest users and surrounding 

communities. This document reports the results of one of 

those case studies. Specifically, we looked at how the Plan 

has affected the flow of socioeconomic benefits associated 

with the Coos Bay District. The socioeconomic benefits we 

examined included the production of forest commodities 

(timber, nontimber forest products, grazing, and minerals) 

and forest-based recreation; jobs and income associated 

with the production of forest commodities and recreation; 

agency jobs; contract work focusing on ecosystem management activities; grant money for community economic 

assistance; benefits associated with payments to county 

governments; and opportunities to engage in collaborative 

forest management. 

Methods

The research design and methods adopted in this 

assessment, including the Coos Bay case study, emerged 

in part from the experiences of four of the team members 

with a regional assessment of the NEAI conducted in 

the early 2000s (Kusel et al. 2002). Based on the NEAI 

experience and given the limited time and financial support 

for the project, the team opted for a small sample size 

and a clustered sampling approach to reduce the amount 

of time needed to gather contextual data about the casestudy forests and communities. The extensive field-based 

knowledge that team members involved with the NEAI 

study brought with them of changes that had taken place in 

numerous communities in the Plan region also facilitated 

the development of the community and forest data 

gathering protocols. 

The baseline year for the socioeconomic monitoring 

program is 1990. To answer the first evaluation question 

(Are predictable levels of timber and nontimber resources 

available and being produced?), we obtained quantitative 

and qualitative data on timber sales, special forest products, 

grazing, mining, and recreation from Forest Service and 

BLM databases, planning documents, and resource specialists. All of the monitoring teams associated with the Pacific 

Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program 

were directed to obtain agency data from corporate databases, publications, or other sources available from agency 

national, regional, or state offices, rather than requesting 

data from individual Forest Service and BLM field units 

(unless warranted by special circumstances). For the Coos 

Bay District, however, we had access to annual program 

reports posted on their public Web site dating back to 1996. 

These reports provided much of the data needed to describe 

trends in various program areas covering most of the postPlan period. When we compared these data with the casestudy forest data from corporate databases, we sometimes 

found differences in the numbers. In such cases, we used 

the data from forest units for our analysis.

The analytical framework adopted by this module 

calls for showing that changes reflected by the trend data 

were caused by management actions under the Plan, or for 

providing alternative theories that could explain the changes 

observed. The team investigated links between trends in resource and recreation outputs, management actions under the 

Plan, and other explanatory variables by using a case-study 

approach. We selected four forests from different planning 

provinces in the Plan area for detailed study: the Olympic 

National Forest, the Mount Hood National Forest, the 

Klamath National Forest, and the BLM Coos Bay District. 

For this case study, we interviewed 22 BLM employees from 

the Coos Bay District. We discussed trends in the indicator 

data for each resource area with program specialists, asking 

their perspectives on the reasons behind the trends observed 

and the role of the Plan in influencing them. 

Fully researching the causes of trends in resource and 

recreation outputs from federal forest lands since the Plan 

was adopted was beyond the scope of this exploratory 

study. However, the interview results provide a starting 

point for developing and testing hypotheses about how the 

Plan has affected the ability of the Forest Service and BLM 

to produce predictable quantities of timber and nontimber 

resources. 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Our ability to answer the monitoring question (Are predictable levels of timber and nontimber resources available 

and being produced?) and to evaluate the Plan goal (produce 

a predictable and sustainable level of timber sales and 

nontimber resources) was limited by the availability and 

quality of agency data. For some resource indicators (i.e., 

much of the recreation data), we could obtain status but not 

trend data. We report the status data to provide a baseline 

for future monitoring. In some cases (such as minerals and 

special forest products), the resource data tracked by the 

agencies did not serve as adequate indicators for answering 

the monitoring question directly. Nonetheless, we believe 

that providing some information about trends in these 

resource areas is better than providing no information at 

all. Thus, we made the most of the available data, assessing 

what we could learn related to the monitoring question and 

goal. 

The second evaluation question has two components 

(Are local communities and economies experiencing positive or negative changes, and are these changes associated 

with federal forest management?). To assess whether local 

communities and economies were experiencing positive 

or negative changes, the team used social and economic 

indicators from the U.S. census to analyze change in the 

communities between 1990 and 2000. The team also 

developed a community socioeconomic well-being index, 

and analyzed differences in well-being between 1990 and 

2000. The socioeconomic well-being index consists of six 

measures: employment by industry diversity, percentage of 

the population with bachelor’s degree or higher, percentage 

of the population unemployed, percentage of the population 

in poverty, household income inequality, and average travel 

time to work (see Donoghue and Sutton 2006 for a description of methods used to develop the index).

Finding direct connections between changes in forest 

management policy and socioeconomic change is difficult. To assess whether social and economic change in 

local communities and economies was associated with the 

Plan, the team examined trends in socioeconomic benefits 

from federal forests that potentially affect the well-being 

of forest communities. These benefits included jobs and 

income associated with forest resources and recreation, 

agency jobs, and procurement contracting opportunities. 

We examined local-scale trends for the Coos Bay District 

by using quantitative data from agency databases and other 

secondary sources. In addition, we evaluated the success of 

Plan mitigation measures designed to support rural communities and economies dependent on jobs in the wood 

products industry during a period of economic transition. 

These mitigation measures included (1) integrating forestry 

and economic development goals by creating new jobs 

in ecosystem restoration; (2) the NEAI, which provided economic assistance to workers and their families, businesses, 

and communities; and (3) providing safety net payments to 

counties to help compensate for the loss of revenue sharing 

based on timber receipts.

To supplement the quantitative monitoring data, the 

team employed a community case-study approach to gather 

and analyze qualitative data from interviews with BLM 

employees and a diverse set of community members. The 

qualitative data provided a more detailed understanding of 

the social and economic conditions and trends described 

by the quantitative data, how changes in the flow of forest 

benefits had contributed to change in local communities, 

and how the Plan affected the flow of socioeconomic benefits. These data describe the social and economic effects 

of the Plan on local communities, and how agency efforts 

to mitigate Plan impacts did or did not help communities 

adapt to change. Using the qualitative data, we identify key 

patterns, themes, and insights that emerge from the cases 

and use them to advance our understanding of how federal 

forest management policy is linked to socioeconomic 

well-being in forest-based communities. These interviews 

are also the main source of data for evaluating progress 

in agency-citizen collaboration under the Plan, and how 

effective the Plan has been in protecting forest values and 

environmental qualities associated with older-forest and 

aquatic ecosystems. 

Selection of Case-Study Forests

Case-study forests were chosen to represent one national 

forest in each of the three states that lie within the Plan area, 

and one BLM unit in Oregon, the only place that the BLM 

has significant land holdings inside the Plan area. They 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

were also chosen to represent different provinces (the Plan 

area is broken up into 12 planning provinces). The monitoring program team leader sent a letter to all of the national 

forests and BLM districts in the Plan area and asked for 

volunteers to participate in socioeconomic monitoring. We 

adopted this approach because the monitoring effort was 

considered a pilot program, and we wanted to conduct it 

on forests that were interested in participating and making 

use of the resulting information. Two of the four case-study 

forests (the Olympic and Mount Hood National Forests) 

volunteered to participate, and were chosen for that reason. 

We chose the Klamath National Forest because it was previously a high timber-producing forest, and the forest supervisor was supportive of social science work. We selected 

the Coos Bay District because the BLM Oregon State office 

recommended it, and the district manager was supportive of 

social science work. The Coos Bay District also had been a 

major timber-producing district prior to the Plan.

Selection of Case-Study Communities

Case-study communities associated with each forest were 

chosen based on a number of criteria. First, the team identified a sampling frame of communities that included all of 

the census block group aggregates (BGA) whose polygons 

lay, at least partially, within a 10-mi radius of the case-study 

forest boundaries. The team chose this distance because it 

wanted to focus the monitoring work in forest-based communities, and assumed that communities close to federal 

forests would have social, economic, or cultural ties to those 

forests. We then met with agency employees from each 

case-study forest to discuss communities within our sample 

frame that currently or historically maintained some kind of 

relations with the case forest and the managing agency. 

We selected three communities associated with each 

case-study forest from the sample frame for monitoring 

because time and budget constraints did not allow for a 

larger community sample. We recognize, however, that in 

choosing only three communities around each forest, we 

might not capture all of the variation in community “types,” 

or in community-forest relations in each case-study area. 

We initially chose case-study communities randomly from 

a stratified sample based on their socioeconomic well-being 

measure in 1990 in three categories: high, medium, and low. 

We randomly chose one community from each stratum, 

unless there were no communities in one of the strata. In 

the Coos Bay case, which had no communities in the high 

socioeconomic well-being stratum, we randomly chose two 

communities from the middle stratum, as it contained the 

largest number of communities. 

Once in the field, however, it soon became apparent that the communities selected through this approach 

would provide only a very narrow understanding of the 

impacts of the Plan on communities within the Coos Bay 

District’s boundaries. We thus drew upon the advice of key 

informants at the Coos Bay District, as well as upon our 

own observations during preliminary fieldwork, to identify 

three communities that would illustrate a broader range 

of responses to the socioeconomic changes taking place 

along Oregon’s south coast during the 1990s. We then used 

the census block group delineations that encompassed the 

selected communities for the purposes of bounding the 

communities and analyzing census data.

For logistical reasons, we focused on communities 

located in the northern two-thirds of the Coos Bay District, 

where BLM’s holdings are most concentrated. The Greater 

Coos Bay community case study illustrates the response 

of a large regional economic and political center, with a 

relatively well-developed transportation and business infrastructure and a diversity of human and financial resources 

to draw upon. Greater Reedsport and Greater Myrtle Point 

serve as examples of how much smaller communities, 

with only limited infrastructure and many fewer human 

and financial resources, responded to the same forces of 

socioeconomic transformation. Although similar in size, 

Greater Reedsport and Greater Myrtle Point have very different economic histories. Greater Reedsport was founded 

originally as a railroad hub and mill town in the early 

1900s, whereas the community of Greater Myrtle Point 

developed as an economic center for farmers and ranchers 

in the middle Coquille Valley during the mid-1850s. Greater 

Reedsport also serves as an example of a community that 

appears to be gradually transitioning into a tourism-based 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

economy. All three case communities have a long history of 

economic and cultural reliance upon resources derived from 

lands managed by the Coos Bay District. Ideally we would 

have included Bandon, which has been quite successful in 

developing a tourist-based economy. However, the funding 

available for the project did not permit us to include a fourth 

case community.

Once we selected the case communities, we talked with 

community members to determine whether the community 

had historical or present ties to the Coos Bay District. 

We also used the interview process to determine how the 

communities should be defined for case-study purposes. 

The BGA delineations were used for initially selecting case 

communities; however, the model we used did not necessarily correspond geographically to the place that community 

members considered to be their community. Thus, we adjusted the BGA community delineations once we got to the 

field and learned how local residents conceptualized their 

community. In the case of all three Coos Bay communities, 

we further aggregated the original BGA with surrounding 

BGAs in response to feedback from local residents to more 

accurately define the case-study community boundaries. 

Chapter 4 provides a more detailed description of the final 

community boundaries for each case study. 

Census Statistics

We compared U.S. census statistics from 1990 and 2000 

for the case-study communities (i.e., BGAs) to determine 

changes in socioeconomic conditions. We selected demographic indicators, such as total population, median age, 

school enrollment, percentage of population that completed 

high school, percentage of population with a bachelor’s 

degree or greater, age distribution, ethnicity, population by 

race, and Hispanic population. We also looked at economic 

indicators, such as median household income, percentage 

unemployed, percentage living in poverty, household income distribution, and employment by industry. In addition 

to comparing changes over time within communities, we 

also compared how the community indicators had changed 

relative to the same indicators at the county level.

Interviews

We selected interviewees purposefully, rather than 

randomly, because we wanted to interview local experts 

who could provide information relevant to the monitoring 

questions posed in this chapter. We chose interviewees so as 

to capture as much of the potential range of variation in the 

populations under study as was feasible given funding and 

time constraints. We interviewed 15 community members 

in Greater Coos Bay, 15 in Greater Myrtle Point, and 19 

in Greater Reedsport. Not all interviewees were residents 

of the communities.2 Some interviewees were individuals 

who worked in the community or had a strong connection 

to either the community or the portion of the district that 

surrounded the community. 

Owing to time and funding limitations, we centered 

our efforts on understanding how people who live and work 

on a daily basis in the case-study communities perceived 

the Plan. As a result, we conducted interviews with only 

two stakeholders living outside the Coos Bay region. One 

of these interviewees worked for an organization that has 

played a lead role in challenging BLM’s implementation 

of the Plan in southwestern Oregon. The other worked for 

a timber company that operates one of the few remaining 

mills in the Coos Bay area, and is a member of a timber 

industry association that has challenged the BLM and 

Forest Service’s legal right to implement the Plan on Oregon 

and California Railroad Company (O&C) lands. Appendix 

A provides a general description of the interviewees from 

the three communities. Because of the potentially sensitive 

nature of some of the interview questions, we have kept the 

names of interviewees confidential. 

2Social scientists have engaged in debates over the concept of community for more than a century. Numerous definitions of community exist; all of them are problematic from the standpoint of how to 

use them in field studies (Jackson et al. 1994). As noted by Jackson 

et al. (1994: 226), “Conceptualizations of community range from 

the conventional community of place (a town) to communities of 

interest (people sharing common interests), and occupational communities (people united by shared identification and interactions 

within an occupation).” Drawing on Wilkinson (1991) Jackson et al. 

pointed out that a local community can encompass multiple social 

fields (i.e., place, occupation, membership in civic groups, religious 

affiliation, etc.). For the purposes of this case study, we adopted a 

broad definition of community that encompassed social fields in 

addition to residency in a particular location (e.g., occupation, civic 

action, forest management interests). 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

After identifying categories of informants to be 

interviewed in each community and on the district, we 

used a snowball sampling approach to locate interviewees 

(Bernard 2002). Snowball sampling entails locating key 

individuals in a community, and asking them to identify 

people who would be appropriate to interview about the 

topics under study. However, to avoid selecting interviewees 

belonging to only a narrow segment of the community (a 

hazard of snowball sampling as pointed out by Jackson 

et al. 2004), we also reviewed planning documents and 

newspaper articles to identify interviewees likely to be 

knowledgeable about various aspects of community change. 

The criteria we used to develop our sample frame included 

people who represented one of the informant categories 

initially identified; people who had lived in the case community or worked on the case forest at least since 1994, 

when the Plan was adopted; people who were knowledgeable about the topics under study; people who were considered able to provide a window into the community or the 

district; and people who were willing to talk with us. 

The team gathered names of potential interviewees 

and contacted those people whose names were repeatedly 

mentioned. We conducted semistructured interviews and 

used an interview guide that contained a list of questions 

and topics to be covered during the interview (see Charnley 

2006). 

Interviews with community members covered the 

following topics: 

• The role of forest management policy in the socioeconomic changes taking place in their communities 

between 1990 and 2000.

• How their communities have responded to those 

changes.

• How well the Plan has provided the forest values 

stakeholders consider important.

• Current issues and concerns relating to management 

of the forest.

• Trends in Forest Service–community collaboration.

During the interviews, we also showed interviewees 

charts of quantitative data from the U.S. census comparing 

socioeconomic conditions in 1990 and 2000, and asked 

them to comment on both the accuracy of the data relative 

to their community and possible explanations for observed 

changes. One of the field researchers took handwritten 

notes during the interviews and transcribed the notes into 

a computer wordprocessing file for later analysis. The other 

field researcher typed notes directly into a wordprocessing 

program while interviewing community members. Interviews ranged in length from 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the interviewee’s range of involvement in community 

activities of relevance to this study and knowledge of forest 

management and policy. We adopted Mishler’s (1986) 

approach to interviewing, in which interviews are viewed 

as discourse, or “meaningful speech between interviewer 

and interviewee as speakers of a shared language” (Mishler 

1986: 10–11). Interviews of this sort tend to take on the form 

of a conversation between the interviewer and informant 

(Riessman 1993).

Archival Data

We also gathered archival data, including community and 

agency planning documents, Web sites, newspaper articles, 

and government statistics on environmental and social 

parameters (e.g., fisheries data, drug use statistics), to shed 

light on the types of changes taking place in the communities and potential causes of those changes. The archival 

data served as an important cross check to interview data, 

allowing us to verify, clarify, and contextualize statements 

made by interviewees. 

Analysis

In presenting our data, we used a style that Emerson et al. 

(1995) referred to as a thematic narrative. In thematic narratives, the “writer organizes some of these themes into a 

coherent ‘story’ about life and events in the setting studied” 

(Emerson et al. 1995: 173). In developing thematic narratives, the writer selects “only some small portion of the 

total set of fieldnotes and then [links] them into a coherent 

text representing some aspect or slice of the world studied” 

(Emerson et al. 1995: 173). Thematic narratives allow the 

researcher to illustrate “distinctions and interconnections 

between related phenomena” (Emerson et al. 1995: 173). 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Limitations of the Study

Three key limitations of the study include:

1. We conducted this study to develop an indepth contextualized understanding of the effects of agency 

management actions, policies, and programs on 

forest-based communities in different locations. 

As such, the case-study findings cannot be used 

(nor were they intended to be used) as the basis for 

making generalized statements about socioeconomic 

changes and the ways in which those may have been 

affected by the Plan to the entire universe of communities located within the Plan area. However, 

the results do serve as a foundation for developing 

hypotheses to be tested in future research projects. 

We view the case communities as an initial sample 

that will form part of a larger community sample to 

be monitored in the future as part of the Plan socioeconomic effectiveness monitoring program.

2. Because most of the people we interviewed lived in 

and around the three case-study communities, the 

findings tend to privilege the perceptions of members of these particular communities of place over 

the perceptions of other citizens (e.g., members of 

more distant communities of place who may, nonetheless, have been affected by the Plan). As a result, 

the impacts of the Plan on people living at a distance 

from the Coos Bay District (e.g., residents of the 

Willamette Valley, Roseburg, Portland, and other 

areas of the United States) are not addressed in this 

study. We recognize that from an economic impact 

standpoint alone this is problematic; given that wood 

products processing activities were already shifting 

away from the Coos Bay area prior to the Plan, it is 

quite possible, and indeed probable, that millworkers 

outside the immediate Coos Bay area were affected 

by the district’s decreased timber harvest. Similarly, 

from the standpoint of sociocultural benefits, it is 

also problematic. For example, it is probable that the 

district’s increased investments in recreation and 

tourism have benefited residents in Portland, the 

Willamette Valley, and other parts of the country. 

However, timing and funding constraints did not 

permit us to describe the impacts of the Plan on 

people located at a distance from the district.

3. In the Coos Bay area, the diversity of timber stakeholders and the differential impacts of the Plan within the timber industry alone required that we include 

a range of timber stakeholders (i.e., large landholding companies, smaller companies, small woodland 

owners, public forest managers, former timber and 

mill workers, etc.). With limited time to conduct the 

study, this meant that we had to substantially narrow 

the range of other stakeholders included in the study. 

We sought to address this shortcoming by selecting 

some interviewees occupying work or leadership 

positions that brought them into close contact with a 

broad range of community members. For example, 

chamber of commerce, economic development, 

and cooperative extension employees could reasonably be expected to be familiar with how a range of 

business and services sectors within the community 

were affected by the Plan. Similarly, county and municipal politicians as well as social service providers 

would likely have knowledge about diverse population subgroups and the impacts that the Plan may 

have had upon different groups. 

Presentation of Case-Study Findings

The remainder of chapter 2 of this report describes the 

history and key socioeconomic characteristics of the Coos 

Bay region and the three case-study communities. Chapter 

3 discusses the flow of socioeconomic benefits from Coos 

Bay District from the early 1990s to the early 2000s, as well 

as how the Plan affected that flow. Chapter 4 examines the 

socioeconomic changes that took place in Greater Coos Bay, 

Greater Myrtle Point, and Greater Reedsport during the 

same period. Chapter 5 provides a general discussion of the 
Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

changes that have taken place in the district’s approach to 

forest management and how community members perceive 

those changes. Topics addressed include community-district 

collaboration, perceptions of how well the district is providing forest values and environmental qualities community 

members perceive as important, current issues and concerns 

related to the district’s management, and community 

members’ views regarding what has and has not worked 

well with the Plan. Chapter 6 returns to the two monitoring 

questions and the five socioeconomic goals of the Plan. It 

assesses how well these goals have been met and attempts 

to answer the monitoring questions within the context of 

the Coos Bay District case study. Chapter 7, the concluding 

section of the report, discusses the lessons learned from 

this case study that can help inform adaptive management 

efforts in the northern spotted owl region. 
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675
11

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

The Coos Bay study area encompasses Oregon’s south coast 

and its adjacent uplands (see fig. 1). The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) Coos Bay District includes Coos and 

Curry Counties, as well as a sizeable portion of Douglas 

County and a tiny sliver of Lane County. Most people living 

within the district’s boundaries reside in the twin cities of 

Coos Bay and North Bend, located at the mouth of the Coos 

River. Other major towns along the south coast include 

Bandon, Port Orford, Gold Beach, and Brookings to the 

south of Coos Bay, and Reedsport to the north. The towns 

of Coquille and Myrtle Point, both in the Coquille River 

Valley, are the two largest inland settlements in the region. 

Coos Bay is one of two deep-water harbors between San 

Francisco and the Columbia River (Smyth 2000: 17). 

Physiography and Ecology

Most of the district’s holdings fall within the Coast Range 

Province, which begins at the Middle Fork of the Coquille 

River and extends north into Washington; the remainder is 

located in the Klamath Mountain Province (Franklin and 

Dyrness 1984: 11). Very steep and highly dissected mountains dominate the two ecological provinces, and the area 

has a high potential for landslides (USDA and USDI 1998: 

12). Elevations range from sea level to 3,400 feet (USDI 

1994: 3-4). Rainfall ranges from an average of 60 inches per 

year along the ocean shore to more than 100 inches per year 

in the higher elevations of the Oregon Coast Range (USDI 

1994: 3-3). 

The District has two major forest types, the Sitka 

spruce and western hemlock zones (Franklin and Dyrness 1984: 44). The Sitka spruce zone consists of a narrow 

band along the coast, with fingers extending into the Coos, 

Coquille, and Umpqua River valleys (Franklin and Dyrness 

1984: 58–63). The Sitka spruce zone provides excellent 

growing conditions for large coniferous trees, such as 

Sitka spruce (see app. B for species scientific names), 

western hemlock, western redcedar, Douglas-fir (Franklin 

and Dyrness 1984: 59). The district’s upland areas occur 

within the western hemlock zone, which runs in a band 

parallel to the coast (Franklin and Dyrness 1984: 70–88). 

Douglas-fir is the dominant conifer in this zone. Hardwoods 

such as red alder, bigleaf maple, and golden chinkapin are 

common in riparian areas or heavily disturbed sites. Myrtle, 

which local wood carvers use extensively, grows in the 

lowlands. 

A large percentage of the district’s holdings are located 

in the upland portions of the Umpqua, Coos, and Coquille 

Rivers. All three rivers end in large estuaries, consisting 

of tidal flats, salt marshes, and sand dunes. Most of these 

lowland areas are held in private ownership. Although 

substantial areas of all three estuaries have been diked or 

drained to create land suitable for farming, transportation 

corridors, and residences, the remaining wetlands provide 

habitat for fish and a variety of insects, birds, reptiles, and 

mammals. 

Land Ownership Patterns

The Bureau of Land Management, 

Coos Bay District

The Coos Bay District administers 324,800 ac stretching 

150 mi from north to south starting from a line just south of 

Florence, Oregon, to just north of Brookings, Oregon (see 

fig. 1). Most of the district’s holdings are concentrated in a 

band roughly 25 mi wide in the uplands of the west slopes 

of the Coast Range. However, unlike the adjacent national 

forests, which tend to have large contiguous holdings, most 

of the Coos Bay District’s holdings are distributed in a 

checkerboard pattern with mile-square sections of BLM 

land alternating with mile-square sections of privately 

owned land. The district also administers several sites along 

the Pacific coast, including Floras Lake, which is located 

north of Port Orford; the New River Area of Environmental 

Concern between Langlois and Bandon; and the North Spit 

across from the town of North Bend.

The BLM’s Coos Bay holdings fall into three land 

management categories based on how they entered BLM’s 

administrative jurisdiction: Oregon and California Railroad 

Company (O&C) land, Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) 

land, and public domain (PD) land. The O&C land makes 

up the largest percentage of the district’s holdings, amounting to 68 percent of the total acreage. 

Chapter 2: The Coos Bay Cluster Area
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

The district is divided into two smaller administrative 

units known as resource areas. The Umpqua Resource 

Area comprises the northern portion of the district and the 

Myrtlewood Resource Area the southern part. The Coos 

Bay District office and both resource area offices are in one 

large building complex in North Bend. Roughly half of the 

district’s holdings are in Coos County, 40 percent are in 

Douglas County, and 10 percent are in Curry County. 

Other Public Forest Holdings

Other public land management agencies with holdings in 

the Coos Bay cluster include the Siuslaw National Forest, 

the State of Oregon, and Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties. The Siuslaw National Forest administers land in the 

northern part of the district, as well as the Oregon Dunes 

National Recreation Area along the coast north of Coos Bay. 

The Siskiyou National Forest manages most of the higher 

elevation forest land from Port Orford south to the California border in the southern part of the district. The Siuslaw 

and Siskiyou National Forests are also managed under the 

Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan). The Oregon Department 

of Forestry administers the 93,000-acre Elliott State Forest, 

which is located between Coos Bay and Reedsport. Coos 

County manages several thousand acres of forest land. The 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 

the Oregon Department of State Lands jointly manage the 

4,700-acre South Slough National Estuarine Reserve near 

the town of Charleston (SSNERR 2003).

Private and Tribal Forest Holdings

Industrial forest products companies, including international and national firms, such as Weyerhaeuser, Plum 

Creek Timber Company, and Menasha, as well as smaller 

regional firms, such as Roseburg Forest Products and Lone 

Rock Timber, own most of the privately held checkerboard 

sections intermixed with Coos Bay District holdings. 

Numerous smallholders own land in the lowland areas of 

the region’s major rivers and along the coast. 

In 1996, the U.S. government transferred title of 

roughly 5,400 acres of BLM land in the Myrtlewood 

Resource Area to the Coquille Tribe. The transfer took 

place as an amendment to the Coquille Restoration Act 

(PL 101-42) of 1989, which restored tribal status to the 

Coquille people. The Coquille Forest consists of 14 parcels 

scattered through the uplands of the Coquille River watersheds. The Coquille Tribe manages its forest holdings for 

the benefit of Coquille tribal members. Under the terms of 

the land transfer, the Plan’s standards and guidelines also 

apply to the Coquille Forest. 

Historical Overview

The Suppression of Indigenous Cultures: 

The 1850s

Humans have lived in the Coos Bay region for at least 

8,000 years (USDA and USDI 1998: 32). Groups occupying Oregon’s coast from Florence to Brookings in the 

early 1800s included the Siuslaw, the Lower Umpqua, the 

Hanis Coos, the Miluk Coos, the Kwatami, the Tututni, the 

Chetco, and the Tolowa (Zucker et al. 1987: 9). The Upper 

Coquille lived in the uplands of the Coquille River valley, 

where the towns of Myrtle Point and Coquille are presently 

located (Zucker et al. 1987: 9). 

Pioneers moved into the Coos Bay region in large 

numbers after the Oregon Territory’s Provisional Government passed the Donation Land Act of 1850, which allowed 

settlers to establish land claims within the Oregon Territory 

(Dicken and Dicken 1979: 99). The discovery of gold in 

1852 brought a large influx of miners to the upper reaches 

of the Rogue River Valley, near present-day Jacksonville 

(Douthit 1999: 17). By 1853, the miners had fanned out into 

coastal Oregon, establishing settlements on the mouths of 

the rivers along the coast from the Umpqua River south to 

Gold Beach (Douthit 1999: 17). 

In 1855, the U.S. government initiated treaty negotiations with the Rogue River Indians and other indigenous 

groups, including bands living along the lower Umpqua, 

Coos, Siuslaw, and Coquille Rivers (Zucker et al. 1987: 85). 

Once the Indians had signed the treaty, the U.S. government 

forcibly moved them, first to the mouth of the Umpqua, 

and then to the newly established Siletz and Grand Ronde 

Reservations in northern Oregon (Douthit 1999: 18). The 

U.S. government signed the 1855 treaty, but never ratified 

it, leaving the lower Umpqua, Coos, Siuslaw, and Coquille 
13

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Tribes without land or federal recognition as sovereign 

nations until the late 20th century (Ruby and Brown 1986: 

46; Zucker et al. 1987: 85).1

Constructing an Industrial Economy: 1850-1900

From the 1850s to the 1890s, the newcomers to Coos Bay 

constructed an industrial economy based on a combination 

of logging, wood processing, shipbuilding, agriculture, 

ranching, coal mining, and commercial salmon fishing, 

along with the retail and other services needed to support 

these activities (Douthit 1999: 18). The need for raw materials to supply the California gold fields sparked outside 

investment in the development of industrial-scale lumber 

mills in Coos Bay during the early 1850s (Douthit 1999: 

18–20). In 1858, Asa Simpson set up a shipyard in the area 

that is now the city of North Bend (Wagner 1986: 5). The 

Simpson shipyard, and others that followed it, constructed 

ships that transported large quantities of lumber and coal to 

San Francisco (Wagner 1986: 5). 

Over the next 30 years, a number of mill operators set 

up sawmills in settlements along the coast and the region’s 

major rivers (Beckham 1990: 49–51). In addition to shipping 

to the San Francisco lumber market, Coos Bay mill owners 

also established markets for the region’s Port Orford cedar 

in Japan by the 1870s (Richardson 1980: 6). Studies 

of Coos Bay’s economic history indicate that the region’s 

reliance on natural resource exports tied the prosperity 

of local businesses and workers to the economic ups and 

downs of distant markets as early as the late 19th century 

(Douthit 1999: 146, Robbins 1988: 19–20).

Once the brief gold rush to the south coast subsided in 

the mid-1850s, agriculture emerged as an important element 

in Coos Bay’s economy. Domesticated cranberries became 

a key component of the agricultural sector around Bandon 

and Port Orford (Douthit 1999: 20). Livestock enterprises, 

including beef cattle and dairy operations, also had become 

important components of the region’s agricultural economy 

by the late 1880s (Douthit 1999: 20). 

Coal mining and commercial salmon fishing constituted two additional elements of Coos Bay’s industrializing 

natural resource economy of the late 1800s. Coal mining 

remained an important economic driver in Coos Bay until 

the 1920s, when oil replaced coal as the main source for 

residential and industrial heat (Douthit 1999: 20). Salmon 

became an important export commodity from Oregon’s 

south coast in the 1870s, and canneries operated along all 

the major rivers from Gold Beach north to Florence by the 

1880s (Douthit 1999: 19). 

To encourage wagon road and railroad companies to 

connect the south coast with the rapidly expanding Willamette and Rogue Valley towns, the federal government 

made several large grants of land in southern Oregon 

during the 1860s. One land grant, made in 1866, went to the 

Oregon and California Railroad Company on the condition 

that they construct a railroad through northern California and Oregon to connect Oregon’s timberlands with 

California’s cities and ports (Richardson 1980: 2). Similarly, 

in 1869, the U.S. government granted 93,000 acres to the 

Coos Bay Wagon Road Company to finance the construction of a wagon road connecting Roseburg with Coos Bay 

(Richardson 1980: 2). 

By 1900, the current towns of Bandon, Coos Bay, 

Coquille, Charleston, Empire, Myrtle Point, Gardiner, Elkton, Scottsburg, Gold Beach, and Port Orford had all been 

platted (Douthit 1999: 68, 86–87, 96, 172). The Brookings 

Timber and Lumber Company established Brookings in 

1913 as a mill company town (Curry Coastal Pilot 2001). 

W. Reed platted Reedsport in 1913 to serve as a hub along 

the railroad line under construction between Eugene and 

Coos Bay (Douthit 1999: 166).

The Rise of an Industrialized Wood Products 

Economy: 1900–1950

The creation and expansion of the federal forest reserve 

system in the late 1890s and early 1900s, coupled with 

rising lumber prices and fears of a national timber famine, 

1The Coquille obtained federal recognition as a tribe in 1950, but 

the U.S. government terminated their tribal status in 1954. The 

U.S. Congress restored the group’s tribal status in 1989. Congress 

recognized the Siletz in 1977, and the Confederated Tribes of 

the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw in 1984 (CLUS 2002: 5). 

Congress restored portions of their ancestral territories to the 

Siletz in 1977, the Grand Ronde in 1988, and the Coquille in 1999 

(CLUS 2002: 5). The Confederated Tribes are presently seeking 

restoration of roughly 63,000 acres of the ancestral territories 

of the Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua, located in what is now the 

Siuslaw National Forest (CLUS 2002).
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

sparked a wave of speculation in timber holdings in the 

Pacific Northwest at the turn of the 19th century (Robbins 

1988: 26–27). Timber companies entering the south coast 

markets in the 1900s, such as Weyerhaeuser, C.A. Smith, 

and Menasha, sought to control the wood products industry 

in the Northwest by acquiring rights to large tracts of 

timber (Robbins 1988: 27–28). The opening of C.A. Smith’s 

lumber mill in Coos Bay in 1908 marked the beginning of 

Coos Bay’s economic transformation from a region supported by several diverse and relatively independent economic 

sectors to a region dependent primarily upon the harvesting, 

processing, and shipping of forest products (Douthit 1999: 

20). Over the course of the next 10 years, mills operated by 

companies with large timber holdings were established in 

Bandon (Moore Mill) and Brookings (Brookings Timber 

and Lumber Company) (Douthit 1999: 32). Logging firms 

also established an extensive system of splash dams and 

logging booms in the Coquille and Coos River watersheds 

during the early 1900s, with devastating effects on the 

region’s salmon fisheries (Beckham 1990).

The dynamics of the south coast’s wood products 

economy changed again in 1916 when unsold portions of the 

O&C and CBWR land grants reverted to the U.S. government (Richardson 1980: 22). Angered at the railroad and 

wagon road companies for selling lands to large outside 

timber companies, sometimes illegally, local lumber 

companies joined forces with farm and labor associations, county governments, and Oregon state legislators to 

advocate for a federal settlement to remove the unsold lands 

from the hands of Southern Pacific, which had taken over 

the O&C company and its holdings (Richardson 1980: 22). 

In 1916, the U.S. Congress passed legislation transferring 

the unsold O&C lands to the federal government under the 

administrative authority of the General Land Office, which 

later merged with the U.S. Grazing Service to become the 

Bureau of Land Management (Richardson 1980: 28). In 

1919, the U.S. Congress also reconveyed the unsold CBWR 

lands to the federal government (Richardson 1980: 33). 

The boom period of the early 1900s tapered off 

into a period of intermittent cycles of depressed lumber 

prices, layoffs, and worker strikes between 1907 and 1917 

(Robbins 1988: 48–50). However, the outbreak of World 

War I boosted the south coast lumber economy once again 

(Robbins 1988: 48-50). By the 1920s, the wood products 

industry’s role in Coos Bay had shifted from supplying 

California and Japan with raw timber and rough-milled 

lumber to producing a variety of value-added products, 

such as veneer, plywood, and pulp (Douthit 1999: 146–147). 

At the same time, ownership of private timber holdings 

became increasingly concentrated. By the end of the 1920s, 

four companies—Coos Bay Lumber Company, Southern 

Oregon Company, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, and 

the Buehner Company—controlled the bulk of the remaining stands of old-growth timber in the region (Robbins 

1988: 52). 

The 1930s depression hit the Coos Bay area very hard, 

with roughly half the mills closing between 1920 and 1933 

(Douthit 1999: 175) and as much as half the population 

out of work (Robbins 1988: 78). To survive, many people 

turned to harvesting a variety of nontimber forest products, 

such as cascara bark, huckleberry brush, cedar boughs, and 

blackberries for subsistence and market (Robbins 1988: 

79). During the 1930s, lumber industry representatives 

worked with the Department of the Interior to develop the 

1937 Sustained Yield Act, which placed the administration 

of the O&C and CBWR lands under the jurisdiction of the 

Secretary of the Interior (Richardson 1980: 52–53). The act 

required that 1,400,000 of the 2,219,743 acres be managed 

according to sustained-yield methods (Richardson 1980: 53) 

“for the purpose of providing a permanent source of timber 

supply, protecting watersheds, regulating streamflow, and 

contributing to the economic stability of the local communities and industries, and providing recreational facilities.” 

(Section 1181(a)). The act thus laid out a threefold mandate 

for the management of the Coos Bay District’s O&C land: 

provision of timber, watershed protection, and provision 

of recreational facilities. Under the terms of the 1937 

Sustained Yield Act, the counties were to receive 75 percent 

of the receipts from timber sold off the O&C land (Richardson 1980: 54). The remaining 25 percent of the receipts 

went to the U.S. Department of the Interior to manage the 

sustained-yield timber program (FCPC 2003: 14). During 

the next 10 years, the administrators of the O&C lands set 

into place a system of sustained-yield timber management 
15

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

that would dominate the management of those lands for the 

next 50 years. 

Tourism also emerged as an economic industry on the 

south coast between 1900 and 1950 (Douthit 1999: 119, 

124). The town of Charleston, for example, originated as a 

resort area for Coos Bay residents, and only transformed 

itself into a fishing village after 1924 when the federal 

government built a jetty along the south side of the Coos 

Bay harbor inlet (Douthit 1999: 124). The development of 

the region’s road system in the 1920s served as a catalyst for 

the development of a strong sport fishery and the creation 

of a series of parks and nature reserves along the coast and 

at key sites along the major rivers (Douthit 1999: 3, 21, 53). 

Bandon, in particular, became a popular resort town for 

Willamette Valley residents in the 1920s (Douthit 1999: 76). 

Getting Out the Cut: 1950-1990

Weyerhaeuser and Menasha, two large midwestern lumber 

companies, initiated large-scale timber harvesting operations on their Coos Bay holdings during the post-World War 

II building boom. A third multinational company—Georgia 

Pacific—also became a major player in the Coos Bay wood 

products economy when it bought out Coos Bay Lumber 

Company in 1956 (Sandine 2003: 34). A shortage of labor 

during the 1940s and 1950s attracted thousands of workers 

into Coos Bay and the Coquille Valley. The influx of workers created a sustained local housing boom that kept woods 

and mill workers employed through much of the year and 

provided the conditions needed for a variety of retail and 

service operations to thrive (Robbins 1988: 109, 120). During this same period, however, technological innovations, 

such as the introduction of the chainsaw, bulldozer, more 

powerful and more reliable trucks, and high-quality steel 

cables, made it possible for logging operators to cut and 

transport more timber with fewer workers (Robbins 1988: 

130–131). Similarly, the conversion from steam- to electricpowered milling operations allowed mills to process more 

wood with less labor (Robbins 1988: 114). 

Although the large companies dominated the postwar 

Coos Bay lumber economy in terms of production volume, the expanding demand for lumber also provided the 

conditions for new, smaller companies to establish mills 

and acquire timberlands in the Coos Bay region (Robbins 

1988: 108-109). Gyppo logging and sawmill operations, 

often family-run businesses, thrived in the postwar lumber 

economy (Robbins 1988: 110). Small mills in Coos and 

Curry Counties during the 1950s numbered around 500 

(Robbins 1988: 111). Many of them worked on subcontract 

to the larger mills, which purchased rough lumber for final 

processing and export (Robbins 1988: 111). 

By the late 1940s, timber supplies on private lands had 

decreased to the point where Coos Bay operators began to 

call for access to a greater supply of timber from the BLM 

O&C lands (Richardson 1980: 113). In 1949, the BLM met 

these demands by increasing the allowable cut on the O&C 

lands (Richardson 1980: 110). Owing to problems with large 

timberland holders refusing to grant other operators rights 

of way over the roads passing through their lands built to 

access public timber, in 1949 BLM also required operators 

to enter into reciprocal rights of way agreements covering 

the contractor’s land and the relevant BLM land as part 

of any O&C sales agreements. Timber sales agreements 

outlined road construction and maintenance obligations, as 

well as ecological safeguards for road building (Richardson 

1980: 110). 

Over the next few years, timber sales from the O&C 

lands, as well as the receipts paid to the 18 O&C lands, 

expanded greatly (Richardson 1980: 116). In 1953, the U.S. 

Congress passed legislation that earmarked 25 percent of 

the county timber sale receipts for reinvestment in the productivity of the land (Richardson 1980: 128). These funds 

are known as plowback funds, and were used for forest 

protection, reforestation and the development of recreational 

sites (FCPC 2003: 14). 

The cutting of timber on private land in the Coos Bay 

area exceeded the regrowth rate on that land during the 

1950s (Robbins 1988: 133). Georgia Pacific, for example, 

tripled the pace of timber harvesting on its newly acquired 

land in order to gain a quick return on its investment, dropping to a 35- to 40-year rotation by 1958 (Robbins 1988: 

117). The company sold much of this timber to mills in the 

Willamette Valley, which were running short of supplies 

of their own (Robbins 1988: 132–133). In the early 1960s, 

Weyerhaeuser followed suit, stepping up the harvest of 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

its Coos Bay holdings to supply Willamette Valley mills 

and log importers in Japan (Robbins 1988: 134–135). The 

introduction of grading standards, state requirements that 

mills install waste burners to prevent fires, a decline in the 

California construction industry, and the dwindling supply 

of timber on small private holdings during the 1950s forced 

many of the smaller operations to shut down by the 1960s 

(Robbins 1988: 112–115). 

Wages for mill workers and woodworkers remained 

high through this period, despite the trend toward mechanization and the closure of many small milling and harvesting 

operations. The presence of strong unions in the area, notably the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen’s 

Union, the Lumber and Sawmill Workers, and the International Woodworkers of America from the mid-1930s to the 

1970s contributed to the ability of forest product industry 

workers to ask for and receive much higher wages and more 

benefits than they had in previous decades (Robbins 1988: 

145-151). 

Population growth slowed considerably in the 1960s, 

but rose again to about 13 percent in the 1970s. Unlike 

previous population increases, which were linked to the 

rise in forest product industry employment, the population 

increases of the 1970s were tied to the availability of service 

and public sector jobs associated with retirees and others 

moving into the area (Robbins 1988: 154). By the 1970s, 

Coos Bay’s forest products economy was experiencing major difficulties, with mills shutting down increasingly often 

as production became more concentrated and mechanized 

(Robbins 1988: 153). 

Transitioning to a Services-Oriented 

Economy: 1980–2004

In the post-World War II timber boom, the Coos Bay District developed a reputation within the BLM for its expertise 

in “getting out the cut.” By the 1970s and 1980s, the district 

supported a staff of several hundred full-time and seasonal 

employees, primarily forestry and engineering specialists and technicians. Their combined skills permitted the 

district to design and lay out timber sales and roads, as well 

as carry out subsequent reforestation and road maintenance 

tasks associated with the prevailing regeneration harvest 

approach to forest management. Starting in the late 1970s, 

the Coos Bay District gradually broadened its inhouse 

forest management expertise by hiring specialists, such as 

wildlife biologists, fisheries biologists, recreation planners, 

and archeologists, to conduct legally mandated interdisciplinary environmental assessments for management actions, 

including timber sales. Initially these specialists primarily 

provided support for the timber management program, with 

the bulk of their time spent ensuring that timber sales and 

related activities complied with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (1969), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), and other federal 

legislation. 

A nationwide recession in the late 1970s and early 

1980s forced many Coos Bay logging and milling operations to shut down permanently (Robbins 1988: 157–159). 

These closures severely burdened the region’s social 

services offices as individuals and families sought to cope 

with domestic violence and alcoholism linked to widespread 

layoffs in the forest products industry (Robbins 1988: 

159–160). Many residents left the area at this time. The 

mill closures of the 1970s and early 1980s coincided with 

declines in the region’s shipping and fishing sectors. Although Coos Bay’s tourism and services sectors expanded 

during the late 1970s and early 1980s, they were unable to 

meet the employment demand created from the simultaneous collapse of the forest products, fisheries, and shipping 

sectors. 

A few years later, Coos Bay’s forest products economy 

entered another boom cycle as interest rates dropped, and 

housing starts in the domestic market expanded. Simultaneously, a rapidly growing Japanese economy increased 

demand for Pacific Northwest timber. From 1984 to 1989, 

the annual cut on the Coos Bay District averaged 261 

million board feet (mmbf) (USDI 1994: 3-120 to 3-121). The 

district set the annual cut at an abnormally high level over 

the allowable cut to allow companies to harvest the buyback 

sales from the late 1970s and early 1980s (USDI 1994: 

3-120 to 3-121). 

From 1984 to 1988, the district supplied about 35 

percent of all timber harvested from private and public land 

in Coos County, 6 percent in Curry County, and 9 percent 
17

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

timber economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s: a 

decrease in labor owing to mechanization, an increase in 

demand for smaller diameter wood, increased competition 

within the wood products sector, increased reliance on international wood products supplies, increase in demand for 

hardwoods, and increased use of engineered wood products 

and oriented strand board (USDI 1994: 3-123, 3-127). 

The region’s shift away from a timber-dominated 

economy, as measured by a percentage of total employment 

and income, began in the late 1970s and picked up speed in 

the 1980s and early 1990s. During this time, the population 

of Coos and Curry Counties also became more concentrated 

into North Bend, Coos Bay, and Brookings (USDI 1994: 

3-127). Both the commercial and recreational fisheries in 

the area collapsed as stocks of coho and Chinook salmon 

and steelhead continued to decline. In 1993, the Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife closed the commercial 

coho fishery. In 1994, it shut down the commercial Chinook 

fishery and the recreational coho fishery. Thus the Plan went 

into effect at a time when the region’s economy was already 

undergoing massive restructuring in two major employment 

sectors, wood products and fisheries. In the next chapter, 

we examine the details of the management changes the Plan 

imposed upon the Coos Bay District, as well as how those 

changes affected the ability of the district to provide a range 

of commodities and forest values.

in the part of Douglas County within the boundaries of the 

district (USDI 1994: 3-121). This amounted to 25 percent of 

all timber harvesting within the area, directly supported approximately 1,500 jobs, and contributed roughly $40 million 

to local personal incomes (USDI 1994: 3-121). Economists 

estimated that the wood coming off the district’s holdings 

also contributed indirectly to the creation or maintenance of 

880 jobs outside the timber industry and $12 million more 

in personal income (USDI 1994: 3-120 to 3-121).

In 1989, a federal court injunction stopped any new 

harvesting on federal land until the BLM and Forest Service 

developed an acceptable plan to protect the northern spotted 

owl (see app B. for species scientific names) (USDI 1994: 

3-120 to 3-121). During the next 5 years, timber continued 

to come onto the market from district holdings because 

of the 5-year period allotted for harvesting. By October 

1993, however, little timber remained under contract, and 

the BLM could not enter into any new contracts until the 

District Court lifted the injunction. 

The federal court injunction on timber harvesting on 

federal land went into effect at a time when the wood products industry was in the midst of restructuring in response 

to a combination of factors unrelated to federal forest policies. The 1994 Resource Management Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement identified the following factors as key 

contributors to the changes taking place in Coos Bay’s 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675
19

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Overview of the Northwest Forest Plan

The Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) established six major 

land management allocations for the Coos Bay District 

(table 1): late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, 

general forest management areas, district-defined reserves, 

connectivity/diversity blocks, and congressional reserves 

(USDI 1995: 6). General forest management areas and 

connectivity/diversity blocks correspond to the matrix land 

use allocation in the Plan. The Plan has two basic harvest 

objectives—promoting the development of late-successional 

stands in the reserve allocations and providing a predictable 

sustainable supply of timber from matrix allocations. The 

matrix allocations make up the harvest land base underlying 

the allowable sales quantity (ASQ) calculation in the district 

resource management plan (RMP). The Plan thus placed 

80 percent of the land area in the Coos Bay District into 

some form of reserve status. The district integrated the Plan 

standards and guidelines into its formal planning process 

almost immediately in the form of an updated RMP issued 

in 1995. 

The 1995 RMP directs the district to “...maintain 

healthy, functioning ecosystems from which a sustainable 

production of natural resources can be provided” (USDI 

1995: 5). It further specifies that management activities 

should focus on producing environmental conditions 

specified in the 1995 RMP (USDI 1995: 5). The objectives 

underlying the district’s new management direction included maintaining and restoring late-successional habitat, 

biodiversity, and watershed health (USDI 1995: 6). 

The 1995 RMP required the district to manage the latesuccessional reserves, riparian reserves, and district-defined 

reserves, or roughly 76 percent of the district’s land area, in 

ways that would “enhance and/or maintain late-successional 

forest conditions” (USDI 1995: 6). Management activities 

conducted on general forest management area lands and 

connectivity/diversity blocks were to contribute toward 

these three purposes by retaining late-successional forest 

legacies, such as green trees, snags, and coarse woody 

debris (USDI 1995: 6). The Plan also contained provisions aimed at protecting salmon and steelhead habitat on 

federal lands within the district’s boundaries. The Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy required the district to identify key 

Chapter 3: Socioeconomic Benefits From the District

Table 1—Major land allocations in the Coos Bay 

District

Major land allocations Area

Acres Percent

Late-successional reserves 136,800 44

Riparian reserves 89,600 29

General forest management area 55,300 18

District defined reserves 20,400 7

Connectivity/diversity block 6,600 2

Congressional reserves 600 <1

Total area 309,300 100

Source: USDI 1995: 6.

watersheds, prepare watershed analyses for key watersheds, 

and restore fish habitat, riparian habitat, and water quality 

in key watersheds (USDI 1995: 6-8). 

The Plan guidelines called for the district to integrate 

landscape-level planning into its day-to-day planning and 

management activities, rather than limiting planning and 

management to a site-by-site basis. The drafters of the Plan 

included this requirement so that planners could begin to 

identify the cumulative effects of land management activities on entire watersheds and ecological provinces. In 1995, 

the Coos Bay District initiated the four major landscapelevel analysis processes called for in the Plan: watershed 

analyses, a late-successional reserve assessment, survey and 

manage studies, and a transportation system management 

plan.

Of these four planning processes, the survey and 

manage requirement proved the most controversial and 

eventually was revised to address challenges to its legality. 

The survey and manage guidelines laid out a framework 

for the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) to begin gathering data about a variety of potentially 

rare, threatened, and endangered species to forestall future 

challenges to management actions under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The Plan identified species of special 

concern and specified four measures for land managers to 

take to ascertain and address potential risks to these species 

(USDA and USDI 1994: C-4 to C-5). The four measures 

included managing known sites, predisturbance site-specific 

surveys, extensive surveys to locate priority management 

sites for sensitive species, and regional surveys to gather 

information needed to develop protection measures. 
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Resource and Recreation 

Outputs and Investments

Timber Resources

In 1994, 16 percent of the Coos Bay District was classified 

as old growth, and nearly half (48 percent) of the district 

land area was in early- or mid-seral forest conditions (USDI 

1994: 3–42). The early- and mid-seral stands had fewer 

snags and less complex structure than the stands they had 

replaced (USDI 1994: 3–33). In addition, fire suppression 

policies had increased stand densities and fuel loadings in 

mature and late-successional stands (USDI 1994: 3-36). 

Harvesting and road construction practices in the postWorld War II era had damaged riparian vegetation and 

aquatic habitat (USDI 1994: 3-33) and the development of an 

extensive network of log haul roads had contributed to the 

spread of Port Orford cedar root rot (Phytophthora lateralis) 

(USDI 1994: 3-37) (see app. B for plant and animal species 

names).

According to our interviews with BLM employees, the 

district provided roughly 25 percent of the timber processed 

in local mills prior to the Plan. However, they noted the 

percentage of BLM timber used in local mills started to 

decline in the mid-1980s, well before the Plan went into 

effect. Coos Bay District employees attributed the decline 

in local demand for federal timber to a shift in forest 

product industry demand toward small-diameter logs. They 

stated that access to the larger diameter logs on BLM land 

remained important to small-scale processors, particularly 

smaller mills with no timber holdings. 

Under the Plan, timber management on the Coos Bay 

District changed dramatically in terms of the amount of 

timber cut, the size of timber harvested, and the spatial 

distribution of harvests. The Plan initially established an 

estimated ASQ for timber harvested from matrix land 

allocations (i.e., general forest management areas and 

connectivity/diversity blocks) at 32 million board feet 

(mmbf) of coniferous species per year (USDI 1995: S-14). 

Volumes harvested from the reserves (i.e., from thinnings) 

did not figure into the calculation of the ASQ. The district 

subsequently reduced the ASQ estimate to 27 mmbf after 

transferring several thousand acres of its holdings to the 

Coquille Tribe and setting aside marbled murrelet buffers 

in the late 1990s. The RMP envisioned that it would take 

several years before the district would be able to offer 

timber sale volumes at or near the ASQ, and thus set target 

volumes of 24 mmbf for 1995, 27 mmbf for 1996, and 28.2 

mmbf for 1997. The RMP anticipated that the district would 

be able to offer 32 mmbf annually starting in 1998. 

The RMP (USDI 1995: 52) noted that the ASQ is only 

an estimate of the “annual average timber sale volume likely 

to be achieved from lands allocated to planned, sustainable 

harvest.” It stresses that the figure is “surrounded by uncertainty” (USDI 1995: 52) and that the “actual timber sale 

levels may differ” (USDI 1995: 52). It further noted that the 

“ASQ represents neither a minimum level that must be met 

nor a maximum level that cannot be exceeded” (USDI 1995: 

52). The RMP anticipated that the actual timber sale level 

that could be harvested from the matrix land allocations 

might “deviate as much as 20 percent from the identified 

ASQ” (USDI 1995: 52). In addition, the RMP recognized 

that it would take several years before the district would be 

able to offer the estimated ASQ for timber. 

The Plan prohibited timber harvesting in forest stands 

more than 80 years old (USDA and USDI 1994: C-12). However, it permitted precommercial and commercial thinning 

in late-successional reserve stands less than 80 years old 

to create and maintain late-successional forest conditions 

(USDA and USDI 1994: C-12). The Plan also limited timber 

harvesting and thinning in riparian reserves to areas with 

degraded habitat or where harvesting or thinning would 

facilitate meeting Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives 

(USDA and USDI 1994: C-31 to C-32, USDI 1995: 13). 

The Plan also directed foresters to treat dead and 

diseased trees as a natural and necessary part of the forest 

ecosystem (USDA and USDI 1994: C-13 to C-14). The 

Plan permitted tree salvage operations in late-successional 

reserves, but only to “...prevent negative effects on latesuccessional habitat” (USDA and USDI 1994: C-13). The 

Coos Bay RMP further restricted salvage operations in 

late-successional reserves to situations where “...standreplacing events exceed 10 acres in size and canopy closure 

has been reduced to less than 40 percent,” or where dead 

or diseased trees along trails, roads, or in recreational sites 

pose a hazard to humans (USDI 1995: 19). 
21

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

the Aquatic Conservation Strategy provisions. Overall, the 

pattern of sales offered by the district shows an erratic trend 

from 1995 onward. 

The volume of timber harvested annually on the district 

has been considerably lower than the estimated ASQ. 

Between 1996 and 2002, timber operators harvested an 

average of 15.6 mmbf in timber annually, roughly half the 

estimated ASQ. Annual timber volumes harvested ranged 

from a high of 27.4 mmbf in the years when the Rescissions 

Act was in effect,1 to a low of 3.6 mmbf in 2001. 

Data provided in the district’s annual program summaries for 1996–2002 show a marked downward trend in 

the revenues the district collected for timber harvested. 

Timber revenues dropped from a high of $16.6 million in 

1997 to a low of $1.8 million in 2001. The value of silvicultural contracts entered into by the district also dropped, 

from a high of $2.3 million in 1996 to a low of $0.9 million 

in 2002. 

The Plan called for regeneration harvest as the main 

timber harvesting technique in the matrix, and thinning 

in the reserves. The district uses an approach known as 

density management thinning in the reserves instead of 

traditional commercial thinning. As described in the 

District’s 1996 annual program summary (USDI 1996a: 7), 

“Commercial thinning objectives include increasing the 

growth rates of remaining trees for future commodity 

production purposes.” Density management, by contrast, 

aims to “change the growth characteristics or forest stand condition for 

noncommodity purposes” (USDI 

1996a: 7). A Coos Bay District 

employee noted that in density 

1The 1995 Recissions Act allowed 

the district to go forward with sales 

offered in 1989–1991, but not awarded 

because of litigation at the time. 

Under the act, the district prepared 

replacement volume sales for units 

where biologists had identified northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet 

activity. The Recissions Act harvests 

took place between 1995 and 1999. 

The district completed precommercial 

and release thinning on these units 

in 2001.

Figure 2—Timber sales and harvest volumes, 1995–2002. Source: BLM State Office.

The Plan and the Coos Bay RMP emphasized the need 

for foresters to retain trees, dead and alive, in matrix land 

allocations, as well as in late-successional and riparian 

reserves. For example, they required the district to retain 

or create sufficient snags to support cavity-nesting bird 

populations, and to leave or add specified amounts of large 

woody debris across harvested areas (USDA and USDI 

1994: C-40; USDI 1995: 22–23). In addition, the RMP prohibits harvesting in 100-acre circles around known northern 

spotted owl nesting sites and activity centers (USDI 1995: 

23). The RMP directs the district to manage the 640-acre 

connectivity/diversity blocks on a 150-year rotation, and 

to keep 25 to 30 percent of each block in late-successional 

forest conditions at all times (USDI 1995: 54). These guidelines are aimed at decreasing forest fragmentation resulting 

from the checkerboard pattern of ownership on the district. 

The guidelines also call for the use of harvesting and site 

treatment practices that disturb the forest floor litter and 

coarse woody debris components as little as possible (USDI 

1995: 22–23). 

From 1995 to 2002, the amounts of timber the district 

offered through the Plan allocations varied substantially 

from year to year, ranging from a high of 42.5 mmbf in 

1998 to a low of 1.7 mmbf in 2000 (fig. 2). The low figure 

in 2000 was due to legal challenges concerning whether 

the sales offered adequately met survey and manage and 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Tim

b

er v

olum

e (million board feet)

Offered

Sold

Harvested

Year
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

management, “thinning focuses on creating structure and 

processes,” with timber viewed as a byproduct rather than 

the main objective. 

During the period immediately following the issuance of the Plan, forest management program employees 

spent much of their time assisting in the development of 

watershed analyses and the late-successional reserve assessments. Additionally, they worked with biologists, botanists, 

and hydrologists to determine what forest management 

practices, if any, could take place in the late-successional 

and riparian reserves. Their ability to develop and lay out 

appropriate harvesting units immediately following the 

issuance of the Plan record of decision was hampered by 

the lack of survey and manage protocols for the known 

category 2 species on the Coos Bay District. Interviewees 

reported that implementing the survey and manage process 

in proposed sale areas also increased the time needed to put 

sales on the market.

Forest management program employees interviewed 

expressed skepticism about the direct utility of the watershed analyses for site-specific timber sales planning. 

However they noted that these analyses have proved useful 

for overall district-level planning. In addition, they stated 

that meeting the watershed analysis requirement no longer 

significantly affects timber sales planning and implementation as most of the district’s watershed analyses have been 

completed.

The two forest management employees interviewed 

noted that the survey and manage provisions and the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy requirements had significantly hindered the district’s ability to offer the probable 

sales quantity (PSQ) estimated in the Plan. One forest 

management employee noted that the survey and manage 

provisions were so cumbersome that they ground operations 

to a snail’s pace, “We call it ‘survey and say no’ because 

it brought us to a halt.” He observed that the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy was equally difficult to apply on the 

ground, “The terms and language are very vague. It says the 

guidelines have to be met at the project or site level, but it 

isn’t explicit about what it meant.” 

Another forest management program employee commented that disagreement over the meaning of the term 

“reserve,” as well as the kinds of management practices 

allowable in late-successional and riparian reserves, also 

played a significant role in slowing down timber sales in 

the early years of the Plan.

 During the first few years, everyone and their 

brother thought reserve meant to preserve. It’s taken 

a long time for managers and preservation-oriented 

staff members to get on the same page. Now we are 

letting more harvesting happen. People who didn’t 

know much about forest management realized that 

harvesting was okay. People got more comfortable 

with the idea that you could manage, not just protect 

on reserves.

A series of legal challenges further hampered the 

district’s efforts to provide the Plan’s estimated ASQ. In 

addition to appeals of individual timber sales, the district 

faced legal action on the sales permitted under the Rescissions Act, as well as challenges of its implementation of the 

Plan’s survey and manage provisions and its approach to 

managing the spread of Port Orford cedar root rot. According to one resource planner, “Virtually every decision 

within the timber management realm has been protested.” 

Although these appeals had a negative impact on the 

district’s ability to meet the ASQ target, one employee 

pointed out “the good side to the lawsuits is that they 

forced us to look at our plans.” 

Nontimber Forest Products

The Coos Bay District’s Small Sales program administers 

sales of a variety of forest products besides timber, including boughs, burls, Christmas trees, edible and medicinal 

plants, floral greens, moss, mushrooms, ornamentals, seed 

and seed cones, and transplants. The Small Sales program 

also sells small amounts of wood products, such as firewood 

and salvage logs. 

The drafters of the 1995 RMP final environmental 

impact statement (EIS) identified 49 species of nontimber 

forest products (NTFPs) harvested on the district. They 
23

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

rated 10 of these species (Douglas-fir, Port Orford cedar, 

western redcedar, western hemlock, incense-cedar, red 

alder, tanoak, madrone, myrtle, bigleaf maple, evergreen 

huckleberry, swordfern, and salal) as “most important.” The 

tree species in the “most important” list are harvested for 

firewood, boughs, or transplants. Evergreen huckleberry, 

swordfern, and salal leaves are common materials in floral 

arrangements. 

The RMP EIS also listed a variety of “less important” 

species, including cascara, vine maple, rhododendron, 

elderberry, blackberry, Oregon grape, moss, beargrass, 

various ferns, various medicinal plants, six species of mushrooms (king boletes, chanterelles, matsutake, cauliflower, 

lobster, hedgehog), and Oregon white truffle (USDI 1994: 

3-46 to 3-48). People harvest these species for a variety 

of uses, including for food, medicines, and crafts. Small 

quantities of salvage wood, which the BLM categorizes as 

a NTFP, brought in most of the Coos Bay District’s NTFP 

sales revenue prior to the Plan.2

The Plan record of decision did not specify an ASQ 

for NTFPs. However, the record of decision standards and 

guidelines put forth the following three parameters to guide 

NTFP activities permitted on lands covered by the Plan 

(USDA and USDI 1994: C-18): 

• The activities must not have an adverse effect on 

late-successional reserve objectives. 

• Sales of NTFPs must be compatible with resource 

sustainability of the harvested product, as well as 

protection of special status plant or animal species. 

• Resource managers can evaluate whether harvesting 

will have any negative effects on late-successional 

habitat, and if so can restrict harvest activities. 

The late-successional reserve assessment further directed the Coos Bay District to adhere to the basic principle 

of allowing NTFP harvesting and management activities 

only “when such an activity is neutral or beneficial to 

meeting late-successional reserve objectives and neutral or 

beneficial to the species itself” (USDA and USDI 1998: 93). 

The late-successional reserve assessment also established 

restrictions on the harvesting of firewood, boughs, and 

Christmas trees. Under late-successional reserve assessment guidance, for example, firewood cutting can only take 

place on existing logging cull decks, in thinnings where 

the firewood trees are marked, on roads only if blow-downs 

are blocking passage, and in recently harvested timber sale 

units” (USDA and USDI 1998: 93). The late-successional 

reserve assessment also limited the areas where the district 

can allow harvesters to cut Christmas trees and boughs to 

areas along or close to existing roads (USDA and USDI 

1998: 93).

The Coos Bay RMP EIS provided further guidance 

for managing NTFPs in compliance with Plan standards 

and guidelines. For example, the RMP states that district 

employees should limit NTFP harvesting in connectivity/diversity blocks, late-successional reserves, and riparian 

reserves (USDI 1994: 2–62). In addition, the RMP requires 

managers to limit the harvesting of plants belonging to 

the lily and iris families, as well as truffles, mushrooms, 

lichens, mosses, ferns, conifer boughs, conifer wildlings, 

Port Orford cedar boughs, hardwood brush boughs, and 

hardwood wildings (USDI 1994: 2–62).

The Coos Bay area has long served as an important 

source of raw materials for domestic and export market 

floral greens and ornamental bough industries. Since the 

mid-1980s, it has also functioned as a key source of supply 

for fall and winter mushrooms for the domestic and export 

market wild mushroom industry. Additionally, prior to the 

1990s, the Coos Bay area supported a number of independent small milling operations, which relied heavily on access to very small volumes of timber through the district’s 

salvage sales program. A brief overview of the permitting 

2Prior to the mid-1990s, forest scientists and managers paid little 

attention to nontimber forest products (NTFPs), despite their longstanding culturally, economically, and ecologically important role 

in rural communities around the United States (Jones et al. 2002). 

Prior to 1996, the Coos Bay District devoted few resources to 

gathering information about NTFPs present on and quantities sold 

from its holdings. We were thus unable to obtain consistent data on 

NTFP sales for the years preceding the Plan. As a result, we cannot compare pre- and post-Plan sales levels for various products. 

However, the Coos Bay District has good records for NTFP sales 

for the period 1996–2002. We can thus compare how product sales 

patterns changed over that 7-year period. 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

trends for these products since the Plan went into effect is 

provided below.3 4

Between 1996 and 2002, the Coos Bay District’s 

Small Sales program brought in roughly $342,000 in permit revenues for salvage logs, firewood, and a variety of 

NTFPs such as mushrooms, floral greens, and Christmas 

trees. Roughly 72 percent ($247,500) of the NTFP permit 

revenues came from salvage log and firewood sales. Of 

the remaining $94,500 in permit revenues, mushroom 

and floral greens permits generated the most income (50 

percent and 40 percent, respectively).

Annual revenues from the sales of these permits varied from a high of $90,206 in 1996 to a low of $15,100 in 

2000 (fig. 3). The district received an average of $48,900 

per year from the sale of NTFP permits during this 7-year 

period. Overall, the district has experienced a strong 

downward trend in the revenues received for its NTFP 

sales. The decline in NTFP permit revenues is linked 

primarily to a sharp decrease in sales of salvage wood and 

firewood (fig. 4). 

On average, the district issued 1,263 NTFP permits 

annually between 1996 and 2002. This represents a 

decline of roughly 5 percent from the average of 1,335 

permits issued annually from 1987 to 1991 (USDI 1995: 

3–49). Increased wild mushroom permit sales and a small 

rise in floral greens permit sales have kept the district’s 

permit sales from declining sharply despite the reduction 

in salvage and firewood permit sales. Overall, the district 

experienced a level, but fluctuating trend between 1996 

and 2002 in the number of permits it issued for all NTFPs 

(fig. 5). 1,800

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

19961997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Nontimber forest products 

(number of permits)

Figure 5—Number of nontimber forest products permits issued, 

1996–2002. Source: USDI 1996a–2004a.

100,000

90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Nontimber forest products 

permit revenues (dollars)

1996

19971998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Figure 3—Nontimber forest product revenues, 1996–2002. Not 

adjusted for inflation. Source: USDI 1996a–2004a.

19961997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Firewood and salvage 

permit revenues (dollars)90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0

Figure 4—Permit revenues from firewood and salvage wood sales, 

1996–2002. Not adjusted for inflation. Source: USDI 1996a–2004a.

3We were able to obtain only partial data on NTFP permit quantities, values, and number of permits and contracts sold in 1995. To 

maintain comparability across product categories, we have used 

only those years (1996 through 2002) for which we have complete 

data to analyze NTFP trends on the district.

4Prior to 1994, the Coos Bay District, and the BLM as a whole, 

put very few resources into tracking and enforcing special forest 

product permits for materials other than salvage logs and firewood. 

It is thus unclear for those products that show an increase in 

permitting activity whether such increases represent an increase in 

the number of commercial harvesters seeking access to products 

on district lands, or whether pickers who had previously not gotten 

permits opted to obtain permits owing to expanded enforcement 

efforts and a broad regional trend for forest landowners to require 

commercial permits. 
25

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

The district sold permits for 821,000 ft3 of salvage 

wood and firewood between 1987 and 1991, an average of 

164,000 ft3 per year (USDI 1995: 3-49). Between 1996 and 

2002, this figure dropped to an average of 42,000 ft3 per 

year, roughly one-quarter of the amount formerly available 

(fig. 6). As with the timber volume, the volume of salvage 

wood available from the district was unpredictable from 

year to year after the Plan went into effect, ranging from as 

low as 16,800 ft3 in 2000 to a high of 61,700 ft3 in 2001. 

The average number of salvage/firewood permits issued 

per year in the post-Plan period also dropped substantially, 

from 987 permits issued per year during 1987 to 1991 

(USDI 1995: 3-49) to 199 permits issued per year between 

1996 and 2002. The following quotes from Small Sales program employees on the Myrtlewood and Umpqua Resource 

Areas illustrate the negative effect that the Plan had on the 

availability of salvage wood from the district.

We dealt with a variety of materials—Port Orford 

cedar, western redcedar. We were booked up all day. 

Now we have none of those. People can’t take snags 

anymore.

Small Sales has gone from 20 loggers who do it 

more or less for a living to one or two.

For small sales, people were as heavily affected if 

not more so than the big sales. People were operating 

on a shoestring and now they’re gone.

Trend data on the district’s revenues from sales of 

special forest product permits and the number of permits 

sold for various products during 1996 to 2002 illustrate the 

degree to which access to floral greens and wild mushrooms 

may have been affected in the years following the implementation of the Plan (figs. 7 and 8). The district’s sales of 

other products (boughs, moss, burls, Christmas trees) were 

negligible. 

Floral greens—

From 1987 to 1991, the district sold an average of 186 floral 

greens permits each year (USDI 1995: 3-49). Sales of floral 

greens permits rose from 1996 to 1999 and then declined 

from 2000 to 2002. The district issued an average of 500 

permits each year. The poundage of floral greens sold under 

Figure 6—Quantity of firewood and salvage wood sold, 

1996–2002. Source: USDI 1996a–2004a.

Figure 7—Number of floral greens and wild mushroom permits, 

1996–2002. Source: USDI 1996a–2004a.

Figure 8—Quantities of floral greens and wild mushroom sold, 

1996–2002. Source: USDI 1996a–2004a.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Num

b

er of p

ermits issue

d

19961997

19981999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Floral greens

Mushrooms

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Fire

w

o

o

d and salvage wood 

volume sold (cubic fe

et)

1996

19971998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Quantity sold (pounds)

1996

19971998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

Floral greens

Mushrooms
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

permit remained relatively flat from 1996 to 1998 but rose 

sharply in 1999. It increased in 2000 but dropped off to 

1999 levels in 2001 and 2002. Prior to the mid-1990s, the 

district tracked floral greens by using bundles rather than 

pounds as a unit of measure. Thus a comparison cannot be 

made between the post- and pre-Plan periods.

Mushrooms—

The district did not have a system in place for tracking 

wild mushroom harvesting prior to the early 1990s. Consequently, it is not possible to compare wild mushroom 

permitting trends during the post-Plan years with activity 

prior to the Plan. Annual program report data for the 

years 1996 to 2002, however, indicate that the district has 

experienced erratic levels of demand for commercial wild 

mushroom permits. The district sold permits for an average 

of 25,900 pounds of wild mushrooms per year, with a low of 

8,600 pounds in 1996 and a high of 52,000 pounds in 2002. 

District employees attributed this increase to an increase in 

market demand for wild mushrooms. 

Other products—

During 1987 to 1991, the district sold permits for 319,952 

pounds of boughs, or an average of 64,000 pounds per year. 

By contrast, from 1996 to 2002, the district sold permits for 

an average of 17,300 pounds of boughs per year, a drop of 

roughly two-thirds in the amount previously sold each year. 

District employees attributed the change in bough sales to 

shifting market conditions. In implementing the Plan, the 

Coos Bay District eventually eliminated access to moss and 

burls. Few people have approached the district for permits 

to harvest other NTFPs, such as cascara bark, seed cones, 

and Christmas trees.

According to the Small Sales program employees interviewed, the late-successional reserve and riparian reserve 

standards and guidelines had a disproportionately negative 

effect on the district’s ability to sell certain materials, 

notably small amounts of downed timber, firewood, moss, 

and burls.

On small sales we had a drastic reduction in our 

ability to sell salvage materials. For example, how 

we handle blow-down in road rights of way has 

changed. Earlier we could remove downed timber in 

rights of way. Now we can’t extract anything if it’s 

in an LSR or riparian reserve. In anything outside 

those areas, we can only take portions out of the 

right of way if we maintain some of the right of 

way in downed wood.

You have to have 10 acres or more with 40 percent 

or less crown closure in order to salvage. We had a 

blowdown in an LSR but it wasn’t 10 acres. So the 

blowdown is on the ground and we can’t touch it.

Most of the moss is in riparian reserves.... The riparian reserves were an important factor in shutting 

down burls and moss. 

Although the survey and manage provisions also 

prevented the district from offering some small sales, the 

impact of the survey and manage provisions on the Small 

Sales program appeared to be much less than on regular 

timber sales. The Small Sales program employees reiterated the view of timber management employees that a key 

constraint of the Plan was not its substance per se, but the 

way in which the biologists on the district have chosen to 

interpret its provisions. 

Fish, Wildlife, and Special Status Plants

Between 1945 and 1989, the Coos Bay District centered 

its forest management efforts on harvesting older stands 

and replacing them with younger trees by using sustained 

yield management techniques in vogue at the time. An 

unintended consequence of this forest age conversion was a 

reduction in wildlife diversity on BLM lands owing to the 

disappearance of suitable habitat and protective cover for 

many species (USDI 1994: 3-53). From the standpoint of 

wildlife and special status species plant management, the 

difficulty posed by the shift from more mature to younger 

stands on the district was that it resulted in forest stands 

with different plant composition, as well as less vertical and 

horizontal structural complexity (USDI 1994: 3-55). The 

district’s application of management practices that substantially reduced the quantities of dead and down wood on the 

forest floor, such as shorter harvest rotations, slash burning, 
27

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

and thinning, further reduced habitat suitable for certain 

species of plants and wildlife (USDI 1994: 3-53 to 3-57). 

During the RMP EIS process, botanists identified 77 

special status plants that they knew or suspected might be 

in the district. Of these, seven species, including pink sand 

verbena, bensonia, salt marsh bird’s beak, waldo gentian, 

western bog lily, Wolf’s evening primrose, and silvery 

phacelia, were candidate species for listing under the 

federal ESA (USDI 1994: 3-63 to 3-64). None of the seven 

species for listing are forest species. The district’s increased 

attention on their management stemmed from a legal mandate to implement special status species programs rather 

than Plan directives. In addition, biologists identified 84 

wildlife species that use old growth as their primary habitat 

(USDI 1994: 3-55). They also documented the presence of 

16 endangered, threatened, or protection candidate wildlife 

species (USDI 1994: 3-66 to 3-79). Fish biologists identified 

four priority species of fish—Chinook and coho salmon, 

steelhead, and cutthroat trout—for the Coos Bay District’s 

fish habitat restoration efforts (USDI 1994: 3-59). 

The Plan’s standards and guidelines laid the foundation 

for a significant change in the amount of resources the Coos 

Bay District invested in understanding the biology and 

ecology of forest species. Prior to the Plan, biologists served 

primarily as support for the timber program. By focusing 

the district’s management attention on creating and maintaining certain forest conditions rather than a high level of 

timber harvest, the Plan laid the foundation for a much more 

proactive role in forest management on the part of wildlife, 

fisheries, watershed restoration, and botanical specialists.

The Plan had three components that fundamentally 

changed how the district managed wildlife, fisheries, and 

special status plants. First, the Plan required that the district 

complete late-successional reserve assessments and watershed analyses prior to conducting any timber management 

projects in an area. Second, the Plan and the subsequent 

Coos Bay RMP called for biologists and botanists to take a 

proactive role in species protection. The survey and manage 

requirement constituted the cornerstone of this component 

in that it mandated the district to take the steps to acquire 

a much more comprehensive understanding of the components of local forest ecosystems. Third, the Plan and 1995 

RMP required that BLM employees coordinate and consult 

with federal, tribal, and state fish and wildlife management 

agencies in efforts to identify and eliminate impacts associated with habitat manipulation, poaching, and other activities that threaten the existence and distribution of terrestrial 

and aquatic species (USDA and USDI 1994: C-30, C-38; 

USDI 1995: 27, 33). In short, the Plan directs the district’s 

biologists and botanists to retain habitat for special status 

species where they can; to coordinate wildlife, fisheries, and 

special status plant management activities when possible; to 

avoid actions that would lead to the relisting of species; to 

educate the public; and to reintroduce species when necessary (USDI 1995: 33).

Landscape-Level Planning

The Plan required the Coos Bay District to shift a substantial amount of its funding and human resources into 

landscape-level planning before it could implement new 

timber sales, or other major ground-disturbing land management actions. The district’s biologists and botanists thus 

focused much of their attention during the mid-1990s on 

developing the district’s two late-successional reserve assessments and a series of watershed analyses. By the end of 

1999, district employees had produced both of the required 

late-successional reserve assessments and 22 first-iteration 

watershed analyses (USDI 2003a: 11). The first-iteration 

watershed analyses covered roughly 93 percent of the 

district’s lands, and their completion again opened lands in 

matrix allocation for timber sale activities. The district’s 

watershed analysis coordinator noted that developing the 

first watershed analyses presented a considerable challenge, 

in part because district-level data for many of the sections 

was limited: “It was traumatic when we first started. We 

had no data.” 

A district administrator observed that internal disagreements over forest management approaches initially 

slowed down the watershed analysis process considerably:

There was also a philosophical difference between 

how silviculturalists managed and how biologists 

managed. The plant buffer issue was another contentious item. There was always a fight on it. Finally 

they arrived at a more communal based definition...
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

The plant buffer issue linked with survey and 

manage, especially for fungi and lichens. Again it 

is a case of a philosophical difference between a 

forester and a botanist. When you find a mushroom 

on the list, how big of an area do you remove from 

cutting? The teams got together to work this out. 

We had foresters, biologists, and ecologists on 

them. We needed a defensible reason, and the team 

hammered that out. We finally came to a method 

that we thought could pass the red-face test. Much 

of that tension was internal.

One employee noted that he had seen a marked change 

in the attitude of other employees toward the watershed 

analyses as they realized the long-term benefits of investing 

their time into developing sections related to their program. He also commented that the time needed to develop 

and review watershed analyses has decreased as district 

employees have become familiar with the process.

The watershed analyses and survey and manage guidelines emerged as important tools allowing the district’s 

employees to modify the Plan’s standards and guidelines 

to suit local conditions and to develop the knowledge 

needed to provide additional protections when needed. For 

example, through the watershed analyses and survey and 

manage process, the district determined that the Lower 

Coquille and Middle Main Coquille watersheds did not 

meet the 15-percent requirement for the minimum area in 

late-successional forest conditions. As a result, the district 

restricted regeneration harvesting in those two watersheds, 

as well as in several other watersheds that also did not 

meet the minimum requirements (USDI 2000a: 15). One 

employee also noted that the watershed analysis process 

has had the unintended, but beneficial effect of providing 

an opportunity for district employees to stay up to date 

with their fields of expertise.

Proactive species protection efforts—

The Plan’s survey and manage requirement quickly 

emerged as one of the most hotly contested elements of the 

Plan. On the Coos Bay District, survey and manage procedures generated tension between employees and prompted 

legal challenges from outside groups. Because biologists 

and botanists had not identified any category 1 survey and 

manage species on the district during the mid-1990s, the 

district focused on developing the interim management 

guidelines and survey protocols for category 2 species, 

including the red tree vole, five amphibian species, and 

nine species of mollusks (USDI 1997a: 18). Simultaneously, 

the district’s botanists developed management recommendations for 29 fungi and 18 bryophyte species, about which 

the district employees had little or no knowledge (USDI 

1997a: 18). By 2001, district botanists had documented the 

presence of 88 vascular special status plants and 33 nonvascular special status plants on the district (USDI 2001a: 

38). The district also contracted out surveys for the marbled 

murrelet, resulting in the delineation of an additional 19,775 

acres of late-successional forest habitat on the district as of 

2003 (USDI 2003a: 10). District fish biologists conducted 

surveys of young and adult coho, Chinook, and steelhead 

populations, as well as spawning surveys for fall Chinook, coho, and winter steelhead. Wildlife biologists also 

inventoried down logs and snags, and conducted surveys to 

monitor green-tree retention rates and to localize the spread 

of Port Orford cedar root disease.

The district simultaneously embarked on a districtwide effort to monitor and enhance species and habitats 

needing protection. Using Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) funding, the district implemented a variety of fish and aquatic 

habitat enhancement projects, as well as a tidegate monitoring and installation project in the Coos and Coquille 

watersheds. As part of its habitat protection and enhancement efforts, the district expanded its special management 

areas from 3 in 1994 to 12 in 1997. The fish and wildlife 

biologists interviewed during this study had a positive 

view of the survey and management requirements, which 

they noted had played a key and, in their view, necessary 

role in preventing timber harvesting in old-growth habitat. 

Additionally, the biologists also stated that the late-successional reserves and riparian reserves provided biologists 

with the leverage they needed to negotiate adequate buffers 

for species protection.

A 10-year timeframe is too short to accurately measure 

the ecological impacts of the habitat enhancement efforts 

described above. However, district biologists observed 
29

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

indications that habitats of two protected species, pink sand 

verbana and western bog lily, had begun to stabilize by 

2002 (USDI 2002a). The green-tree retention, snag recruitment, and snag creation monitoring work had advanced 

sufficiently by 2002 to permit district biologists to identify a 

clear need for stricter quality control measures. The district 

implemented these measures, and the district’s fiscal year 

2003 review found that all but one of the projects carried 

out in 2003 complied fully with Plan requirements (USDI 

2003a: 89–92). 

Coordination—

The Plan’s requirements for coordination and consultation 

among the various agencies responsible for implementing 

the Plan provided the impetus for district biologists and 

botanists to develop new partnerships and strengthen preexisting collaborative efforts to inventory and monitor species 

and to enhance and protect sensitive species’ habitat. For 

example, the district joined forces with several state and 

federal agencies and nonprofit groups in the mid-1990s to 

develop habitat enhancement, monitoring, and protection 

projects for the western lily, the western snowy plover, and 

the Roosevelt elk. Starting in 1996, representatives from the 

BLM, the USDA Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) began meeting regularly to streamline the Section 

7 consultation process for addressing ESA concerns. Similarly, from 1996 onward, the agencies also consulted NMFS 

regarding proposed activities that would occur within the 

range of several species of fish being proposed for federal 

listing (USDI 1996a: 14). 

Implementing the Plan required scientific data that the 

BLM historically did not collect, and for which it lacked 

data-gathering and analysis structures. In 1996, the BLM 

sought to address this weakness in its institutional capacity 

to carry out scientific natural resource management by developing a watershed-based strategy to identify the agency’s 

research needs and by laying out suggestions for how 

managers could form partnerships with science agencies, 

universities, and other scientific institutions. The BLM also 

developed a research and monitoring committee at its state 

office to evaluate and support research projects. As part 

of this research development effort, the Coos Bay District 

initiated collaborative partnerships with forest scientists at 

Oregon State University in the late 1990s to conduct studies 

of promising density management and commercial thinning 

approaches (USDI 1996a: 20–21; USDI 1997a: 30). In 2002, 

the district sold its first density management sales.

In the view of some district employees interviewed 

during this study, the Plan has had no clear discernible 

effects on hunting, fishing, or birding opportunities. A 

resource planner stated that the closure of roads for aquatic 

protection purposes had made road-hunting for elk more 

difficult, but noted that some hunters considered that a good 

thing. One of the road engineers commented that many 

hunters had expressed positive feelings about proposed 

road decommissioning on the grounds that the quiet would 

enhance their chances for finding game. The district fish 

biologist observed that both the local sports and commercial 

fisheries have improved since the Plan’s implementation, 

but noted that those improvements likely were at least partly 

associated with other policy changes (i.e., restrictions on 

commercial and recreational fishing). 

One employee, however, noted that the regeneration 

harvest practices of previous decades combined with the 

decline in precommercial thinning in late-successional 

reserve portions of the district has resulted in large areas 

of very dense young stands that make very poor deer and 

elk habitat. Such stands are also very difficult to hunt in. 

He stated that, as a result, many hunters wish that the BLM 

would harvest significant amounts of timber again so as 

to open up more ground for hunting. Forest management 

under the Plan’s standards and guidelines is likely to lead to 

significant changes in forest stand structure and composition in the long term. These changes, in turn, are likely to 

affect the abundance and distribution of game species, as 

well as fish and bird populations. However, it is too early, 

and insufficient data exist to determine how those changes 

affect hunting, fishing, and birding opportunities on the 

district. 

Range Resources

Very little grazing takes place on the Coos Bay District’s 

holdings, most of which are too steep or too heavily forested 

to provide good grazing land for livestock. In 1994, the 
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

district had six long-term leases of 10 years each, and one 

short-term lease of a year’s duration (USDI 1994: 3-111). 

Four of the leases encompassed less than 10 acres each. 

The seven leases combined encompassed 270 animal unit 

months of forage on 439 acres (USDI 1994: 3-111). One 

employee, who works only part time on grazing issues, 

handles the range resource program for the entire district. 

In 2003 the district maintained four long-term leases, 

providing 496 animal unit months of grazing use (USDI 

2003a: 82). Relative to the amount of pastureland available on private lands in the area, the increase in animal 

unit months is insignificant for the region’s agricultural 

economy. The district replaced two additional grazing 

leases in the southern part of the district near the New River 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern with cooperative 

management plans with the livestock owners. These plans 

allowed the district to ensure that management on those 

areas is consistent with riparian reserve objectives under 

Plan guidelines and the 1995 RMP. The district charges 

minimal fees for the four grazing leases remaining in the 

northern end of the district. It thus does not generate any net 

revenues from the grazing lease program. 

Energy and Minerals

The Coos Bay District’s energy and minerals program 

administers recreational gold mining claims, commercial 

mining claims, oil and gas leases, coal and coal bed 

methane leases, and sand and rock quarrying activities. 

One employee, a geologist, manages the program for the 

entire district. He also provides technical assistance to local 

and state government agencies and neighboring national 

forests. During the past two decades, mining companies 

have carried out explorations on the Coos Bay District for 

a variety of minerals, including nickel, cobalt, gold, silica, 

and platinum (USDI 1994: 3-108 to 3-110). However, none 

of these explorations have yielded commercially viable finds 

at current mineral prices and market conditions. In 1993, 

just prior to the Plan, 40 mining claims existed on BLM 

lands (USDI 1994: 3-108 to 3-110). 

The Coos Bay District has some potential for developing oil and gas, as well as coal and coal bed methane 

production. Indeed, coal mining on the southern end of the 

Coos Bay contributed significantly to the local economy 

between 1860 and 1920. The district experienced a flurry 

of oil and gas lease activity in the early 1980s, when energy 

prices were high, but the holders of most of the leases 

dropped them when oil prices fell in the 1990s. As of 1994, 

the district had only 14 oil and gas leases on file, each covering only a few hundred acres. In 1994, the BLM had 20 

rock pit sites, from which road builders quarried construction materials. However, the geologist noted that the district 

has a limited need for rock, other than for logging road 

construction. In places where the district has high-quality 

rock, the distance to urban centers makes transportation uneconomical. If the price structure for quarried rock becomes 

more favorable for suppliers, the economic importance of 

the district’s rock resources could increase sufficiently to 

make commercial operations attractive. 

The Plan record of decision lays out a variety of 

restrictions on minerals management, primarily guidelines 

for minimizing surface disturbance and waste disposal in 

riparian reserves. However, because provisions of the 1872 

Mining Act supersede the record of decision, the 1995 RMP 

has somewhat less stringent guidelines than the Plan. The 

RMP key restrictions on mining and energy resources management include the following items (USDI 1995: 57–60): 

a) Within riparian reserves, the RMP requires that 

mining operations develop a plan of operations, 

and limit road construction, buildings, and waste 

disposal operations so as to minimize damage. 

b) The RMP directs the district to only permit sand 

and gravel sales in riparian reserves if proposed 

activities are compatible with Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives.

c) The RMP states that the district should not issue 

new leases for surface occupancy for oil, gas, and 

other energy resources, and should seek to ensure 

that activities on existing surface occupancy leases 

meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

The district had 33 mining claims in fiscal year 2003 

(USDI 2003a: 80) compared with 40 claims in 1993 (USDI 

1995: 3-108). However, none of the claims were active in 

either year. Since the Plan’s implementation, the district has 
31

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

approved one plan of operations (for sand exploration on 

the North Spit) submitted for mining and signed one oil and 

gas lease. The district issued eight permits for 79,400 yd3

of rock quarry materials and conducted seven sand and 

gravel sales between 1997 and 2003. 

The district geologist identified three aspects of the 

Plan guidelines that pose potential barriers to minerals 

development: 

• The “no surface occupancy” requirements in 

riparian reserves and “key watersheds” restriction, 

which hinders development of coal methane beds 

in the Myrtlewood Resource Area. 

• The “plan of operations” requirement, which 

entails expensive and time-consuming analysis 

and thus affects small-scale mining operations 

disproportionately.

• Timing restrictions for wildlife and riparian 

reserve protection purposes governing when 

quarrying operations can take place. 

According to the district geologist, the “no surface 

occupancy” requirement discouraged the holder from 

exploring the recently issued oil and gas lease, and thus the 

holder has opted to make no bids on the lease. Thus the lack 

of mining on the district at this time may be linked in part 

to restrictions of the Plan. 

The district geologist noted that recreational mining 

is an important resource use activity for local residents 

and outsiders. He stated that recreational mining opportunities, particularly for dredging operations, have decreased 

since the early 1990s owing to instream timing restrictions 

for fish protection. Under state laws aimed at protecting 

fish habitat, instream work, including dredging operations 

for recreational mining, is allowed only between July 1st

and September 15th in the northern part of the district. 

Dredging operations are allowed in streams located in the 

southern part of the district between July 15th and September 30th. Nonmotorized mining, such as gold panning, is 

not restricted. 

Recreation

Prior to the Plan, most recreational use on the Coos Bay 

District consisted of dispersed recreation activities, such as 

camping, picnicking, hiking, riding, sightseeing, hunting, 

fishing, and off-road driving. In 1990, analysts estimated 

recreational visits on the district at roughly 1.3 million visits 

(USDI 1994: 3-97 to 3-99). Until the 1990s, the district 

invested few resources into its recreation program. 

The Plan’s direction for recreation management is 

simple and broad relative to the complex and specific 

direction regarding timber harvesting: “...manage recreation 

areas to minimize disturbance to species” (USDA and USDI 

1994: C-6). The Plan drafters stated that dispersed recreation uses were generally consistent with late-successional 

reserve objectives (USDA and USDI 1994: C-18). However, 

in cases where conflicts between recreation practices and 

late-successional reserve objectives arose, the Plan directs 

recreation managers to “[u]se adjustment measures such 

as education, use limitations, traffic control devices, or 

increased maintenance....” (USDA and USDI 1994: C-18). 

Similarly the Plan specifies that new recreational facilities 

meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, and directs 

managers to mitigate or eliminate existing recreation use 

patterns and facilities that interfere with achieving Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives (USDA and USDI 1994: 

C-34). 

The 1995 RMP guidelines for the Coos Bay District 

reiterated the Plan’s emphasis on keeping recreational 

uses consistent with late-successional reserve and Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives. However, the RMP also 

called for managers to take a proactive approach to recreation management in all land allocations by “...enhanc[ing] 

travel and recreation management through increased 

emphasis on interpretive and informational signs and 

maps” (USDI 1995: 46). In addition, the RMP directed the 

district to limit off-highway vehicle use in late-successional 

reserves, riparian reserves, and areas of critical environmental concern to designated roads (USDI 1995: 50).

In the late 1980s, the district’s upper level managers 

had already started to shift more attention and resources 

toward developing a full-fledged recreational program. In 

1986, for example, the Oregon-Washington BLM implemented the bureau’s recreation area classification system in 

which it designated high-use sites, such as Loon Lake in the 

Coos Bay District, as special recreation management areas 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

(USDI 1994: 3-89). All other district lands were categorized 

as extensive recreation management areas. 

With the Dwyer injunction in 1989, and the prospects 

of a long-term decline in the district’s timber management 

program, the district manager and key staff members began 

exploring the possibilities of developing a full-fledged recreation and tourism program that would complement local 

community efforts to create a more diverse, but still naturalresource-based economy. The upper level managers at the 

time felt it was important to adapt the district’s management 

priorities to reflect the changing economic situation. 

Data in the Coos Bay District’s annual program 

reports and the 1995 RMP EIS indicate that the number 

of recreation visits increased from an average of roughly 

674,000 per year immediately prior to the Plan to an average 

of 820,000 per year between 1998 and 2003 (table 2), an 

increase of 22 percent. (Program reports for 1995, 1996, and 

1997 did not provide estimates of the number of recreational 

visitors.) However, it is unclear whether the 1998–2003 

increase is due to the development and improvement of 

recreational facilities and sites in the district made possible 

in part through the Plan, or whether the number of visitors 

would have increased without these changes. 

The number of miles of trail built and maintained on 

the district increased from just over 1 mile prior to the Plan 

to 30 miles in 2003. The number of trail visits per year has 

also increased since 1999, the first year for which trail visit 

statistics are available. The number of special recreation 

management areas also increased from 11 to 15 since the 

Plan went into effect. However, all of these changes were 

underway before the Plan went into effect. 

In the 1990s, the district approached its recreation and 

tourism program with the same “get it done” attitude that 

had served it so well in timber management. The Coos 

Bay District’s recreational program started with a cohesive 

community-based vision of nature-based tourism being a 

viable component of the south coast’s economy. The district 

and surrounding communities worked closely together to 

assemble the pieces needed to help realize that vision. The 

supporters of the nature-based tourism economy vision 

sought to expand income-earning opportunities for residents while supporting forms of recreation and tourism 

that meshed with the natural environment and cultural 

values of the existing population. 

The vision was homegrown, having emerged through 

years of conversations, interactions, and reflections on the 

part of key community residents from Reedsport to Brookings and BLM employees. One BLM employee, a native of 

the area familiar with local activities and politics, played a 

prominent role in helping the district and the communities 

along the south coast bring the vision to life. As another 

recreation planner on the district pointed out, having a 

community insider working with the district was essential 

in that “.... he was able to identify opportunities for us.”

Table 2—Recreation program trends

Number of Recreation fee Number of Maintained Estimated Number of

Year recreational visits demonstration receipts permits trails trail visits managed sitesb

Dollarsa Miles

Pre-1995 673,900 — — 0.5 — 11

1995 — — — — — 11

1996 — — — — — 11

1997 — — — — — 10

1998 702,570 91,219 — 9.0 — 12

1999 691,351 124,022 11,217 18.3 5,377 12

2000 1,018,163 112,977 10,467 26.3 8,388 15

2001 832,159 127,433 12,739 26.3 9,293 15

2002 824,750 128,167 13,043 22.3 9,477 15

2003 856,958 141,448 14,715 30.3 9,477 15

Note: — = no data.

aAdjusted for inflation, 2003 dollars.

bOne campground closed during 1997 for repairs owing to storm damage.

Source: USDI 1996a–2003a. 
33

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

The south coast nature-based tourism vision emerged 

from a recognition of Coos Bay’s disadvantages from the 

standpoint of most destination tourist spots in Oregon: 

it lacked the spectacular mountain landscapes of the 

central Cascades and was too remote from the Portland 

metropolitan area to attract day and weekend tourists in the 

numbers that have contributed to the prosperity of many 

north coast Oregon towns. However, a few key people in 

the Coos County planning staff, the Port of Coos Bay, the 

South Slough National Estuarine Reserve, the Coos Bay 

BLM, and a few other groups also recognized that while 

the area had no one particular spectacular draw, it did have 

a diverse set of attractions that if packaged and marketed 

as a set of recreational and cultural experiences could 

potentially bring in large numbers of people for several 

days or weeks at a time:

The key is that you have to look at the whole vision, 

rather than looking at one attraction. We’ve got 

ocean shore, scenic roads, trails, fishing, all of 

these things. It’s the mass of the attractions that 

the vision is about. It creates the gravity needed to 

bring people in. [We] saw the mountain bikes [and] 

kayaks and canoes going down the highway on top 

of cars. Going other places. No one knows what we 

have here. The idea is that we want to stop people.

The district began to turn the vision into reality in the 

late 1980s and early 1990s when the district had the opportunity to acquire Dean Creek and develop public recreation 

opportunities at New River and the North Spit—three 

environmentally and culturally significant sites. Thus, in 

1994 when the Plan took effect, the district had already 

started to invest resources in improving or developing its 

existing special recreation management areas, including

Loon Lake Campground, Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, 

Coos Bay Shorelands, and the New River Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern. 

With the Plan in place, recreation program employees 

further expanded their activities in these four management 

areas, while simultaneously developing other components 

of the nature-based tourism vision. Over the next 8 years, 

the district metamorphosed from its pre-Plan role as the 

operator of a few scattered and poorly maintained campgrounds to a key player in a regional community-based 

tourism and environmental education development effort. 

In addition to taking on a lead role in regional tourism and 

recreation planning activities, the district also invested 

heavily in improving its existing special recreational sites 

and smaller campgrounds, developing two additional 

special recreation management areas at Sixes River and 

Hunter Creek Bog; constructing a 30-mile network of hiking, mountain biking, and interpretive trails; and creating 

a professionally staffed interpretive and environmental 

education program. 

Although the Plan created an important window of opportunity for enhancing the district’s recreation opportunities, it also expanded the spaces in which the very presence 

of humans became defined as potentially detrimental. 

Moreover, one recreation specialist commented that many 

botanists and biologists who had come onto the district after 

the Plan, brought with them a strong bias against human use 

of forest ecosystems. The alliance that previously existed 

between the “ologists” and recreation specialists in the face 

of the much more powerful timber management program 

has broken down as a result of the reluctance on the part of 

biologists and botanists to allow recreational activities at 

environmentally sensitive sites such as New River, Floras 

Lake, and the North Spit. 

Echoing comments made by timber and Small Sales 

program employees, however, the recreation employees 

noted that the plan itself isn’t at fault. Instead, they see the 

problem as linked to the reluctance of biologists and botanists to recognize that humans are part of the landscape. 

In the view of one recreation specialist, implementing the 

Plan as if humans were not part of the landscape contributes 

to local resentment of the BLM’s management approach: 

“That’s what angers people, when they are left out of the 

landscape.” In the view of one upper level administrator, the 

Plan’s implicit view of human actions as inevitably detrimental to ecosystem integrity also has had the unintended 

consequence of limiting the district’s ability to contribute 

toward the development of a strong regional tourism 

economy. 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Heritage and Cultural Resources

The Plan record of decision provides very little direction regarding cultural resources management, with the 

exception of treaty rights resources. The Plan standards 

and guidelines cannot impinge on treaty rights except 

under certain conditions, such as when species listed under 

the ESA are at stake and if voluntary tribal conservation 

measures are insufficient (USDA and USDI 1994: C-16). 

The record of decision also requires the Forest Service and 

BLM to monitor whether ecosystem management activities provide adequate protection for religious and heritage 

sites, as well as ensuring tribal access to traditional species 

harvested and places of cultural significance (USDA and 

USDI 1994: E-9). The 1995 RMP provides no additional 

guidance other than stating that planners must include 

cultural resources in watershed analyses (USDI 1995: 40). 

During the 1970s and 1980s, the cultural resources 

program focused primarily on conducting cultural resources clearances for proposed surface disturbance activities, 

such as timber harvesting and commercial thinning. 

Although the Plan virtually ignores cultural resources 

with the exception of tribal treaty rights, indirectly it has 

allowed the district’s cultural resources program to evolve 

into a management program in its own right, rather than 

a support activity for timber harvesting. This shift has 

occurred in part because the decrease in timber harvesting 

has reduced the need for clearance work, thus freeing up 

time for the cultural resource specialist to do other cultural 

resources management activities. The cultural resource 

specialist also noted that the Plan’s emphasis on plants, 

fish, and wildlife rather than timber “can translate into 

more funding for cultural resources.”

In 1996, the Coos Bay District entered into a partnership with the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, 

the Coquille Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz 

Indians to manage the Cape Blanco lighthouse, which 

the U.S. Coast Guard wished to dispose of. The cultural 

resources program took charge of restoring the lighthouse 

and developing it as an interpretive site. The lighthouse 

has consistently attracted more than 20,000 visitors per 

year. In the same year, the district also began working with 

the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw to develop a cultural heritage museum on Gregory 

Point, also known as Bal’diyaka. The district has since 

dropped the Bal’diyaka project, but assisted the tribe in 

obtaining the property. 

The requirement that the newly established Coquille 

Forest adhere to the Plan standards and guidelines also 

helped broaden the cultural resources program’s scope to include developing an ongoing working relationship between 

the Coquille Tribe and the Coos Bay District. The following 

observation from the cultural resource specialist illustrates 

the importance of these new relationships with tribes:

We do have a few sites, and I’ve been spending the 

past 4 to 5 years managing those in coordination 

with the Coquille. I’ve been especially involved 

with the Coquille since we did the land transfer. 

The first 2 years we had a legal responsibility to 

assist the tribe, to make sure it was done well. The 

understanding is that BIA doesn’t often provide 

assistance. We tried to be different. We’ve developed 

a relationship that is very strong, and helpful to each 

other. For example, when the crisis came up over 

Cape Blanco lighthouse, they helped out.

Since the mid-1990s, the cultural resources program 

has played a key role in deepening understanding of both 

historical and prehistoric cultural lifeways on the south 

coast and coastal uplands. For example, the district took an 

active role in the excavation and analysis of sites at New 

River, Sixes Rivers, Cape Blanco, Bal’diyaka, Euphoria 

Meadows, Bridge, Wells Creek, and Vincent Creek. The 

development of closer working relationships with the local 

tribes, as well as with local history associations and historians, has thus significantly expanded the Coos Bay District’s 

capacity, in terms of its staff’s knowledge of local lifeways 

and the existence and importance of various resource use 

traditions, to manage the cultural resources on BLM lands. 

Scenic Quality

Owing to the checkerboard ownership pattern, most of 

Coos Bay District’s holdings are adjacent to industrial 

forest lands managed intensively for timber production. 
35

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

As a result, approximately 75 percent of the district’s lands 

are categorized as class IV lands within the BLM’s Visual 

Resource Inventory System (USDI 1994: 3-86). The Planrelated management changes have not affected the visual 

qualities of these lands. Only 1 percent of the district’s 

lands are rated as class I (USDI 1994: 3-86), for which 

the objective is to preserve the existing character of the 

landscape (USDI 2003b). 

Fire Management

In the moist forests of the Coast Range, the risks of catastrophic fire are low. For example, between 1995 and 2003, 

29 fires occurred on the Coos Bay District, burning a total 

of 52 acres. Nonetheless, fire always has been an important ecological process even in Coos Bay’s moist forests, 

particularly on drier slopes (USDI 1994: 3-131). Historically, warmer, drier sites tended to have more frequent but 

less intense fires than the moister sites (USDI 1994: 3-131). 

However, when timber companies joined with the state, 

federal, and local governments in the 1900s to actively 

suppress fires, fuel loadings in drier sites gradually built up 

to the point where the risk of a large, intense fire is higher 

now than it would have been without human intervention 

(USDI 1994: 3-131). Recent work on fire occurrences in 

the southern coast range suggests that a very patchy, 95- to 

145-year fire rotation is normal for the area’s ecological 

conditions (USDI 1994: 3-131). 

The Plan standards and guidelines direct forest managers to treat fire as an integral part of ecological processes. 

However, the Plan also provides for different management 

objectives depending on the type of land allocation (i.e., 

late-successional reserve, riparian reserve, matrix). The 

record of decision directs managers to create fire management plans for the late-successional reserves so that fire is 

managed in ways that maintain late-successional habitat, 

while limiting large, high-intensity fires and causing as 

little damage as possible when suppressing fires (USDA 

and USDI 1994: C-17). Similar guidelines apply to riparian 

reserves, where managers are required to manage fire in 

ways that meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, 

such as minimizing water contamination and riparian area 

disturbance. In matrix land allocations, the primary fire 

management objective is to ensure protection of dwellings 

and structures while seeking to maintain important ecological structures such as snags and down coarse woody debris.

Coos Bay District managers in the mid-1990s took a 

much more proactive view of fire as a management tool 

than the Plan record of decision. This proactive approach 

to fire is reflected in the 1995 RMP, which specifies that 

the district use fire and fuel management activities as tools 

to accomplish Plan ecosystems management objectives 

for late-successional reserves, the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy, riparian reserves, and matrix lands. In accordance 

with the record of decision, the RMP requires that when fire 

managers suppress fires, they take steps to minimize any 

adverse effects on ecosystem management objectives. The 

RMP also requires the fire management program to take 

actions, such as modifying fuel profiles, to reduce the risks 

for high intensity. 

Between 1995 and 2003, the district completed prescribed burns on roughly 3,100 acres, primarily for silvicultural treatments. For silvicultural treatments, “.... prescribed 

burning activities are implemented to improve seedling 

plantability and survival, reduce brush competition as well 

as activity fuel reduction” (USDI 1998a: 45). Starting in 

1996, the Coos Bay Fire Management program also worked 

to reduce fire hazards in riparian reserves, by using “various combinations of fire trail construction, fuel reductions, 

and alternate treatment such as brush slashing, hand or 

machine piling” (USDI 1996a: 13-14). The Hazardous Fuels 

Reduction (HFR) program, which began in 2000, meshes 

with Plan and RMP objectives. As part of the HFR mandate, the district has stepped up fuel reduction in areas “to 

protect, enhance, restore and/or maintain plant communities 

and habitats that are critical for endangered, threatened, or 

sensitive plant and animal species” (USDI 2002a: 82).

The fire management program manager noted that the 

Plan has changed some of the ways the district does fire 

management, but that the impact on the fire program has 

been small. Some of the changes have to do with where fire 

crews put through fire trails, the kinds of materials used 

to extinguish fires, and the types of fuel reduction treatments used in thinnings. In addition, he noted that under 

the Plan guidelines, district fire personnel “need more 
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

time to plan and organize and get people going.” Indeed, 

in his view, the major shortcoming of the Plan has been 

the increase in time it takes to do planning, which then 

cuts down on the time that he has to devote to activities 

on the ground. On the other hand, he also believes that the 

landscape-level planning was both useful and necessary in 

that it has enabled the district to do a better job of managing its land as a whole. The fire program manager also 

expressed concern about the current reluctance of managers 

to conduct harvesting or vegetation management activities 

in late-successional reserves. In his view, if left alone, the 

stands harvested of timber in the 1970s and 1980s develop 

fuel loads and profiles that will increase the risk of larger, 

more intensive wildfire.

Roads

In 1994, the Coos Bay District had 389 miles of arterial roads, 700 miles of collector roads, and 651 miles of 

BLM-controlled local roads (USDI 1994: 3-8). The district’s 

1,740-mile road system provided access to 90 percent of the 

district lands. Owing to the area’s steep topography and unstable soils, the district had developed a forest road network 

with an unusually high percentage of paved roads. When 

the Plan was implemented, the district’s forest road system 

thus constituted a key component of the regular transportation system, allowing much greater year-round access to the 

region than would otherwise have been possible. 

The Plan called for keeping new roads and landings 

to a minimum in key watersheds and in late-successional 

and riparian reserves (USDA and USDI 1994: C-7, C-16, 

C-32 to C-33). The new guidelines directed transportation 

system engineers to reconstruct roads that interfered with 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and to reduce 

road densities in reserves and key watersheds through road 

closures and decommissioning (USDA and USDI 1994: C-7, 

C-16, C-32 to C-33; USDA and USDI 1998: 90). In addition, 

the Plan specified that road engineers should leave coarse 

woody debris when felling hazard trees (USDA and USDI 

1994: C-16), improve or build culverts for 100-year flood 

levels, and provide and maintain fish passage (USDA and 

USDI 1994: C-32 to C-33). 

The Plan further required the Forest Service and BLM 

to refrain from building new roads in riparian reserves until 

the appropriate watershed analyses had been completed 

(USDA and USDI 1994: C-32 to C-33). The Plan also 

extended landscape-level planning to the transportation 

system network, requiring the district to develop a districtwide transportation management plan, and to manage the 

road system on a watershed basis, rather than solely on 

a road-by-road basis as had previously been the practice 

(USDI 1995: 70). This approach emphasized a much lighter 

touch on the land than had historically been the case and 

required road engineers to envision a system in which a 

much greater percentage of roads would be temporary 

rather than permanent. 

During the first few years of the Plan, district engineers 

spent much of their energy developing a transportation 

management plan (TMP) to comply with the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives. Completed in 1996, the 

TMP specified guidelines for categories of road closure 

and decommissioning, ranging from temporary or seasonal 

closures to limited access decommissioning (i.e., where 

access will be limited for more than 5 years) to full decommissioning (permanent) to obliteration (i.e., restoration to 

original slope) (USDI 1996b). Once the engineers completed 

the TMP, they shifted more of their energy into watershed 

analyses and developing transportation management objectives to guide road management within each watershed. 

They also began reconstructing and decommissioning roads 

in priority watersheds, with the primary reconstruction 

focus on culvert replacements and modifications to facilitate 

fish passage (USDI 1996a: 18-19). 

In 1997, the roads program received a setback in 

meeting its Plan goals and objectives when a series of 

severe winter storms severely damaged large portions of 

the district’s riparian reserves. For the next 4 years, district 

engineers worked to repair the damage caused by the 

1996–97 winter storms while also developing transportation 

management objectives and decommissioning roads. By 

2001, the district had developed transportation management 

objectives for 97 percent of roads. In addition, between 

1995 and 2003, the district built 15 miles of new permanent 

roads, and decommissioned, closed, or gated 92 miles. 
37

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Using the base figure of 1,740 miles of road in 1994, we find 

that the district now has roughly 1,643 miles of accessible 

road, or 95 percent of its pre-Plan mileage. 

The two road program employees interviewed during 

the study indicated that the Plan had negatively affected the 

district’s ability to maintain an adequate road system in a 

variety of ways. First, reduced timber harvesting greatly 

decreased the funds available for road construction, maintenance, and decommissioning, activities that previously had 

been funded primarily through timber sales and commercial 

thinning operations. Second, the survey and manage 

requirements greatly increased the time needed to process 

requests for road rights-of-way. Third, riparian reserve and 

other wildlife habitat protection requirements have limited 

where the district can construct new roads, as well as how 

and where it can maintain roads. 

The following quote from one of the road program 

employees illustrates how the Plan’s low ASQ relative to 

the timber volumes harvested during the 1980s had the side 

effect of reducing the funds available for road maintenance.

Because we’re cutting less timber our roads are 

being less extensively maintained. Under a timber 

program, the private industry pays for maintenance. 

For example, on our resource roads, we’re not 

making entries every 10 years or so because we’re 

no longer going in that often. It used to be a 50-50 

private-government split and also projects [sales] 

that funded mainline and collector roads. Then we’d 

leave them open until we did a commercial thin, and 

then decommission them. But since we haven’t been 

doing the thinning, the roads aren’t getting decommissioned...Even if we had maintained the allowable 

cut level under the Plan, we still had an 80-percent 

drop from the roads that we were putting in under 

the 250 million board feet we were cutting in the 

1980s.

Although funding for road construction and maintenance has declined, the amount of staff time needed to 

review and grant requests for rights-of-way over existing 

haul roads or to build new roads over BLM’s holdings has 

increased. The road engineers interviewed during this study 

noted that survey and manage requirements are a key contributor to lengthy review and approval process. However, 

they also noted that the increased review time was linked to 

ESA concerns as well as Plan requirements. 

Both road program employees interviewed also 

observed that the riparian reserve restrictions had a disproportionately negative impact on road construction and 

maintenance programs in Coast Range forests. They noted 

that riparian reserve issues are linked in part to the failure 

of the Plan to adequately differentiate between east- and 

west-side forests when developing riparian protection 

standards. One of the road program employees also stated 

that the Plan has increased project costs “because you have 

to add in the costs of doing a reconstruction of road rather 

than having maintenance,” and thus reduced the capacity 

of the district to accomplish its late-successional reserves 

restoration objectives. 

Road program employees observed that the district’s 

inability to maintain its roads has long-term negative 

environmental consequences owing to the risk of culverts 

getting plugged up and the subsequent increase in the 

likelihood that roads will wash out. Additionally, under 

the new requirements, engineers have to provide specific 

locations for roads, rather than granting approval for a 

section through which a right-of-way can pass. Both of the 

engineers interviewed indicated that this tended to increase 

the number of stream crossings included during the road 

design, precisely those areas that are the most environmentally sensitive. One of the engineers cited an example of 

how the extensive review process functions as a perverse 

incentive for landowners to bypass the federal process and 

build much longer and much more damaging roads on their 

own lands. As with other aspects of the Plan, the key issue 

in the minds of the engineers is less that the review process 

is unnecessary, and more that it is currently overly cumbersome and thus alienates community members and provides 

incentives for landowners and forest users to develop 

environmentally damaging alternatives. 

Decreased access to district lands owing to road closures and decommissioning linked to the Plan does not yet 

appear to be happening on the Coos Bay District. Although 

the Plan calls for extensive decommissioning of roads, with 
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

limited funding and other more pressing work to take care 

of, the road system is at 95 percent capacity of the pre-Plan 

level. Moreover, although an increasing number of roads 

in the Coos Bay region are being gated, most of the gating 

is taking place on private lands. One district planner noted 

that the gating of private land can result in de facto elimination of general public access to some BLM land. However, 

he stressed that such de facto withdrawals are unrelated to 

the Plan. As noted earlier, the Plan has led to a substantial 

decrease in funding for road maintenance, which in the long 

term is likely to affect public access to BLM land. However, 

during the first 10 years of the Plan, flood recovery funds, 

coupled with JITW and, more recently, resource advisory 

committee (RAC) funds targeted at road repairs, helped 

offset the decline in timber sale receipts that previously 

supported road maintenance activities. 

Invasive Species

The Plan record of decision directs forest managers to 

refrain from introducing nonnative species into late-successional reserves. If they do introduce such species, then the 

presence of such plants must be compatible with late-successional reserve objectives. In areas where nonnative plant 

populations already exist, the record of decision specifies 

that forest managers should evaluate whether the presence 

of such plants is consistent with late-successional reserve 

objectives. If not, then forest managers should develop 

plans to control or get rid of them, provided that the control 

measures are also compatible with late-successional reserve 

objectives. The Plan record of decision provides no explicit 

direction for how nonnative plants should be treated on 

riparian reserves or matrix lands. The 1995 RMP reiterates 

the Plan record of decision guidelines, and calls for the use 

of integrated pest management approaches to controlling 

invasive species (USDI 1995: 21, 72).

The 1994 Resource Management Plan EIS (USDI 

1994 3-44, 3-45) noted the presence of five noxious weeds 

categorized as priority treatment species on the Coos Bay 

District: tansy ragwort, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle, 

gorse, and Scotch broom. In addition, botanists noted 

concerns about the presence of European beachgrass with 

respect to its negative effects on western snowy plover 

and native plant populations on coastal dunes (USDI 1994: 

3-44; 3-45). 

According to the noxious weed specialist on the Coos 

Bay District, prior to the Plan, the district subsumed noxious weed control activities into its road maintenance and 

silvicultural programs. Noxious weed control thus did not 

surface in the minds of BLM managers as an issue worthy 

of a program in its own right until the mid-1990s when 

timber harvesting, along with associated road maintenance 

funding and activities, declined sharply from the previous 

four decades. 

In 1996, the district brought on a noxious weed 

specialist to develop a noxious weed inventory, research, 

and management program. The noxious weeds program’s 

control efforts have focused on inventorying and controlling Scotch broom, gorse, and purple loosestrife along the 

forest road system, which serves as the primary avenue 

for the spread of invasive species. The district funded a 

noxious weed inventory along 2,100 miles of road in 1997, 

followed by manual treatment to remove the broom species in subsequent years. A pilot crew from the Coquille 

Watershed Association conducted the inventory and later 

provided the labor for manual treatment of broom species 

at problem sites. In addition, each year the district provides 

the funding for a prison crew to remove noxious weeds 

from the Deans Creek Elk Viewing Areas. 

In 1999, the district worked with the Coos watershed 

association to conduct an inventory of purple loosestrife 

in the Coos subbasin. This inventory, as well as followup 

inventories contracted out in 2001 and 2002, served as 

the basis for the district to apply biocontrols on purple 

loosestrife. By 2001, the silvicultural program had 

reinitiated chemical treatments for noxious weeds along 

roadsides where site preparation and reforestation activities were taking place. The district thus currently makes 

use of a broad array of approaches to invasive plant species 

management, including chemical, manual, and biocontrol 

treatments.

The Plan has significantly affected the noxious weed 

program, albeit indirectly. Prior to the Plan, the BLM had 
39

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

developed a timber harvesting and reforestation system 

based on an extensive transportation network of wellconstructed haul roads. This network greatly facilitated 

the spread of noxious weeds. However, as indicated in 

the quote below, prior to the Plan, the district also could 

rely on its timber sales program to control the spread of 

undesired nonnative plant species, such as gorse, brooms, 

and purple loosestrife:

The bottom line is that we’re not doing active 

silviculture any more and that promotes the spread 

of weeds. When we were harvesting actively, the 

timber sales paid for brush removals. Now the 

weeds are left unchecked and untreated. It’s a large 

issue. Scotch broom, gorse, and purple loosestrife 

are so heavily populated now, and once you let it go 

it becomes difficult to manage. The idea is to keep 

it from spreading in the first place.

The Coos Bay District now finds itself in a dilemma: 

its transportation infrastructure is constructed in a way 

that encourages the spread of invasive species, but the 

district no longer has the institutional infrastructure to 

adequately control or minimize their expansion. Not 

only does this present a problem from the standpoint of 

noxious weed populations expanding along roadsides, but 

a new forest management problem has also surfaced: the 

spread of noxious weed populations within stand interiors. 

Another related dilemma is that noxious weeds constitute 

a threat to restoring and maintaining native habitat in 

riparian reserves, yet the Plan standards and guidelines 

restrict the use of the treatments that have been proved 

most effective in stopping their spread. 

The noxious weed program manager noted that local 

interest in organic farming also has played a role in the 

district’s decision to develop an integrated pest management program that relies primarily on a combination of 

manual and biocontrol treatments. In short, during the 

past decade, the district’s ability to control the spread 

of noxious weeds has decreased in part because of legal 

mandates and social pressures to reduce its use of herbicides, and in part because the BLM is still struggling to 

develop a viable weed control infrastructure adapted to a 

forest management regime based on less frequent timber 

harvesting and decreased road densities. 

Jobs and Income Associated With 

District Management Activities

Changes in the District Budget

The Coos Bay District obtains funds from a variety of 

sources. In addition to annual allocations through congressional appropriations, since 1994 the district has received 

substantial amounts of funding linked to the Plan and 

the cessation in timber sales activity owing to the Dwyer 

injunction. These include JITW and and Timber-Recreation Pipeline Restoration funds.5

 Since 1998, the district 

has also obtained funds each year through the recreation 

use fee demonstration project. During the late 1990s, the 

district received several million dollars a year in emergency 

funds to repair damages caused by massive floods in the 

winter of 1996–97. When adjusted for inflation, the Coos 

Bay District’s annual budget exhibited a generally flat trend 

between 1993 and 2003 (fig. 9). The budget ranged from 

a high of $16.9 million in 1997 to a low of $13.8 million 

in 2002, averaging $15.4 million annually during those 

11 years. However, distribution of the funds among the 

5Revenues generated through the 1995 Recissions Act sales 

went into a fund, known as the Timber-Recreation Pipeline 

Restoration Fund. Under the conditions of the act, the district 

had to use 75 percent of the funds to prepare sales to meet the 

ASQ. The remaining 25 percent of the funds were earmarked 

for work on recreation projects.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Millions of dollars

1996

19971998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

2003

1993

19941995

Figure 9—BLM Coos Bay District budget, 1993–2003. Adjusted 

for inflation, 2003 dollars. Source: BLM State Office.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

district’s programs changed substantially from pre-Plan 

budget allocation patterns, with several programs experiencing substantial increases in their budgets and others 

remaining flat or declining. 

According to interviews with BLM program managers, 

programs experiencing substantial increases in funding owing largely to the Plan included fish and wildlife; 

recreation; and soil, water, and air quality. The fish and 

wildlife program’s habitat restoration budget, for example, 

rose rapidly, from roughly $30,000 a year prior to the Plan 

to $1.9 million dollars annually in the mid and late 1990s. 

Similarly, the recreation budget increased from roughly 

$300,000 in the early 1990s to $1.2 million in the mid and 

late 1990s. The soil, water, and air program budget also 

expanded so that the district could meet the Plan’s requirements for watershed analyses. 

The minerals program budget expanded slightly to meet 

the increased demand under the Plan for technical input on 

geomorphology. The fire management program’s budget 

increased abruptly in the late 1990s, as emerging concerns 

about fire hazards in late-successional and riparian reserves 

in the east-side forests increased the funds available for all 

fire programs. Similarly, increases in funding nationwide to 

control or eliminate invasive species during the early 2000s 

translated into more funds for the district’s noxious weed 

program. Although timber management and roads budgets 

initially dropped substantially from pre-Plan levels, they 

remained stable after the mid 1990s. 

Many district employees expressed concern that future 

budgets will decline or remain flat, thus effectively increasing their workload and hindering their ability to carry out 

their programs effectively. They noted that the impact on 

the district’s ability to carry out its mandates would be 

gradual, and thus difficult to readily identify as a problem. 

One administrator pointed to the district’s inability to 

provide marketable commodities as a potential justification 

for the BLM to cut the district’s budget allocations: “...we’re 

not putting out a product any more. So we don’t have the 

same immunity that the district used to have to budget 

cuts.” He also noted that key sources of restoration funding, such as the JITW and Secure Rural Schools monies, 

originated with the Plan and may not be renewed when the 

appropriations for them run out. He expressed additional 

concern that the fee demo project is due to sunset, and that 

failure to renew it would leave recreation under-supported. 

Changes in District Employment

As indicated in figure 10, the number of people employed 

directly by the Coos Bay District declined from 206 in 

1993 to 175 in 2002. This represents a 15-percent decline 

in the number of employees working for the district. The 

district experienced an abrupt decline in employees in the 

first 2 years after the Plan’s implementation. The number of 

employees rose again to nearly pre-Plan levels from 1997 to 

2000, but has been declining gradually since 2000. 

155

160

165

170

175

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

Number of employees

1996

1997

19981999

2000

2001

2002

Year

1993

1994

1995

Figure 10—BLM Coos Bay District employment, 1993–2002. 

Source: BLM State Office.

Although the district did not experience the same level 

of reductions in staff that took place in the neighboring 

national forests in the wake of the Plan, the distribution 

of employees among the different programs changed 

significantly. For example, the district shifted forestry 

and engineering employees into the recreation, watershed 

restoration, and fish and wildlife programs. The district 

thus avoided the severe morale problems that emerged in 

neighboring national forests in the wake of massive staff 

reductions. 
41

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Another major change observed by district employees 

since the implementation of the Plan, is the shift from 

promoting and transferring employees primarily from 

within the Oregon and California Railroad Company (O&C) 

districts in Oregon to actively recruiting new personnel 

from non-O&C BLM units and other agencies. Several 

employees noted that an increased emphasis on integrating 

work across programs has developed from the simultaneous 

introduction of new blood among upper level managers and 

the need to meet the Plan’s requirements for landscapelevel, interdisciplinary planning. 

Although the number of permanent full-time employees 

exhibited a slight downward trend between 1993 and 2002, 

the number of seasonal and part-time employees initially 

dipped downward when the Plan went into effect, and then 

increased in the late 1990s when the district carried out the 

broad-scale surveys required under the survey and manage 

provisions. In 2000, after the backlog of survey and manage 

work had been completed, the district cut back again on 

seasonal and part-time employees. 

The district, which was divided into three resource 

areas during the late 1980s, consolidated into two resource 

areas in 1996. In addition, district administrators had anticipated decreasing the number of positions on the district 

gradually by not replacing retiring or transferring forestry 

and engineering personnel. The need for additional wildlife 

and recreation positions in the initial years of 

the Plan likely helped reduce the rate at which 

the district downsized during the 1990s. However, as one employee noted, even in recreation 

and wildlife, the effects of gradual attrition 

had become visible by 2003: “The trend is that 

we’re likely to be stable on the budget, but 

we’ll have a net decline in employees.”

Cognizant of the likelihood that annual budgets will stay flat or decline, BLM is 

engaged in an agency-wide workforce planning effort. Other options that the district is 

investigating for getting the same amount or 

more work done with fewer employees include 

sharing offices and staff with other federal 

agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, and contracting 

more of the work currently done by employees, such as 

road and recreation maintenance. The district will be hiring 

fewer full-time permanent employees and making more use 

of temporary and term employees.

Changes in Contracting

The Coos Bay District spent $39.7 million obtained through 

the BLM State Office’s procurement program on land 

management activities in Coos and Curry Counties from 

1990 through 2002.6 Although the district spent an average 

of $3.3 million each year, the amounts spent per year varied 

considerably. The district spent the bulk of the funds in the 

mid-1990s, and then reduced spending from 1999 onward. 

Spending was approximately $3 million in 1990, peaked at 

$4.3 million in 1996, and tapered off to roughly $1.4 million 

in 2002 (fig. 11). 

In addition to the BLM State Office’s procurement on 

behalf of the Coos Bay District, district staff also procured 

numerous contracts valued below $25,000. Unfortunately, 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

Contract awards 

(thousands of 2002 dollars)

1996

19971998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Fiscal year

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Technical

Equipment

Labor

Figure 11—Land management procurement spending by work type, Coos Bay 

District, fiscal years 1990–2002. Adjusted for inflation, 2002 dollars. Source: 

Moseley 2006. 

6Although the Coos Bay District is located in Coos, Curry, and 

part of Douglas Counties, this analysis only includes contracts 

issued in Coos and Curry Counties because the Coos Bay District 

contracts for work performed in Douglas County could not be 

distinguished from Salem District contracts. Because the Salem 

District manages more land in Douglas County, any contract 

performed in Douglas County was more likely to have been 

awarded by the Salem District.
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

we were unable to obtain district-level procurement data 

for the years prior to 2000. However, during 2000–2002, 

the district staff handled on average about 10 percent of the 

district’s total procurement per year. If this same 10-percent 

rate held throughout the study period, we can estimate that 

the combined total procurement of the district by district 

and state office staff from the period 1990–2002 would have 

been $44.4 million rather than $39.7 million. 

The district concentrated its procurement investments 

in Coos County, where most of the district’s land is located. 

In 1990–92, the BLM spent $44 dollars per acre for work 

performed in Coos County and none in Curry County. By 

2000–2002, per-acre spending had fallen to $25 per acre 

in Coos County and had risen to $1 in Curry County. The 

relative proportion of spending for equipment-intensive, 

labor-intensive, and technical contracting changed over 

time (fig. 12). 

Over time, the Coos Bay District shifted its spending 

away from activities associated with intensive timber 

management to those associated with surveys and restoration. Unexpectedly, labor-intensive contracting remained 

relatively constant until 1997. After 1997, labor-intensive 

contracting began to decline and technical contracting 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Work type

Contract awards 

(thousands of 2002 dollars)

Equipment Labor Technical

1990–1992

1995–1997

2000–2002

Figure 12—Land management procurement spending by work 

type, Coos Bay District; fiscal years 1990–1992, 1995–1997, 

and 2000–2002. Adjusted for inflation, 2002 dollars. Source: 

Moseley 2006.

began to increase. This continued funding of labor-intensive 

contracting was largely the result of increased investment 

in thinning in the mid-1990s as other labor-intensive activities declined. Tree planting declined from $2.6 million in 

1990–92 to $684,000 in 1995–97. But procurement spending on thinning during 1995–97 was more than double 

($5.4 million) the spending in the earlier and later periods 

($2.4 million and $2.3 million, respectively) (fig. 13).

Detailed work type

Tree thinning

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Contract awards 

(thousands of 2002 dollars)

Forest tree planting

Land treatment practices

Site preparation

Unknown

Fisheries resource management

Landscaping,

groundskeeping

Noxious weed control

Slash piling, hand

Seed collection, production

Tube installation, maintenance, removal

1990–1992

1995–1997

2000–2002

Figure 13—Labor-intensive contracting by detailed work type Coos Bay District, fiscal years 1990–1992, 1995–1997, 

and 2000–2002. Adjusted for inflation, 2002 dollars. Source: Moseley 2006.
43

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Figure 14—Technical contracting by detailed work type, Coos Bay District, fiscal years 1990–1992, 1995–1997, and 2000–2002. 

Adjusted for inflation, 2002 dollars. Source: Moseley 2006.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Detailed work type

Other natural resource management and conservation Contract awards (thousands of 2002 dollars)

1990–1992

1995–1997

2000–2002

Study, endangered 

species—plant/animal

Study, archeological- paleontological

Study, wildlife

Study, environmental assessments

Survey, stand exam

Survey, water quality monitoring

Survey, biological/botanical

Analysis, watershed

Analysis, historical

Survey, survival/growth

Cone collection

Analysis

The Coos Bay District increased its spending on 

technical activities in 1997 and 1998 and further expanded 

technical procurement spending in the early 2000s. Spending on species surveys and studies increased over time, 

especially in the early 2000s. In addition, spending on 

“other natural resource management and conservation 

activities” increased substantially, but it is unclear from 

this general categorization what type of activities this 

work actually involved (fig. 14). This is somewhat later 

than one might have expected given the Plan’s direction 

for extensive species surveys, but it is similar to the BLM’s 

regional pattern. However, we cannot tell from these data 

if these surveys were performed with in-house crews, with 

assistance agreements, or not at all during the early to mid1990s. Most likely, the relatively late arrival of procurement 

spending on technical activities is explained by the use of 

in-house crews and assistance agreements with the Coquille 

Watershed Association and other watershed councils. 

Coos Bay District spending on equipment-intensive 

activities peaked in 1995–97, similar to the pattern of 

labor-intensive spending. However, a shift in the type of 

equipment-intensive activities occurred early in the study 

period. Equipment-intensive activities related to intensive 

forest management such as aerial fertilization diminished 

rapidly while road maintenance and construction increased 

from zero to $4.0 million in the mid-1990s and then fell off 

again by the early 2000s (fig. 15). 

Assistance agreements—

In addition to using a contracted external workforce for land 

management, the Coos Bay District also used assistance 

agreements with the local watershed council to meet land 

management objectives while training a local workforce 

and enhancing business capacity. Beginning in 1996 on the 

south coast, the Coquille Watershed Association and its 

partners developed a training program using the opportunities created by the JITW and Hire the Fisher programs 

(Hallock 1998). Their training program has been one of the 

longest standing efforts of its kind in the Plan area. The 

Coos Bay District partnered early with the local watershed 

councils and continued to provide restoration work to 
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

local watershed councils by using assistance agreements 

throughout the 1990s and 2000s. In these assistance agreements, both the cooperating organization and the district 

bring resources to the table, with the cooperator usually 

providing at least a 20-percent match in funds. We have 

little detailed information about spending via agreements 

with the local watershed councils. However, we do know 

that between 1998 and 2002, the Coos Bay District spent 

$1.3 million on land management restoration on BLM land 

through agreements with local watershed councils. Of this 

amount, the Coos Bay District spent $973,000 for equipment-intensive activities such as road decommissioning 

and stream restoration, $423,000 for labor-intensive work 

such as tree planting, snag creation, and noxious weed removal, and $92,000 for technical activities such as noxious 

weed inventories and red tree vole surveys (fig. 16).

Figure 15—Equipment-intensive contracting by detailed work type, Coos Bay District, fiscal years 1990–1992, 1995–1997, 

and 2000–2002. Adjusted for inflation, 2002 dollars. Source: Moseley 2006.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Detailed work type

Aerial fertilization, spraying

Contract awards 

(thousands of 2002 dollars)

Maintenance, repair, alteration— other conservation structures

Construction—highways, roads, streets, bridges

Construction, other conservation

Construction, recreational non-building structures

Restoration, stream/creek

Road work, stabilization

Road work, bridge

1990–1992

1995–1997

2000–2002

Maintenance, repair, alteration— highways, streets, bridges

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

Agreements

(thousands of 2002 dollars)

Technical

Equipment

Labor

Figure 16—Land management spending via assistance agreement, 

Coos Bay District, fiscal years 1998–2002. Adjusted for inflation, 

2002 dollars. Source: Moseley 2006.
45

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Contractor turnover and concentration—

In 1990–92, the Coos Bay District awarded 28 contracts 

(table 3). By 2000–2002, that number had increased to 

42. In the first period, three contractors (11.7 percent of 

contractors) captured 50 percent of the contract value. In 

2000–2002, seven contractors (16.7 percent of contractors) 

captured 50 percent of the contract value, suggesting that 

the concentration of contract awards declined over time. 

However, a chi-square test did not show a statistically 

significant change. This pattern is surprising given that the 

Coos Bay District’s spending declined between the two 

periods. The increasing number of contractors, the decreasing concentration of contract awards, and the decline in 

overall procurement spending means that contractors 

working in 2000–2002 were typically awarded considerably 

less contract value than contractors were awarded a decade 

before. By 2000–2002, the contractors earned an average 

of $124,000, whereas contractors had earned an average 

$312,000 from the district a decade prior.

Table 3—Contracting awards by size of contractor 

Coos Bay District, BLM, fiscal years 1990–1992, 

2000–2002

 Period 1990–1992 2000–2002

Number Percent Number Percent

1st quartile 1 3.57 2 4.76

2nd quartile 2 7.14 5 11.90

3rd quartile 5 17.86 8 19.05

4th quartile 20 71.43 27 64.29

 Total 28 100.00 42 100.00

Note: This table groups contractors by size of contractors’ awards. The 

largest contracts that together capture one-fourth of the contract value 

are in the first quartile. The smallest contracts that together capture 

one-fourth of the contract value are in the fourth quartile. Thus, for 

example, the largest contractor in 1990–1992 captured the same total 

value as the smallest 20 contractors.

Chi square: p < 0.611.

Of the 28 contractors awarded contracts in 1990–92, 4 

were working for the district a decade later, a turnover rate 

of 85.7 percent. As was the case regionwide, the contractors who performed work for the district in both periods 

earned more money in each period from the district than 

those who had not. That is, the long-time contractors earned 

more from the district on average than the shorter term 

contractors. The average total award to repeat contractors 

in 1990–92 was $448,000, whereas the overall average 

was $312,000. By contrast, in 2000–2002, the average total 

award was $130,000 compared to $124,000 overall. This 

makes sense given the overall decrease in procurement 

spending during the study period.

Location of contractors who worked on the 

Coos Bay District—

Although the Coos Bay District is not right next to the 

Interstate-5 (I-5) corridor, the district awarded much of 

its contract value between 1990 and 2002 to contractors 

located along I-5, particularly in the Willamette Valley. 

Contractors in the coastal communities also captured a considerable portion of the contract dollars. Most contractors 

performing labor-intensive contracts were located along the 

I-5 corridor and were from more distant communities than 

were equipment-intensive contractors. Local contractors 

were more likely to capture equipment-intensive contracts 

(fig. 17). This follows the patterns of national forests in 

Oregon and Washington located across mountain ranges 

from I-5 (Moseley and Shankle 2001). 

It is difficult to discern a clear pattern to Coos Bay District contract awards from 1990–92 to 2000–2002. It seems 

as though awards along I-5 in Oregon decreased, whereas 

the value of contracts in southern Oregon and away from 

I-5 may have increased. However, the level of information 

on contracts in the district does not allow reliable statistical 

tests to be performed. 

In 1990–92, 19.1 percent of Coos Bay District’s 

contract value was awarded to contractors from rural 

communities (population less than 5,000) (table 4). Another 

28.5 percent of the value was awarded to contractors from 

communities with 5,000 to 10,000 people. In 2000–2002, 

contractors in rural communities captured 3.2 percentage points less of the total contract value than they did a 

decade earlier, and contractors in communities with 5,000 

to 10,000 people captured 7 percentage points less. The 

decline in Coos Bay procurement spending led to a decrease 

of $942,000 awarded to rural contracts in the early 2000s, 

compared to 10 years earlier. Although the percentage of 
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Figure 17—Comparison of labor- and equipment-intensive contractors by location (ZIP code), Coos Bay District, 1990–2002. Adjusted 

for inflation, 2002 dollars. Source: Moseley 2006.
47

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

contract value awarded to smaller communities did drop 

over the study period, chi square tests on the distribution of 

contract awards among communities were not statistically 

significant, both including and excluding the amount of 

contract dollars awarded to communities of unknown 

size, suggesting that awards to smaller communities did 

not decrease significantly.

Contract awards to affected counties—

The Coos Bay District awarded virtually all of its contracts 

to contractors in the Plan-affected counties throughout the 

study period (figs. 18 and 19). The percentage of awards 

to contractors in the affected counties ranged from 97.4 to 

100 percent, with a few years when the location of some 

contractors was unknown. During 1995–97, the Coos 

Table 4—Contract value by contractor’s community size, BLM Coos Bay 

District, fiscal years 1990–1992, 2000–2002

Community population (1998) 1990–1992 2000–2002

Real dollars Percent Real dollars Percent

<5,000 1,772,000 19.1 830,000 15.9

5,000–9,999 2,651,000 28.5 1,126,000 21.6

10,000–50,000 306,000 3.3 340,000 6.5

>50,000 4,559,000 49.1 2,656,000 50.9

Unknown 0 0 268,000 5.1

 Total 9,288,000 100.0 5,220,000 100.0

Chi square: p < 0.097.

Chi square (excluding unknown category): p < 0.450. 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Fiscal year

C

ontract awards (thousands of 2002 d

ollars)

Unknown

Other areas

Affected counties

Figure 18—Contract awards to the Plan-affected counties, Coos Bay District, fiscal years 1990–2002. Adjusted for inflation, 

2002 dollars. Source: Moseley 2006.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Figure 19—Contract awards by location of contractors. Adjusted for inflation, 2002 dollars. Source: Moseley 2006.
49

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Bay District awarded 100 percent of the contract value to 

contractors in affected counties, excluding those contractors 

whose offices could not be located. In 1990–92, the district 

awarded 99.2 percent of contract value to affected counties and, in 2000–2002, 99.5 percent. An increase of 0.8 

percentage points between 1990–92 and 1995–97 cannot 

be considered significant because some of the contractor 

locations were unknown during 1995–97, which created 

some uncertainty. Regardless, this small difference had 

little impact on the Coos Bay District procurement patterns 

because the Coos Bay District already awarded nearly all of 

its contracts to contractors from the affected counties.

Interview data provided additional insights into how 

contracting on the district has changed over the past decade. 

The restoration coordinator noted that the term “local” has 

come to mean contractors located in Roseburg and Newport, as well as the Coos Bay communities:

Remember that for us, local is as far away as Roseburg. We just don’t have that many people in the 

Coos Bay-North Bend area.... Most of the contractors come from Roseburg, Coos Bay, and Newport. 

It’s not really local. There hasn’t been a huge 

development in the number of local contractors.

However, he stated that the district makes a special 

effort to ensure that JITW and RAC funds go to contractors 

in and around Coos Bay. He observed that the Title II funds 

from the Secure Rural Schools Act are the easiest to target 

to contractors in nearby communities, as they have the 

leeway to limit the contracts to contractors from the counties involved. The restoration coordinator also observed that 

the watershed associations have developed into important 

contracting entities in their own right, developing a set of 

subcontractors that they use for carrying out JITW and 

RAC-funded projects. 

According to the fisheries biologist, contracting for biological work increased considerably after the Plan went into 

effect. He noted that contracts for restoration and instream 

enhancement typically went to displaced loggers, whereas 

stream survey and monitoring contracts went to the Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Department. 

He reiterated the restoration coordinator’s observation 

that the district has increased the contracts that it awards to 

watershed associations for restoration work. However, he 

noted that the district accomplished most of the survey and 

manage work by using in-house crews. Watershed analysis 

work also remained in-house and is likely to continue being 

done internally in the future. According to the watershed 

analysis coordinator, upper level administrators are reluctant to contract out watershed analysis work because of the 

training opportunities that it provides to district employees. 

By contrast, the Recreation Program has relied much 

less on contractors and more on its own workforce to 

refurbish and develop recreation and interpretive facilities 

on the district. The district’s interpretive specialist noted 

that work on interpretive signs has been done in-house 

primarily because the local capacity to develop the kinds of 

signage needed does not exist. However, she also observed 

that the district works with the Oregon Coastal Environmental Awareness Network (OCEAN) to locate and support 

local businesses for the development of brochures and other 

interpretive materials. 

District employees in most programs and at all 

administrative levels stated that the district was likely to 

expand contracting opportunities in the future because of 

the pressure from the Executive Office to outsource more 

services. One recreation planner observed that from the 

standpoint of helping local communities, such an approach 

might be counterproductive in that the district has historically provided well-paying jobs to local people:

The real issue to me is—are we taking care of the 

local communities? This A76 [competitive sourcing] thing—probably we will end up with some 

contractor from outside. [From an economic savings 

standpoint] we should have contracted out long 

before. But the people in the jobs were local people, 

the GS-9s.

He also noted that the recreation jobs likely to be 

contracted out would most likely pay much less than those 

currently held by many district recreation technicians, many 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

of whom were mid-level forestry technicians displaced 

when the need for their timber sales skills disappeared in 

the early 1990s.

Coordinators of the noxious weed control and fire programs, two of the district’s currently expanding programs, 

both indicated that contracting was and would continue 

to be an important means for them to accomplish their 

program activities. The noxious weed coordinator observed 

that contracting has substantial advantages for the district 

in that it shifts licensing and chemical storage costs to the 

contractors.

The fire program manager noted that the district 

has always relied heavily upon contractors to carry out 

fire-related work, such as prescribed burns. He stated that 

under the National Fire Plan, at least 50 percent of the work 

would continue to be contracted out. However, he expressed 

some concern over whether sufficient local capacity exists 

to carry out such contracts. In particular, he noted that 

the requirement for a performance bond on contracts over 

$25,000 might prevent local contractors from competing 

successfully.

Overall contracting trends—

The Coos Bay District, reflects the larger regional BLM 

patterns of spending in several ways. First, spending peaked 

in the mid-1990s at the height of the JITW era and declined 

thereafter as the BLM shifted its procurement emphasis to 

drier, more fire-prone lands. The swings in Coos Bay procurement spending are larger than those of the region as a 

whole. The procurement data does not, however, explain the 

source of the Coos Bay peak in spending in the mid-1990s. 

In the regional analysis, we hypothesized that the BLM’s 

peak in spending in the mid-1990s may have resulted from 

emergency money made available after the January 1997 

flood. Coos Bay District procurement spending increased 

before 1997, suggesting that additional factors were at work. 

Also, following the BLM’s regional pattern, the district 

shifted from procuring activities associated with intensive 

timber management to surveying and watershed restoration. 

Accordingly, procurement of technical activities rose in the 

late 1990s. 

Despite the shift in spending priorities, the awards to 

contractors in rural and small communities did not change 

much, nor did the proportion of contract value awarded 

to local contractors. Instead, the most striking difference 

between the early 1990s and a decade later was the increase 

in the number of contractors working for the Coos Bay 

District, despite the decline in the district’s procurement 

spending. 

Jobs-in-the-Woods and 

Watershed Restoration

The JITW component of the Plan offered a platform for 

the BLM to address economic and ecological objectives 

of the Plan simultaneously, a goal summarized in the 1998 

assessment of the Coos Bay District’s JITW program (USDI 

1998b: 3): 

The JITW program is designed to accomplish 

ecosystem restoration and, at the same time, provide 

economic assistance to the workers in the region 

covered by the Plan. This program brings all of the 

components of the Plan together: ecosystem management, economic development, and interagency 

coordination. 

The JITW program provided the district’s fish biologists and hydrologists with the combination of funds, labor, 

and community partners needed to engage in an intensive 

large-scale watershed restoration effort. In addition to 

funds, the district offered its community partners, notably 

local watershed associations and councils, in-kind support 

in the form of technical expertise in the design, implementation, and review of projects, access to material and 

equipment, and access to geographic information systems 

databases. 

The Coos Bay District received $1.8 million dollars, 

not including overhead costs, for JITW projects in 1994, 

the year it began its JITW program. As indicated in figure 

20, JITW funding declined steadily every year from 1994 

to 1999, the year with the lowest level of funding ($728,000 

with overhead costs included). The JITW funding rose 

slightly in 2000 and 2001, but dropped again in 2002 to 

$738,000. 
51

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

We were unable to locate a breakdown on project 

category spending that covered the entire period. However, an assessment conducted in 1998 by the BLM 

(USDI 1998b) indicated that during the first 5 years of 

the program, the vast majority of funds (61 percent) went 

toward fish enhancement and passage projects, with road 

stabilization and repairs constituting the second largest 

category of spending (21 percent) (fig. 21). 

Over the years, JITW has 

funded a variety of projects, 

including stream enhancement, 

fish passage construction, road 

stabilization and upgrading, 

riparian habitat improvement, 

tree planting and release thinnings, snowy plover habitat 

enhancement, interpretive and 

recreation facilities construction 

and rehabilitation, and noxious 

weed inventory and management. 

Prior to 1997, most of the JITW 

work was accomplished through 

contracts with individuals and 

firms. In 1997, the Coquille 

Watershed Association hired a 

pilot crew of displaced timber 

and fisheries workers to carry out restoration work.

According to the Coos Bay District’s annual program 

summaries for 1998–2002, during this 5-year period, the 

district’s JITW program created 7,506 workdays, or roughly 

6 full-time jobs per year. The district’s JITW program 

developed assistance agreements to work with the Coos, 

Coquille, Southwest Coos, and the South Coast Coordinated 

Watershed Councils during the mid and late 1990s (USDI 

1996a to 2000a). In 2002, the district established new assistance agreements with the Coos and Coquille Watershed 

Associations and Smith River, South Coast, and Umpqua 

Basin Watershed Councils. In addition to providing funding, district employees attend association and council 

meetings monthly and participate in technical field reviews. 

Employees of BLM also serve on the technical advisory 

committees for the South Coast and Umpqua Basin Watershed Councils. 

The passage of the Wyden amendment in 1998, which 

permitted the district to spend JITW funds for restoration 

on private lands in situations where such activities would 

also benefit public lands, encouraged greater local participation in watershed restoration (USDI 1998a: 9). To spend 

these funds, the district developed templates for memoranda 

of understanding for cooperative restoration for work 

Figure 20—Jobs-in-the-Woods funding, 1994–2002. Data for 1994 and 1995 do not include 

overhead costs; the remaining years do. Not adjusted for inflation. Source: USDI 1996a–2004a.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Jobs-in-the-Woods (million dollars)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Figure 21—Coos Bay District distribution of Jobs-in-the-Woods 

funding, 1994–1998. Not adjusted for inflation. Source: USDI 

1998b.

Fish

61%

Other

1%

Recreation

12%

Road

stabilization

21%

Wildlife

1%

Vegetation

management

4%
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

conducted through watershed organizations and land use 

agreements for participating landholders. The memoranda 

of understanding and land use agreement system proved so 

successful that numerous federal units active in watershed 

restoration efforts requested templates so they could adapt 

the system to their areas (USDI 1998a: 9).

By 2001, the job demands associated with watershed 

restoration had grown sufficiently that the district hired a 

full-time restoration coordinator to manage both the JITW 

program and the BLM’s involvement in the Title II program 

created under the Secure Rural Schools legislation. In late 

2001, Curry, Coos, and Douglas Counties formed the Coos 

Bay RAC to prioritize and allocate the Title II funds (USDI 

2002a: 14–15). The RAC makes all the decisions regarding 

these funds. 

As noted in the contracts section above, the JITW 

program in the Coos Bay District supported two of the most 

successful watershed organizations in Oregon, the Coos 

and Coquille Watershed Associations. The employees who 

had worked with the watershed associations noted that a 

key reason for their success is that the associations formed 

before the Plan was implemented and thus had organizational visions, missions, and projects already developed 

when JITW funds became available in 1994. 

The restoration coordinator noted that although the 

JITW program has been successful in the Coos Bay area, it 

has not provided the level of year-round employment that its 

designers had envisioned. Another district employee noted 

that a shortcoming of the JITW program is that it simply 

does not provide the district with the funds needed to adequately accomplish the work that needs to be done. Despite 

its shortcomings, the district is sufficiently satisfied with the 

way in which the JITW program has worked over the past 

decade to use it as a model for contracting the newly funded 

fuels reduction program.

Grants

The BLM has no programs analogous to the U.S. Forest 

Service’s Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP), 

in which the agency provides grants to local communities for resource conservation or economic diversification 

projects. However, two national forests—the Siuslaw and 

the Siskiyou—fall within the Coos Bay District’s boundaries. Consequently many communities that relied on timber 

harvested from the district benefited from the availability 

of RCAP and other Northwest Economic Adjustment 

Initiative (NEAI) funds. A multiyear study conducted by 

Kusel et al. (2002) provided a comprehensive analysis of 

the strengths and weaknesses of the NEAI based on an 

indepth study of NEAI projects in 32 communities located 

within the Plan region. Time and funding constraints, 

as well as the much broader scope of this assessment, 

prevented us from carrying out a similar analysis for the 

NEAI investments that went into the case-study communities. Moreover, owing to gaps and inconsistencies in 

how the many agencies involved with the NEAI recorded 

and maintained their NEAI project databases (Kusel et al. 

2002), it is difficult to accurately measure the amounts of 

NEAI funding that went into the Coos Bay region between 

1994 and 2000, the 6 years that the initiative was in effect. 

The Forest Service’s RCAP database (USDA 2004) 

constitutes one readily accessible source of data on NEAI 

projects, and includes a list of RCAP-funded projects as 

well as amounts of funding leveraged for those projects 

from other agencies and organizations. The RCAP database lists 34 projects funded in the three Coos Bay casestudy communities, including 16 in Greater Coos Bay, 5 

in Greater Myrtle Point, and 13 in Greater Reedsport. The 

RCAP portion of the funding amounted to $1.8 million 

dollars, and an additional $4.3 million was leveraged for a 

total amount of $6.7 million for these 34 projects. 

Because RCAP funds were often used to pay for 

planning and feasibility studies, as well as to cover gaps 

in the funding of much larger projects, the list of RCAP 

projects likely captures a large percentage of the projects 

funded through NEAI in the case-study communities. 

However, the database does not provide a very accurate 

assessment of the total amount of NEAI funds that went 

into the communities as it does not include several capitalintensive projects, such as construction of an administrative building for the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 

Lower, Umpqua, and Siuslaw, funded largely through 

USDA Rural Development. It also does not include other 

NEAI-funded projects, such as worker retraining programs 
53

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

at Southwest Oregon Community College and guaranteed 

small business loans. The details of several key NEAIfunded projects are discussed in subsequent sections of this 

report on community impacts and collaboration.

The Coos Bay District successfully sought several 

hundred thousand dollars in challenge cost share 10 contributions from the BLM since the early 1990s (table 5). Annual 

program report data from 1996 onward indicate that the 

district brought in an average of $96,000 in challenge cost 

share funding per year from 1996 through 2003. These 

funds helped support a variety of inventory and monitoring 

projects on BLM land, as well as community-based fisheries 

enhancement activities and environmental education. 

Payments to County Governments

Prior to the Plan, the Coos Bay District made three types of 

annual payments to the counties: O&C payments for timber 

sale revenues generated from the revested O&C lands, Coos 

Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) payments for the reconveyed 

CBWR lands, and payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) for 

public domain lands. The amounts of these payments are 

calculated by using formulas fixed through legislation. 

Under the 1937 O&C Act, BLM retained 25 percent of the 

revenues generated from O&C lands, and the remaining 

75 percent went to the counties. In 1953, the U.S. Congress 

amended the 1937 O&C Act so that 50 percent of the timber 

sale revenue was distributed to the O&C counties, while 

BLM retained the remaining 25 percent originally sent to 

counties to spend on road construction and reforestation on 

O&C lands. The portion allocated to the counties is distributed based on the portion of the O&C acres in each county. 

Counties receive a fixed percentage of the total O&C funds 

each year, regardless of which BLM districts collect the 

O&C land timber receipts. 

Revenue sharing associated with timber receipts from 

CBWR lands is more complex. It is based on local property 

tax formulas and a severance tax. Coos County contains 

10Since 1990, the BLM has received appropriations to support a 

challenge cost share program aimed at implementing conservation projects in partnership with other agencies or organizations 

on BLM lands. Nonfederal partners must contribute at least 50 

percent of the total project cost. The funds are used to support 

wildlife, fisheries, botany, and riparian projects.

Table 5—Challenge cost share funding, 1996–2002

Year Amounta Types of activities funded

2003 

dollars

1996 49,372 Snowy plover monitoring and restoration

1997 74,841 Snowy plover monitoring and restoration

1998 40,156 Bryophyte and Carex inventories, snowy 

plover monitoring, elk habitat 

 enhancement

1999 70,793 Inventories, nesting surveys, elk habitat 

 enhancement, rare plant species 

 reintroduction

2000 179,582 Inventories, fish surveys, fish habitat 

surveys, habitat enhancement, snowy 

 plover study and protection, rare plant 

 species reintroduction

2001 144,419 Environmental education, presettlement 

 vegetation mapping, stream restoration, 

aquatic habitat surveys, fish surveys, 

snowy plover studies, rare plant species 

 reintroduction

2002 157,085 Fish studies and monitoring, snowy 

 plover monitoring and habitat 

 protection, environmental education, 

 presettlement vegetation mapping, 

 rare species reintroduction

2003 51,000 Snowy plover population restoration, 

 rare species reintroduction

aAdjusted for inflation.

about 80 percent of the CBWR land and Douglas County 

contains the remainder. Counties can use the O&C and 

CBWR monies however they choose. The PILT are based on 

a formula based on the acreage of federal land in a county, 

the population, and prior-year revenue-sharing payments. 

Often these payments are not fully funded by Congress.

In 1993, Congress passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which provided an alternative payment to 72 

counties in Washington, Oregon, and northern California 

affected by the drop in federal timber harvest and associated timber revenues that resulted from administrative 

and judicial decisions designed to protect the northern 

spotted owl. These payments were known as “spotted owl 

safety nets” or “owl guarantee payments.” Under this Act, 

counties received a declining percentage of the average 

annual payment they received between 1986 and 1990. This 
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

percentage declined until 2003, 

when it reached 58 percent of 

the 1986 to 1990 average. The 

owl guarantee payments then 

expired. 

In 2000, Congress replaced the spotted owl safety 

net measures with the Secure 

Rural Schools and Community 

Self-Determination Act, which 

expires in 2006. Under the 

Secure Rural Schools Act, 

counties receive money each 

year that is equal to the average of the payments received 

during the three highest years 

between 1986 and 1999. At least 

85 percent of this money must 

be used to fund education and 

transportation projects (Title 

I). The remaining 15 percent is 

used to fund resource advisory 

committees and their activities (Title 2), and the general 

county budget (Title 3). Resource advisory committees were 

established by the act to promote collaborative relationships 

between the counties and the BLM and Forest Service, as 

well as to advise the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior 

on the use of Title II money. They comprise 15 members 

that represent a balance between the environmental community, industry, commodity, and recreation interest groups, 

government officials, educators, and general members of 

the public. The RACs review and recommend projects and 

associated funding that are proposed by members of the 

public. These projects must focus on enhancing or restoring 

forest ecosystem health (including water quality), promoting land stewardship, or maintaining or improving existing 

infrastructure. The projects can occur on federal land, or on 

nonfederal land if they also benefit federal land. 

Figure 22 depicts the generally downward trend in 

O&C and CBWR revenues for Coos and Curry Counties 

from 1990 to 2001. During 1991 through 2000, both counties received roughly half the revenues they had received in 

1990 from O&C and CBWR lands. Figure 23 indicates what 

the payments would have been without the owl safety net 

legislation. The spotted owl safety net measures resulted in 

substantially higher payments to counties than they would 

have received through forest revenue sharing alone, in many 

cases at least doubling this amount. Under the Secure Rural 

Schools Act, annual payments rose sharply again to approximately two-thirds of the 1990s level, the highest level 

of payments since 1990. 

As indicated in figure 24, PILT for both counties 

declined substantially from 1996 to 1999. Beginning in FY 

2000, the PILT payments to Coos and Curry Counties have 

increased each year. However, PILT payments constitute a 

small fraction of the BLM’s annual payments to the counties. Changes in PILT revenues thus do not substantially 

affect the ability of the counties to provide services. The 

effects of the decrease in county payments are discussed 

in the community chapters. 

Payments to counties under the Secure Rural Schools 

Act have contributed a significant amount of money to 

Figure 22—Oregon and California Railroad Company and Coos Bay Wagon Road 

allocations, 1990–2001 (with owl safety net). Not adjusted for inflation. Source: 

USDI 1990–2002.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Program receipts (million dollars)

Year

Douglas

Lane

Coos

Curry

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001
55

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Figure 23—Oregon and California Railroad Company and Coos Bay Wagon Road allocations, 

1988–1995 (without adjusting for owl safety net). Not adjusted for inflation. Source: USDI 

1990–2002.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Program receipts (million dollars)

Year

Douglas

Lane

Coos

Curry

Figure 24—Payments in lieu of taxes. Not adjusted for inflation. Source: USDI 1990–2002.

0

50

100

150

200

250

R

eceipts (thousand

d

ollars)

Year

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

20012002

Lane

Douglas

Curry

Coos
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

support local resource-related projects in the Coos Bay area. 

The Coos Bay District participates in the Coos Bay RAC, 

which is composed of representatives from Coos, Curry, 

and Douglas Counties. The RAC identifies projects to be 

funded through Title II of the Secure Rural Schools Act. 

Each county provides funding for projects within the RAC’s 

jurisdiction. 

In 2002, the Coos Bay RAC approved projects in Coos 

County costing a total of $521,000. The projects included 

road and trail maintenance, fish passage, instream wood 

placement, noxious weed removal, restoration effectiveness 

monitoring, and natural history book purchases for the 

local library. The RAC allocated $616,000 to projects in 

Douglas County during 2002, including road maintenance, 

fish passage, and noxious weed removal. In 2003, the RAC 

invested nearly $500,000 in Title II funds into watershed 

restoration and monitoring in Douglas County, whereas 

most of the Title II funds allocated for Coos County projects 

went primarily toward paving county roads and repairing 

culverts. In 2003, the RAC allocated most of the Title II 

funds for Curry County, which amounted to $76,500, to 

watershed restoration and trail maintenance projects.

Collaborative Efforts 

A review of the Coos Bay District’s annual program summaries from 1996 to 2003 provides a sense of the extent to 

which the district has come to value the use of collaborative 

efforts to accomplish the Plan’s objectives. Initially the report compilers mentioned partnerships in passing, focusing 

their narratives instead on specific outputs, such as acres 

covered by survey and manage work or number of new 

management plans developed for recreation and interpretive 

sites. Since 1998, however, report editors have listed collaborative stewardship efforts as a stand-alone component 

of the district’s accomplishments in report introductions. 

The district participates in collaborative efforts ranging 

from administratively mandated groups (provincial advisory committee) to legislatively mandated entities (RAC) to 

ad hoc organizations (Coos County Tourism Committee). 

The collaborations span the gamut from nation-to-nation 

memoranda of understanding with the two local tribes, to 

interagency collaborative efforts, to partnerships with local 

governments and national, regional, and local nongovernmental organizations. Examples of collaborative efforts 

undertaken between 1994 and 2002 are listed below.

Projects Collaborators

Watershed Coos Watershed Association

restoration Coquille Watershed Association

 South Coast Coordinating Watershed 

 Councils

 Smith River Watershed Council

 Umpqua Watershed Council

Assistance Agreement with the 

 Coos Soil and Water Conservation 

 District

Fish and Wildlife Western Snowy Plover Working Team

management Oregon Bat Working Group

Northwest Forest Plan Taxa Teams

Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area 

 Agreement

Special Western Lily Introduction

status plant Carex Inventory

management Bryophyte Inventory

Recreation and Coos Regional Bikeway and Trails 

tourism Partnership

Cape Blanco Lighthouse Partnership

 Coos County Tourism Committee

Coos Head Working Group

Environmental Oregon Coastal Environmental 

education Awareness Network

 Umpqua Discovery Center

 Tsalila Participating Agreement

Crest to Coast Interpretive League

Vegetation Density management research 

management with Oregon State University 

(Cooperative Forest Ecosystem 

Research program)

Noxious weed control research 

with USDA-Animal and Health 

Inspection Science (APHIS) and 

 Cornell University

General resource Southwest Oregon Provincial 

management Advisory Committee

 Resource Advisory Committee

 Coquille Tribe

 Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
57

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

The following discussion touches briefly on district employees’ perceptions of the district’s collaborative efforts. 

We describe the collaborative efforts, as well as community 

members’ perceptions of them, in more detail in chapter 5. 

Interviews with employees whose tenure on the district 

preceded the Plan indicate that upper level administrators 

began shifting resources toward developing and expanding 

community and interagency partnerships in the late 1980s 

and early 1990s. According to one management team member who arrived on the district in the early 1990s, the federal injunction on timber sales prompted interest in broader 

and more collaborative forms of interaction between the 

district and other local, state, and federal entities:

Several of us new folks all came at once. I was 

the last of the new team. The management held a 

futuring retreat about the time I got here. The DM 

said, “the world is changing, we need to figure out 

where we’re headed.” That’s when we started bridge 

building with counties and looking for other forms 

of assistance.

A former timber sales administrator who shifted into 

watershed planning in the mid-1990s concurred that the 

district’s efforts to reach out to a broader set of community 

stakeholders pre-dated the Plan. He attributed the shift to 

the local communities’ attempts to come up with mechanisms for dealing with the possibility of state-level listing of 

salmon species as threatened or endangered:

The wake-up call for watershed associations was the 

threat of having the salmon listed. The need arose 

outside of the government for us to become more 

involved. The salmon pre-dated the owl here as an 

impetus for community outreach. The community 

asked us for help. That happened at the same time 

as the Plan. It wasn’t just a federal issue though, it 

was also a state and local issue. Through watershed 

associations we’ve been able to show that we can be 

team players, and that we will stay out of the way.

Numerous employees observed that the changes 

brought on by the Plan had opened up a variety of avenues 

and forms of collaboration. Many of the district employees 

viewed the shift into collaborative forms of working with a 

broad array of community partners as a permanent change 

in how the BLM will be doing business. For example, the 

weed control coordinator noted an expanding demand for 

partnering on weed control issues:

Private landowners and BLM have to work together 

[for weed control]. The RAC money is coming in via 

our noxious weed authority. The dollars are now being channeled to the state and counties. People have 

been coming to us, both private and state organizations. We’re doing public-private matches. The days 

of pure federal activities are closing.

Similarly, the fire program coordinator indicated that 

collaborative partnerships were likely to expand in the 

arena of fire prevention over the next few years. In addition, 

he noted that the watershed associations, which had laid the 

legislative groundwork for making it possible to use public 

funds to do projects on private lands, had played a key role 

in setting the stage needed to encourage broader collaboration in fire protection.

Volunteer Program

Owing to inconsistencies in the criteria used to track 

volunteer hours during the past decade and the lack of data 

on volunteer use prior to 1997, we were unable to develop 

an accurate quantitative picture of trends in volunteer 

opportunities since the implementation of the Plan. Information from the annual program reports for 1996, combined 

with interview data, however, indicates that Coos Bay 

District programs have provided substantial opportunities 

for volunteers interested in gaining or applying natural 

resource management skills. The recreation program, for 

example, has consistently provided opportunities for people 

interested in volunteering as campground hosts, doing 

recreational site maintenance, and presenting interpretive 

programs and tours at special sites. In addition, during 

the late 1990s and early 2000s, the recreation program 

offered opportunities for Resource Assistance for Rural 

Environments (RARE), AmeriCorps, and Northwest Youth 

Corps volunteers in trails planning and construction. The 

Wildlife, Fisheries and Botany program, the Soil, Water, 
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

and Air program, and the Reforestation and Stand Development program have also taken on volunteers to assist with 

inventory, monitoring, and restoration projects. The district 

volunteer coordinator position is a collateral duty for one of 

the district employees, rather than a full-time position with 

dedicated funding. 

According to the district’s volunteer coordinator, most 

of the individual volunteers are long-term volunteers, who 

contribute 80 to 95 percent of the volunteer hours. She 

estimated that 50 percent of the volunteers on projects are 

locals, and most of the camp hosts at recreational sites are 

local residents. In most years, the district also has relied 

on county prison volunteers to clear the Dean Creek Elk 

Viewing Area of invasive species. Table 6 summarizes the 

number of volunteers, volunteer hours, and the estimated 

value of volunteer effort associated with program activities 

from 1997 to 2003. County prison volunteer hours were not 

included in the calculations. 

Table 6—Coos Bay District volunteer data, 

1996—2003

Volunteers Estimated

Year (individuals/groups)a Volunteer valueb

Numbers Hours 2003 dollars

1996 — — 291,858

1997 — 17,000 262,383

1998 — 37,600c 509,657

1999 68/2d 19,204 267,322

2000 37/1 8,600 117,269

2001 40/1 9,600 102,054

2002 33/1 21,000 377,129

2003 29/3 15,140 297,567

Note: — = no data.

aThe district tracks volunteer activity carried out by large groups, such 

as Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, as group efforts rather than as individual 

efforts. 

bAdjusted for inflation. 

cVolunteer hours likely included prisoners from a nearby county facility. 

dThe 1999 figure counted couples as two volunteers, whereas in 

succeeding years they were counted as one volunteer.

Source: USDI 1996a–2003a. 

The number of volunteers working on the district each 

year varied greatly between 1997 and 2003. It is difficult to 

compare volunteer numbers across years because in some 

years county prison crews were included in the calculations 

and in other years they were not. The volunteer coordinator 

noted that BLM is reluctant to use volunteers for species 

surveys as volunteer-gathered data might not hold up as 

well in court. In addition, the increasing sophistication of 

restoration work has decreased the district’s use of volunteers on reforestation and stream improvement projects. 

Other factors affecting the availability of volunteer 

opportunities with the district include the complexity of the 

training required for many tasks and potential liability issues related to health and safety. The volunteer coordinator 

also observed that some residents still distrust the district 

and federal agencies in general, which may be another factor in the decline of the number of people willing to serve 

as volunteers over the years. However, she noted that the 

revitalization of “National Public Lands Day” had increased 

the number of local residents volunteering with the district 

and expressed optimism that the trend would continue.

Summary and Synthesis

The story of the Coos Bay District in the 1990s and early 

2000s is first and foremost the tale of how the district 

transformed itself from a single-use resource management 

organization focused on timber production into a multipleuse resource management organization with full-fledged 

programs in recreation, environmental education, wildlife 

and fisheries management, watershed restoration, and 

cultural resources management. It accomplished this transformation while maintaining a reduced, but still respectable, 

level of expertise in timber management, silviculture, and 

forest engineering. 

Interview and archival data indicate that upper level 

managers in the Coos Bay District laid the foundation for 

this transformation in the late 1980s and early 1990s. With 

new management visions already partially developed, 

strong administrative support, a steady level of funding, and 

a relatively minor decline in staffing, the district was able 

to capitalize on the opportunities that the Plan provided to 

construct a new identity for itself as a multiple-use resource 

organization. 

This transformation did not take place easily, nor was 

it accomplished without considerable internal struggle. Our 

interviews with district employees suggest that they are still 
59

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

struggling with what the district’s identity is and should be. 

Nonetheless, the evidence on the ground indicates that a 

significant set of changes have taken place with respect to 

how the district manages the lands in its charge. Whatever 

the Coos Bay District may have become, its employees 

clearly no longer identify themselves as being part of the 

“lean, mean, well-oiled timber machine” that characterized 

the organization in the 1970s and 1980s.

Assessing the trends in socioeconomic benefits flowing 

from the district as it has gone through this transformation 

and implemented the Plan is a complex task. The statistics 

on timber harvest are clear enough: the average annual 

volume of timber harvested on the district declined from 

roughly 200 mmbf in the mid-1980s to 15.6 mmbf annually from 1995 to 2002. Even if the ASQ of 32 mmbf (later 

modified to 27 mmbf) for the Coos Bay District had been 

met during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the volume of 

timber harvested would still have been close to tenfold 

less than the amount harvested in the mid-1980s. However, 

a point to consider is that these lower ASQs represented 

more timber volume than what the Coos Bay District would 

have been able to offer for sale if it had not put into place a 

management plan that the federal court agreed adequately 

protected the northern spotted owl under the provisions of 

the ESA. 

The statistics for salvage wood also show a sharp 

decline during the 1990s. The volume of salvage wood and 

firewood sold on the district dropped from an average of 

164,000 ft3 between 1987 and 1991 to an average of 42,000 

ft3 between 1996 and 2002. The unavailability of salvage 

wood, which tended to consist of larger diameter logs, 

coupled with the shut-down of regular timber sales in oldgrowth stands, meant that most of the 20 or so remaining 

mills dependent on larger diameter timber could no longer 

continue their operations. At the same time, revenues to the 

BLM for the sale of these products declined from a high of 

roughly $82,000 in 1996 to less than $2,000 in 2000 and 

2002. 

The decline in the volume of timber and salvage wood 

offered by the district unquestionably contributed to a 

loss of local jobs in the forest products industry, as well as 

associated service and retail jobs. However, wood products 

industry history strongly suggests that the contraction in 

forest-products-related employment was already in full 

swing in the 1970s and was linked primarily to mechanization, off-shoring of processing operations, and a shift 

toward the use of smaller diameter wood. Similarly, the 

beginnings of the small mill closures can be traced back to 

the 1960s and 1970s, well before the Plan and even before 

the ESA, when individually and family-run mills relying 

on older equipment and with limited access to capital for 

retooling found it increasingly difficult to compete against 

the larger, better equipped mills. The historical trends thus 

suggest that forest industry jobs most likely would have 

declined and that many mills most likely would have shut 

down in the Coos Bay area during the 1990s even if the 

ASQ under the Plan had been met or set higher. However, 

if the district had been able to provide the target ASQ, the 

transition would most likely have been more gradual and 

thus less disruptive of people’s lives and finances.

The trend data for nontimber forest products other than 

salvage and firewood show a mixed picture. The number 

of permits issued for floral greens rose through the late 

1990s and then fell off. Wild mushrooms permits fluctuated 

between 1996 and 2002, with no clear trend. The number 

of bough permits declined through the late 1990s, but 

rose sharply again to previous levels in 2002. The district 

stopped selling permits for moss and burls, two products 

found primarily in riparian reserves. Latinos purchase the 

majority of the floral greens and bough permits. It is likely 

that access to NTFPs is an important element in their ability 

to piece together year-round livelihoods. Recognizing the 

important role that NTFPs play in the household economies 

of lower income residents, the district has opted to continue 

allowing nontimber forest products harvesting on latesuccessional reserves, rather than restricting commercial 

harvesting in such areas.

Access to BLM land for grazing remained stable during 

the 1990s and early 2000s. Similarly, demand for and access 

to commercial mining sites also remained unchanged during the past decade. The district continued to make recreational mining opportunities available at the same levels as 

before the Plan. Although the instream recreational mining 

season has shortened since the early 1990s, the shorter 
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

season is due to state-level restrictions to protect fisheries 

rather than to changes brought about by the Plan. 

Some community members complained about road 

closures limiting their access to hunting sites. However, 

the road closures they refer to appear to be due primarily to 

private landowners gating off roads that they had previously left open and that provided the general public with 

de facto open access to public lands. The district itself has 

shut down or decommissioned only 5 percent of the miles 

of road open to the public prior to the Plan. According to 

interview data, the availability of deer and elk, the two 

major game animals on the district, has not changed during 

the past decade. The local sport fisheries, however, have 

improved since the early 1990s. However, many people attribute the increase in the number of previously threatened 

or endangered species of game fish to changes in ocean 

conditions rather than to changes in management brought 

about by the Plan. 

In brief, the key changes in terms of forest commodity 

outputs from the district during the past 10 years include a 

tenfold drop in the volume of timber harvested, a fourfold 

drop in the volume of salvage and firewood sales, and the 

elimination of legally permitted moss and burl harvests. 

Additionally, permitted sales of floral greens, boughs, and 

wild mushrooms have either increased or fluctuated with 

no clear trend, while the off-take of other forest products, 

such as forage, minerals, and game has not undergone 

substantial change. 

The Coos Bay District’s budget remained relatively 

stable between 1993 and 2003 despite the drop in the 

volume of timber harvested. The number of jobs in the 

district declined in the 1990s, but stabilized at roughly 

160 full-time permanent positions in the early 2000s. The 

district compensated for the loss in funding for full-time 

permanent positions by shifting people with timber sales 

backgrounds into different positions, such as recreation 

and watershed restoration. In addition, the 15-percent 

drop was partially compensated for through an increase 

in seasonal jobs, particularly in the late 1990s. 

The Coos Bay District thus continued to provide 

relatively high-paying family wage jobs at a time when 

“the neighboring Forest Service offices experienced 

drastic reductions in their workforce. Consequently, the 

communities served by the Coos Bay District continued 

to benefit from the presence of a relatively highly educated 

and well-paid cadre of natural resource professionals and 

administrative support staff within their midst. 

The Coos Bay region benefited from three economic 

mitigation measures associated with the Plan: owl payment 

guarantees, NEAI grants, and JITW funding. County 

payments declined through the mid and late 1990s, but the 

drop occurred gradually rather than all at once owing to 

the owl adjustment payments. In 2001, the level of county 

payments nearly doubled as a result of the decoupling of 

county payments from timber receipts under the Secure 

Rural Schools Act. The BLM did not have a program for 

funding economic diversification through the NEAI. 

However, the district played an important role in helping 

local organizations acquire NEAI funds from other agencies. In addition, the district helped community groups 

leverage small amounts of funding through the BLM’s 

Challenge Cost Share program. 

From an economic mitigation standpoint, the district 

also contributed significantly in the form of several million dollars for watershed restoration contracts carried out 

through the JITW program. The majority of these contracts 

went to locally based contractors working independently or 

through local watershed associations. Although the program 

employed displaced timber and fishery workers, the number 

of full-time jobs provided was insignificant relative to the 

demand for woods-based employment. 

The district’s procurement contracts for activities such 

as site preparation and replanting dropped in the early 

1990s, rose in the mid and late 1990s, and dropped sharply 

again in the early 2000s. The increase in contracting during 

the mid and late 1990s is likely linked to the availability of 

emergency funds for repairing damage caused by winter 

storms in 1996–97. From 1990 to 2002, the district awarded 

an increasingly larger percentage of procurement contracts 

to firms based in the Willamette Valley. The pattern of the 

district’s contracting also changed during this time, from 

fewer larger contracts issued in the early 1990s to more, but 

smaller value contracts awarded in the early 2000s. 
61

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

In the realm of noncommodity forest uses, the district 

now offers a much more diverse set of opportunities than 

it did prior to the Plan, particularly in recreation and 

environmental education. In the 1990s, district recreation 

employees refurbished the existing 11 managed recreation 

sites and added 4 new sites. They expanded the miles of 

maintained trail from 1/2 mile prior to the Plan to 26 miles 

by 2000. In addition, the district has greatly expanded the 

number of nationally significant cultural and natural history 

interpretive sites that it operates, either alone or in partnership with community groups or federal and state agencies. 

The district’s revenues from its recreational and interpretive 

sites are small (approximately $100,000 per year). However, 

many district employees and community members stated 

that the rehabilitation of existing sites and the development 

of new sites had added an important dimension previously 

missing from the region’s tourism infrastructure.

Many of the district’s specialists, including recreation, 

cultural resources, fisheries, wildlife, botany, geology, 

invasive species, and others, also contributed during the 

1990s and early 2000s to the development of a wide-ranging and regularly offered set of environmental education 

opportunities for local school children, science teachers, 

extra-curricular youth programs, and adult learning programs, such as ElderHostel. Although these activities bring 

in no revenue to the district, and economic benefits to the 

community of such activities are difficult to quantify, many 

community members interviewed indicated that they and 

their families had benefited from such programs and would 

like to see them continue. 

Also difficult to quantify, but nonetheless important, 

are the socioeconomic benefits associated with the district’s 

investments in the production of a much more extensive 

body of scientific knowledge about local forest and aquatic 

ecosystems. As a result of the survey and manage program, 

for example, district biologists now have a much more 

detailed understanding of the range of plants, bryophytes, 

fungi, mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians present 

on the district’s holdings. These data provide a foundation 

from which the district can develop scientifically credible 

methods for assessing the effects of various vegetation 

management practices on a broad range of forest organisms. 

Likewise, stream surveys and fish population monitoring 

work have provided data necessary for evaluating the 

effects of various watershed restoration techniques. 

In the long run, the capacity to acquire and analyze 

such data has the potential to improve the district’s ability 

to manage its holdings sustainably. Additionally, the district 

serves as an important repository of scientific knowledge 

that is potentially available to community groups, local 

governments, and state and federal resource management 

agencies. In the short run, biological and botanical inventory and monitoring programs also have enhanced the 

quality of the interpretive programs the district provides 

to the local communities.

A key factor in the district’s transformation into a 

multiple-use resource agency was the effort on the part of 

upper level administrators to encourage district employees 

to work with stakeholders outside of the forest products 

and engineering arenas. Since the early 1990s, district 

employees have collaborated closely with a variety of 

groups, ranging from watershed associations, to interagency 

wildlife management teams, to county tourism planning 

committees. The socioeconomic benefits of the district’s 

substantially increased investment in these collaborative 

partnerships from the early 1990s onward are important but 

difficult to measure. We provide a detailed discussion of the 

benefits of district participation in several locally significant 

collaborative efforts in a later section of this report.

Looking at the trend data for a variety of resources and 

opportunities available through the Coos Bay District over 

the past decade leaves one with a decidedly ambiguous picture. On the one hand, statistics on timber volume offered, 

sold, and harvested tell a story of a dramatic decline in 

availability of wood products from the district’s holdings. In 

a region where the forest products industry has dominated 

the economy for over a century, such a drastic reduction 

in the industry’s primary raw material inevitably resulted 

in layoffs, mill closures, and the associated economic and 

social distress that comes with people losing their jobs, 

their livelihoods, and their sense of identity. Although they 

are important mitigating agents of the economic distress, 
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

the owl payments, NEAI grants, and JITW funding that 

accompanied the Plan could at most help ease communities through the difficult process of transitioning from 

being primarily wood production and processing places to 

something else. 

On the other hand, the data about the district’s recreation, cultural resources, environmental education, wildlife, 

fisheries, special status plant, and watershed restoration 

activities during the same period tell a story of the emergence of a much more broadly based resource management 

infrastructure and a broader range of connections between 

the district and local community members. This more 

diverse structure may be necessary if the communities in 

Coos Bay are to develop the economic resilience needed 

to prosper in a world where globalization, mechanization, 

and outsourcing have undermined the ability of the Pacific 

Northwest to compete in global timber markets. 
63

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Introduction

To assess the socioeconomic impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) on communities in the Coos Bay region, 

it is helpful to understand the local economic context in 

which the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) developed the Plan. During the 1980s, the counties 

within the boundaries of the BLM Coos Bay District relied 

heavily upon timber receipts for their budgets. From 1984 

through 1988, Oregon and California Railroad Company 

(O&C) and Coos Bay Wagon Road (CBWR) revenues from 

timber harvesting on Coos Bay District holdings averaged 

$3.6 million in Coos County and $2.3 million in Curry 

County (USDI 1994: 3-122 and 3-123). Unlike timber 

harvest receipts from the Forest Service, which are placed 

into school funds, the O&C and CBWR receipts go into the 

counties’ general fund (USDI 1994: 3-122 and 3-123). During fiscal year 1990-91, for example, O&C payments made 

up 19 percent of Coos County’s total budget and 35 percent 

of its general fund (USDI 1994: 3-127); in Curry County 

they constituted 11 percent of the total county budget and 

44 percent of its general fund (USDI 1994: 3-127). 

Local taxing districts, such as the Ports of Coquille 

and Coos Bay and school districts, were also affected by 

the decline in revenues from the CBWR lands. The Port of 

Coquille and Coquille School District 41, for example, historically received 10 percent of their budgets from CBWR 

revenues (USDI 1994: 4-132). In addition, the decrease in 

revenues from timber harvesting on public domain lands 

reduced the funds available to counties for constructing and 

maintaining roads and bridges (USDI 1994: 4-132). The owl 

guarantee safety payments discussed earlier in chapter 3, 

helped cushion the decline in timber revenues going to the 

counties. Nonetheless, the drop in timber revenues along 

with declines in timber-related jobs and personal incomes 

had a visible impact on Oregon’s south coast economies.

The decline in timber receipts took place at a time 

when many area mills had reached the limits of their competitiveness in the international timber economy. When the 

Plan took effect, the major private forest landholders in the 

region included Weyerhaeuser, Menasha, Moore Mill and 

Lumber, Georgia Pacific Corporation, South Coast Lumber, 

Westbrook, and the John Hancock Company (USDI 1994: 

3-123). Additionally, a variety of medium-size and large 

mills still operated in south coast communities. These 

included sawmills owned by Roseburg Lumber (Coquille), 

Weyerhaeuser (Coos Bay), and Rogge Forest Products 

(Bandon), as well as paper mills operated by International 

Paper (Gardiner) and Weyerhaeuser (Coos Bay). By 2003, 

the only major mills still operating in the Coos Bay region 

were Roseburg Lumber’s operation in Coquille and facilities run by Georgia Pacific (Coos Bay) and South Coast 

Lumber (Coos Bay). 

To offset these changes, in the early 1990s the communities in the Coos Bay area had already embarked on efforts 

to bring in new industries, such as a nickel ore unloading 

and drying facility, and to expand existing industries, such 

as tourism and recreational fishing (USDI 1994: 3-113, 

3-120, 3-121). The following section describes some of the 

key socioeconomic changes that took place between 1990 

and 2004 in Greater Coos Bay, Greater Myrtle Point, and 

Greater Reedsport, and assesses the extent to which the 

Plan may have contributed to these changes. Each community description is divided into the following subsections: 

(a) an overview of the community’s historical context, (b) 

a description of socioeconomic changes that took place in 

the community between 1900 and 2004, (c) community 

responses to change and the role of district assistance, and 

(d) changes in the relationships between the communities 

and the district. 

Greater Coos Bay

For more than a century, the twin cities of Coos Bay and 

North Bend have dominated Oregon’s south coast economy 

and politics. The two cities are located on the shores of the 

protected bay formed by the Coos River estuary (fig. 25), 

and their inhabitants benefited from the economic activities 

made possible by proximity to one of the few deep-water 

harbors along the Pacific Northwest coast. Formerly physically as well as politically separate entities, over the years 

the two cities have intermingled to the point where the 

geographic boundary between them is difficult for an outsider to identify. Politically the two cities remain distinct, 

but economically and culturally they have become indistinguishable. For all practical purposes, the formerly outlying 

Chapter 4: Community-Level Change, 1990–2003
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

towns of Empire and Bunker Hill also have become part of 

North Bend-Coos Bay, forming a socioeconomic unit that 

we have labeled “Greater Coos Bay.” 

The nearby fishing village of Charleston also has strong 

ties to the Greater Coos Bay area, but with its economic origins in tourism and commercial fishing rather than logging 

and wood processing, its cultural and economic character 

is sufficiently distinct that we opted to exclude it when 

Figure 25—The Greater Coos Bay Area case-study community boundaries.

0 1 2 4 Miles

o

Case-study BLM districts

Case-study community 

 boundaries

Northwest Forest Plan 

 region

Forest Service

Major lakes and rivers

 Major roads

 Roads

Greater

 Coos Bay

Charleston

Crown Point

Barview

Libby McCormac

Cleo

Sumner

Green Acres

Overland

Hauser

Glasgow

Coos

 Bay

North

 Bend

Coos River

South Fork Coos RiverSouth Fork Coos River

Southport

Cape Arago Highway

U.S. Highway 101

U.S. Highway 101

State Highway 42

Coos Bay

bounding the study site. Nonetheless, Charleston’s coastal 

location and position as the stepping-off point for tourists 

attracted to the scenic headlands of Cape Arago, the internationally recognized Shore Acres Garden, and the South 

Slough National Estuarine Reserve, make it an important 

player in Greater Coos Bay’s adaptation to the decline of 

its forest products economy. Indeed, a number of residents 

of the towns of Coos Bay, North Bend, and Charleston are 
65

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

increasingly beginning to think of the three towns as 

components of a cohesive sociopolitical entity known 

locally as the “Bay Area.”

With a combined population of 28,596 in 2000 (U.S. 

Census 2000), Greater Coos Bay is the largest settlement in 

Coos County. The towns of North Bend and Coos Bay serve 

as the trade and services center for Oregon’s south coast. 

They offer residents many of the amenities of much larger 

towns in the Willamette Valley and Puget Sound without 

the population numbers, noise, and traffic snarls that come 

with dense population centers. Residents thus have access 

to a large variety of retail and wholesale stores, medical facilities, a community college and a marine biology 

institute affiliated with the University of Oregon, numerous 

government services, a range of transportation and shipping facilities, a world class export port, and a thriving arts 

community. 

In the 1950s, Weyerhaeuser became the dominant force 

in Greater Coos Bay’s lumber market.1 However, the Coos 

Bay timber economy has always retained an open character 

in that it supported, and continues to support, the presence 

of a diverse set of logging and milling operations. These 

range in size and scale from multinational companies, 

such as Weyerhaeuser, Georgia Pacific, Plum Creek, and 

Menasha, to regional companies, such as Lone Rock Timber 

and Roseburg Forest Products, to local companies, such as 

South Coast Lumber. In addition, Greater Coos Bay wood 

processing facilities have historically produced a wide 

variety of products, including raw logs, dimension lumber, 

plywood, veneer, pulp, and wood chips. Thus, over the 

years, Greater Coos Bay enjoyed a measure of resilience to 

downturns in the timber economy that timber-dependent 

communities with less diversity in terms of numbers, types, 

and scales of wood processing operations did not. 

Community Change and the Effects of 

Forest Management Policy 

Drawing upon census data, interviews of community 

members, and planning documents, the following section 

describes the changes that took place in the social and economic fabric of Greater Coos Bay between 1990 and 2004. 

Demographic indicators—

The population of Greater Coos Bay and Coos County 

increased very slightly from 1990 to 2000 (table 7). This 

contrasts with a sharp increase in population in the buffer 

block group aggregates (BGAs), which include areas such 

as Medford, Ashland, Roseburg, Florence, and Eugene. 

Community interviewees noted, however, that comparing 

the change, or lack thereof, in total population for Greater 

Coos Bay and Coos County misses the crucial population 

dynamic of the 1990s, which was the outmigration of 

younger, largely blue-collar workers and families and the 

immigration of older retirees or professional service workers. As one county official summed up the situation, “The 

population in the area held flat, but the families are moving 

out—there’s been a shift to retired people.” Another county 

official noted that this dynamic is reflected in the rise in the 

number of deed transactions during the past two decades. 

Table 7—Population and median age in Greater Coos 

Bay, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, CBGA 27,851 28,596 2.67

Total population, county 60,273 62,779 4.16

Total population, buffer 141,084 151,952 7.70

Median age, CBGA 36.2 40.1 10.77

Median age, county 37.6 43.0 14.36

Median age, buffer 38.9 44.9 15.42

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

As evidenced by the following quotes from community 

members, the exodus of population started a decade before 

the Plan and at least 5 years before the Dwyer injunction:

In terms of population trends, Weyerhaeuser closed 

in the 1990s. People were leaving at that point. We 

1At the time we conducted the fieldwork for this study, Weyerhaeuser had no softwood lumber processing facilities on the south 

coast. However, the company does operate a small hardwood mill 

about 5 miles south of Coos Bay. Weyerhaeuser sells its timber on 

the open market to mills that compete with Weyerhaeuser mills in 

the Willamette Valley. Weyerhaeuser no longer plays a part in the 

local lumber market, but continues to have a fairly significant role 

in the log market. Menasha and Plum Creek, two other large private 

landholders in the Coos Bay area, manage their timber holdings in 

a similar fashion to Weyerhaeuser. They sell their logs on the open 

market and do not have log-processing facilities in the area.
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

just didn’t have the jobs here. In the early 1980s we 

had another downturn when a big mill shut down.

I came to the Coos Bay area in 1983. Things were 

even worse than they’ve been since.2 I’ve watched it 

get better. That had to have been the low point.

The difference this time, and a source of bitterness for 

one county leader as well as many of his fellow citizens, is a 

belief that the government had the power, if not the political 

will, to take steps to mitigate the exodus in the 1990s by 

putting more federal timber on the local market:

In 1980 we had an exodus—not due to the ESA or the 

Plan, but to the market—but this one was avoidable. 

It was beyond our control, but it should have been in 

someone’s control to allow this harvest.

Perhaps the most striking changes in the population 

figures for Greater Coos Bay between 1990 and 2000 are the 

shift upward in median age, sharp declines in the lower age 

categories, and a sharp increase in the percentage of population between the ages of 45 and 64. As indicated in table 8, 

the median age of the population in Greater Coos Bay rose 

from 36 to 40 years, an increase of 10.8 percent. Although 

high, the increase is lower than the increase in Coos County 

overall and the surrounding census BGAs. The median 

age for Greater Coos Bay in 2000 was also several years 

younger than the median age for both the county and the 

buffer BGAs. 

The age distribution pattern for Greater Coos Bay also 

changed from 1990 to 2000 (table 8), with sharp declines in 

the 0 to 4 (-20 percent) and 20 to 29 (-22 percent) age groups 

and substantial growth (+32 percent) in the 45 to 64 age 

group. The change in age distribution for Greater Coos Bay 

is nearly identical to changes for the county and the buffer 

BGAs. 

One likely explanation for Coos Bay’s slightly lower 

median age and the lower rate of increase in the median 

age relative to surrounding communities is the relative 

abundance of jobs in Coos Bay’s more diverse and much 

larger economy. Another contributing factor is the return 

of members of the Coquille Tribe and the Confederated 

Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw following 

federal recognition and the passage of tribal self-governance 

legislation in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Many community interviewees highlighted the theme 

of a gradually aging population as a key change in their 

community. They also observed that the shift in median age 

reflected Greater Coos Bay’s transformation from a working class mill town into a service and retirement center. 

The transformation involves both a push and a pull factor. 

Not only are younger people moving out, leaving an older 

indigenous population, but also older people are moving in, 

attracted by the medical services the bay area has to offer.

2 In the late 1970s and early 1980s, many of the larger mills in 

Coos Bay had downsized and smaller mills had shut down owing 

to a sharp decline in the demand for construction materials as a 

result of rising interest rates and a drop in the Nation’s housing 

starts. In 1983, Coos Bay was still in the depths of a severe 

economic downturn.

Table 8—Age distribution changes in Greater Coos Bay, 1990 to 2000

Age distribution

Year and area 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 CBGA 1,980 5,792 3,828 6,156 5,469 4,626

2000 CBGA 1,578 5,985 3,007 5,834 7,234 4,958

Change (percent) -20.30 3.33 -21.45 -5.23 32.27 7.18

1990 county 3,867 12,551 6,867 13,516 13,064 10,408

2000 county 3,047 12,256 5,625 12,362 17,516 11,973

Change (percent) -21.21 -2.35 -18.09 -8.54 34.08 15.04

1990 buffer 9,056 28,685 14,524 30,787 31,937 26,095

2000 buffer 7,026 29,038 12,086 27,950 43,081 32,771

Change (percent) -22.42 1.23 -16.79 -9.21 34.89 25.58

CBGA = census block group aggregate.
67

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

The Greater Coos Bay’s population is 90 percent 

Caucasian, with only 3 percent Native American and the 

remaining 7 percent a mix of Asian, African American, 

and other racial groupings (fig. 26). This pattern of racial 

distribution is similar to that of the county and the buffer 

BGAs. The data for Hispanic ethnicity, however, indicate 

that the percentage of inhabitants reporting Hispanic 

origins increased at a much higher rate in Greater Coos Bay 

relative to the county and buffer BGAs (table 9). 

Interviewees noted that many Latinos are settling 

permanently in Coos Bay, as reflected in the opening of a 

number of new Latino-operated businesses ranging from 

mini-markets to restaurants to antique stores. Similarly, 

Figure 26—Race distribution North Bend-Coos Bay (Greater Coos Bay), Coos Bay District 10-mile buffer, and Coos County. 

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

95.7

89.5

96.1

92.5

95.6

91.5

2.3

2.5

2.1

2.7

2.6

1.1

1.0

0.8

0.6

1.0

0.7

0.6

1.7

0.5

1.1

0.4

1.2

4.6

3.4 3.9

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2 2.9

80

85

90

95

100

1990 

CBGA

2000 

CBGA

1990 

Buffer 

2000 

Buffer 

1990 

County

2000 

County

Year, geographic area

Race

distribution (p

ercent)

2+ races (2000 only)

Other

Asian and Pacific Islands

Native American

African-American

Caucasian

0.2

Table 9—Percentage of Greater Coos Bay population 

that was Hispanic, 1990 to 2000

Ethnicity and area 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Hispanic, CBGA 2.69 4.17 55.02

Hispanic, county 2.39 3.17 32.64

Hispanic, buffer 2.41 3.17 31.54

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

tribal investment in businesses, such as the Mill Casino, 

a cranberry bog operation, and infrastructure, such as a 

housing subdevelopment and tribal administrative service 

offices, have provided an incentive for tribal members to 

return to Greater Coos Bay. 
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Education indicators—

School enrollment in Greater Coos 

Bay increased roughly 5 percent 

from 1990 to 2000, somewhat 

higher than the overall increase 

of 2 percent for the county, 

but smaller than the 8-percent 

increase experienced in the 

buffer BGAs (table 10). Educational levels of the population 

also increased slightly during 

this period, with 6 percent 

more residents reporting having 

completed high school in 2000 

and 14 percent more reporting having attained a bachelor’s 

or higher degree. Interviewees attributed this increase to 

the outmigration of workers with limited education and the 

inmigration of retirees and service professionals with higher 

levels of education. The Greater Coos Bay population’s level 

of educational achievement currently is identical to county 

and buffer BGA levels (i.e., roughly 82 percent completing 

high school and 15 percent with college-level degrees). 

A report by the Oregon School Board Association 

indicates that student enrollment in the Coos Bay School 

District (which does not include data on the North Bend 

School District) declined 10 percent between 1995 and 

2002 (ECONorthwest 2002: 1-11). In addition, the report 

indicates that 22 percent of the students were from households living in poverty, a figure much higher than the state 

level of 14 percent. Prior to Measure 5,3 the Coos Bay 

School District’s funding depended heavily on voter-approved tax levies (ECONorthwest 2002: 2). Once Measure 

5 passed, the district’s revenues increased considerably, 

as state funding was much more consistent than the local 

voter-approved funding had been. However, state funding 

is tied to the number of enrolled students. The Coos Bay 

District’s revenues from the state thus dropped off sharply 

during the mid-1990s as families with school-aged children 

moved from the area (ECONorthwest 2002: 3). At the same 

time, local funds became less available in part because of 

restrictions on property tax rates voted in with Measure 5, 

and in part because of declines in timber receipts earmarked 

for schools from federal lands (ECONorthwest 2002: 3). 

To address the funding declines, the Coos Bay District has 

closed three elementary schools and increased fees for 

sport activities (ECONorthwest 2002: 3). 

Economic indicators—

The unemployment rate in Greater Coos Bay (9 percent) 

was roughly the same in 2000 as it had been in 1990 (fig. 

27). The county and buffer BGA unemployment rates 

were also 9 percent in both years. The relative stability in 

the unemployment rate contrasts sharply with most community members’ perceptions that the unemployment rates 

increased dramatically during this period. When asked 

about the difference between local perceptions and the 

unemployment statistics, interviewees noted several possible explanations. One explanation they offered was that 

eligibility for unemployment benefits has expired for some 

workers, and thus they no longer show up in the statistics 

even though they are still looking for work. Another 

Table 10—Education Data for Greater Coos Bay, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

School enrollment, CBGA 5,275 5,554 5.29

School enrollment, county 11,448 11,691 2.12

School enrollment, buffer 25,682 27,755 8.07

- - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - -

Completed high school, CBGA 77.16 81.51 5.64

Completed high school, county 75.50 81.56 8.03

Completed high school, buffer 76.06 81.62 7.31

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, CBGA 13.64 15.53 13.86

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, county 12.30 15.03 22.20

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, buffer 12.48 14.85 18.99

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

3Before 1990, Oregon’s schools relied primarily upon local 

funding generated through property taxes and levies for funding. 

In November 1990, Oregon voters passed Measure 5, which established a limit on the amount of property tax that could be levied 

to support K-14 education. The state legislature provided a safety 

net to support those school districts that lost funding through the 

passage of Measure 5. Since then, the state provides funding to 

schools by using a weighted average daily membership formula 

to calculate allocations for each school district. Although local 

communities can pass bond measures to fund school construction 

and repairs, they have limited ability to raise property taxes as a 

mechanism for generating school operating funds (George 2003).
69

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

explanation articulated by interviewees was that many older 

workers eligible for retirement opted to retire rather than 

continue seeking work. Labor force participation data for 

Coos County (U.S. Census 2000), which show that the labor 

force participation rate decreased from 56 percent in 1990 

to 54 percent in 2000, suggest that local perceptions may 

have some validity. 

The percentage of households living in poverty in 

Greater Coos Bay during 2000 was quite high at roughly 

17 percent, but also had changed little from 1990 (table 11). 

Median household income increased slightly, from $28,918 

to $31,143, an increase of 7.7 percent. Median household 

income in the county and buffer BGAs, however, had 

increased much more rapidly, at rates of 14.8 percent 

and 11.5 percent, respectively. In 2000, 41 percent of 

households in Greater Coos Bay had incomes of less than 

$25,000, while 26 percent had incomes of $50,000 or 

more, figures comparable with county household income 

figures. Household income distribution figures for Greater 

Coos Bay and Coos County were also similar (fig. 28). 

To capture the socioeconomic changes occurring 

in the communities located within the northern spotted owl region (see app. B for species scientific names), 

Donoghue and Sutton (in press) developed an index of 

socioeconomic well-being. This index was constructed 

by using educational level attainment, unemployment, 

poverty, employment diversity, commuting time, and the 

household income inequality ratio. In 1990, Greater Coos 

Bay had a score of 71.78 on the socioeconomic well-being 

index, which placed it in the “medium” category in terms 

of well-being among the region’s communities. Although 

the community remained within the medium category in 

2000, its socioeconomic well-being index number decreased 7.7 percent to 66.23.

Community members’ perceptions of the local 

poverty rate and household income and distribution figures 

meshed with the statistical data. One county employee 

noted that the region was experiencing increasing income 

disparities internally: “We’re seeing more of 

a disparity. We have some high-paying jobs 

but a large number of lower paying jobs.”

Changes in Greater Coos Bay’s economic 

structure—

Substantial changes took place in Coos 

Bay’s economy from 1990 to 2000. Although 

the total workforce increased 6 percent, the 

number of jobs in manufacturing dropped 

52 percent. The number of natural resource 

jobs fell by 8 percent. Wholesale trade jobs, 

many of which had been associated with 

8.9 8.6 9.1 8.6 8.3 8.4

0

5

10

15

CBGA Buffer County

Geographic area

Unemployment rate (percent)

1990

2000

Figure 27—Unemployment rate North Bend-Coos Bay (Greater 

Coos Bay), Coos Bay BLM District 10-mile buffer, and Coos 

County. CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Table 11—Median household income and poverty rate, Greater 

Coos Bay, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990a 2000 Change

- - - - Dollars - - - - Percent

Median household income, CBGA 28,918 31,143 7.69

Median household income, county 27,484 31,542 14.76

Median household income, buffer 28,381 31,654 11.53

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

In poverty, CBGA 16.50 16.92 2.55

In poverty, county 16.48 15.04 -8.74

In poverty, buffer 15.86 14.34 -9.58

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

aThe 1990 median household income has been adjusted for inflation and is reported in 

2000 dollars.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

the forest products industry, dropped 29 percent. Financing 

and real estate jobs also fell 19 percent. The greatest rate of 

growth took place in the number of construction jobs, which 

nearly doubled. Education and health services jobs, as well 

as public administration jobs also increased substantially. 

Figure 29 illustrates the extent to which the mainstays of 

the Coos Bay economy are shifting from manufacturing, 

mostly forest products related, and associated retail and 

wholesale trade sectors, to social services, recreation and 

tourism, and arts and recreation. 

Greater Coos Bay was once a thriving mill town 

producing a variety of wood products ranging from chips 

to dimension lumber to plywood and veneers; its forest 

products processing facilities have since been reduced to 

two small sawmills, one operated by Georgia Pacific and 

the other by Southport in Bunker Hill, and a Northwest 

Hardwoods alder sorting and processing facility just 

south of Coos Bay. Menasha also operates a log sorting 

and shipping center in North Bend. Weyerhaeuser, which 

used to have a plywood mill, sawmill, and containerboard 

production facility in the Coos Bay area, as well as two 

large logging terminals in Allegany and Dellwood, has 

shut down its mills and focuses exclusively on growing 

trees and selling logs. Weyerhaeuser currently supplies 

about 30 percent of the timber milled in the Georgia 

Pacific sawmill and ships the rest over to mills in Roseburg and Cottage Grove. Weyerhaeuser directly employs 

30 employees. It provides an additional 300 contractors 

or subcontractors with jobs as timber sale and logging 

contractors. Georgia Pacific, which used to be one of the 

largest holders of private industrial forest land in the Coos 

Bay area, recently sold its timber holdings to Plum Creek 

Timber. Plum Creek has no milling facilities in the area 

and ships most of its timber out of the area. 

According to several foresters interviewed, much 

of the wood processed in the remaining mills originates 

in Canada or Washington. The hemlock and spruce 

harvested in Coos Bay used to be peeled for plywood, 

but builders have shifted to using oriented strand board 

as a plywood substitute owing to the expense. Coos Bay 

Figure 28—Household income distribution North Bend-Coos Bay (Greater Coos Bay), and Coos County, 1990 and 2000. Adjusted for 

inflation, 2000 dollars. CBGA = census block group aggregate.

0

5

10

15

20

25

<$10,000

$10,001–$14,999

$15,000–$24,999

$25,000–$34,999

$35,000–$49,999

$50,000–$74,999

$75,000–$99,999

$100,000–$149,999

$150,000 and up

Income category

Household income (percent)

1990 CBGA

2000 CBGA

1990 county

2000 county

24

13

20

16 16

9

1 0

1

14

15 16 15

18

15

4

3

0

20

14

21

18

16

8

2 1 0

13

10

18

17

6

3

2

14

19
71

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

has also lost its position as a major supplier of wood chips, 

in part because of international competition and in part 

because of the difference in quality between chips from 

old-growth wood and chips from the younger trees that 

now make up most of the timber harvested and processed 

in Coos Bay. Only the Roseburg Forest Products facility in 

Coquille continues to supply old-growth chips for export 

from the Port of Coos Bay. The change in the number of 

chip piles at the Port bears testimony to the decline in 

the importance of the chip mills and chip exports. Many 

interviewees commented on the reduction in the number of 

chip piles around Coos Bay, which has gone from roughly 

20 down to 2 in the past two decades. The decline in timber 

harvesting on BLM land also brought with it a marked 

decrease in the need for reforestation workers to replant 

timber sale units after harvest. The decline in reforesting 

work, in turn, contributed to the closure of local nurseries 

that had previously supplied seedlings for replanting federal 

forests. 

The effects of the restructuring of Greater Coos Bay’s 

wood products economy in the post-Plan years differed 

considerably by stakeholder category. Wood products 

harvesters, mill workers, and log transporters were hit hard 

early on as demand for their services declined. Although 

much media attention focused on the laid-off mill workers, 

the people who worked in the woods—the fallers, chokersetters, loggers, and haulers—were equally hard hit by 

the decline in federal timber available. The smaller mills 

did poorly as well, in part because many lacked the equipment needed to harvest smaller diameter wood and in part 

because few of them had their own timber holdings and 

thus most were forced to pay higher prices for timber on the 

market. According to interviewees, the mills most affected 

were those that had older equipment and relied primarily 

on federal timber. Owing to limited funding for this study, 

we were unable to gather statistical data to ascertain more 

precisely how timber-related businesses of various types 

and sizes fared during the mid to late 1990s. Similarly, 

4 4

14

7

4

14 14

8

19

5

7 6

3

5

15

9

26

6

17

4

13

5

8

18

5 6 7 8

2

5

14

24

7

4

15

6 6

14

5

6

9

13

6 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation and utilities

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Finance and real estate

Professional

Arts

Health education

Public administration

Industry

E

m

plo

y

m

ent (p

ercent)

1990 CBGA

2000 CBGA

1990 County

2000 County

Figure 29—Employment by industry in North Bend-Coos Bay (Greater Coos Bay) and Coos County, 1990 and 2000. CBGA = census 

block group aggregate.
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

funding for this study was insufficient to permit us to gather 

quantitative data on the fate of the many people laid off owing to changes in the timber industry and related businesses 

during the same period. 

The large industrial wood products companies, 

however, prospered throughout the decade as they had 

already retooled their mills for small-diameter wood in the 

1980s and were able to process logs from private, state, and 

county forests. One manager noted that the impact on his 

company was minimal because they had their own source of 

supply. Additionally, because the larger landholders tended 

to have reciprocal rights-of-way agreements with the BLM, 

they were less affected by the riparian reserve and survey 

and manage provisions that restricted hauling activities and 

road construction on BLM lands. 

Other timberland holders fared less well than the large 

industrial landholders. One landholder for whom the effects 

were negative, and where those effects are most clearly 

linked to the Plan, was the Coquille Tribe, which is required 

to manage its forest holdings in conformance with Plan 

standard and guidelines. The Coquille Tribal forester noted 

that the Plan itself is not the major constraint to the tribe’s 

ability to harvest timber; rather the key problem is that all 

of the timber sales they’ve prepared have been blocked by 

appeals by environmentalist organizations. As a result, the 

tribe has harvested only 3.5 million board feet (mmbf) since 

1996 instead of the 21 mmbf estimated under the Plan’s 

provisions. The tribal forester noted that the survey and 

manage provisions have greatly increased the time needed 

for the tribe to develop and implement timber sales. The 

riparian reserve buffers have also significantly reduced the 

area available for the tribe to harvest timber. 

The Plan has also affected Coos County’s forest, which 

the county operates for sustained-yield timber production. 

The effects on the county are primarily the result of changes 

in market structure, demand, and the availability of key 

inputs, such as seedlings. The county forester noted that 

consolidation in the milling industry has decreased competition and reduced the number of firms bidding on county 

timber sales. At the same time, the closure of tree nurseries 

as a result of the decline in federal demand for seedlings 

to replant harvest units has increased the county forest 

department’s operating costs. 

Although some private landowners have been able to 

shift into harvesting alder as a strategy for maintaining 

forest product income levels, the county’s forested parcels 

are too close to the coast to produce harvestable quantities 

of alder or other hardwoods. The county forester observed 

that the closure of local mills for processing large-diameter 

timber has reduced the demand for the county’s timber, 

which is grown on a 60- to 80-year rotation. As a result, 

the county is considering reducing their rotation to 40 

to 60 years so that it can produce the 24-inch-and-under 

logs that most local mills have the capacity to handle. The 

county forester also noted that demand for nontimber forest 

products, such as boughs, ferns, and salal, on county lands 

has increased since the 1990s, but did not know whether 

that was linked to the Plan. 

Small woodland owners initially benefited from the 

drop in federal timber supply owing to the subsequent increase in log prices. Many of the interviewees with connections to the timber industry stated that harvesting activities 

on private lands increased dramatically after the Plan went 

into effect as landholders tried to capture the increase in 

value of their timber holdings. As more mills shut down 

during the late 1990s, however, competition for raw logs 

decreased and prices fell. Smaller woodland owners thus 

suffered as the value of their timber resources dropped and 

the cost of processing it increased. 

Although timber industry stakeholders we interviewed 

attributed the downsizing of Coos Bay’s timber economy 

in part to economic changes within the industry itself, they 

noted that the lack of certainty in the availability of federal 

timber encouraged divestment of processing infrastructure 

and thus contributed to the negative effects that many 

smallholders and mill operators experienced as the industry 

reconfigured itself to remain competitive in global markets. 

The following quote from a consulting forester illustrates 

the dilemma that many small woodland owners and mill 

owners face in the current timber market:
73

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Initially, if they increase harvesting on federal 

lands, it will be direct competition with private 

small landowners’ timber. You have to have a steady 

supply, not this up and down, to get investment. It’s 

the inability to protect the supply that hasn’t been a 

good thing for southwest Oregon...What we need is 

long-term stability. We aren’t nimble like Microsoft.

In addition to the difficulties resulting from the 

progressive divestment of processing infrastructure over the 

1990s, several timber industry stakeholders expressed their 

belief that the Plan has contributed to the decline in market 

demand for large-diameter timber. One interviewee noted, 

“Nowadays few mills want to invest in bigger diameter 

mills. So if there’s no flow from the feds, no guarantee of 

supply, the mills won’t do it.” 

The restructuring of Greater Coos Bay’s timber 

economy also negatively affected the region’s maritime 

commerce sector, which was based primarily upon the 

export of wood chips, raw logs, and dimension lumber. A 

port administrator noted that the number of shipping vessels 

using the port had declined from 200 in 1992 to 46 in 2003, 

just one-fifth as many. However, the port administrator 

also emphasized that the drop in the federal timber supply 

was only one factor in the lack of demand for the port’s 

facilities. He identified two other important factors that had 

contributed to the port’s decline, including the inability to 

compete with the short turnaround times available through 

the Puget Sound ports and a shift in log buyer preference 

toward logs that had not been stored in water. 

Commercial and sports fisheries, which historically had 

contributed significantly to Coos Bay’s economy but which 

had started to decline in the 1980s as stocks of salmon and 

steelhead disappeared from the region’s fishing grounds, 

dwindled to a fraction of their former economic importance 

during the 1990s when the previously abundant groundfish 

stocks also started to collapse. During the 1990s, Coos 

Bay lost its position as a major fishing port as fish landings 

declined in near-shore waters (OCZMA 2002: II-3). According to a recent study of Oregon’s groundfisheries, the annual 

economic contribution of near-shore and distant water 

fishing to Coos Bay fluctuated between $18 and $34 million 

between 1992 and 1999, a substantial drop from the $58 

million generated in 1988 (OCZMA 2002: II-12). Groundfish prices declined in the late 1990s, even as harvest levels 

in the Coos Bay area remained low, creating additional 

economic hardship for fishing-boat owners and their crews 

(OCZMA 2002: III-6 to III-7). 

In 2000, 240 fishing vessels made trips out of Coos Bay 

or Charleston, landing 19.2 million pounds of fish valued at 

$13 million dollars (OCZMA 2002: IV-13). Of this volume, 

50 percent were groundfish (OCZMA 2002: IV-13). Between 1995 and 2000, total landing value decreased by 18 

percent, and groundfish landing value decreased by 42 percent (OCZMA 2002: IV-13). The fall in fish prices, coupled 

with the decline in volume landed, has contributed to the 

downsizing in Coos Bay and Charleston’s fish processing 

industry. In 2001, several fish-processing plants shut down, 

contributing to the region’s economic hardships (OCZMA 

2002: IV-13 to IV-14). 

While the milling, logging, fisheries, and maritime 

commerce sectors declined, the Greater Coos Bay area 

experienced steady growth in the services sector, including the expansion of medical and retail trade facilities. 

Although many small businesses closed, others have since 

opened, and several large retail stores, such as Walmart and 

RiteAid, have established themselves in the area. The Bay 

Area Hospital expanded its facilities and is currently the 

largest employer on the Oregon coast. The development of 

a world-class golf course by a private developer in Bandon 

during the mid-1990s also complemented efforts by the 

Bay Area Chamber of Commerce to strengthen the region’s 

tourism economy. 

Both the Coquille Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of 

the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw contributed to the 

service sector expansion. The Coquille Tribe established a 

highly successful casino in North Bend, and has constructed permanent tribal administrative headquarters in North 

Bend and a retirement center in Bandon. The Confederated 

Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw also made 

significant economic investments in tribal housing and 

administrative offices in Empire during the 1990s. 
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Unlike the 1980s, when the real estate and construction sectors in Coos Bay crashed, in the 1990s both sectors 

remained strong. The availability of jobs in the construction 

industry helped cushion the outflow of local woods workers, 

whose skills were often transferable to the construction 

business. A number of interviewees noted that real estate 

sales had risen slowly through the 1990s, but increased 

dramatically in the early 2000s. The recent widespread 

investment in remodeling and new residential construction 

is clearly visible in many neighborhoods in the Greater 

Coos Bay area. 

Sociocultural impacts associated with 

economic change—

Respondents observed that the economic changes that took 

place during the 1990s in the Greater Coos Bay community 

brought with them profound cultural changes. Some interviewees mentioned cultural changes that they viewed as 

positive, notably an increase in productive communication 

between previously polarized stakeholder groups as a result 

of community members having to work together in venues 

such as the Coos Watershed Association and the resource 

advisory council. 

Most interviewees, however, also noted changes they 

considered negative, such as school closures, which had 

served as social hubs for the outlying rural communities, 

and a marked increase in substance abuse, depression, and 

other mental health disorders. A county official who had 

been active in a community assistance program during the 

1990s described some of the negative effects as follows:

The social effects of the Plan were very far reaching. I was on the Retraining Dollars committee. I 

can’t tell you of how many cases of broken homes, 

suicides that took place because the breadwinners 

were frustrated with not being able to find work. 

Homes were foreclosed, cars or worse yet, pickups 

[which many rural people rely upon to generate 

income] were repossessed. 

However, according to a county health department 

employee who grew up in the Coos Bay area during the 

1950s, substance abuse and related social problems, such as 

domestic violence, have long been a part of the social fabric 

of Greater Coos Bay. In addition, she noted that although 

the loss of timber-related employment likely contributed 

to an increase in the use of drugs, such as marijuana and 

methamphetamine, and the incidence of other mental health 

problems in the 1990s, widespread drug use in the area 

began well before the Plan went into effect: 

Drug and alcohol abuse fluctuates. It really started 

before the Plan. We had a problem with marijuana 

use in the early 1990s and late 1980s. It had a lot 

to do with people being out of work, people with 

no other skills and nothing to do. A lot of it is our 

economic culture. That has a great deal to do with 

alcohol and drug abuse. Another issue that is linked 

is mental health. We’ve seen a large increase in 

mental health clients. I remember in the 1980s when 

they shut down Weyerhaeuser. Alcohol abuse and 

other drug use was going up. People were growing 

more marijuana crops. Fewer people were in the 

woods to keep watch. Nineteen eighty-four to 1990 

is when this was happening. When the economy is 

down, people turn to drugs for money and also for a 

supply.

Crime statistics are not available at the community 

scale. However, data for Coos County provide an ambiguous picture of the changes in the incidence of various types 

of social pathologies before and after the implementation of 

the Plan. For example, county-level crime statistics for the 

period 1991 to 2003 indicate that reported arrests for crimes 

against persons (per 10,000 population) exhibited a downward trend from 1991 to 2003 (Oregon Criminal Justice 

Commission 2004), with a high of 824 arrests in 1991 and 

a low of 367 arrests in 2001. The arrest rate for property 

crimes, however, increased from 1991 to 1995, but then 

decreased steadily through the late 1990s and early 2000s. 

The arrest rate for behavior crimes decreased from 1991 

to 1993, and then increased in 1994 to 1996. However, it 

then decreased before increasing slightly again in 2002 and 

2003. The number of reported offenses per 10,000 population for crimes against family members increased steadily 

from 53 in 1991 to 101 in 2001 (it then rose rapidly to 500+ 

per year, but this difference is likely due to a difference in 
75

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

how offenses are categorized rather than to a real increase 

in such crimes). Vandalism, increased from 1,034 reported 

offenses per 10,000 population in 1991 to 1,554 reported 

in 1995, but then decreased sharply through the late 1990s. 

The number of drug offenses reported per 10,000 population increased from a low of 184 in 1991 to a high in 1997 of 

302. Overall, drug offenses have exhibited an upward trend, 

but the pattern is such that it is difficult to link the increase 

to the Plan’s implementation. Likewise it is difficult to link 

other social pathology trends to the Plan.

A number of interviewees stated that the loss of 

revenues from timber sales on O&C lands, which had 

historically provided a significant part of Coos County’s 

budget, decreased the amount of funding available for 

social services and public safety programs. However, 

census data on government finances (U.S. Census 1992, 

1997, 2002) show an increase in Coos County’s revenues 

from $24.8 million in 1991–92 to $63.0 million in 1996–97. 

The county’s revenues then decreased to $41.9 million in 

2001–02. Thus, from 1991–92 to 2001–02, the county’s 

revenues increased by 69 percent, with much larger gains in 

some of the intervening years. The law enforcement budget 

for police protection increased from $1.1 million in 1992 

to $3.0 million in 2003, a 172 percent increase. Spending 

on correctional services also increased, from $2.9 million 

in 1991–92 to $6.4 million in 2001–02, an increase of 120 

percent over 10 years. According to U.S. census data, Coos 

County’s expenditures on health services increased from 

$3.4 million in 1991-92 to $9.5 million in 2003, an increase 

of 179 percent. Sewage and wastewater treatment spending 

rose from $0.6 million to $1.8 million, or 200 percent. In 

short, health and public safety expenditures increased at a 

higher rate in proportion to the overall rise in the county’s 

revenues. In contrast, highway expenditures increased much 

less dramatically, rising only 28 percent from $3.6 million 

in 1991–92 to $4.6 million in 2001–02. Natural-resourcesrelated expenditures also rose less proportionately to the 

overall budget, increasing from $1.3 million to $1.9 million, 

or 46 percent.

One county official expressed a commonly held belief 

among locals that the county’s agreement with BLM in 

the early 1950s to “plow back” 25 percent of the timber 

revenues from O&C lands into road construction and 

recreation on those lands, rather than putting those funds 

into the county’s general fund and using it as the county 

saw fit, amounted to something akin to purchasing greater 

rights to those lands. In his view, the BLM had a legal 

obligation to continue harvesting timber on those lands and 

if it did not do so, the federal government had an obligation 

to return the plowback funds invested by the counties, with 

interest. Another county official noted that although the owl 

guarantees and Secure Rural Schools Act funds had offset 

the loss of some of those revenues, they did not make up for 

the loss of business and employment opportunities owing to 

the near-cessation of timber harvesting on BLM lands. 

Interviewees identified the loss of blue-collar jobs in 

timber and related industries as a key factor in changing the 

fundamental nature of Coos Bay culture. Prior to the 1990s, 

Coos Bay residents and outsiders alike identified Coos Bay 

and North Bend as mill towns dominated by the presence 

of blue-collar workers and their families. During the past 

decade, the overall population of the area has remained 

fairly stable, but the current population is on average older, 

more educated, and more likely to be retired or to have jobs 

in the health, education, or retail trade sectors. In the view 

of most interviewees, these newcomers have brought with 

them different views about what kind of a place they would 

like Coos Bay to be, as well as a different level of expectations for services they believe the county ought to provide: 

They love the coast the way it is. They don’t want 

any industry here. Many have moved here from 

somewhere else. They don’t want to pay taxes here 

for schools. They tend to overlook that they were 

used to a service level. They want that here, but they 

aren’t willing to pay for the schools to keep those 

folks who can provide the services here. 

Feelings regarding the shift from a blue-collar industrial logging and wood processing community to a much more 

services-oriented, white- and pink-collar community were 

mixed: interviewees strongly affiliated with timber and 

ranching lamented the loss of the area’s blue-collar identity, 

seeing it as negative in both the short and long run, while 

other community members saw the change as negative in 
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

the short run but positive in the long run. All interviewees, 

however, shared a common concern about the outmigration 

rate among young adults owing to the lack of employment 

opportunities in the area, and the long-term effects this outmigration would have on family and community stability. 

Views of the future— 

Interviewees expressed a variety of views about what 

the future holds for Coos Bay. A former local politician 

commented that Coos Bay’s economy will continue shifting toward a services-based economy and the population 

base will continue to age. However, this politician, as well 

as other interviewees, emphasized that for Coos Bay to 

thrive economically, the regional economy will need to 

provide career opportunities, rather than just jobs, for the 

young people. Some interviewees viewed the shift toward a 

services-based economy as a negative, holding the promise 

of only low-paying seasonal work for their children. In one 

timber worker’s view, continued investment in watershed 

restoration constitutes a possible avenue for developing a 

more diverse, and thus healthier local economy:

It’s [watershed restoration] about reviving a whole 

industry, not just a few family wage jobs. Winchester Bay [a nearby sports fishery area] had a lot of 

business this year. The money spent on restoration is 

money that will come back.

Several interviewees with strong ties to the timber 

industry expressed their belief that opening up more federal 

timber to harvesting would provide Coos Bay with the shot 

in the arm needed for the community’s economy to thrive. 

Other interviewees articulated a belief that Coos Bay’s shift 

away from a timber-dominated economy already represents 

a viable path toward a healthy economy. 

The story of the community of Greater Coos Bay from 

1990 to 2000 is a story of a boom-and-bust timber community shifting from being almost entirely dependent upon 

the harvest and processing of wood fiber for its economic 

opportunities, toward a community geared increasingly 

toward the provision of medical, educational, retail trade, 

and tourism and recreational services at a local and regional 

scale. Compared to the Coos Bay of 1990, Coos Bay of 

2000 had a much lower percentage of manufacturing jobs, 

which had been concentrated in the wood products industry, 

and a much higher percentage of jobs in the services and 

retail trade sectors. The construction and real estate sectors 

remained strong through the 1990s, and are currently 

expanding rapidly. 

The unemployment rate changed little over the decade, 

but the lack of change is more indicative of the movement 

of laid-off timber workers elsewhere than of a steady supply 

of jobs being available. The movement of younger workers 

with families is reflected in the population and education 

data, which shows that Coos Bay’s population has aged over 

the past decade and that a number of schools have closed. 

Interviewees also commented that levels of substance abuse 

and domestic violence increased during this period. 

The wood products industry, including wood products 

exporting, has changed dramatically since the early 1990s, 

with key changes including the permanent closure of many 

small mills, the permanent elimination of many milling 

and harvesting jobs, and a shift from the use of employees 

to reliance on contractors. Additionally, the kinds of wood 

products in demand have changed, from the large-diameter 

logs previously harvested in the area to much smaller diameter logs, and from almost exclusively softwoods toward an 

increasingly larger percentage of hardwoods. 

The interview data discussed earlier in this section 

touches on some of the ways in which the Plan may have 

contributed to some of these changes (or lack of changes). 

However, all of the interviewees emphasized that the Plan 

was only one of many contributing factors. Other factors 

identified by the interviewees included (a) mechanization of 

milling and harvesting technologies, (b) globalization of the 

timber industry and the opening of new sources of supply, 

(c) the political influence of environmentalist organizations, 

(d) changes in the kinds of products desired by the wood 

processing and construction industry, (e) the economic 

recession in Japan during the 1990s, (f) the Endangered 

Species Act and other environmental regulations, such as 

the State Forest Practices Act, and (g) the transfer of large 

acreages of timberland from timber company to real estate 

investment trust ownership.
77

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Community Adaptation to Change and the 

Role of District Assistance

The two major responses of the Greater Coos Bay community as a whole to the socioeconomic changes taking place 

in the 1990s consisted of direct political action aimed at 

changing the conditions of the Plan and increasing federal 

funds coming to the counties, and actions to diversify the 

community’s economy. In addition, wood products processors, timber companies, small woodland owners, and the 

county forestry department responded to the changing 

economic conditions in a variety of ways. 

Direct political action—

A number of Greater Coos Bay community members took 

direct political action in response to the socioeconomic 

changes taking part in their community. A detailed examination analysis of these actions lay outside the scope of 

this study. However, we provide a brief discussion of the 

political actions that affected the community most directly. 

These included lobbying the U.S. Congress to obtain funds 

to replace the timber receipts the counties received in the 

1980s, and appealing all or parts of the Plan. 

Local politicians and community members successfully 

lobbied the U.S. Congress to pass legislation that provided 

the owl payment guarantees in the early and mid-1990s 

as well as funding under the Secure Rural Schools Act of 

2000 to replace revenues formerly obtained through timber 

receipts. Coos Bay timber industry stakeholders played 

an active role in the American Forest Resource Council’s 

lawsuit contending that the USDA Forest Service and BLM 

lacked legal authority to apply the Plan’s standards and 

guidelines to the O&C lands. They also strongly supported 

efforts to eliminate or limit the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy and survey and manage provisions of the Plan. 

Environmental organizations also filed several lawsuits 

appealing activities carried out under the Plan. However, 

no organized groups headquartered in Greater Coos Bay 

participated in these appeals. Indeed, other than a local 

chapter of the Audubon society, we were unable to locate 

any locally based environmental groups in Greater Coos 

Bay. Many interviewees, including several stakeholders 

affiliated with the timber industry, commented that they felt 

unsafe voicing views that might be labeled “environmentalist” in Coos Bay. 

Economic diversification projects—

Greater Coos Bay had the advantage over many neighboring 

timber-dependent communities of having the basic infrastructure needed to attract retail and service enterprises 

outside of the wood products industry. When the Dwyer 

injunction went into effect, Coos Bay already offered existing and potential residents a range of economic and cultural 

experiences, including medical services, shopping opportunities, community college courses, theater and fine arts, as 

well as easy access to forests, rivers, and ocean beaches. As 

noted in the chapter on the Coos Bay District, community 

members, including Coos Bay District employees, had 

already embarked on several significant economic diversification efforts by the time the Plan went into effect.

Economic diversification efforts in Greater Coos 

Bay during the 1990s included a mix of private, public, 

and tribal actions. Interviewees noted that several large 

outside retail companies, including Walmart and RiteAid, 

opened up stores in the North Bend/Coos Bay area in the 

mid-1990s. The Bay Area Hospital expanded its facilities, 

and now offers state-of-the-art medical care for south coast 

residents. Southwestern Oregon Community College, located on the boundary between North Bend and Coos Bay, 

also expanded its campus and course offerings. A national 

call center set up shop in North Bend in the mid-1990s, 

providing a measure of stability and hope for economic 

improvement for the wider community. Many interviewees 

listed the Coquille Tribe’s Mill Casino, as well as tribal 

investments in local housing, as positive forces in the area’s 

economy. Most interviewees identified the development of 

a world class golf course near Bandon, which is located a 

half-hour’s drive south of Coos Bay, as a key stabilizing 

factor.

Local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, 

private firms, and tribal governments received substantial 

amounts of Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative 

(NEAI) funding to support the community’s economic 

diversification efforts. Owing to the many agencies involved 
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

in the NEAI, and the lack of a publicly accessible centralized list of all NEAI-funded projects and programs (Kusel 

et al. 2002), an accurate estimate of the amount of NEAI 

funding that went into the Greater Coos Bay community 

between 1994 and 2003 is difficult to make. The following 

tabulation lists some of the projects we identified as having 

been funded wholly or in part through the NEAI.

Project category Specific projects

Physical Natural gas pipeline construction 

infrastructure Bay area business incubator

Airport business park 

 Waterfront improvements

Tourism and Coos County tourism plan

recreation Coos regional trails partnership plan 

planning Coos Head eco-tourism plan

Visitor center information exhibits

Workforce/business Computer technician training center

capacity building Dislocated worker retraining

Tribal capacity Coquille reservation and selfbuilding sufficiency plan

Bal’diyaka interpretive center 

 planning

 Tribal business enterprise 

 development

Although BLM did not provide funds for economic 

diversification except for the Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) 

program, many interviewees indicated that the Coos Bay 

District contributed significantly to NEAI-funded projects 

in the form of technical assistance, provision of equipment, 

construction materials, office space, and training in group 

facilitation and leadership skills. In addition, the district 

also funded activities, such as environmental education, 

recreation site maintenance and development, archeological 

excavations, and biological inventory and monitoring that 

directly or indirectly supported many of the communityorganized projects. 

Many of the NEAI-supported projects were classic 

economic development projects, such as the North Bend 

Airport Business Park, waterfront and downtown planning, 

and preliminary planning for the construction of a natural 

gas pipeline. These projects focused on refurbishing and 

expanding the community’s infrastructure to make it more 

attractive to outside investors and existing businesses. 

The NEAI funds also supported local business and worker 

capacity building through retraining programs for displaced 

timber and fisheries workers at Southwest Oregon Community College and a guaranteed loan program for small businesses. The NEAI also helped fund tourism and recreation 

development projects, such as the Coos County Tourism 

Strategic Planning project, the Regional Trails Partnership, 

the Coastal Environmental Learning Network, and the Coos 

Head Eco-Tourism Planning Project. Chapter 5 of this report provides additional details about these projects, which 

constitute the building blocks of the nature-based tourism 

vision discussed in chapter 3 under the Coos Bay District’s 

recreation program. 

In an effort to diversify its revenue sources, the Port 

of Coos Bay took on a leadership role in the Coos County 

Tourism Strategic Planning process and associated naturebased tourism planning efforts. The Port’s tourism development efforts focused on upgrading the marina in Charleston 

and marketing the area’s sports fisheries. The Port formed 

a partnership with other ports in southwest Oregon so that 

the entire region could pool its resources and market their 

fishing sites to a broader audience. This partnership of ports 

also joined forces with the BLM, which had good tourism 

sites, but whose employees lacked the knowledge and skills 

to market their sites. The sportfishing marketing effort 

involved an extensive network of community organizations, 

including the ports, chambers of commerce, the counties, 

and the Forest Service and BLM. The Port’s marketing 

director noted that BLM’s involvement stopped several 

years ago when the staff began to redirect its energies into 

activities more directly focused on land management.

Views about the effectiveness of economic 

diversification projects—

Interviewees expressed mixed views about infrastructure 

development projects, such as the airport business park, 

and improvements to the North Bend waterfront. Some 

interviewees stated that it was too early to tell what the 

projects would yield, but noted that such projects provided 

a solid foundation for the community to build upon. Others 

observed that these projects consumed funds for design 
79

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

and planning that could have been used to support laid-off 

workers more directly. 

In contrast, many interviewees spoke favorably of the 

business incubator and retraining programs. They noted 

that the business incubator provided badly needed space on 

affordable terms for startup businesses. Interviewees also 

commented favorably on the computer-training programs, 

which happened to coincide with the establishment of a 

large national call service in North Bend. Graduates from 

the computer-training program thus were able to immediately find work locally. 

Interviewees also expressed diverse views about the 

tourism and recreation projects. Some interviewees, including many timber industry stakeholders, stated that these 

projects were a waste of taxpayer funds. They questioned 

whether such projects actually increase tourist spending in 

the area, and also whether an economy based on tourism 

and recreation can provide sufficient family-wage jobs. 

Stakeholders associated with tourism, environmental 

education, and watershed conservation viewed the tourism 

and recreation projects much more favorably. In the view of 

these stakeholders, the projects could be termed successes 

in part because they provided venues in which previously 

isolated stakeholders learned how to work together to 

accomplish shared objectives. They noted that these skills 

have since been applied to accomplish other community 

projects. They also expressed the view that the tourism and 

recreation industry has the potential to support a range of 

income levels, and does not consist solely of low-income 

jobs. 

Stakeholders who expressed positive views about the 

tourism and recreation projects also observed that tourism 

infrastructure takes time to develop and thus it is unrealistic to expect that the full benefits will be visible so soon. 

A quote from one conservation organization employee 

illustrates this long-term view.

With tourism infrastructure you don’t “kind of” 

build a golf course. You build all 18 holes, not two 

holes. So you need a minimum to kick things off. 

So we’ve been building an 18-hole golf course one 

hole at a time.

This interviewee, as well as others, also observed that 

Coos Bay has not had an easy time of transforming itself 

into a tourist destination because of its remoteness, its reputation as an unattractive, noisy mill town, and the lack of 

any one spectacular attraction. To overcome these disadvantages, the community has focused on creating a network of 

recreation and tourism sites, events, and programs, coupled 

with a parallel effort to create a more visually appealing waterfront and downtown section along the highway running 

through Coos Bay and North Bend. 

Finally, the community’s efforts to attract new shipping 

concerns to the area have thus far proved unsuccessful. 

According to the Port marketing director, a port needs three 

key ingredients to compete successfully with other west 

coast ports: ready railroad access, a large consumer market 

at the terminal, and easy access to an interstate highway. 

Coos Bay has none of the three ingredients. Prospects for 

developing a thriving port based on industrial exports and 

imports at Coos Bay in the near future are thus not good.

Responses within the wood products industry— 

Local mills and forest landowners in Greater Coos Bay 

responded in a variety of ways to the socioeconomic 

changes taking place in the 1990s. Some timber companies, 

including the once-prominent Georgia Pacific, sold their 

timber holdings in the area and closed or scaled down their 

milling operations. Weyerhaeuser, which retained its timber 

holdings, shifted its processing activities to mills in the 

Willamette Valley. It also developed a Habitat Conservation 

Plan to protect it from future changes in policy that might 

decrease its ability to harvest timber on its holdings. The 

county forest department and many smallholders, who 

might otherwise have maintained longer timber rotations, 

began to develop harvesting plans with a shorter rotation 

schedule. 

Landowners also diversified their inventories, planting 

radiata pine and alder instead of the traditional Douglas-fir, 

hemlock, and spruce. A few small wood-processing firms 

have stayed in business by capturing niche markets for such 

items as fine-furniture wood or arrow bolts. Although most 

of the interviewees spoke favorably of Coos Bay area’s 

watershed restoration program, they noted that the demand 
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

for such work was too limited and too seasonal to provide 

long-term, family-wage employment for more than a few 

dozen people. 

A small number of woods workers were able to obtain 

contracts from the BLM to carry out watershed restoration 

work. Until the passage of the Secure Rural Schools Act 

and the implementation of the Resource Advisory Councils, 

most watershed restoration contracts offered by the district 

were funded through the NEAI’s JITW program. The 

district channeled much of the JITW money to the Coos and 

Coquille Watershed Associations. The Coos Watershed Association contracted out the work in the Coos watershed, but 

the Coquille Watershed Association developed an inhouse 

crew employing displaced timber and fisheries workers. We 

interviewed two contractors—one who works primarily in 

the Coquille Valley and another who works over a much 

broader area. Some of the barriers they noted with respect 

to restoration contracting included:

• Difficulties in getting bank loans for equipment.

• Seasonal nature of the work and a very narrow 

work window for instream work. 

• Difficulties in estimating work costs.

• Time-consuming bid applications and other 

paperwork requirements.

Although both contractors are able to obtain enough 

contracts to keep themselves in business, as well as to hire 

several part-time employees, both stated that there is insufficient restoration work to provide full-time work for more 

than a few people in the south coast area. A contractor who 

worked for many years as a faller, observed that he makes 

much less money doing restoration work than he did as an 

experienced faller. He added, however, that what keeps him 

doing the restoration work despite making less money at it 

is his desire to make a contribution toward getting fish back 

in the south coast’s river systems:

It’s not just about making money. I’ve seen what 

happens on my projects—I go back and see fish 

spawning where none were spawning before. So I’m 

in a unique position that way. There’s a sentimental 

value I see in having fish again instead of the creeks 

being so dead. 

He also commented that one reason he likes the JITW 

program is that it is a small-business set-aside program, 

which means that he doesn’t have to compete for JITW 

contracts against larger businesses with more capital. 

Summary of community response data— 

Without exception, the people interviewed as part of this 

case study emphasized that the community of Greater Coos 

Bay had gone through a very difficult time in the 1990s. 

Interviewees mentioned businesses that had closed, neighbors who had left the area, and schools that had shut down. 

Many people expressed concern about their community’s 

future, and pointed out the increasing discrepancy between 

the need for services and the availability of funds to provide 

them. At the same time, many interviewees also stated that 

the economy had started to stabilize in the past 2 years, 

and pointed to the growth in construction, real estate, and 

medical services as optimistic signs of the beginnings of an 

economic recovery. 

Changing Relationships Between the 

Community and the Coos Bay District 

In changing the ground rules for how the Coos Bay District 

managed the lands under its jurisdiction, the Plan changed 

the types of stakeholders that district staff needed to interact 

with on a regular basis. It also changed the nature of existing 

relationships between the district and various segments of 

the wood products industry. 

Overview of community-district relationships—

Prior to the 1990s, Coos Bay District employees interacted in 

an official capacity primarily with timber industry stakeholders. According to most of the interviewees unconnected with 

the timber industry, during its timber heyday the BLM was 

virtually invisible and at an official level played a limited 

role in community affairs. As one conservation organization 

employee noted, prior to the Plan, the BLM was first and 

foremost about harvesting and selling trees:

Before the Plan, when I went to the BLM, it was all 

forestry offices. Everyone. They had an auction board 

posted with timber sales. To an outsider that was the 

welcome-mat that greeted you. It was an organization 

about harvesting forests and selling trees.
81

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Beginning in the early 1990s, the Coos Bay District 

Manager actively encouraged district employees to diversify their official spheres of interaction. With this administrative approval and support, recreation program and 

public affairs employees, for example, took active roles in a 

variety of community planning and educational activities, 

including the Coos County Tourism Strategic Planning 

project, the Regional Trails Partnership, and the Coast 

Environmental Learning Network. The district archeologist 

worked closely with the Coquille and Confederated Tribes 

on a variety of collaborative projects, including planning 

for the Bal’diayaka Interpretive Center and the protection 

of cultural resources adjacent to one of the mountain bike 

trails developed as part of the Regional Trails Partnership project. Fishery biologists, ecologists, and engineers 

provided assistance to the Coos Watershed Association 

In addition to reaching out to tourism, recreation, and 

environmental education stakeholders, during the 1990s the 

Coos Bay District shifted from an initial antagonistic stance 

toward the Coquille Tribe to having a close partnership 

with the tribe centered around management of the Coquille 

Forest and cultural resources located on BLM lands. According to the Coquille tribal forester, key features of this 

collaborative relationship include (a) contact initiated by the 

district manager, the highest local-level manager within the 

agency; (b) continued involvement of high-level administrators; (c) close and ongoing interaction centered around 

accomplishing a concrete and shared goal; and (d) welldeveloped facilitation skills on the part of BLM employees. 

Views about changes in community-district 

relationships— 

Reactions to this change differed greatly, as did views about 

how the district is perceived by community members. Many 

of the interviewees affiliated with the timber industry or 

activities tightly linked to timber observed that, in their 

experience, the relationship between the community and the 

district had worsened over the past decade. One interviewee 

identified the agency’s shift in emphasis from harvesting 

timber to environmental protection as the reason for community members’ feelings of anger toward the BLM:

Before [the Plan], BLM was seen as a big part of the 

economy. People who worked for them made decent 

money. As that role has evolved into protection 

rather than harvest, they are no longer looked at as 

an integral part of the community but as an enemy.

Another timber stakeholder observed that landowners who formerly viewed BLM as an ally and facilitator 

of access to resources are frustrated with the longer and 

more complicated process for getting approval for access 

agreements due to survey and manage provisions. Many 

interviewees who expressed concern about BLM’s shift 

out of timber harvesting as its main activity took pains to 

specify that they did not blame the Coos Bay District for 

its inability to meet the Plan’s timber quotas. Instead, they 

considered the BLM to be caught up in forces beyond its 

control, with no clear direction to follow. Some timber 

stakeholders were not opposed to the agency broadening its 

range of activities beyond timber harvesting, but noted that 

a more balanced approach would provide funds needed to 

support the recreation and cultural resources programs.

As a result of these changes, according to one timber 

industry stakeholder, who also served in an elected position 

for some years, community members continue to consider 

the BLM an important local force, but they no longer see it 

as a timber agency:

People no longer see the BLM as a timber source. 

They see it more as a recreation and habitat provider. 

Also BLM people are active in the community. 

They are a large landowner and they hold land for a 

variety of reasons. And so people involved in it are 

important to the community. But the agency isn’t 

seen as a timber dealer. 

In contrast to the timber stakeholders’ generally 

negative perception of BLM-community relationships, the 

interviewees affiliated with the tourism industry or environmental education organizations viewed the changes during 

the 1990s as positive. One woman active in the Tourism 

Strategic Planning project noted that “BLM was always 

real generous with its resources.” Another interviewee 

commented that the BLM employees who participated in 

the nature-based tourism, environmental education, and 
82

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

watershed conservation projects had made a genuine and 

very successful effort to reach out to conservation-minded 

stakeholders. He linked the district’s shift in management 

emphasis to the arrival of a new upper level district administrator, who deliberately sought to create links between the 

district and community members interested in environmental education.

A key theme that emerged among interviewees with 

positive views of the relationship between the community 

and the district was a generalized perception and concern 

that the district is moving away from its commitment to 

community partnerships. One tourism industry stakeholder, 

for example, noted that, “BLM has been a wonderful partner, but a couple of years ago they backed away from the 

recreational aspects.” Similarly, a conservation stakeholder 

commented that “BLM is still a player but the intensity 

and commitment isn’t as intense as it was when it was first 

kicked off.” 

Community members noted a number of significant 

changes that to them indicate the district is not as serious 

about community partnerships as it had been in the mid1990s. These changes include perceptions of a progressive 

distancing of upper level management from participation in 

groups such as the watershed associations, Oregon Coastal 

Environmental Awareness Network (OCEAN), the Regional 

Trails Partnership, and so forth. Although BLM still has 

a presence at meetings, interviewees noted that the lower 

level employees don’t have the decisionmaking authority the 

upper level managers did and thus are unable to make the 

same kinds of commitments as their predecessors. In addition, interviewees observed that in recent years the district 

has been increasingly less willing to provide equipment and 

supplies as part of their in-kind contribution. 

Interviewees attributed the change in district behavior 

to directives from the State office to limit work on projects 

not taking place primarily on BLM land and an excessive 

workload owing to the survey and manage requirements. 

Some community members are quite concerned about what 

they see as the district’s disengagement from these partnerships, in large part because the district employees have 

knowledge and skills that most community organizations 

cannot replicate.

Greater Myrtle Point

Located at the confluence of the Middle and South Forks of 

the Coquille River, the city of Myrtle Point serves as a microeconomic center for the far southern end of the Coquille 

Valley (fig. 30). Residents from the outlying settlements of 

Bridge, Arago, Dora, Fairview, Sitkum, and Broadbent send 

their children to school, shop, and do business in Myrtle 

Point. Myrtle Point, Powers, and Coquille form a socioeconomic unit in the minds of many inhabitants, who refer 

to that portion of Coos County as “South County.” Some 

people also include Bandon in South County, but its coastal 

location on the mouth of the Coos River provides it with a 

very different set of economic options from those available 

to the inland settlements. 

The U.S. census recorded 4,927 inhabitants in Greater 

Myrtle Point in 2000. Most of these people reside in the 

lowlands along the Coquille River and its tributaries. 

Forests are an important feature of the Coquille watershed, 

covering 70 percent of its area (Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 2002: 7). Timber companies own 40 percent of 

the land in the watershed, private nonindustrial landowners 

own 30 percent, and the remaining 30 percent is in public 

ownership, primarily BLM and Forest Service. Portions 

of the Coquille Tribal Forest also fall within the Coquille 

watershed.

Although people living in and around Myrtle Point 

have access to many basic businesses, such as retail stores, 

banks, gas stations, and auto repair facilities, residents do 

much of their shopping and business in the neighboring 

communities of Bandon, Coquille, and Greater Coos Bay. 

Many residents commute to jobs in these three communities 

as well. Despite its small size, Myrtle Point offers a range of 

social services including a fire department, a police department, an ambulance service, a medical clinic, kindergarten 

through high school public schooling, two banks, a public 

library, and a geriatric care facility. Of the three case-study 

communities in the Coos Bay area, Myrtle Point is the most 

remote. It is situated roughly 20 miles inland from Highway 

101, the major transportation corridor connecting Oregon’s 

coastal towns. Roughly 60 miles along a winding mountain 

road separate Myrtle Point from the Interstate-5 corridor. 
83

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local CommunitiesFigure 30—The Greater Myrtle Point Area case-study community boundaries. Greater Myrtle Point Gravelford Myttler Point

East Fork Coquille River

Bridge

McKinley

Fairview

Norway Arago

Riverton

Coquille

Delmar

Coaledo

Cheney

Okietown Gaylord

Byerle

Powers

Remote

Sitkum

Camas Valley

Randolph

Broadbent

Bancroft

Middle Fork Coquille River

South Fork Coquille River

Coquille River

State Highway 42

State Highway 42

U.S. Highway 101

North Fork Coquille River

Case-study BLM districtsCase-study community boundariesNorthwest Forest Plan regionBureau of Land ManagementForest Service

0 1 2 3 4 5 10

Miles

Major lakes and rivers

Major roadsRoads

o
84

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

In the early 1900s, the introduction of splash dams to 

the area opened up the Coquille Valley to industrial-scale 

logging operations, which dominated the local economy 

until the 1990s. The Coquille Valley also supported an 

active commercial salmon fishery during the late 1800s 

and early 1900s. Fish landing data indicate that fishermen 

caught 120,000 coho in 1908 (Heikkila 1999: 5). By the 

1990s, however, several of the Coquille Valley fisheries had 

become a shadow of what they had been a century earlier. 

The numbers of coho spawners and spring Chinook in the 

Coquille River had dropped to very low levels by the early 

1990s (Heikkila 1999: 5). Stocks of fall Chinook salmon, 

coastal cutthroat trout, winter steelhead, and rainbow trout 

remained relatively strong, albeit lower than historical levels 

(Heikkila 1999: 5). 

Community Change and the Effects of 

Forest Management Policy 

Drawing upon census data, interviews of community 

members, and planning documents, the following section 

describes the changes that took place in the social and 

economic fabric of Greater Myrtle Point between 1990 

and 2004. 

Demographic indicators—

Greater Myrtle Point’s population declined 8.5 percent 

between 1990 and 2000 (table 4-6). This contrasts with 

moderate population growth for the county overall and 

strong population growth for the 

buffer BGAs. Median 

age increased from 38 to 43 years, 

an increase roughly comparable 

with surrounding areas (table 12). 

Greater Myrtle Point experienced a substantial decline in its 

population under 45 and a sharp 

increase in its population 45 years 

old and up (table 13). The demographic pattern in Greater Myrtle 

Point differed from the county and 

buffer BGAs, however, in that the 

increase in older residents occurred 

almost entirely in the 45 to 64 age bracket, with only a tiny 

increase in residents over the age of 64. Additionally, the 

county and the buffer BGAs experienced a much smaller 

decline in the 30 to 44 age group. 

Greater Myrtle Point’s population is overwhelmingly 

of Caucasian origin (see fig. 31). This figure is similar to 

the racial distributions for the county and the buffer BGAs. 

Three percent of the population in Greater Myrtle Point 

reported being of Native American origins, again a figure 

comparable for the county and buffer BGAs. However, 

this figure was half that of the Greater Myrtle Point figure 

in 1990, when 7 percent of the population categorized 

themselves as Native Americans. In 2000, 4 percent of 

the population in Myrtle Point categorized themselves as 

African American, Asian, mixed, or other. 

Table 12—Population and median age in Greater 

Myrtle Point, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, CBGA 5,383 4,927 -8.47

Total population, county 60,273 62,779 4.16

Total population, buffer 141,084 151,952 7.70

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

Median age, CBGA 38.2 43.3 13.35

Median age, county 37.6 43.0 14.36

Median age, buffer 38.9 44.9 15.42

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Table 13—Age distribution changes in Greater Myrtle Point, 1990 to 2000

Age distribution

Year and area 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 CBGA 370 1,284 517 1,171 1,130 911

2000 CBGA 243 1,049 385 933 1,397 920

Change (percent) -34.32 -18.30 -25.53 -20.32 23.63 .99

1990 county 3,867 12,551 6,867 13,516 13,064 10,408

2000 county 3,047 12,256 5,625 12,362 17,516 11,973

Change (percent) -21.21 -2.35 -18.09 -8.54 34.08 15.04

1990 buffer 9,056 28,685 14,524 30,787 31,937 26,095

2000 buffer 7,026 29,038 12,086 27,950 43,081 32,771

Change (percent) -22.42 1.23 -16.79 -9.21 34.89 25.58

CBGA = census block group aggregate.
85

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

91.2

92.9

96.1

92.5

95.6

91.5

7.2

2.5

2.1

2.7

2.6

0.6

0.4

0.8

0.6

1.0

0.7

0.9

1.2

0.5

1.1

0.4

1.2

2.4

3.4 3.9

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

3.0

80

85

90

95

100

1990 

CBGA

2000 

CBGA

1990 

Buffer 

2000 

Buffer 

1990 

County

2000 

County

Year, geographic area

Race

distribution (p

ercent)

2+ races (2000 only)

Other

Asian and Pacific Islands

Native American

African-American

Caucasian

Figure 31—Race distribution in Greater Myrtle Point, Coos Bay District 10-mile buffer, and Coos County, 1990 and 2000. 

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

The 2000 census data indicate that the percentage of 

inhabitants in Greater Myrtle Point reporting Hispanic 

origins decreased by nearly 18 percent from 1990 (table 

14). This contrasts markedly with the county and buffer 

BGAs, which experienced increases of more then 30 percent in the number of inhabitants classifying themselves 

as Hispanics. 

Education indicators—

School enrollment declined by 6 percent between 1990 

and 2000 (table 15). This contrasts with increases in 

school enrollment for the county as a whole and for the 

buffer BGAs. The drop in school enrollment has led to 

Table 14—Percentage of Greater Myrtle Point 

population that was Hispanic, 1990 to 2000

Ethnicity and area 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Hispanic, CBGA 3.81 3.13 -17.85

Hispanic, county 2.39 3.17 32.64

Hispanic, buffer 2.41 3.17 31.54

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

school closures in Arago, Dora, and Broadbent, as well as 

one school closure in the city of Myrtle Point. One former 

teacher commented that the decline in school enrollment 

numbers began in the early 1980s when the large mills 
86

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Table 15—Education data for Greater Myrtle Point, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

School enrollment, CBGA 1,115 1,043 -6.46

School enrollment, county 11,448 11,691 2.12

School enrollment, buffer 25,682 27,755 8.07

- - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - -

Completed high school, CBGA 66.37 76.10 14.66

Completed high school, county 75.50 81.56 8.03

Completed high school, buffer 76.06 81.62 7.31

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, CBGA 5.45 11.74 115.41

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, county 12.30 15.03 22.20

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, buffer 12.48 14.85 18.99

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

began closing facilities and downsizing their payrolls. In 

his view, the major decline occurred from 1980 to 1990, 

and although still declining slightly, the numbers began 

stabilizing in the 1990s.

The percentage of Greater Myrtle Point residents with 

a high school diploma was 76 percent in 2000, a figure 

somewhat lower than for the county and the buffer BGAs 

(table 15). This represented an increase of 15 percent compared to 1990, suggesting that the people leaving the area 

in the 1990s included a high percentage of people who had 

not completed high school or that incoming residents are 

more likely to have completed high school than the existing residents. A similar pattern existed for residents with 

college degrees. In 1990, only 6 percent of the residents had 

a college degree compared to 12 percent in 2000 (table 15). 

Community members attributed the higher rate of high 

school completions to downsizing in the timber industry, 

and the lack of work for teens and young adults with a 

limited education. Several interviewees noted that many 

parents used to encourage their teenagers to go out and get 

a job, whereas most are now encouraging them to finish 

school. Another interviewee speculated that the people who 

can afford to stay in the area are those with higher educations, and that perhaps they are more likely to encourage 

their children to get a high school diploma than workers 

who did not graduate from high school.

Figure 32—Unemployment in Greater Myrtle Point, Coos 

Bay District 10-mile buffer, and Coos County, 1990 and 2000. 

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Economic indicators— 

In Myrtle Point, the unemployment rate was 9 percent in 

2000, considerably lower than the 14 percent unemployment 

rate in 1990 (fig. 32). The percentage of households living at 

poverty level or below was 19 percent (table 16), a slight increase over the 1990 rate. Although the unemployment rate 

dropped by a larger percentage in Greater Myrtle Point than 

in the county and surrounding buffer zone, the actual rate 

for all three areas in 2000 was roughly the same (roughly 

14.0

8.6 9.0 9.1 8.3 8.4

0

5

10

15

CBGA Buffer County

Geographic area

Unemployment rate (percent)

1990

2000

20
87

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

8 percent). However, in contrast with Greater Myrtle Point, 

the poverty rate in the county and surrounding buffer zone 

decreased. 

Community members expressed surprise at the drop in 

unemployment rate, commenting that it didn’t fit with their 

perceptions that many community members are underemployed or chronically unemployed. Some interviewees suggested that the unemployment figures might not reflect the 

presence in the community of people whose unemployment 

benefits have run out and who thus no longer show up in the 

statistics even though they are still out of work. Still others 

noted that the availability of jobs in Coos Bay and Bandon, 

both of which are in easy commuting distance of Greater 

Myrtle Point, had helped keep the unemployment rate low. 

Interviewees’ stated that the poverty figures meshed with 

their perceptions, and suggested that part of the reason it is 

so high is that many of the community’s families have lived 

in the valley for generations and prefer to remain in the area 

even if it means living on part-time or sporadic income. 

In 2000, the median household income in Greater 

Myrtle Point was $28,509, considerably less than the median household income for the county and the buffer BGAs. 

When adjusted for inflation, median household income in 

Greater Myrtle Point had increased 10.2 percent from 1990 

levels. This increase was slightly lower than for the county 

and buffer BGAs. The percentage of households with 

incomes less than $25,000 was 45 percent in Greater Myrtle 

Table 16—Median household income and poverty rate, Greater 

Myrtle Point, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990a 2000 Change

- - - - Dollars - - - - Percent

Median household income, CBGA 25,868 28,509 10.21

Median household income, county 27,484 31,542 14.76

Median household income, buffer 28,381 31,654 11.53

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

In poverty, CBGA 18.36 18.67 1.69

In poverty, county 16.48 15.04 -8.74

In poverty, buffer 15.86 14.34 -9.58

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

aThe 1990 median household income has been adjusted for inflation and is reported in 

2000 dollars.

Point, a figure that is roughly comparable 

with the county and buffer BGAs. However, 

the income distribution in Greater Myrtle 

Point is much more skewed toward the lower 

end (fig. 33).

In 1990, Greater Myrtle Point ranked 

among communities in the “very low” 

category of socioeconomic well-being, with a 

score on the socioeconomic well-being index 

of 46.74. In 2000, the community had moved 

into the “low” category of socioeconomic 

well-being with a score of 54.38. This change 

suggests that the community experienced 

some positive changes in social and economic 

conditions between 1990 and 2000. These changes are most 

likely linked to the outflow of many younger workers and 

the inflow of older and wealthier people, and thus occurred 

at the cost of the community’s internal stability. 

Changes in Greater Myrtle Point’s economic structure—

From the end of World War II to the early 1990s, most 

employment and business opportunities for residents of 

Greater Myrtle Point were linked to the forest products 

industry. Although no large mills operated in the Greater 

Myrtle Point area, many residents found employment with 

the Georgia Pacific mill in Coquille, and a few commuted to 

mill jobs in Bandon, Coos Bay, and North Bend. In addition, Westbrook Lumber operated two small mills in Myrtle 

Point. A number of very small, family-owned mills also 

provided work or income for local residents. Many residents 

worked on logging, hauling, and road construction projects, 

either as employees with the larger forest products companies or as independent contractors on public and private 

timber holdings. The ready availability of opportunities to 

work in local mills or as part of gyppo logging operations 

based in the Coquille Valley allowed most male residents 

to work locally. Several small brush sheds also provided 

employment for a small number of mostly part-time floral 

greens and bough processing employees. The brush sheds 

also served as points of sale for pickers harvesting nontimber forest products, such as conifer boughs, salal, and 

swordfern. 
88

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Agricultural enterprises also were important in the 

Greater Myrtle Point economy of the early 1990s. For example, many local residents generated income by operating 

small dairy, beef, and sheep ranches in addition to holding 

other jobs. A milk-processing plant located within the 

boundaries of the city of Myrtle Point provided employment 

and an outlet where dairy farmers could sell their milk. Additionally, by the early 1990s, a small but thriving organic 

farming sector had emerged in the Coquille Valley.

Lastly, the service sector, including education, public 

administration, and retail, constituted another important 

economic sector in the early 1990s. For example, the school 

district and the city of Myrtle Point together employed 

several hundred residents. Many residents earned income 

by operating or working for a variety of small, familyowned shops concentrated in downtown Myrtle Point and 

along Highway 42. Most of these shops sold equipment and 

supplies geared toward the timber, farming, and ranching 

sectors and related support services. Other services-related 

employment included several retail food stores, service 

stations, several banks, real estate offices, and engine repair 

and bodywork shops. 

Census data depicted illustrate the transformation that 

took place in Greater Myrtle Point’s economy between 

1990 and 2000. The total number of people with jobs fell 

8 percent. The kinds of jobs residents held also changed 

dramatically (fig. 34). In 1990, nearly a third of the community’s workforce held positions in manufacturing, primarily 

in the wood products sector. In 2000, just over 

13 percent of the community’s employee workforce had 

jobs in manufacturing. Education, health, recreation and 

tourism, and professional services all increased their 

presence in the local economy. 

Altogether, services and public administration 

accounted for 48 percent of the jobs in 2000, compared 

to only 35 percent in 1990. Interestingly, 15 percent of 

the community’s residents worked in agriculture, fishing, 

farming, forestry, or mining in 2000, compared with only 

8 percent in 1990. However, the loss of jobs in manufacturing (321) far exceeded the number of jobs gained in natural 

Figure 33—Household income distribution, Greater Myrtle Point and Coos County, 1990 and 2000. Adjusted for inflation, 2000 dollars. 

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

0

5

10

15

20

25

<$10,000

$10,001–$14,999

$15,000–$24,999

$25,000–$34,999

$35,000–$49,999

$50,000–$74,999

$75,000–$99,999

$100,000–$149,999

$150,000 and up

Income category

Household income (percent)

1990 CBGA

2000 CBGA

1990 county

2000 county

24

13

20

16 16

9

1 0

1

14

15 16 15

18

15

4

3

0

20

14

21

18

16

8

2 1 0

13

10

18

17

6

3

2

14

19
89

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

resources work (110). Even though employment in the 

services sector increased substantially, the increase 

represented only 159 jobs, just half of the jobs lost in 

manufacturing. 

By 2003, the image of Myrtle Point as a thriving timber 

town capable of supporting small, family-owned businesses 

had disappeared. A city administrator who grew up on a 

farm in Greater Myrtle Point described the changes that 

took place in the 1990s as follows:

There used to be restaurants and bars on every 

corner....We used to have jobs here. People didn’t 

commute much. In the 1980s we had a real building 

boom. Houses were going up right and left. We had 

a lot of contractors here and some mill jobs. In the 

1990s, the economy reversed. The buildings quit going in. The houses too. A lot of businesses went out 

of business. It was dog eat dog. A lot of the construction [in the 1980s] was because of people from out of 

town moving in. Then things went dead. 

Other interviewees thought that the decline in timberrelated employment in Greater Myrtle Point began in the 

1980s when the big mills in Coos Bay began closing down. 

A former teacher stated that the closures in Coos Bay had 

a domino effect on the Coquille Valley: “When Coos Bay 

went down, so did Coquille and Myrtle Point.” Another 

man, who as a young man had opted to take a job with 

the city of Myrtle Point instead of working in the forest 

products industry, observed that timber-harvesting and 

processing activities constituted core elements in Myrtle 

Point’s prosperity during much of his lifetime: “The entire 

area was strictly timber based when I was growing up.”

By 2003 and 2004, when we conducted interviews 

for this study, the economic situation in Myrtle Point had 

changed greatly. The Georgia Pacific mill in Coquille 

closed in 1990, and was followed by a rash of mill closures 

throughout the Coquille Valley. By 2004, the Roseburg 

Lumber mill in Coquille was the only sizeable mill remaining in the valley. The Roseburg mill is equipped to 

process 50- to 60-year-old trees, leaving many interviewees 

Figure 34—Employment by industry, Greater Myrtle Point and Coos County, 1990 and 2000. CBGA = census block group aggregate.

8

6

28

3 3

11

5

10

6

16

3

6

13

5

2

9

3

14

9

21

4

17

6

4

13

5

8

18

5

6 7

8

6

2

13

5

14

9

24

6

15

5

14

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation and utilities

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Finance and real estate

Professional

Arts

Health education

Public administration

Industry

E

m

plo

y

m

ent (p

ercent)

1990 CBGA

2000 CBGA

1990 county

2000 county

Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining
90

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

wondering how much longer it will remain in operation as 

rotation ages decline. 

A few small family-operated mills survived through 

the 1990s owing in large part to the availability of private 

timber and the timber the BLM and Forest Service offered 

through the 1995 salvager rider. They also obtained small 

amounts of timber, in the form of roadside hazard trees, 

from federal lands in the wake of the Biscuit Fire of 2002, 

a fire that affected hundreds of thousands of acres in the 

mountains south of Myrtle Point. The brush sheds remain 

in business, although the brush shed operator interviewed 

as part of this study reported that she has recently begun to 

encounter difficulties in getting enough commercial-quality 

floral greens. 

Many of the interviewees associated with the timber 

industry stated that they thought the industry had stabilized 

considerably from the turmoil of the 1990s. Indeed, one of 

the larger local mills that had closed in the 1990s recently 

reopened as an alder milling operation. However, as the 

following quote from a restoration contractor who works in 

the Greater Myrtle Point area indicates, the structure of the 

timber industry has changed substantially:

Technology has changed things. There are contractors now instead of company loggers. The competition is cutthroat. Companies used to have their own 

crews. Now they contract and move around more. 

You don’t need the same labor to log as you did in 

the past. There aren’t any company rigs. They are 

all contract haulers. There’s less need for the big 

equipment. Mills are computer operated. They need 

about half as many people for the same amount of 

board feet. The Willamette Valley is the main area 

for processing now. 

In short, timber companies no longer maintain large 

permanent or semipermanent work forces with health and 

retirement benefits as part of their pay packages. The world 

of timber work in Myrtle Point has been transformed instead to a world in which most work is done by contractors 

rather than by employees, where fewer workers are needed 

to deliver the same amount of product, and where most of 

the processing is done out of the area. 

Interviewees affiliated with the timber industry cited a 

number of specific impacts of the Plan on their businesses 

and the timber industry in general. Key impacts listed 

included: 

• Having to re-tool mills to work with the smaller 

diameter logs coming off private lands. 

• An increase in costs owing to the higher prices for 

the limited supply of larger logs. 

• An increase in restrictions on log hauling practices 

and access to some stands of timber to conform to 

species protection guidelines. 

• Higher costs associated with more complicated and 

lengthier negotiations over road construction on 

lands adjacent to BLM holdings. 

• Higher costs associated with requirements for 

companies to complete fish and wildlife surveys 

and stream monitoring to comply with environmental protection guidelines. 

• Increased risk of fire on private lands from the 

presence of heavy fuel loadings on adjacent 

BLM holdings.

• An increase in recreational demand for access 

to private lands as BLM reduces road access, 

enhancing the risk of fire caused by careless 

forest users. 

The mill closures brought with them the closure of 

related small-scale manufacturing and equipment repair 

enterprises, as well as retail stores and restaurants. By 

2003 and 2004, the economic structure of Greater Myrtle 

Point had undergone profound changes. As the mills and 

related services disappeared, education and health care have 

emerged as the most important sectors of the local economy. 

Although agriculture remains important to the community’s 

economy, prices in the dairy, wool, and cranberry industries, the three agricultural mainstays of Greater Myrtle 

Point, have declined, bringing the profitability of farming 

and ranching down with them. The retail sector has yet 

to recover, and many storefronts in the newly refurbished 

downtown section of Myrtle Point remain boarded up. 

Several interviewees noted that real estate sales, which 

had declined during the 1990s, have picked up in the last 
91

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

2 years, raising residents’ hopes that the area economy is on 

the way to recovery. 

Although all of the interviewees agreed that substantial 

changes had taken place in Myrtle Point during the 1990s, 

no one attributed the changes solely to the Plan, or even the 

Endangered Species Act. Key additional factors mentioned 

as contributing to the community’s structural changes 

included a decline in the Japanese forest products market, a 

shift to the use of the metric system in global marketing and 

the subsequent inability of U.S. companies to compete as effectively, and the downsizing in the timber industry owing 

to changes in processing and transportation technologies. 

Sociocultural impacts associated with 

economic change— 

Everyone interviewed expressed the belief that the economic restructuring that took place in Greater Myrtle 

Point’s timber economy during the 1990s had significantly 

changed the community’s social structure. Interviewees 

noted that the changes had brought with them considerable 

economic and social distress to individuals, families, and 

the larger community. Key changes mentioned with respect 

to changes in social structure included: 

• An increase among residents commuting to 

work, and the concomitant loss in time spent in 

the community. 

• The outflow of the community’s working-class core, 

and the loss of younger couples seeking to establish 

or maintain their families. 

• A decrease in the incentives for newly graduating 

high school seniors to remain in the community. 

• An increase in the percentage of retirees, both 

long-time residents and newcomers. 

• The loss of community gathering places owing to 

school closures in the outlying portions of Greater 

Myrtle Point. 

A city employee noted that the loss of timber-related 

jobs had impacts on the city of Myrtle Point’s ability to 

bring in tax revenues, owing to a decline in demand for 

water and sewage treatment as families with children left 

the area, and a drop in business taxes owing to business 

closures. He observed that as a consequence, the city is 

having difficulties maintaining, much less improving, its 

aging infrastructure. A sawmill owner noted a similar 

phenomenon at the county level, with the decline in timber 

harvesting leading to a decline in county revenues and 

thus a decrease in the county’s ability to perform basic 

services, such as road maintenance. However, U.S. census 

data on government finances show an overall increase 

in Coos County’s revenues from 1991–92 to 2001–02, as 

well as increases in the amounts spent by the county on 

highway construction and maintenance and on health and 

public safety (U.S. Census 1992, 1997, 2002). Additionally 

as noted in the section on Greater Coos Bay, county-level 

statistics indicate that rates of reported offenses for crimes 

against persons and property decreased from 1991 to 2003 

while the rate of reported offenses for behavioral crimes, 

including drug use, increased slightly (Oregon Criminal 

Justice Commission 2004). The data, however, do not allow 

us to link crime trend patterns to changes brought about by 

the Plan.

Views of the future— 

The interviewees in Greater Myrtle Point expressed a 

variety of views about the prospects for the community’s 

future. Most expressed a conviction that timber harvest 

levels were unlikely to ever approach the levels of the late 

1980s in the near future. In addition, the interviewees with 

long-term experience in the timber industry all noted that 

even if such levels could be attained, technology changes 

in processing and transportation have made such work far 

less labor intensive. In their view, it is thus unlikely that 

the timber industry will ever provide the same number of 

jobs that it did in the not-so-distant past. At the same time, 

many of the interviewees working in the timber industry 

noted that they believed that timber should remain a part of 

the local economy as it can potentially provide good-paying 

jobs for those community members who are not interested 

in getting advanced education. 

Most interviewees stated that the services sector, 

particularly services geared to provide assistance to elderly 

people, was likely to remain the strongest component in 

the local economy in the near future. However, some interviewees expressed concerns about the long-term viability 
92

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

of such jobs, which one interviewee characterized as “minimum wage jobs.” In contrast, one small landowner who has 

been active in water-quality planning commented that the 

community was unlikely to progress unless community 

members begin to see the natural environment around them 

as Myrtle Point’s biggest asset rather than seeking to bring 

in industries that would undermine that asset. 

A city employee echoed the notion that community 

members needed to shift from thinking of economic development as being tied to industry: “In Myrtle Point, people 

say we need big industry, but we have no place for it, plus 

we don’t have an employee base here.” In his view, newcomers coming into the area constituted the most likely source 

of economic diversification for the area. Another interviewee active in the construction industry observed that Myrtle 

Point’s quality of life would likely attract newcomers, but he 

noted that just having newcomers isn’t enough. In his view, 

the presence of entrepreneurs, of “people who can see what 

we have and create something out of it” is needed for jobs 

to increase. 

Community Adaptation to Change and 

the Role of District Assistance

Interviewees listed a variety of ways in which they felt the 

community as a whole had responded to the changes that 

took place in the 1990s. As in Greater Coos Bay, the two 

major responses of the community as a whole consisted of 

direct political action and economic diversification. Community members participated actively in the same direct 

political actions described in the Greater Coos Bay case 

study. Further investigation and analysis of these efforts 

lay outside the scope of this study. 

Economic diversification projects— 

During the 1990s and early 2000s, community members 

sought to strengthen Greater Myrtle Point’s economy by 

encouraging the development of its agriculture, tourism, 

and health care sectors. Toward this end, they developed 

a strategic action plan in 1994 and a community action 

plan in 2001, both funded in part through the Forest 

Service’s Rural Community Assistance Program. Subsequent projects emerging from these planning efforts 

included improvements in Myrtle Point’s downtown core, 

upgrading of the nearby County fairground facilities, and a 

regional trails partnership. 

In 1999, local organizations, including the Myrtle Point 

Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Coquille, the Coos 

County Logging museum, the city of Myrtle Point, and 

the Myrtle Point School District formed the Myrtle Point 

Development Corporation (MPCP 2000). The development 

corporation identified three priority community development projects: bringing the Oregon State University (OSU) 

extension office to Myrtle Point, building a swimming 

pool and recreational facility, and developing a community 

action plan (MPCP 2000). At the end of 1999, the county 

commissioners agreed to relocate the extension office to 

Myrtle Point (MPCP 2000). The extension office opened its 

new building for business in fall 2003. 

Beginning in fall 1999, community members began 

working on a community plan. A volunteer from the 

University of Oregon’s Resource Assistance for Rural Environments, a regional program funded in part through the 

NEAI, facilitated the planning process. Other groups active 

in the planning process included the city of Myrtle Point, 

Myrtle Point Ministerial Association, the Coos County Fair, 

and the Oregon State Extension office based at the time in 

the nearby town of Coquille (MPCP 2000). 

Community plan participants concluded that investing 

in the region’s agricultural sector represented the most 

viable alternative to filling the economic gap left by the 

downsizing of the forest products sector. The plan thus 

centered around enhancing the connections between local 

farmers and the state agricultural extension program, 

expanding and improving the county fairgrounds, exploring 

the feasibility of a biogas facility that would operate using 

manure from local dairy cattle, and marketing the community’s agricultural heritage as a means to attract tourists. 

In addition, the plan called for constructing additional 

community facilities, such as public meeting space and 

recreation facilities, and expanding services, such as 

support services for low-income families and public 

transportation. Even before the plan was completed, 

community members had raised the funds needed to 
93

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

construct a building to house the Coos County OSU 

extension office and refurbish the county fairgrounds. 

The community completed both projects in 2003.

Views about NEAI-funded projects—

Community members expressed a range of views about the 

desirability and success of community-level responses to 

the socioeconomic changes that took place in the 1990s. 

Views about the fairground improvements were mixed. 

Some interviewees noted that the expansions would allow 

for year-round use of the facilities and thus could serve 

as a means to attract more visitors to Myrtle Point. Other 

interviewees stated that the county fair, which is the main 

event at the fairgrounds, only lasts for 1 week every year 

and that, in their view, it and other events aren’t going to 

create a significant number of new jobs. In contrast, many 

interviewees viewed the extension office construction 

project favorably, noting that having the office in Myrtle 

Point would bring good-paying jobs into the community 

and increase the assistance available to local farmers. Most 

interviewees were skeptical about the biogas project, given 

the low prices for dairy products and the limited size of 

most local herds. 

Interviewees held widely divergent views about the 

community’s investments in nature-based tourism projects. 

Responses were most favorable to the Regional Trails 

Partnership’s work, which centered much of its energy on 

developing a system of mountain bike trails. Many interviewees stated that although tourism and recreation projects 

in other parts of the county, such as the Coos Head EcoTourism facility, might create jobs regionally, they believed 

that Myrtle Point was too far off the main tourism routes 

and lacks the spectacular scenery of the coast needed to 

attract large numbers of visitors. Interviewees active in the 

wood products industry also perceived tourism as a source 

of low-income jobs and thus unsuitable as an alternative to 

industrial development. One interviewee who is active in 

local business development efforts, however, disagreed with 

this view, noting that some tourism and recreation entrepreneurs make as much or more than many wood products 

contractors or employees.

Responses within the wood products industry—

Within the wood products industry, companies responded 

in a variety of ways to the changes of the 1990s. Georgia 

Pacific, which had owned large timber holdings in the area 

since the early 1950s, sold its lands to Plum Creek. Plum 

Creek then began harvesting trees at a much faster rate, 

aiming for a much shorter rotation on its timber. Many forest-land owners, big and small, shifted to shorter rotations 

owing to the lack of mill capacity to process large-diameter 

wood. Companies, such as Menasha, which had obtained a 

large percentage of their Douglas-fir and cedar from federal 

lands before 1989, currently rely on private sources for most 

of their timber. 

A small number of local contractors acquired work in 

watershed restoration. However, a timber company employee who works for a company with land in Myrtle Point 

stated that the watershed restoration contracting opportunities created were not a key component of local contractors’ 

income. He noted that few local contractors bid on the watershed restoration contracts because they were afraid to get 

involved with federal contracting. In contrast, a contractor 

based in Myrtle Point who has worked on several watershed 

restoration projects expressed a much more positive view 

of the opportunities available in watershed restoration 

work. He stated that when the watershed restoration funds 

became available, he was able to expand the work that he 

did and his income as well. He also noted that the program 

had provided employment for a small number of displaced 

workers. However, he observed that state restrictions limiting instream work to July through September have created 

a very busy 4-month working season, with relatively little 

work in restoration available in the winter. The seasonality 

of the work makes it difficult for him to keep employees on 

year-round. He also noted that competition has increased 

as more contractors have become aware of the watershed 

restoration contracts.

Summary—

Greater Myrtle Point’s remoteness, a limited transportation 

network, and the lack of higher education institutions to 

encourage the development and acceptance of new ideas, 

constitute barriers to prosperity in the minds of many of 
94

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

the people interviewed during this study. At the same time, 

a few interviewees voiced optimism about the possibility 

that the fisheries were improving. Several people also noted 

that the expansion of the Bandon Dunes golf course could 

potentially attract more retirees and tourists to the Coquille 

Valley and Myrtle Point in particular. Some interviewees 

expressed great unhappiness about Myrtle Point’s transformation from a mill town into a retirement center. In their 

view, the place that Myrtle Point is becoming will not be 

able to offer family wage jobs. Others, however, stated

that they are reserving judgment about the desirability of 

Myrtle Point’s economic transformation until more time 

has passed. 

Changing Relationships Between the 

Community and the Coos Bay District 

In changing the ground rules for how the Coos Bay District 

managed the land under its jurisdiction, the Plan changed 

the types of stakeholders that district stakeholders needed to 

interact with on a regular basis. It also changed the nature 

of existing relationships between the district and various 

segments of the wood products industry. 

Overview of community-district relationships— 

For many years, BLM land provided large quantities of 

timber for smaller mills and timber harvesting companies 

in and around Greater Myrtle Point. Locals have long 

harvested other forest products, such as cedar, brush and 

ferns, from BLM land. Many residents hike, fish, hunt, pan 

for gold, pick mushrooms, collect rocks, ride horses, and 

carry out a large variety of recreational activities on lands 

managed by BLM. Additionally, BLM offers professional 

permanent full-time and seasonal job opportunities for 

local residents. Historically, receipts from BLM timber 

sales have constituted a substantial portion of the funding 

for local schools, and have subsidized the construction and 

maintenance of hundreds of miles of roads in the mountains 

surrounding Greater Myrtle Point. The intermingling of 

BLM with privately held lands also created a situation in 

which a number of timber companies, particularly those 

with larger land holdings, have entered into reciprocal road 

access agreements with the Coos Bay District. 

Interviewees stated that BLM had shifted from being 

concerned almost exclusively with timber sales in the late 

1980s and early 1990s to dealing with a much broader spectrum of forest management activities in the late 1990s. One 

interviewee who does small-scale contracting described 

the pre-1990s BLM as a “logging outfit,” whose employees 

focused on, “road building and engineering and everything 

oriented towards that.” 

Views about changes in community-district 

relationships—

Some interviewees viewed BLM’s shift into forest management activities other than timber production as positive 

or neutral, but others considered it negative. Most of the 

interviewees directly affiliated with the timber industry 

expressed negative views about BLM scaling down its 

timber sale operations and associated road construction and 

maintenance activities. For example, one small mill owner 

stated that the BLM had abandoned the community, noting 

that, “They have the ability to create the economy and 

protect natural resource and they haven’t done that.” 

A manager for a large timber company with holdings 

in the Greater Myrtle Point area observed that the district 

has lost many of its people knowledgeable about timber 

harvesting and reforestation. He considers this change 

negative because “...[t]hey aren’t out doing things—keeping roads open—managing young stands to keep them 

going.” Another timber company manager noted that the 

loss of institutional memory within the Coos Bay District 

had increased tensions over the company’s negotiations 

with BLM regarding existing reciprocal rights agreements. 

He attributed these tensions to the new district employees’ 

unfamiliarity with the original documents. A restoration 

contractor echoed the sentiment that the district is “overstaffed and under-managed.” 

However, timber industry stakeholders were not unilaterally negative in their views of the BLM. For example, 

a large timber company manager noted that the BLM had 

contributed a lot toward local communities:
95

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

 I think they have been active putting in boat ramps 

with recreational opportunities around the bay 

there. They have secured federal funding for other 

projects around. I think a majority of the population 

is pretty ignorant to what they contribute other than 

the actual things they use and the products they get 

from it.

Moreover, he observed that part of the inability of BLM 

to work with the timber industry as they did in the past is 

linked to the changes that have taken place over which the 

district has no control, such as legal challenges to timber 

sales. Another timber company manager who has worked 

closely with BLM on some of their new kinds of projects 

stressed that upper level district managers are committed 

to helping the communities they work in: “They are trying 

very hard. Their management is committed to that.” 

The environmentalist group members interviewed 

expressed ambivalent views about their interactions with 

BLM. On the one hand, the environmental group members 

stated that BLM has made an effort to reach out to them. 

One member of an environmental group noted, “In a sense 

we’re working more with BLM now. I have been asked to 

come out with [a district employee] to look at some of the 

projects.” A member of another environmental group, which 

has actively protested several Coos Bay District timber 

management decisions, stated that, “It’s become easier to 

work with BLM.” She noted that over time the district has 

come to accept that environmentalists are going to take part 

in management discussions. 

At first they couldn’t believe that someone was 

commenting on their timber sale—it was like, “How 

dare you!” Now they have come to accept me. Now 

they realize it is a fact of life that we are watching 

them.

Nonetheless, she also expressed a strong mistrust of the 

agency, which she views as still much more closely allied 

with the timber industry than with other constituencies. In 

her view, “little has changed except now they are just trying 

to convert old growth by focusing on the matrix instead of 

everywhere.”

The interviewees who have collaborated with BLM on 

trails, environmental education, and watershed restoration 

projects expressed generally positive views of the BLM. A 

construction contractor who took on a leadership role in 

collaborating with BLM to develop mountain bike trails 

near Bridge described the change he experienced in the 

district’s willingness to collaborate on trails development:

During the Plan period, the BLM’s attitude toward 

mountain biking changed. Before, BLM would just 

laugh about biking. I didn’t have a lot to do with 

BLM before the trail projects. I would go in and get 

firewood permits, and did some trail checking when 

I first came here. But when they quit selling timber, 

they didn’t have as much to do. I appreciated them 

being open, they’d let us look at their maps. They 

were real helpful.

A former teacher commented that BLM was very 

supportive of environmental education in the local schools 

and noted that he’d worked closely with BLM employees for 

years while teaching environmental studies in local high 

schools. Several members of the watershed association also 

emphasized that they had “felt a lot of cooperation from 

BLM,” when they implemented a watershed curriculum for 

the local schools. Other watershed association members 

praised the BLM for providing good leadership in watershed restoration without forcing their own agenda on the 

community. One watershed association member attributed 

the good working relationship between BLM and the association to both groups’ willingness to share resources to 

help each other get projects accomplished.

Coquille watershed association members listed a variety of ways in which the Coos Bay District had contributed 

positively to their organization, including doing engineering 

and design work, offering advice in hydrology, fish biology, 

and botany, and providing office space and access to field 

supplies and equipment. However, one association member 

expressed dismay at what she sees as a growing trend for 

the district to withdraw from its involvement in the watershed association and broader community involvement:
96

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

I see a new trend [in terms of how BLM interacts 

with community]. When I was first working on the 

council, it was getting to a point where they were 

doing a lot of assistance. Now I’m seeing them back 

down. Mostly it’s little things. They used to participate in our fair booth, and now we’re not getting as 

much assistance with staffing.

She expressed some concern about this trend, not 

merely because it makes the association’s job more difficult, 

but also because it removes the BLM from the community 

and reinforces negative stereotypes of the agency among 

community residents. 

Greater Reedsport

Reedsport sits on the central Oregon coast on the western 

edge of Douglas County along Highway 101, approximately 

75 miles from Roseburg, the county seat. Located at the 

mouth of the Umpqua and Smith Rivers, this community 

is bounded by a hodgepodge of county, state, and federal 

forest lands, including the Siuslaw National Forest and the 

Coos Bay District of the BLM (fig. 35). 

Two small, unincorporated towns border Reedsport to 

the north (Gardiner) and the south (Winchester Bay). As of 

2000, these three communities, which constitute the greater 

Reedsport Area, had a population of 5,545 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000). Distinctly different communities, these three 

towns have a historical interdependence, which previously 

helped sustain a certain level of economic viability. Historically, both Reedsport and Gardiner have been timber towns 

whose economic prosperity has fluctuated with the whims 

of the lumber market. Serving as an entrance to the Oregon 

Dunes National Recreation Area, Winchester Bay has 

shifted from a commercial fishing area to a tourist destination site. One community member expressed the links 

between the three towns as follows: “We all depend on each 

other. There’s no way that we could be autonomous.” This 

interdependence is reflected in the local Chamber of Commerce, which serves both Reedsport and Winchester Bay. 

Spurred by the completion of the railroad in 1916, 

Warren P. Reed founded Reedsport in 1919 and served as 

its first mayor. During the 1920s, several canneries, two 

sawmills and a creamery anchored the town’s economy 

(Beckham 1986). Finished in 1936, the Umpqua River 

Bridge linked Gardiner and Reedsport, and completed a 

series of bridges across coastal estuaries increasing access 

to the area. The increase in demand for timber after World 

War II facilitated a logging boom and in turn local economic growth. 

Two International Paper Company (IP) businesses, a 

paper mill and sawmill, served as the economic underpinnings for the Reedsport area for almost four decades. 

Established in 1964 in Gardiner, the sawmill held the 

shorter tenure of the two mills. Employing up to 400 

people at its height of operation, this mill completed an 

expensive modernization process in the early 1980s. Failure 

to reconfigure its equipment for smaller diameter wood 

forced IP to cease operations in the late 1980s. Leasing the 

property from IP, Bohemia ran the mill with a substantially 

reduced workforce until 1991. During this period, IP sold 

the sawmill to Willamette Industries and their 350,000 

acres of timber holdings to Roseburg Resources. Unsure of 

its economic viability, Willamette never ran the mill. 

With ready access to Douglas-fir trees, a long-fiber 

wood, Gardiner’s location helped make the paper mill a 

low-cost producer. From its inception in 1956, the paper 

mill operated steadily until the early 1990s when market 

difficulties caused IP to experience periodic closures and 

intermittently lay off employees. After a brief resurgence in 

1994–95, the mill again began intermittent operations, closing for extended periods. Market forces (i.e., low demand 

and increased competition) and decreased accessibility to 

raw materials finally caused IP to cease production in January 1999. This closure displaced approximately 350 workers. “We are a town that hit rock bottom and are coming 

out of it,” a resident said. In 2004, IP tore down the mill. In 

the past two decades, several small mills have also closed. 

Westwood, the only remaining local lumber mill, sits four 

miles up the Smith River and proceses alder trees, which 

some interviewees call “weeds.”

The paper mill closure in 1999 had economic and 

demographic reverberations. With few local opportunities 

to find employment at comparable wages, many IP employees relocated. The real estate market became flooded, 
97

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Figure 35—The Greater Reedsport Area case-study community boundaries.

Greater Reedsport

Brenham Smith River

Kroll

Bass

Booth

Ada

Siltcoos

Dunes City

Westlake

Franz

Gardiner

Winchester Bay

Tharp

Umpqua River Umpquy River

Reedsport

Kroll

Bass

Booth

Ada

Siltcoos

Dunes City

Westlake

Franz

Gardiner

Winchester Bay

Tharp

Reedsport

U.S. Highway 101

Siltcoos

Lake

Tahkenitch

Lake

U.S. Highway 101

State Highway 38

o

Case-study BLM districts

Case-study community 

 boundaries

Northwest Forest Plan region

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

Major lakes and rivers

 Major roads

 Roads

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

Pacific Ocean

Woahink

Lake

North Fork Smith River

school population declined, and support services such as 

clothing stores, grocery stores, and gas stations began to 

close. When reflecting on community changes, the mill’s 

closing often serves as a deeply engrained historical marker 

for most community members, who discuss timeframes as 

before and after the mill closure. 

Community Change and the Effects of 

Forest Management Policy

Drawing upon census data, interviews of community 

members, and planning documents, the following section 

describes the changes that took place in the social and economic fabric of Greater Reedsport between 1990 and 2004. 

Demographic indicators—

The Greater Reedsport area’s population decreased 11 

percent from 6,246 to 5,545 between 1990 and 2000, 

while the median age increased 26 percent from 38 to 48 

(table 17). In contrast, during this same period, the Douglas 

County population increased by 6 percent, and their median 

age increased by 15 percent from 36 to 41. 
98

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Table 18—Age distribution changes in Reedsport, 1990 to 2000

Age distribution

Year and area 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 45–64 65 and up

1990 CBGA 459 1,312 607 1,260 1,459 1,149

2000 CBGA 214 942 443 891 1,613 1,442

Change (percent) -53.38 -28.20 -27.02 -29.29 10.56 25.50

1990 county 6,732 21,116 10,691 21,560 20,017 14,533

2000 county 5,651 20,773 9,929 19,556 26,622 17,868

Change (percent) -16.06 -1.62 -7.13 -9.29 33.00 22.95

1990 buffer 9,056 28,685 14,524 30,787 31,937 26,095

2000 buffer 7,026 29,038 12,086 27,950 43,081 32,771

Change (percent) -22.42 1.23 -16.79 -9.21 34.89 25.58

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Roughly 26 percent of the people living in the Greater 

Reedsport area are 65 or older, up from 18 percent in 1990 

(table 18). Comparatively Douglas County has 18 percent of 

its population in the same age group, up from 15 percent in 

1990. Twenty percent of the Reedsport residents are 0 to 19 

years old, down from 28 percent in 1990 or over twice the 

decrease of the county where the 0 to 19 age cohort represents 26 percent of the population, down from 29 percent 

in 1990. 

Reedsport’s population is overwhelmingly Caucasian 

(fig. 36), and the percentage of Caucasian inhabitants 

decreased by less than 2 percent from 1990 to 2000. The 

pattern of racial distribution in Reedsport differs little 

from racial distribution patterns for the county and the 

buffer BGAs (see table 19). In 2000, Hispanics constituted 

3 percent of Reedsport’s population compared to 1 percent 

in 1990 (fig. 36). 

Education indicators—

In 2000, almost 81 percent of the residents 25 and older had 

a high school diploma with 14 percent obtaining a college 

degree or higher, a figure similar to Douglas County (table 

20). Although the county school enrollment has increased 

by almost 7 percent, Reedsport’s school enrollment has 

dropped by 14 percent from 1,131 to 972 since 1990. In 

2003, this decreased enrollment forced the community to 

shut the area’s middle school, which was based in Gardiner. 

The high school once accommodated 600 students, but only 

had 260 before absorbing the seventh and eighth grades. 

The school district added the sixth grade to their elementary 

school. 

These demographic shifts parallel the interviewees’ 

perceptions of population changes in their community. Most 

residents mentioned an influx of retirees and a significant 

decrease in school-age children, noting that Reedsport has 

become a retirement community. “We as a viable, self-sustaining population are just dwindling away,” a resident said. 

Although the exodus of middleincome working class families 

had decreased the communities’ 

leadership base, retirees have provided new expertise and broadened 

volunteerism. 

Economic indicators—

Despite a drop in unemployment in 

the Reedsport area between 1990 

and 2000, poverty increased and 

median household income decreased. Although unemployment 

has decreased almost 17 percent 

from 14 to 12 percent between 

Table 19—Percentage of Greater Reedsport 

population that was Hispanic, 1990 to 2000

Ethnicity and area 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Hispanic, CBGA 1.06 3.03 185.85

Hispanic, county 2.21 2.83 28.05

Hispanic, buffer 2.41 3.17 31.54

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Table 17—Population and median age in Greater 

Reedsport, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

Total population, CBGA 6,246 5,545 -11.22

Total population, county 94,649 100,399 6.08

Total population, buffer 141,084 151,952 7.70

Median age, CBGA 38.2 48.2 26.18

Median age, county 36.0 41.3 14.72

Median age, buffer 38.9 44.9 15.42

CBGA = census block group aggregate.
99

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

96.0

94.2

96.1

92.5

96.7

93.7

2.6 2.5

2.1

1.8

1.6

0.7

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.5

1.1

0.5

1.1

0.6

0.9

3.4 3.4 3.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.6

80

85

90

95

100

1990 

CBGA

2000 

CBGA

1990 

Buffer 

2000 

Buffer 

1990 

County

2000 

County

Year, geographic area

Race

distribution (p

ercent)

2+ races (2000 only)

Other

Asian and Pacific Islands

Native American

African-American

Caucasian

Figure 36—Race distribution in Greater Reedsport, Coos Bay District 10-mile buffer, and Douglas County, 1990 and 2000. 

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Table 20—Education data for Greater Reedsport, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990 2000 Change

Percent

School enrollment, CBGA 1,131 972 -14.06

School enrollment, county 18,475 19,694 6.60

School enrollment, buffer 25,682 27,755 8.07

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - --

Completed high school, CBGA 73.78 80.86 9.60

Completed high school, county 74.51 80.98 8.68

Completed high school, buffer 76.06 81.62 7.31

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, CBGA 11.80 14.05 19.07

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, county 11.71 13.30 13.58

Bachelor, graduate, professional degrees, buffer 12.48 14.85 18.99

CBGA = census block group aggregate.
100

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

1990 and 2000 in the area, it remains one-third higher than 

the county’s rate of 8 percent in 2000 (fig. 37). More 

startlingly, median household income decreased almost 

7 percent from $30,022 to $27,727 as contrasted with 

countywide median household income, which increased 

by 13 percent to $33,223 (table 21). Similarly, poverty rates 

demonstrate a disparity between this community 

and the county (table 21). Poverty rates in the census 

block group aggregation (CBGA) increased by almost 

10 percent from 15.2 to 16.6, while the county decreased 

by almost 12 percent from 14.9 to 13.1. 

As of 2000, 48 percent of the households in the Greater 

Reedsport area had incomes under $25,000 as compared to 

37 percent of the households in Douglas County. Twentytwo percent of Greater Reedsport households had incomes 

of $50,000 or more, compared to 28 percent of Douglas 

County households (fig. 38).

14.0

8.6 9.0 9.1 8.3 8.4

0

5

10

15

CBGA Buffer County

Geographic area

Unemployment rate (percent)

1990

2000

20

Figure 37—Unemployment in Greater Reedsport, Coos Bay 

District 10-mile buffer, and Douglas County, 1990 and 2000. 

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Figure 38—Household income distribution, Greater Reedsport, and Douglas County, 1990 and 2000. Adjusted for inflation, 2000 

dollars. CBGA = census block group aggregate.

0

5

10

15

20

25

<$10,000

$10,001–$14,999

$15,000–$24,999

$25,000–$34,999

$35,000–$49,999

$50,000–$74,999

$75,000–$99,999

$100,000–$149,999

$150,000 and up

Income category

Household income (percent)

1990 CBGA

2000 CBGA

1990 county

2000 county

22

13

18 18

19

7

2

1 0

16

12

19

15

14 14

5

3

2

18

12

23

19

17

8

2

1 0

11

9

17

18

7

3

2

16

18
101

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Changes in Greater Reedsport’s 

economic structure—

In 1990, manufacturing provided one-quarter 

of the employment in this community (fig. 

39). By 2000 this had fallen to 6 percent. 

The areas of decline included professional 

services. As resource-dependent industries 

(fisheries and timber) have decreased, the 

primary employment sectors in the Greater 

Reedsport area have become education and 

social services, as well as services related to 

recreation, tourism, and dining out. Construction increased at almost twice the rate of the 

county. Despite the loss of the two mills, 

jobs in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining 

increased from 4 to 7 percent of the area’s employment. 

Owing to the limited resources available for the study, 

we did not interview commercial fishermen in the Greater 

Reedsport community. However, a recent study of Oregon’s 

Figure 39—Employment by industry, Greater Reedsport and Douglas County, 1990 and 2000. CBGA = census block group aggregate.

Table 21—Median household income and poverty rate, Greater 

Reedsport, 1990 to 2000

Indicator 1990a 2000 Change

Percent

Median household income, CBGA 30,022 27,727 -7.64

Median household income, county 29,404 33,223 12.99

Median household income, buffer 28,381 31,654 11.53

- - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - -

In poverty, CBGA 15.16 16.61 9.56

In poverty, county 14.86 13.13 -11.64

In poverty, buffer 15.86 14.34 -9.58

CBGA = census block group aggregate.

aThe 1990 median household income has been adjusted for inflation and is reported in 

2000 dollars.

In 1990, Greater Reedsport had a socioeconomic 

well-being index of 53.94 and figured among the communities ranked “low” in socioeconomic well-being. The 

community’s socioeconomic well-being index rating was 

54.40 in 2000, virtually unchanged from 10 years earlier. 

4 5

25

5

2

14

3

16

9

12

4

11

6 7

1

14

4

12

15

18

4

26

5

3

13

3

7

18

4

5

7

17

5

4

12

4

12

9

21

5

7

5

12

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Transportation and utilities

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Finance and real estate

Professional

Arts

Health education

Public administration

Industry

E

m

plo

y

m

ent (p

ercent)

1990 CBGA

2000 CBGA

1990 county

2000 county

35
102

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

fishery for groundfish suggests that the fishing industry out 

of Reedsport and Winchester Bay has improved dramatically since 1995. In 2000, fishing vessels in Reedsport and 

Winchester Bay landed 1.0 million pounds of fish valued 

at $1.9 million (OCZMA 2002: IV-11). Of this volume, 10 

percent consisted of groundfish (OCZMA 2002: IV-11). 

Between 1995 and 2000, total fish landing value increased 

by 48 percent, with groundfish landings increasing by 108 

percent (OCZMA 2002: IV-12). Roughly 13 commercial 

fishing vessels operated out of Winchester Bay in 2000, 

with most engaged in salmon and albacore fishing (OCZMA 

2002: IV-12). A local shipyard hires from 58 to 70 workers 

to maintain the fishing fleet (OCZMA 2002: IV-12). 

Interviewees described a town distinctly different now 

than in 1990. A downturn in the fishing industry in the 

1980s coupled with the closure of a large timber mill later in 

the decade and the closure of a paper mill in the late 1990s 

created a local employment vacuum. As discussed above, 

working-age families left the area, and several secondary 

businesses closed. Many interviewees talked about their 

communities’ inability to sustain small businesses and the 

limited supply of family-wage jobs. “There is no industry,” 

a resident said. Another interviewee detailed how this 

affected their population. “For a student who doesn’t go 

onto secondary education, there is a very limited future 

unless they can afford to go to college and most of them 

can’t. There are very few opportunities for them to get a 

job that will allow them to sustain a family unit. They will 

get a college degree and leave.”

Despite some of their economic trials over the past 

decade, residents discussed aesthetic improvements in their 

community including efforts to revitalize downtown with 

new sidewalks, lighting, and plants. Several interviewees 

optimistically mentioned the possibilities of a new local 

facility operated by American Bridge, as well as improved 

economic potentials in the tourism trade.

Sociocultural impacts of economic change—

Interviewees consistently drew a picture of a community 

dramatically affected by the closures of two large mills and 

the loss of 600 family-wage jobs in the past two decades. 

Limited access to federal timber supplies makes it unlikely 

that timber will return as a major employer in the area in the 

near future. “There’s an acceptance that that sort of thing 

[timber] will not come back and we’re not hanging our hat 

on tall trees that grow up around here anymore,” a resident 

said. Interviewees indicated that limited employment 

opportunities prompted many working-age families to leave 

the area depleting the community of several leaders, as well 

as school-age children. The family exodus created a housing 

glut, decreasing property values, which in turn made the 

community more attractive to retirees who began moving in 

and filling the gap left by the younger families. 

The community members interviewed expressed diverse opinions about the cause of the mill closures. Several 

interviewees involved in the timber industry stated that the 

limited supply of federal timber forced large and small mill 

closures throughout the area affecting primary and secondary workers. One timber industry employee explained that 

most private timberlands were on a 50- to 60-year rotation 

when the Dwyer decision and subsequent lawsuits dramatically decreased their access to old-growth timber on federal 

lands. Mills tooled for large-diameter wood, including the 

IP mill, suddenly had an inadequate supply of timber. They 

stated that competition from mills in the Southern United 

States, mechanization, and overharvesting on private lands 

had also played a role in local mill closures. One long-time 

resident noted that logging practices had contributed to the 

community’s present economic difficulties.

We logged ourselves to death. I come from a long 

line of loggers. We harvest like there was no tomorrow. I’m not a Sierra Club type person. I think there 

is a happy medium. We fish like that ocean or river 

would go dry. We never found that happy medium in 

time. We have logged ourselves [to death] and now 

we have to wait until things get back. Hopefully we 

learned. Without the logging then you lose loggers, 

and then you lose the product to take to the paper 

mill. 

Decreased employment and timber revenues dramatically reduced financial support to the schools, which 

depended heavily on state funds based on a per-student 
103

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

spending formula and the payments in lieu of taxes drawn 

from timber income. “The school district is very dependent 

on wood costs—more so than they know,” a resident said. 

According to a school district employee, Greater Reedsport’s school funding predicament constitutes a nationwide 

phenomenon. 

Few of the interviewees specifically mentioned the 

Plan as a factor in the socioeconomic changes that had 

taken place in their community between 1990 and 2000. 

During the interview process, it became clear that many 

interviewees did not differentiate between different types 

of federal, state, and large private landholdings when 

discussing their connection to the forest and the impact of 

forest management policy. Checkerboard boundaries and 

a lack of familiarity with BLM land often made it difficult 

for interviewees to directly relate comments about federal 

forest land management to the BLM. When asked about 

their connection to federal forest land, residents often 

interchanged the Siuslaw National Forest with the BLM 

within their discussions. 

Although some community members spoke clearly 

about their community’s continued connection to the forest, 

few were familiar with federal forest policy and its implications for the past decade. Interviewees sometimes appeared 

to confuse policies (i.e., many interviewees incorrectly 

attributed road closures due to RARE II to the Plan) or 

had an inaccurate perception of the Plan’s specific aspects. 

Interviewees not associated with the timber industry had 

limited knowledge of timber harvest levels stipulated by the 

Plan. In addition, many incorrectly attributed the previous 

decade’s sawmill closure to the drop in timber harvesting 

associated with the Plan. As the mill closure preceded 

the Plan by 6 years, there is clearly no direct correlation 

between that policy and the mill’s failure. Decreased access 

to old-growth timber owing to the Dwyer injunction, 

however, may have directly affected the sustainability of the 

IP lumber mill. However, the mill also faced pressures from 

market globalization and a substantial debt from a factory 

renovation in the early 1980s. The paper mill, which closed 

in the late 1990s, also was vulnerable to increased competition and a limited supply of timber residuals.

Interviewees often spoke of the broad impacts of the 

Plan on the community. Aside from the loss of timber-related jobs, Greater Reedsport lost manufacturing capacity 

owing to both loss of infrastructure (mills torn down) and 

the depletion of human capital, such as timber-related skills 

among the residents. One resident made a projection of 

the long-term effects of the loss in human capital. “What’s 

going to happen with this mess here is one of these days 

we’re going to need forest resources,” he said. “This Nation 

is going to request that we create wood products and then 

the skills are lost. We won’t have the people 30 years old 

that can swing out and saw off a tree or do a job that has to 

be learned.”

Residents’ perception of loss related not only to economics. “Once the sawmills are down, it doesn’t matter that 

you have wood, even private wood. There is no one to cut it. 

So you kind of lose it all.” With only two small mills operating in the area, few residents remain employed in the timber 

industry. For a community that identified itself as a timber 

town and trained its youth for work in the words through 

high school forestry classes, this has had a large cultural 

impact. Until the early 1990s, many students expected to go 

directly from school into timber-related employment. This 

multigenerational phenomenon has recently ceased. 

One long-term resident and property owner argues that 

their culture has been erased to save endangered species. 

He questioned this logic. “We have destroyed entire ways 

of life,” he said. “I was born and raised here in the forest. I 

used to come home at night and take care of my cattle and 

my family. A large portion of society has gone and nothing 

has been mentioned of that. Passing down the tradition of 

the family that has been here for the past 100 years is gone. 

I think that [culture] is as important as an endangered species, but that has been lost in the shuffle.”

Interviewees mentioned hunting, fishing, hiking and 

all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use as some of the activities for 

which they used federal forest lands. Although most residents agreed that the forest provided important recreational 

opportunities for themselves and tourists, they had diverse 

opinions about forest access. Some folks believed land 

managers promoted the area in an effort to protect it, which 
104

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

increased access. According to one resident, the emphasis 

has changed from land management to provide a sustainable 

timber yield to one that emphasizes recreational opportunities. They stated that federal agencies were undergoing this 

shift as a means to generate some revenue they have lost to 

decreased timber sales. 

Some interviewees stated that their access to forest 

lands had decreased, either because of road closures or increased regulations. The institution of the Northwest Forest 

Pass and increased fees for permits and land usages created 

frustration among residents who had always perceived 

forest lands as their own. “They see it as their backyard and 

believe they have the right to use those properties as they 

see fit,” a resident said. Others see the closures as a useless 

waste of resources. “There are a lot of hard feelings over 

the road closings,” an interviewee stated. “We paid a lot of 

money for those roads, but now they’re digging them up to 

save the salmon.”

Increased outreach for tourism combined with these 

new fees created tension among residents who believe that 

visitors suspecting policy violations may turn residents 

in for normal practices such as wood burning. “We need 

to be careful what we’re doing that might be perceived as 

doing something wrong from someone hiking or driving by, 

someone from the city.” 

Mostly interviewees indicated that road closures created less access to the forest. They noted increased protection for endangered species and decreased timber revenue 

means less money for maintaining the roads. “I don’t think 

people realized that when timber sales went away that those 

other things [trail, road, and recreation site development and 

maintenance] would go away,” a resident said.

Community Adaptation to Change and the 

Role of District Assistance

Greater Reedsport interviewees listed a variety of ways in 

which they felt the community as a whole had responded 

to the changes that took place in the 1990s. As indicated in 

the discussion of these responses below, all of them centered around economic diversification. Strategies included 

developing community strategic planning, improvement 

of existing infrastructure, and developing infrastructure to 

support efforts to attract new industrial manufacturers and 

tourism businesses.

Lower Umpqua Economic Development Forum— 

Since the downturn in the timber industry, the Greater 

Reedsport area has worked to diversify its economy by 

increasing tourism and recruiting nontimber industries. In 

response to the sawmill closure, Rural Development Initiatives (RDI) began working with Reedsport area residents in 

1992 to create a Community Response Team. This group, 

which later became the Lower Umpqua Economic Development Forum, developed an economic development strategic 

plan in 1993 (RDI 2003) that called for:

• Job creation and downtown revitalization.

• Worker training in emerging technologies.

• Infrastructure development and maintenance. 

• Quality of life improvement by developing 

housing, recreational, and cultural opportunities, 

and an active living environment. 

Over the past decade, the forum, which has become 

a nonprofit corporation, has continued to work toward 

economic diversification and viability. 

In 1998, the city of Reedsport commissioned Elesco 

Consulting of Sun River, Oregon, to develop a West Douglas County Economic Diversification Strategy. The plan 

recommended an increase in ready-to-build sites and readyto-lease industrial buildings for smaller manufacturers. In 

addition, the plan recommended targeting Bolon Island as a 

site for a larger company (RDI 2003). The discussion below 

about American Bridge has more detail.

In 1999, the forum spearheaded the Reedsport Renaissance Campaign, a five-point economic development 

program, which includes marketing and revitalization. As 

part of these efforts, groups provided seminars, developed 

and disseminated brochures, recruited outside businesses, 

and encouraged residents and businesses to improve local 

appearances. With assistance from RDI, the forum completed an updated strategic plan in 2003. In their continued 

capacity-building effort, RDI has partnered with the Ford 

Foundation to bring leadership training to Reedsport area 

residents starting in early 2004.
105

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Infrastructure development—

Owing to the many agencies involved in the NEAI and 

the lack of a reliable publicly accessible centralized list 

of all NEAI-funded projects and programs (Kusel et al. 

2002), it is difficult to accurately estimate the amount of 

NEAI funding that went into the Greater Reedsport community. However, coastal Douglas County secured NEAI 

funds for several economic diversification projects aimed 

at developing its physical infrastructure so as to enhance 

its ability to attract new industries. Key projects included 

Salmon Harbor Marina improvements, planning and site 

preparation to attract the American Bridge Company 

to Bolon Island, and economic assistance for the Lower 

Umpqua Discovery Center. 

American Bridge—

In 2000, Douglas County purchased Bolon Island, a 

156-acre land parcel located in Gardiner, from Willamette 

Industries as a means to attract industry (Grill 2003). 

Subsequently, an engineering firm developed a master 

plan, facilities located on the premises were demolished, 

and the county began marketing the area (Hammond 

2002). In February 2002, American Bridge, a 100-yearold Fortune 500 company selected the Bolon Island site 

for their west coast headquarters. American Bridge broke 

ground on their steel fabrication plant in July 2002 with 

the intention of investing $10 million in the manufacturing facility and corporate headquarters. Several agencies 

provided resources to ensure this project’s success. “It 

was awesome because granting agencies came out of the 

woodwork to help us,” a city employee said. American 

Bridge’s determination to locate in the Reedsport area 

created optimism in a community struggling to diversify 

its economy. “We were on a downward spiral and that 

gave us hope,” a resident said. However, the economic 

downturn of the early 2000s hindered the company’s ability to achieve its goal of creating 80 to 100 jobs by 

the end of 2003.

Port of Umpqua—

Fred Wahl Marine Construction has operated a ship repair 

facility on the Port of Umpqua’s industrial site since 1991. 

However, decaying infrastructure made it increasingly difficult for this business to operate. To ensure the port’s ability 

to serve this client and expand services to potential clients, 

the port secured funding from the Economic Development 

Administration (EDA) and Oregon Special Public Works 

Fund to repair pilings and the center section of the main 

dock. According to a former port employee, these repairs 

completed in 1996 helped coastal Douglas County maintain 

32 positions and expand jobs in a field not dependent on 

timber or fisheries.

In 1996 the port obtained funds from the Forest 

Service’s Rural Community Assistance Program to develop 

a pilot project to assist small ship repair and fabrication 

facilities within Oregon’s coastal areas to observe the Best 

Management Practices related to compliance with state and 

federal environmental regulations. The money provided 

technical assistance and physical improvements to assist 

Fred Wahl Marine Construction to comply with the regulations. The grant application cited retention of 36 full-time 

jobs as rationale for the project. The company currently 

employs 50.

Salmon Harbor Marina—

Traditionally a fishing community, Winchester Bay has 

struggled to diversify its economy after decreased catches 

and fishing quotas forced the closure of the existing 10 

charter boat businesses in the 1980s and 1990s. Watching 

their Marina decrease from 900 to 500 slips, officials of the 

Salmon Harbor Marina, which is administered through a 

cooperative agreement with Douglas County and the Port 

of Umpqua, decided that they needed to find another 

industry to support them through the downturn in the 

fishing industry. They embarked on the construction of a 

142-site recreational vehicle (RV) campground, including a 

community recreation pavilion and playfields. 
106

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Some local RV campground owners expressed concerns about the possible loss of business owing to additional 

competition but later endorsed the project after Salmon 

Harbor Marina unveiled its plan to charge premium rates 

for camping. The Marina RV resort serves more than 15,000 

people annually, and brings in more than $570,000 in additional revenue to Salmon Harbor Marina. The expansion 

of their services and location of four new businesses in the 

harbor has extended their tourist season, created three permanent and five temporary county positions, and brought 

in more revenue to the local economy. “The Winchester 

Bay economy is a bright spot on the Oregon coast because 

of that [the expansion of Salmon Harbor Marina],” a forum 

member said. 

Umpqua Discovery Center—

In the early 1990s, the City of Reedsport, the Lower 

Umpqua Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Umpqua, the 

International Hero Foundation, and local businesses began 

working on riverfront revitalization efforts. The group 

planned to develop a tourism-oriented commercial center 

for the riverfront area, which included the Umpqua Discovery Center as the cornerstone followed by commercial 

shops and possibly a business incubation center. Collaborators hoped that this development would assist with local 

economic diversification and create new jobs by promoting 

visitor attractions and commercial development. 

The Umpqua Discovery Center secured funds, including some NEAI monies, for the development and construction of the museum and its initial exhibits. Run by the 

city, this facility has 1.5 full-time staff members, 25,000 

visitors annually, and generates $90,000 in annual revenue. 

Several entities including the BLM and Forest Service have 

provided ongoing support for the Discovery Center both 

in cash and in-kind services. The Forest Service provided 

grants for several of the center’s exhibits, as well as money 

for printing brochures. The BLM supplied the museum with 

an exhibit about the elk viewing area (discussed in chapter 

5) and sponsored an intern at the center for several years. 

A city employee attributes the tripling of Discovery 

Center’s membership growth in the past year to the 

community’s connection to the new exhibits. “It reflects 

our community and they embrace it,” she said. A fundraiser 

attended by about 300 people in October 2003 supports 

this statement. The center has been active in community 

happenings, provides a meeting place and plays a central 

role in the Tsalila Festival, which is discussed in more detail 

in chapter 5.

BLM’s role in community adaptation—

Both the BLM and the Forest Service assisted the Greater 

Reedsport Area in their bid to adapt to their community’s 

new economic reality. In addition to NEAI grants that 

provided infrastructure and financing to recruit outside 

industries, these federal agencies often collaborated with 

local entities in their efforts to enhance tourism (see chapter 

5, “Collaboration and Joint Stewardship”). Recreational options on federal forest lands, nature viewing opportunities 

at the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, and assistance with 

local festivals such as Tsalila (see chapter 5) are a few of the 

assets used by Reedsport to enhance their tourism draw. 

Despite acknowledging key roles the BLM has had in 

the Tsalila Festival and the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area, 

interviewees felt that the BLM only actively engaged in 

community issues or economic development that related 

directly to federal lands. “They are good partners in 

Tsalila, but they have an interest in it,” a resident active in 

economic development said. “But with other activities such 

as community economic development, master planning, 

tourism, developing resources, there’s a big reluctance to 

get involved.” Several interviewees agreed that the BLM 

lacked presence at community meetings related to these issues. One person noted limited staffing and resources make 

it difficult to be actively engaged. With their district offices 

in Coos Bay, 25 miles from the Greater Reedsport area, the 

BLM remains somewhat distant from the community. 

Contracting opportunities on federal forest lands also 

diminished after implementation of the Plan. With fewer 
107

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

timber sales, the need for road construction, thinning, and 

other procurement contracts declined. One local company 

experienced a 75-percent decrease in such contracts. 

Another local company that focused on salvage harvesting 

and road maintenance decreased its staffing from 35 to 15 

in the past decade. The owner attributed this downsizing to 

less federal contract work. “Contracting with the BLM over 

the past 10 years has been virtually nil,” he said. 

Contracting no longer provides an important source of 

jobs locally, said an interviewee who argued that the work 

that does exist is often unsustainable. For example, the 

watershed restoration work funded with RAC and JITW 

funds in coastal Douglas County consists primarily of 

short-term contracts. Larger contracts for timber harvesting no longer exist, a logger said. Instead, contracts that 

used to provide long-term employment are now broken into 

smaller segments that may need to be completed months 

apart. These short-term jobs create complications for small 

logging businesses that need to accurately project revenue 

to determine equipment and personnel needs.

Three interviewees noted that outside companies were 

securing most of the local contracts especially in watershed 

restoration. “A lot of people in the last few years started 

their own companies and it seems like they come in and 

County support State support Federal support

• Purchased Bolon Island • Provided tax incentives • NEAI funding

• Shared loan with the city of for American Bridge. • Federal appropriations bill

Reedsport for infrastructure • Developed a team that worked

development. with the community to enhance

• Provided a vision for Salmon their economic development

Harbor and helped secure capacities.

money to implement the vision. • Recruited businesses to their state

• Negotiated with the BLM for a and market Reedsport as a

land transfer into their name, potential manufacturing location.

which allows for increased 

tourism options.

• Provided economic incentives

for American Bridge.

pick up the work instead of our companies,” a retired 

business owner said. He added that bonding, often a 3-year 

process, capital outlay, and liability policies presented barriers to former mill workers who wanted to switch to contract 

work. Another resident stated, “A start-up business can’t 

access adequate funding.”

Community assets in coping with 

socioeconomic change—

Maintaining access to recreational family-based activities, 

catering to retirees with disposable income who spend 

months traveling in their RVs, and enhanced and collaborative marketing have all contributed toward the Greater 

Reedsport Area’s ability to increase their tourism base. In 

addition, an influx of resources from diverse governmental 

entities has allowed Reedsport to develop physical infrastructure, which enhanced its attractiveness to tourists and 

facilitated securing a Fortune 500 company. The county 

worked with local agencies to develop a vision that helped 

focus their development activities, allowing for collaborative actions among diverse organizations. Finally, a close 

connection with a federal representative helped the community secure financing for development in Salmon Harbor 

through federal appropriations. 
108

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

High levels of social capital also facilitated community adaptation. Although competitive tensions still 

exist between Winchester Bay and Reedsport, which are 

both seeking tourism dollars, the communities have a 

combined Chamber of Commerce and share advertising 

and marketing costs. They work together to develop a 

calendar of festivals and community happenings that do 

not compete with each other and often find themselves 

contributing resources to mutually beneficial projects. 

Barriers to coping with socioeconomic change—

Factors hindering Greater Reedsport’s adaptation to 

changing socioeconomic conditions included competition 

with other timber communities for new businesses and 

economic development funding, community members’ 

reluctance to let go of their community’s timber and 

fishing town identity, and lack of investment in building 

leadership capacity. 

As one of literally hundreds of communities impacted by the downturn in the timber industry, Reedsport 

found itself facing heavy competition to attract businesses that could provide family wage jobs. Their location, 

60 miles off the Interstate-5 corridor, and limited lands 

available for industrial use created challenges for their 

business recruitment strategy. 

With a deep, rich connection to the natural resources 

surrounding their area, many of the community members 

interviewed voiced a reluctance to change their community’s identity and abandon their hope of resurgence 

in timber and fisheries industries. Even when asked to 

categorize their towns today, many interviewees labeled 

Greater Reedsport a timber or fishing town. A few 

interviewees considered coastal Douglas County a tourist 

destination, but others had trouble naming a community 

identity. 

Focusing investments in infrastructure often results in 

communities overlooking other capacity needs. In Greater 

Reedsport, a dwindling timber economy and mill closures 

prompted an exodus of younger families and with these 

families some current and future community leaders. 

Despite the need for enhancing its human capital, Greater 

Reedsport invested few NEAI monies in cultivating and 

expanding its leadership base. 

Changing Relationships Between the 

Community and the Coos Bay District 

During the past decade, the BLM has served as a partner in 

several programs or projects that affect the Reedsport area 

including watershed restoration work, the Dean Creek Elk 

Viewing Area, Tsalila Festival, and the Umpqua Discovery 

Center. Interviewees expressed diverse opinions about the 

level and quality of collaboration the BLM has had within 

the community and whether that has changed over the 

years. For example, several interviewees stated that the 

BLM has been conspicuously absent from regular economic 

development activities within the community. However, a 

resident active in watershed restoration activities noted that 

the BLM seemed more engaged in their community within 

the past couple of years.

Someone has motivated the BLM to interact more 

with the councils and the local communities. They 

are showing up at some meetings and listening to the 

concerns and then sticking around to work through 

them instead of leaving. They have found a few 

individuals who are willing to look past the initial 

concerns and actually let things work out.

A landowner who shares diverse boundaries with the 

BLM stated that his company has an excellent working relationship with the district. Additional insights about BLM 

collaboration are provided within the context of projects 

discussed in chapter 5. 
109

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Collaboration and Joint Stewardship 

The Northwest Forest Plan’s (the Plan) primary objective 

was to enable the USDA Forest Service and the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) to fulfill their statutory obligation to provide adequate protection for the northern spotted 

owl (see app. B for scientific names of species), marbled 

murrelet, and other threatened or endangered species. The 

framers of the Plan believed that the ability of the federal 

agencies to fulfill this mandate hinged upon the development of better and more diverse communication networks 

between the federal land management agencies and local 

communities. The following section thus examines the 

changes that took place with respect to the district’s collaboration with various layers of local government, as well 

as nonprofit organizations and private firms involved in 

ecosystem management activities in the Coos Bay region. 

Federally Mandated Collaborative Efforts

The Plan mandated the establishment of provincial advisory committees (PACs) and adaptive management areas 

as mechanisms for promoting collaborative relationships 

between local communities and the Forest Service or BLM. 

No adaptive management areas fell within the jurisdiction 

of the BLM Coos Bay District. The Coos Bay District 

falls within the geographic area covered by the Southwest 

Oregon Provincial Advisory Committee. 

Provincial advisory committees—

An indepth assessment of the PACs lies outside the scope 

of this study. However, several interviewees commented on 

the PACs in the process of describing ways the relationship 

between the BLM and their communities have changed 

during the past decade. The following themes emerged 

from these comments.

• The PAC facilitated communication among stakeholders. The PACs initially served as a forum for 

bringing together diverse stakeholders with a history 

of poor communication with each other. Specifically, 

the PACs created avenues of communication between the BLM and environmental or conservation 

organizations, as well as between environmental 

or conservation organizations and timber industry 

stakeholders. One interviewee associated with the 

Coos watershed association, for example, noted that 

BLM was “key in getting us onto the PAC.” She 

added, “That’s important because that gave us a 

voice at a table where all the various players were.” 

• The PAC was unable to address the key issue of concern to the timber industry, a key stakeholder group. 

The PAC representatives interested in seeing the 

district attain the maximum allowable sales quantity 

(ASQ) for timber harvesting under the Plan withdrew or diminished their level of participation when 

it became clear that the PAC did not have the ability 

to influence timber harvest levels. 

• The Coos Bay ecoregion did not fit well within the 

PAC. In developing the PAC boundaries for southwest Oregon, the planners lumped Coos Bay in with 

communities from the east side of the Coast Range 

and Siskiyous. The long distances, rugged mountain 

terrain, and limited all-weather road systems connecting the east and west portions of the southwestern Oregon ecological province make it difficult for 

many participants to take part regularly in meetings. 

• The Forest Service and BLM played a heavy-handed 

role in the PAC. Interviewees who commented on 

the PAC observed that it was very clearly a topdown process, designed and dominated by the 

Forest Service and BLM. 

Resource advisory committees—

The resource advisory committees (RACs) are not an 

element of the Plan, and thus the Coos Bay BLM RAC 

did not constitute a major focus of this study. However, 

we gathered some data on the local RAC because the 

Secure Rural Schools Act that authorized the creation 

of RACs resulted from direct political action on the part 

of communities seeking to mitigate the social and 

economic distresses linked to the implementation of 

the Plan. In addition, since 2001, the RAC has served 

as an important mechanism for channeling funds to 

the watershed associations. 

Chapter 5: Communities and Forest Management
110

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Members on the RAC represent a balance between the 

environmental community, timber industry, commodity, 

and recreation interest groups; and government officials, 

educators, and general members of the public. The RAC 

members review and recommend projects proposed by the 

public, as well as local, state, and federal agencies. Legally, 

RAC projects funded with Title II funds must enhance or 

restore forest ecosystem health, promote land stewardship, or maintain or improve existing infrastructure, such 

as roads. A RAC can approve Title II-funded projects on 

private or state lands as long as the projects also benefit 

federal lands. 

In Coos County, the allocation of RAC Title II funds 

has become controversial. A number of interviewees stated 

that the RAC’s chairperson, who is also a Coos County 

commissioner, has pressured other RAC members to veto 

all projects that serve solely an ecosystem restoration 

function. When interviewed, the RAC chairperson observed 

that the county is in a funding crisis. He thus considers it 

irresponsible of the RAC to allocate funding to watershed 

restoration projects that do not address infrastructure 

maintenance needs. The power dynamics on the RAC have 

meant that during the past 2 years, the RAC has chosen 

not to fund any projects aimed at improving fish passage, 

instream fish habitat, and tidal spawning grounds unless 

such projects also address road maintenance priorities. 

Projects that coincide clearly with the county’s designated 

resource management priorities, including road stabilization 

projects and noxious weed control, currently receive the 

bulk of Coos County’s Title II funds. It is too early to assess 

how effective the Coos Bay RAC has been in meeting its 

ecosystem restoration mandate. 

Community-Based Stewardship Efforts

The communities of Greater Coos Bay, Greater Myrtle 

Point, and Greater Reedsport, as well as the Coquille Tribe 

and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, 

and Siuslaw, worked jointly with the Coos Bay District on 

several large-scale, ongoing joint forest management projects. The district had the ability to participate intensively in 

these partnerships during the mid-1990s because its funding 

and staffing levels remained relatively constant while 

the demand for timber sale design and implementation 

dropped precipitously. The Coos Bay District Manager’s 

decision to take a proactive approach to the economic 

changes taking place during the late 1980s and early 1990s 

meant that the district was prepared to capitalize on the 

resources available for ecosystem restoration and management partnerships as soon as the Plan went into effect. 

The following section provides an overview of the three 

major types of joint natural resource management partnerships in which the Coos Bay District played a major 

role during the 1990s and early 2000s: (a) watershed 

restoration, (b) nature-based tourism and environmental 

education, and (c) resource management assistance to the 

Coquille Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, 

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. 

Watershed restoration—

The Coos Bay region has a history of broad-based and 

extensive community involvement in fisheries conservation and enhancement. As early as the 1970s, Coos Bay 

District employees started working to improve instream 

fish habitat in southern coastal river systems by placing 

large wood debris into streams and building gabions to 

facilitate gravel deposition. One interviewee described the 

work they were doing as “trying to set the bones back in 

the stream.” Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department also 

has a long history in fish habitat improvement efforts in 

the Coos Bay area. In 1983, the Oregon legislature created 

the Oregon Salmon Trout Enhancement Program (STEP) 

to encourage community involvement in fish rearing 

programs, as well as a few scattered habitat improvement 

projects (Heikkila 1999: 11). During the 1980s, several 

environmental conservation partnerships emerged in 

coastal Oregon to address some of the factors contributing to declining fish stocks (Heikkila 1999: 11). Some of 

these programs, most notably the Bring Back the Natives 

program, involved federal agencies working with industrial forest landowners, agricultural landowners, and state 

agencies to accomplish restoration projects at a watershed 

scale (Heikkila 1999: 11). 
111

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

 Interest in participating in watershed restoration work 

on the part of south coast community members expanded 

greatly in the early 1990s owing to a combination of three 

events: (a) the National Marine Fisheries Service threatened to file to list the coastal coho salmon on the federally 

endangered species list, (b) the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality designated the lower Coquille River 

as having limited water quality, and (c) in 1993, the Oregon 

legislature established the Watershed Health Program and 

included $10 million in funding for demonstration projects 

in northeastern and southwestern Oregon (Heikkila 1999: 

11). As part of the Watershed Health Program legislation, 

the legislature requested that the counties encourage the 

formation of local watershed councils to develop and implement watershed restoration. 

In 1993, the Coos County Board of Commissioners 

created the Coos County Watershed Coordinating Authority to administer the $3.5 million in funds coming to the 

region from the Watershed Health Program (Heikkila 1999: 

11). The commissioners appointed the members of the 

organization, who numbered more than 80 (Heikkila 1999: 

11). Meanwhile, a coalition of large industrial landholders, 

the Coos Bay District, and the South Slough reserve had 

already developed a strategy and a list of pilot projects 

for improving fish passage in the Coos River watershed. 

They approached the coordinating authority for funding 

but were told that the county would only fund projects in 

the Coquille watershed that the county had identified as a 

priority for restoration efforts. The Coos River watershed 

stakeholders established their own watershed association, 

the Coos Watershed Association; they incorporated as a 

501(c)3 nonprofit organization in 1994 and applied directly 

to the Watershed Health Program for funding to carry out 

their vision. Shortly thereafter, stakeholders in the Coquille 

watershed followed suit, but opted to let the Coos County 

Soil and Water Conservation District administer its project 

funds. 

Under the original legislation governing the Watershed 

Health Program, watershed associations only needed county 

endorsement, rather than county approval, to qualify as 

recipients for program funds. Although representatives 

from the county sit on the boards of the original watershed 

associations, owing to their nonprofit status, the county 

does not exercise member selection, financial management, 

or decisionmaking authority over the associations. Funding for the program now comes from lottery dollars. The 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board administers the 

funds.

Watershed groups operating in the Coos Bay cluster 

case-study communities include the Coos Watershed 

Association in Greater Coos Bay, the Coquille Watershed 

Association in Myrtle Point (based in Coquille), and the 

Smith River Watershed Council in Greater Reedsport. The 

following section provides an overview of the organizations’ activities, the Coos Bay District’s contribution to each 

association, characteristics that have helped them function 

effectively (if they have), and the challenges the associations 

currently face. 

Coos Watershed Association—

The Coos Watershed Association is headquartered in 

Charleston and operates throughout the Coos River watershed. It has a 19-member board, including representatives 

from all the major landowners in the watershed, as well as 

stakeholders from ranching and agriculture, fisheries and 

aquaculture, nonindustrial woodlands, maritime commerce, 

the confederated tribes, and several at-large members. 

In 2003, the association operated on a budget of just less 

than $1 million (Coos Watershed Association, n.d.). Approximately 30 percent of the association’s budget came 

from funds provided through the Northwest Economic 

Adjustment Initiative (NEAI) (via U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service [USFWS]) or Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) (via the 

BLM) (Coos Watershed Association, n.d.). As of July 2004, 

it had a staff of five employees (Coos Watershed Association, n.d.). The Coos Watershed Association’s mission is, 

“To provide a framework to coordinate and implement 

proven management practices, and test promising new 

management practices, designed to support environmental 

integrity and economic stability for communities for the 

Coos Watershed” (Coos Watershed Association, n.d.). The 

Coos Watershed Association emerged in large part from 

the desires of the South Slough reserve managers in the 

early 1990s to restore the South Slough to conditions more 
112

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

closely approximating those present at the time of European 

contact. Of the reserve’s 4,700 acres, 4,000 consisted of 

forest. Consequently, the South Slough managers became 

interested in how the county, which had forest lands 

adjacent to the reserve, managed its forests. From the South 

Slough reserve’s perspective, which looks up the watershed 

from the mouth of the Coos River, the ideal restoration 

program would encompass the entire watershed. 

As the South Slough manager and county forester 

pored over maps of the watershed, they realized, in the 

words of the South Slough manager, “If you had the right 

eight people in the room, you had 80 percent of the land 

in the watershed covered.” Three of the larger landholders 

in the area were public agencies: the BLM, Elliott State 

Forest, and Coos County. Two private timber companies, 

Weyerhaeuser and Menasha, owned most of the rest of the 

watershed. The county forester, who had a working relationship with Weyerhaeuser and Menasha, approached company 

managers about the possibility of combining forces to 

develop a watershed-wide restoration program. 

As one founding member of the association described, 

the process of putting together a cooperative alliance of key 

stakeholders in the polarized atmosphere of a mill town on 

Oregon’s south coast in the early 1990s was a laborious one.

They called in significant individuals, people working with Weyerhaeuser and Menasha. They talked 

with BLM because they had 10 percent of the land. 

They brought in Elliott State Forest, the port, and 

the influential ranchers. The discussions went on for 

months. At first it had to be done one on one. There 

were a lot of fears about power. People were afraid 

of the political ramifications. So they talked about 

structure and working in a way to avoid controversial issues.

Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

was threatening to file a listing for the coastal coho salmon 

as a federally endangered species. According to the South 

Slough’s manager, the threat that the USFWS might list the 

coastal coho served to bring the private timber landholders 

definitively to the table:

That was the real catalyst here for change, the threat 

of listing. It wasn’t spotted owls and marble murrelets, but “What is the salmon listing going to do?” 

With the riparian setbacks people were thinking, 

“Good gracious!” The timber industry was used 

to owl circles. But down here there are streams 

everywhere. So the salmon listing was the thing that 

got people very nervous. 

In 1994, a South Slough biologist wrote the 

association’s first proposal for funds from the Governor’s 

Watershed Enhancement Board, which administered the 

Watershed Health Program at the time. The board approved 

the funds, and restoration activities in the Coos River 

watershed began. To minimize conflicts among stakeholders unused to working together and with different environmental value systems, the Coos Watershed Association 

opted to tackle the obvious problems, such as culverts in 

the uplands that impeded fish passage and also contributed 

to soil erosion and road destabilization. Over the years, the 

Coos Watershed Association accomplished a variety of projects, including fish passage improvements, instream habitat 

restoration, and road stabilization. Recently the association 

initiated a comprehensive monitoring program to measure 

the effectiveness of the work that it does on the ground. It 

has also started an assessment of watershed conditions in 

the lowlands.

Many interviewees expressed positive views about the 

watershed association and its restoration activities. One 

timber company employee, for example, noted that the 

success of the culvert program had prompted his company 

to construct additional cross drains to minimize road erosion. He added that by investing in watershed restoration, 

his company both improves the region’s water quality and 

increases the likelihood that they can stay in business:

It’s been very successful. We’ve minimized sedimentation. But the greater value to us is that we 

continue to be in business. Our 200,000 acres is 

going to be subject to regulation. We need to make 

money and have clean water, habitat, and so on. It’s 

a question of overall stewardship.
113

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

He observed that the group’s focus in the uplands, 

where the number of landowners was limited and where 

they could easily come to agreement over the need to 

decrease soil erosion and improve fish passage, helped the 

association develop a reputation for doing useful work early 

on. In his view, “The association is a good model of being 

responsive to landowner concerns, plus enhancing the value 

of fish and habitat.” A former South Slough employee reiterated the importance of broad-based support in the organization’s success. The employee noted that unlike some of the 

newer watershed councils, the Coos Watershed Association 

“was formed by a whole group, not just 2 or 3 people with 

the others there for window dressing.” Additionally, the first 

president of the board, a well-respected BLM employee, 

was widely viewed as neutral in the political debates about 

forest management.

Interviewees commented that the 1998 Wyden Amendment, which allowed the Coos Watershed Association to 

use JITW funds to work on private lands, played a pivotal 

role in expanding its ability to appeal to a broader group 

of landowners, particularly smallholders in the Coos River 

lowlands. The Coos Watershed Association also participated in the Hire the Fisher program to provide displaced 

fishermen with watershed restoration jobs. Over the years, 

the Coos Watershed Association has developed a reputation 

for its businesslike approach, an approach that fits well 

with the corporate culture of many of the board members. 

Projects are put out for bid to protect the association from 

accusations of unfairness in the way it selects contractors. 

Nearly all of the contracts go to local firms, a practice that 

also gives the association a favorable image locally. 

As with most organizations, the Coos Watershed Association has encountered many challenges to its efforts to 

accomplish its mission. In talking with people active in or 

familiar with the association, we identified two major challenges that the association is currently facing: maintaining a 

common goal and tense relations with the county. 

Maintaining a common goal—Having completed the 

“easy” work in the uplands, the association has turned its 

focus to restoration activities in the lowlands. Working in 

the lowlands has proved much more complicated, partially 

owing to the much larger number of landholders. Also 

participants disagree as to whether restoration activities 

commonly carried out in lowland area, such as tidegate 

removals and riparian fencings and plantings, should be 

encouraged. Although such activities may help restore the 

tidelands and improve water quality, not all landholders 

are anxious to have their lands converted from pasture into 

wetlands or their livestock fenced off from their accustomed access to water. Additionally not all stakeholders 

are convinced that the kinds of projects being proposed 

will increase fish populations or improve water quality 

parameters. To address this issue, the association has 

recently established a watershed-wide monitoring program 

to gather data that will ascertain progress toward project 

objectives.

Tense relations with the county—Despite stepping off on 

its own in the mid-1990s, the Coos Watershed Association 

maintained good relations with Coos County officials 

through the 1990s. As described in the following quote 

by an interviewee active in getting the association up and 

running, the county played a key role in the process.

Coos County was one of our biggest supporters. 

Coos County gave us money as a gift to help 

us with bridge problems early on. [The county 

forester] volunteered to let us use their land. We 

gained the trust of the larger corporations with the 

county’s help.

Over the past few years, however, relations between 

the association and the county have become increasingly 

strained. Because of the unwillingness of interviewees to 

discuss this aspect of the association, it is difficult to state 

with certainty the sources of tension. However, it appears 

that the tension has to do with large amounts of funding 

going to an organization that is independent of the county, 

thus making it difficult for the county to insist that the 

funds be used to address the county’s priorities rather 

than the association’s. 

Role of the BLM in the Coos Watershed Association—

A broad spectrum of interviewees stated that the Coos 

Bay District played a pivotal role in the development and 
114

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

evolution of the Coos Watershed Association. The district’s 

contributions included technical assistance from its engineers, hydrologists, and biologists; millions of dollars in 

JITW funds; provision of meeting and office work spaces; 

access to the district’s geographic information systems 

(GIS) database; access to the district’s watershed assessment data; in-kind support in the form of buses and drivers 

for field trips; and the political weight of having upper level 

managers participate in the association. One interviewee 

described the Coos Bay District as “one of the players,” and 

emphasized that “their door was open” to the association.

Coquille Watershed Association—

As in the Coos Watershed Association, in 1994 the founders 

of the Coquille Watershed Association chose not to remain 

under the Coos County Watershed Coordinating Authority 

and instead incorporated as a 501(c)3 nonprofit. However, 

unlike the Coos Watershed Association, the Coquille Watershed Association initially opted to let the Coos County 

Soil and Water Conservation District administer its project 

funds. The partnership between the association and the 

conservation district eventually proved unworkable because 

of differences in project priorities and disagreements over 

the allocation of overhead funds. In 1998, the Coquille 

Watershed Association took over the task of administering 

its own funds and has since operated independently of the 

Soil and Water Conservation District. Its mission is similar 

to that of the Coos Watershed Association, “[To] provide an 

organizational framework to coordinate the assessment of 

the watershed’s conditions; implement and monitor proven 

management practices; and test new management practices 

that are designed to support the environmental integrity 

and economic stability for the communities of the Coquille 

Watershed and adjacent areas (Coquille Watershed Association 2005). 

The Coquille Watershed Association has a very different structure from the Coos Watershed Association because 

land ownership in the Coquille Valley is much less concentrated. In 1991, private nonindustrial landowners owned 30 

percent of the land in the Coquille Watershed, 17 industrial 

timber companies owned 26 percent, the BLM managed 

23 percent, the Forest Service 10 percent, and state and 

local governments 1 percent (Interrain Pacific 1997). The 

Coquille Watershed Association has 250 members, many 

of whom are actively involved in projects and meetings. A 

27-member executive council, composed of a broad range of 

stakeholders, oversees the association and makes decisions 

by consensus. The association operates on an annual budget 

of roughly $1 million. 

At one time, the association had two work crews, one 

funded through the JITW program and the other funded 

through the Hire the Fisher program. The Hire the Fisher 

crew worked on fencing and planting projects, whereas the 

JITW funds provided displaced timber workers training in 

how to use heavy equipment and how to apply for federal 

contracts. When the funding for those programs declined 

in the late 1990s, the association reorganized the two crews 

into one crew that focuses on restoration activities. The 

association initially viewed the JITW worker program as a 

training program that would provide displaced workers with 

the skills needed for them to apply for their own restoration 

work contracts. Limited local demand for restoration services, however, meant that few workers secured their own 

contracts. The association now views the formerly displaced 

workers as part of its regular workforce, and uses its crew to 

work on projects in the watershed, as well as in neighboring 

watersheds. The Coos Watershed Association no longer 

has its own crew, and contracts out some of its work to the 

Coquille Watershed Association’s crew. 

The Coquille Watershed Association carries out a 

wider variety of projects than the Coos Watershed Association, which focused on fish passage improvement and road 

stabilization in its beginning years. Although the Coquille 

also focused on fish habitat enhancement in its early years, 

it shifted more rapidly to doing other work. Key activities 

carried out by the Coquille Watershed Association include 

instream habitat restoration, culvert replacement surveys, 

noxious weed control, snowy plover and wildlife habitat 

restoration, snag inventories, tree planting, and riparian 

fencing. Between 1994 and 2002, the association carried 

out projects with more than 210 landowners and has a 

waiting list of landowners interested in future work on 

their holdings (Coquille Watershed Association 2005). The 

association has received national, state, and local awards 
115

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

for the contributions its members have made to watershed 

restoration and rural workforce development.

The Coquille Watershed Association has also maintained a very active connection with local communities 

through the educational system. For example, association 

members worked from 1995 to 2001 with a local high 

school teacher who had developed a watershed analysis 

curriculum for his school. He obtained a grant through 

the Watershed Health Program to train students how to do 

instream monitoring. The class worked in both the Coos 

and Coquille Watersheds. He later helped set up a riparian 

monitoring database for the association. Two watershed association members also worked with local teachers to train 

them in the use of a watershed curriculum developed with a 

Watershed Health Program grant.

Importance of JITW and the Plan—The association initially faced strong opposition from local landowners, many 

of whom distrusted activities supported by the state and 

federal land management agencies. To overcome this distrust, the association decided to tackle a few small projects 

in several parts of the watershed. This approach enabled the 

association to build up broad-based support for its activities 

over time. One community member observed that the JITW 

program may have contributed to the association’s initial 

successes, as it was difficult for landowners to say no to 

the JITW crews who they knew had no other work options. 

Another association member stated that a “lot of people 

came around to it, because they got work on their property 

for free.” 

Several interviewees commented that the timing of the 

Plan helped the association tremendously, as it funneled 

more money into the area than would otherwise have been 

available. The fact that the Coquille and Coos Watershed 

Associations existed prior to the Plan also meant that 

they had the organizational structure and accountability 

measures in place to persuade the BLM, Forest Service, 

and USFWS to allocate large amounts of funding for early 

projects. 

Role of BLM in the Coquille Watershed Association—

Interviewees stated that BLM played a key role in initiating the Coquille Watershed Association and has continued 

to serve as an important source of projects over the past 

decade. Key contributions from BLM include technical 

assistance in writing proposals and developing contracts; 

millions of dollars in funding through the JITW program; 

smaller amounts of funding through Challenge Cost Share 

agreements; and assistance with engineering design, GIS, 

and database construction. 

Most of the interviewees viewed the Coquille Watershed Association as a positive addition to their community. 

They linked the success of the association to the following 

characteristics: (a) use of a neighbor-to-neighbor approach 

initially to build trust, (b) working only in areas where the 

landowners wanted the association’s help, (c) the ready 

availability of a large funding stream early in the association’s life cycle, (d) the association’s adoption of a politically 

neutral position, (e) a high level of commitment from many 

watershed residents, and (f) the early adoption of transparent bidding practices for contracts. 

Although a decade old now, the Coquille Watershed 

Association still faces many challenges. According to interviewees, these include (a) greatly increased competition for 

funds with the rapid expansion in the number of watershed 

councils in Oregon, (b) increased administrative costs as 

funders have become more stringent about oversight, (c) 

ongoing tension between the association and the soil and 

water conservation district, along with an increasingly tense 

relationship between the association and one of the county 

commissioners, and (d) uncertainty about the demand for 

restoration work over the long term, and thus uncertainty 

as to whether the association is providing its crew members 

with marketable career skills. 

Umpqua Basin Watershed Council—

From 1997 until May 2001, the Umpqua Basin Watershed 

Council implemented restoration projects in the watershed 

that impacted the Reedsport area. Based on community 

feedback, in 2001 the Douglas County Board of Commissioners established the Smith River Watershed Council to 

improve local opportunities to address the natural resource 

management goals and be more effective by including a 

balance of local interested and affected persons. This new 

council gained authority to coordinate watershed restoration 
116

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

activities in some of the land area previously served by the 

Umpqua Basin Watershed Council. 

Technical assistance from the BLM and allocations 

from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self 

Determination Act, Title II monies administered by the 

Coos Bay District Resource Advisory Committee has 

helped the relatively new watershed council begin work on 

local projects. This connection has improved a historically 

contentious relationship between the Coos Bay District and 

local landowners. “The BLM has gotten ... more acclimated 

to the people and situation and have actually been a big 

help,” a local landowner said. “They are more aware of our 

concerns and not an active threat to them.”

Local property owners, unhappy with federal dictates 

related to their private land management, have historically regarded BLM employees skeptically. “They [BLM 

employees] come to the local farmers and tell them certain 

things that they can and cannot do without explaining the 

long-term reasons, without showing them the long-term 

benefits and without showing them long-term alternatives.”1

This communication gap often has an impact on property 

owners’ perceptions and willingness to cooperate with 

federal agencies, including the BLM. “It’s really tough 

to keep a group together so that they will communicate 

and listen to land managers and administrators and try to 

work out differences,” said a resident active in watershed 

restoration. He added that a BLM presence at meetings and 

a community member willing to serve as an intermediary 

who can translate between the two groups helps break down 

barriers. 

Nature-Based Tourism and 

Environmental Education

Historical context—

By the mid-1980s, many communities in the Coos Bay 

area recognized that they could no longer rely on the wood 

products industry to supply predictable, long-term employment or income-generating opportunities for the majority 

of the region’s inhabitants. Early economic diversification 

efforts focused on recruiting new businesses and industrial 

facilities to the area. Economic developers paid relatively 

little attention to developing the region’s tourism infrastructure for several reasons. First, Coos Bay is relatively remote 

from large population centers and thus does not attract large 

numbers of weekend visitors to the area. Second, Coos Bay 

lacks centralized, spectacular attractions that would make 

it an obvious viable candidate as a destination tourist spot. 

Third, the tourism infrastructure in south coast communities was limited, and relatively few of the tourists who 

passed through the region were tempted to stay and explore 

a region in which mill sites, log booms, and chip piles 

dominated the bays and river systems. Fourth, the tourism 

industry has the reputation of offering primarily seasonal 

and low-paying jobs. 

In the early 1990s, blue-collar workers continued to 

leave the area, but the number of inmigrants gradually 

began to exceed the number of outmigrants. Many of the 

newcomers came to the area because they had been attracted by the area’s scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. Yet the central recreation and tourism dilemma of the 

1980s remained: How do you build a sustainable tourism 

economy in an area characterized by the presence of 

many small dispersed recreation and natural history sites? 

Additionally, how do you construct a tourism economy that 

minimizes the seasonality and low-wage kinds of positions 

often associated with areas highly dependent on tourism?

Developing a vision—

As described in Chapter 3, by the late 1980s, recreation 

planners at the Coos Bay District had recognized the need 

to improve its existing recreation infrastructure and acquire 

new kinds of sites, such as the Dean Creek Elk Viewing 

Area, Floras Lake, Cape Blanco, the North Spit, and the 

New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Meanwhile, managers at the South Slough National Estuarine 

Reserve wrestled with how to develop an environmental 

education program focused on teaching a broad spectrum 

of people, locals and visitors alike, about the importance of 

estuarine ecosystems. Simultaneously, local chambers of 

commerce struggled with how to support local businesses 

providing services to short- and long-term visitors. At the 

1 It is likely that interviewees in Reedsport had confused BLM 

regulations with Forest Practices Act regulations. The former do 

not apply to private land, whereas the latter do.
117

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

same time, employees and board members of the local 

economic development corporations—the Ports of Coos 

Bay and Bandon, and the Coos County Department of Economic Development—continued to explore viable economic 

alternatives to the rapidly declining timber, shipping, and 

fishing industries. 

In the early 1990s, a critical mass of interest in developing a sustainable tourism sector emerged in the Coos Bay 

region. By the mid-1990s, a variety of local organizations, 

state agencies, and federal agencies had embarked on a 

concerted regionwide effort to support the development of 

the infrastructure needed for what participants in the effort 

refer to as “nature-based tourism.” The vision consists 

of constructing a tourism industry that revolves around 

environmental education and the interest that many people, 

locals and visitors alike, share in learning about the environments in which they live, work, and play. In brief, the 

vision consists of three components:

• A broad-based communications and information-sharing network, embodied in a group called 

Oregon Coastal Environments Awareness Network 

(OCEAN).

• The physical manifestation of that network, known 

as Coastal Environments Learning Network 

(CELN).

• A range of educational programs and events to link 

people more closely to the cultural and natural environments surrounding them.

Constructing a communications network and 

laying out the vision— 

Prior to the mid-1990s, a variety of local, state, and federal 

organizations in the Coos Bay area had missions that 

included environmental education. However, each group 

or agency had developed its programs independently of the 

others. Then OCEAN emerged in 1993 out of a growing 

awareness among these disparate organizations that sharing 

information and resources could create a much stronger set 

of environmental education programs with less likelihood 

of duplication. The mission of OCEAN is to “provide a 

forum to plan, facilitate and promote information and programs related to natural and cultural resources for residents 

and visitors to the [Coos Bay] region” (OCEAN 2005). The 

network encompasses the area from Florence to Brookings 

and from the top of the Coast Range to the Pacific coast. 

Twenty-one organizations, including local governments, 

private firms, state and federal agencies, schools, business 

associations, interpretive and historical societies, and two 

tribes compose the network. 

The Coos Bay District was a key player in the 

network’s creation, as well as instrumental in nurturing it 

through its early years. According to one of the leaders of 

the network, the following factors enabled BLM to participate effectively as a member of OCEAN:

• A strong commitment from upper level 

management to the partnership.

• Close involvement of high-level administrators 

in the planning process.

• Provision of in-kind and small, but critical 

monetary contributions to OCEAN projects.

• Recognition on the part of BLM participants of 

the importance of letting ideas come from the 

community rather than trying to impose the 

agency’s agenda on the group. 

• The ability of BLM participants to let others 

take the lead.

Over the past decade, OCEAN has acquired a reputation of developing well-researched yet age-appropriate environmental education exhibits, curricula, and interpretive 

sites. Members work closely with the local school districts, 

and encourage the development of interactive learning opportunities. Members of OCEAN have constructed interpretive exhibits for the North Bend Visitor Information Center, 

which serves as one of the gateways, or information hubs, 

where locals and visitors can find out where to go to learn 

about Coos Bay’s natural and cultural history. More recently, OCEAN developed a Marine Activities, Resources, 

and Education curriculum that the Coos Bay School District 

and other local school districts have tested and adopted. 

In addition to on-the-ground educational projects, 

OCEAN also spearheaded efforts such as CELN to create 

a clearly defined network of environmental learning sites 

and opportunities. One of OCEAN’s founders explains the 

concept of the CELN as an effort to move the concept of a 
118

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

museum diorama one step further by providing visitors an 

opportunity to briefly embed themselves in the south coast’s 

cultural and natural landscapes, rather than merely viewing them from the outside. In late 1994, a consulting firm 

assisted OCEAN in putting together a feasibility study for 

creating a hub facility for the network, as well as identifying potential key nodes, in the form of existing sites, to 

integrate into the network (Portico Group 1995: 185).

The participants sought to develop a plan that would 

eventually lead to the establishment of a centrally located 

learning facility, which they “envisioned as the focal 

point of a dynamic network of sites linked by educational, 

interpretive and research programs aimed at bringing to life 

the richness and complexity of the Oregon coast for adults 

and children...[and] an understanding of how the coastal 

environment influences and shapes the plant, animal and 

human communities of the region” (Portico Group 1995: 5). 

Through the planning process emerged a framework 

consisting of a learning and resource center hub facility, 

several satellite nodes, and an undetermined number of 

dispersed sites. The network sites represented the five major 

coastal environments: ocean, shoreline, rivers, estuaries, 

and uplands. Because the participants proposed including 

sites managed by a variety of public and private organizations, they also needed to create mechanisms to link the 

sites and coordinate activities. They envisioned two sorts of 

linking mechanisms: key nodes that would serve as learning 

sites, but which would also introduce visitors to outlying 

sites; and a central hub facility, which would provide visitors an introduction to the entire network (Portico Group 

1995: 5). 

The design had the advantage of not requiring a huge 

investment in any one site immediately to get the concept 

going on the ground. Some of the partners developed 

interpretive materials for the dispersed sites and key nodes, 

and others created brochures to inform visitors of the array 

of sites available. For the CELN concept to work, however, 

group leaders realized that they needed to insert it into 

broader community and economic development conversations. They thus worked to incorporate their vision into a 

county-wide NEAI-funded strategic tourism plan (INTRA 

1996: vii). Three plans emerged from the county-sponsored 

planning process: (1) a Tourism Facilities and Infrastructure 

Development Plan, (2) a Marketing Plan, and (3) a Program 

for Action (INTRA 1996: 5). 

The Tourism Facilities and Infrastructure Development 

Plan called for Coos County to “establish its identity and 

marketing image based on its rich natural environment 

and the complementary wealth of opportunities for learning (INTRA 1996: 17). The plan recommended that Coos 

County develop the infrastructure suitable for a vacation 

destination spot. The plan laid out a variety of private, public, and tribal projects that were either already in progress 

(e.g., Bandon Dunes resort, The Mill Casino and Hotel, 

Euphoria Ridge Mountain Bike Trail, New River Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern), or warranted attention 

(i.e., a new visitor center in North Bend, a Coastal Environments Learning Center, the Bal’diyaka Interpretive Center, 

and a North Spit recreation area). 

Community members interviewed during this study 

expressed mixed views of the tourism planning process and 

the projects that emerged out of it. Interviewees involved 

in economic development organizations tended to view 

it favorably. For example, a Port of Coos Bay employee 

commented that the tourism plan was important because 

it addressed the “need for partnerships given the lack of 

resources in each organization.” He noted the plan continues to guide activities in the Coos Bay area, “The plan is 

still there. We all refer to it. It hasn’t just sat on the shelf.” 

Another interviewee observed that the tourism strategic 

planning process brought together a group of organizations 

that previously had not worked with each other. During the 

planning process, they “learned a lot about each other.” A 

Coquille Valley resident stated that the tourism strategic 

planning process was important because it enabled the 

community to gain the attention of the state when it 

organized a governor’s conference on tourism in 1998. In 

her view, the community’s ability to put on a conference of 

that magnitude marked the point at which “the state started 

to realize that we were serious about tourism.” However, 

she also pointed out that without businesses like the Bandon 

Dunes golf course “coming on line,” the area’s tourism 

industry would not have experienced the prosperity it has 

in recent years. 
119

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Interviewees associated with the timber industry, as 

well as several local government officials and employees, 

had a much less positive view of the tourism strategic planning effort. In their perspective, the Coos Bay area would 

be better off if BLM focused on providing timber sales 

instead of spending resources on developing tourism, which 

many viewed as a sector dominated by low-paid seasonal 

work opportunities. 

Through the tourism strategic planning process, 

community members selected the North Bend visitor 

information center to serve as the initial central point for 

distributing information about the CELN to visitors arriving 

on the south coast until a central hub learning facility could 

be established. The CELN feasibility study participants 

identified Coos Head as the most suitable site for the 

network’s central hub educational facility. Linear sites, such 

as hiking trails, bicycle trails, and water trails, would also 

form part of the network. Additionally, participants in both 

the CELN feasibility study and the tourism strategic plan 

process identified existing or potential community-wide 

events that could help attract visitors to the area. 

Implementing the vision—

With the visions and strategies laid out, the next step consisted of transforming the vision of a coordinated network 

of dispersed sites into physical reality. Struggles over who 

would acquire ownership of a key parcel being disposed of 

by the U.S. Navy, have precluded the creation of a hub site 

on Coos Head. However, over the past decade, the CELN 

has developed a number of the key node sites and now hosts 

several community-wide events annually. Three projects 

in which the BLM took an active role, either as a lead 

partner or an important player, are described below. The 

New River Area of Critical Environmental Concern and 

the Cape Blanco Lighthouse would also have made equally 

informative case examples, but lie outside the central study 

area (i.e., Greater Reedsport, Greater Coos Bay, and Greater 

Myrtle Point). 

The Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area—The Dean Creek Elk 

Viewing Area highlights successes and challenges faced by 

the BLM as it sought to expand its collaborative ecosystem 

management efforts. In the mid-1980s, residents in the 

Dean Creek area formed a steering committee, which later 

became Dean Creek Wildlife Incorporated, to prevent the 

Port of Umpqua from acquiring the site for development 

as an airport (USDI and ODFW 1993). In March 1987, the 

newly established organization joined forces with BLM and 

the newly formed Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(ODFW), to raise funds to create an elk preserve in this 

meadow located along a major state highway 3 miles from 

Reedsport. The district and its community partners established an interpretative center, restrooms, and a wetland 

viewing area on the site. Several interviewees attributed 

the Dean Creek Elk Viewing Area’s successful development to BLM’s collaborative efforts and broad community 

participation. One interviewee summed up this view, “They 

really embraced that project and raised funds to make that a 

reality.” 

Broad participation in the facility’s establishment 

and maintenance has created a sense of ownership among 

Reedsport area residents. “Everyone in this community 

regards the elk viewing area as their own,” a nonprofit 

administrator said. With an increased reliance on tourism, 

interviewees see Dean Creek as a part of its changing identity. They also consider it an increasingly important part of 

their economic development strategy, which one resident 

described as “a nonintrusive source of tourism.” Another 

interviewee added, “It’s how people know where Oregon, 

the Central Oregon Coast, and specifically where Reedsport 

is.” Residents provide much of the interpretive support for 

the facility, volunteering as docents on weekends.

Despite favorable impressions of the BLM’s involvement at Dean Creek, some residents stated that at times 

the BLM was not a good steward of its own land. One 

interviewee pointed to the agency’s initial reluctance to fix 

tide gates, noting that these gates keep out tidal influences, 

and thereby turn into pasture areas that would otherwise be 

wetlands. The BLM biologists preferred to manage the land 

in ways that would permit the land to return to its natural 

state. However, in the face of widespread opposition, the 

BLM recreation planners decided to preserve the pastureland and worked with other agencies to repair the gates. 
120

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Tsalila Festival—

The Tsalila Festival, a salmon festival and series of educational programs developed to promote shared resource 

stewardship throughout the Umpqua Basin, is named after 

the Coos Indian village of Tsalila, which no longer exists. 

Since 1998, the first year of the festival, government 

agencies, nonprofit organizations community interests, 

local tribes, and schools have collaborated to accomplish 

Tsalila’s common goals of watershed restoration, education, and economic development. 

The Tsalila Festival has two main components: (a) 

working with students on watershed restoration projects 

and environmental education and (b) hosting an interactive festival, which serves as a forum to promote natural 

resource awareness. During the festival, more than 2,000 

sixth- and eighth-grade students from Douglas County 

gain first-hand experience about the watershed. Nearly 

8,000 participants take part in the festival activities. 

Festival planners said that participation had increased by 

10 percent annually since its inception. 

The BLM and Forest Service combined provide 

approximately $15,000 to $20,000 in funding for Tsalila 

annually. The BLM relies on its Challenge Cost Share 

program, which is set aside to pay for projects that benefit 

wildlife or culture, to support the festival. Interviewees 

stated that this program increased links within the 

community particularly between the Winchester Bay and 

Reedsport Chambers of Commerce and the school district, 

as well as expanded and strengthened community interactions with the BLM and other federal and state agencies.

Many interviewees knew about the Tsalila Festival 

and BLM’s ongoing support, stating that BLM was an 

important contributor to the event’s success. According to BLM staff, this project fits their mission to assist 

with community economic development. “The idea was 

that, because it was a fishing and timber town falling on 

economic hard time this would extend their tourist season 

beyond their typical Labor Day shoulder so they [tourists] would be spending more dollars in the community,” 

a BLM employee stated. A survey completed last year 

indicated that approximately 65 percent of the attendees 

came from outside the local area, suggesting that the 

event does, indeed, increase the amount of money flowing 

into the community.

Coos Regional Trails System—The Coos Regional Trails 

Partnership emerged in 1999 as a formal mechanism linking 

efforts of several community groups, the Forest Service, 

and the Coos Bay District to expand the area’s limited trails 

system (CRTP 2000: 4). The idea of linking these disparate 

efforts into one partnership took root in the mid-1990s 

when trails development proponents worked together on the 

Coos County tourism strategic and implementation plan 

(CRTP 2000: 4). A feasibility study conducted by University 

of Oregon researchers concluded that the region had the 

potential to attract more visitors if local organizations and 

agencies could develop and market an expanded trail system 

for diverse users (CRTP 2000: 4). 

To implement the researchers’ recommendations, 

interested parties put together a formal memorandum of 

understanding establishing the Coos Regional Trails Partnership (CRTP 2000: 5). More than 30 organizations, ranging 

from ad hoc grassroots associations to state and federal 

agencies, joined the partnership. These groups represented a 

diverse set of trail users, including mountain bikers, hikers, 

horse-riders, off-highway vehicle riders, and kayakers (CRTP 

2000: 5). Between 1998 and 2002, the partnership obtained 

grants to construct more than 20 miles of bicycle trails. To 

encourage local and outside use of the region’s trails, the 

partnership developed a series of trail guides and descriptions, and created a display for outdoor trade shows in the 

Willamette Valley cities. Funds from the NEAI were used 

to conduct trail inventories and develop a Web site and trail 

guides to attract users from outside the region.

According to interviewees, Coos Bay District recreation 

staff played a pivotal role in getting the Regional Trails 

Partnership started. One local bike club member described 

BLM’s input as follows:

BLM gave us legitimacy. They facilitated the EIS 

for the trails. We couldn’t have done that. They put 

the trail on the maps. They organized the meetings...They held economic development meetings at 

Bridge and Myrtle Point. They did a presentation on 

the bike trails. 
121

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

The district also provided office space, supplies, and 

equipment, as well as sponsorship for the volunteers who 

conducted the trail inventories and developed trail guides. 

In 2002, the partnership began losing steam, which 

interviewees attribute to several factors. Some members 

became involved initially because it was a project that 

would benefit their children. Once their children had graduated from high school and left the area, their interest waned. 

Others became frustrated with local opposition to some of 

the more promising trails projects, such as a Rails-to-Trails 

route between Coquille and Powers and a water trails 

system on the Coquille River

To revive the organization, in 2004 the partnership 

established stronger links to OCEAN, which serves as an 

umbrella group for local organizations to obtain funding. 

District employees played a key role in reviving the partnership. The group is once again seeking funding to construct 

and maintain trails, with the goal of eventually creating a 

multipurpose all-terrain vehicle trail that makes a loop from 

Reedsport to Winchester Creek through the Coast Range 

and along the coastline. 

District-Tribal Collaborations

Coquille Tribe—

In the course of carrying out their management responsibilities, Coos Bay District employees have occasion to 

collaborate in projects, meetings, and other activities with 

both the Coquille Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. As noted in chapter 3 

of this report, the district archeologist works closely with 

both tribes on a variety of projects, including archeological 

excavations, documentaries, and ethnobotanical restoration projects. The dispersed distribution of the Coquille 

Tribe’s newly acquired forested parcels provided them and 

their neighbors, including the BLM, an incentive to work 

together in managing their lands from 1998 onward. Over 

the past few years, BLM employees have collaborated with 

the Coquille Tribe on timber sales and cultural resources 

management projects on the Coquille Forest. The district 

archeologist observed that the requirement that the Coquille 

follow Plan standards and guidelines when managing their 

forest played an enormous role in improving BLM-Coquille 

Tribe relations, “They had to follow the rules that BLM is 

subject to for land management. It helped us cement the 

relationship because we’re all in the same boat.” 

The BLM and the Coquille Tribe also worked together 

to protect one of the tribe’s sacred sites and camas grounds 

near Euphoria Ridge when the Regional Trails Partnership began constructing a mountain bike trail system near 

Bridge. The district archeologist describes the relationship 

as mutually beneficial, “We chip in money and they chip 

in money—it’s a win-win situation.” The Coquille tribal 

forester spoke favorably of BLM’s efforts to work with the 

tribe to restore and protect the Euphoria Ridge meadows, 

noting that they had provided some of the funds to make the 

project possible. He stated that he believed that the BLM 

was a “good asset for the tribe,” noting that “money to do 

these things would be difficult for us to come up with.”

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower 

Umpqua, and Siuslaw—

During the early 1990s, the district worked with the 

confederated tribes to develop a plan for establishing an 

interpretive center, known as Bal’diyaka at a site near 

Charleston called Gregory Point. However, when the initial 

plan was finished, community members pointed out that the 

BLM had failed to do an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) on the project. The district acknowledged its error 

and in 1996, published a final EIS for the project. After 

reexamining the situation in response to public comments, 

in 2000 the district manager issued a decision memo to 

take no action, effectively eliminating the possibility of 

the confederated tribes constructing an interpretive center 

on Gregory Point for the foreseeable future. Despite this 

setback, a tribal member interviewed during the study 

viewed the collaboration with BLM as generally positive, 

“It’s been helpful to work with them [BLM] on these sites 

and they have been understanding of and trying to meet the 

tribes’ needs.” 
122

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Incentives for and Challenges to 

Community Collaboration

Incentives—

Key incentives BLM employees mentioned for engaging 

in community collaborations included opportunities for 

(a) improving the district’s relationship with stakeholders, thereby reducing management conflicts or reducing 

management costs; (b) expanding funding available to the 

district (i.e., JITW and Challenge Cost Share funds, for 

example, require BLM to develop partnerships as part of 

the funding package); (c) leveraging or pooling resources 

with other stakeholders to accomplish management objectives; (d) obtaining statewide recognition for participation 

in successful partnerships; and (e) earning cash awards and 

district recognition for involvement in collaborative efforts. 

Community members listed a variety of incentives to 

participate in collaborative efforts with the Coos Bay District, including access to (a) substantial amounts of funding; 

(b) BLM’s technical expertise in engineering, watershed 

restoration, fish biology, recreation planning, information 

technology; (c) office space; and (d) supplies and equipment. 

Challenges—

Key challenges BLM employees mentioned to engaging in 

broad-based collaboration between the district and communities included (a) increasing workloads associated with 

other district activities; (b) concerns about spreading the 

district’s resources too thinly, and thus the need for focusing 

on a narrower range of collaborative activities; (c) the emergence of new land management priorities (i.e., the district’s 

current priorities are watershed restoration, noxious weed 

control, and stewardship contracting); and (d) a tendency 

of community groups at times to not recognize the legal 

limitations under which agency employees must operate. 

At the community level, interviewees identified a range 

of perceived barriers to community collaboration with the 

BLM. These included (a) decreased levels of funding BLM 

is able to commit to projects; (b) turnover of key personnel 

involved in some collaborative projects, creating frustrations about the time needed to bring replacement personnel 

up to speed; (c) distrust as to the district’s long-term commitment to some projects (i.e., tourism planning and trails 

system development) as management priorities shift; and 

(d) difficulties in understanding the rules that govern the 

decisions the district can make.

Protecting Noncommodity Forest Values

The primary objective of the Plan was to ensure that the 

Forest Service and BLM managed the lands under their 

jurisdiction in a manner that would allow the continued 

survival of northern spotted owls and marbled murrelets. 

Many of the Plan’s standards and guidelines thus sought to 

encourage the protection or creation of late-successional 

forest stand structures and processes. The Plan also went a 

step further by adopting a “do-no harm” guiding management philosophy, and by setting into place a series of provisions, such as survey and manage and Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy requirements, to forestall harm to other potentially 

threatened or endangered species. As part of this study, we 

thus asked respondents to comment on the extent to which 

the Plan protected environmental values, as well as other 

noncommodity values, that they considered important.

Environmental Values

Interviewees fell into the following three categories with 

respect to their views on how well the Plan protects environmental values: 

• The Plan is a good start, but doesn’t go far enough 

to protect environmental values. 

• The Plan harms, rather than protects environmental 

values. 

• The Plan provides too much protection for environmental values. 

The Plan is a start toward ecological protection—

Most of the interviewees not associated with the timber 

industry stated that despite its flaws, the Plan was an 

important first step toward protecting environmental values 

on district land. Several interviewees who frequently fly 

across the Coast Range noted that the large clearcuts they 

used to see on federal lands are no longer visible from the 

plane. In their view, this indicates that the agencies are 

managing the forest in ways that are more likely to protect 

ecological values, which they consider a good thing. A few 

foresters also stated that prior to the Plan, the BLM had 
123

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

been selling more timber than was sustainable, as evidenced 

by the number of landslides and the high erosion rate. In 

their opinion, the decrease in harvest volume was warranted 

from an environmental protection standpoint. 

Interviewees who worked in watershed restoration 

tended to speak favorably of the Plan’s environmental protection impacts. For example, they identified the watershed 

restoration aspect of the Plan as key elements in contributing to the large runs of salmon in 2003. The interviewees 

who categorized themselves as environmentalists expressed 

the most dissatisfaction with the Plan from the standpoint of 

how well it addressed environmental protection goals. One 

of these interviewees was disappointed that some of the forest in the matrix allocation consisted of old-growth stands 

that could be harvested. In her view, no old-growth stands 

should have been included in the matrix allocation owing 

to the limited amount left in the Coos Bay District. Instead, 

she wishes that the Plan had restricted harvesting strictly to 

thinning the reforested areas in the late-successional reserve 

allocations. She added, “There’s more being done now 

than 10 years ago, but it’s not enough.” However, another 

interviewee, who also considers herself an environmentalist, observed that, while well-intentioned, the Plan had 

created so much anger because of unworkable requirements 

under the survey and manage and the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy that its ability to provide any real protection is 

currently in jeopardy from timber industry efforts to loosen 

up the restrictions to pre-Plan levels. 

The Plan harms environmental values—

Most of the interviewees associated with the timber industry, as well as many local government officials, held the 

view that the Plan harms rather than protects environmental 

values. They noted that much of the harm is the result of 

unintended, but very real, on-the-ground consequences of 

the agencies’ implementing the standards and guidelines 

laid out in the Plan. Many interviewees, for example, 

observed that in shifting federal lands to a longer rotation, 

the Plan has created pressure for private, county, and state 

forest land managers to shorten their rotations. The loss of 

a steady supply of large-diameter timber has encouraged 

mills to retool for smaller diameter logs. With fewer mills 

able to process larger logs (over 32 inches in diameter), 

landowners selling timber are unable to get as high a price 

for large-diameter logs and thus prefer to harvest in the 

24- to 32-inch range. Additionally, the uncertainty as to 

whether 10 or 20 years from now they will be allowed 

to harvest larger diameter trees at all has also led some 

landowners to shift to a shorter rotation cycle. 

Several interviewees in Greater Coos Bay and Greater 

Myrtle Point described situations in which the process 

under the Plan’s standards and guidelines to get approval 

to haul timber over existing roads on BLM property or to 

construct short sections of new roads over BLM property 

had become so cumbersome that they preferred to build 

much longer roads on private land, thus increasing the overall potential in the watershed for erosion and fish passage 

alterations. Three interviewees commented that the Plan 

negatively affects the forest ecosystem because it does not 

adequately take into account the role of floods, landslides, 

and low-frequency, very-high-intensity fire in shaping 

forest structure and composition in the Coast Range. They 

noted that the Plan is structured at such a broad scale that it 

inappropriately applies management guidelines crafted to 

address conditions on one ecosystem to other systems with 

different conditions. Additionally, one interviewee observed 

that a flaw in the Plan is that, “It doesn’t take into account 

the fringes of any species.” In his view, the BLM and Forest 

Service “need a different set of rules for the heart versus the 

fringe,” when establishing guidelines for species protection.

Many interviewees observed that since implementing 

the Plan, the Coos Bay District has increased the risk of 

catastrophic fire in the region. They identified Plan guidelines to leave dead and dying wood on the ground in cutting 

units as one potential source of fire danger. However, in 

their view, the areas presenting the greatest fire danger are 

unmanaged old-growth stands, which they noted have high 

fuel loadings as a result of a century of active fire suppression, and late-successional reserves composed of stands that 

had been clearcut and which are now regenerating. This 

view contrasts with Umpqua National Forest Wildfire 

Effects Evaluation Project (USDA 2003) findings, which 

evaluated fire risk in forested areas adjacent to the Coos 
124

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Bay District. The evaluators concluded that areas managed 

as tree plantations present the highest risk of fire. Oldgrowth stands hold more moisture and are thus less 

susceptible to ignition. The old-growth stands are 

relatively few in number and limited in size and thus 

do not pose as significant a danger as the previously 

harvested late-successional reserve areas. 

Many of the interviewees who believed that the Plan 

had increased the risk of fire also stated that the Plan had 

negatively affected the region’s fire-response capacity by 

decreasing the need for woods workers, who historically 

were the first people to respond to reports of fires; inhibiting 

fire suppression access through road closures and decommissionings; and inhibiting firefighters’ access to water 

owing to riparian reserve restrictions. One community 

interviewee stated that the Plan has encouraged the spread 

of noxious weeds. In his view, because of herbicide use 

restrictions, particularly in riparian areas, the Plan has 

increased the amount of work needed to remove existing 

patches of noxious weeds. 

The Plan is overprotective of environmental values—

Some interviewees affiliated with the timber industry 

commented that the Plan’s standards and guidelines were 

overly strict. In their view, for example, the Plan target level 

is too small relative to the rate of growth in the Oregon and 

California Railroad Company (O&C) forests. One interviewee noted that the survey and manage guidelines did not 

reflect the actual abundance of some species categorized as 

in need of extra protection, and thus accorded protection 

that their abundance did not warrant. Another observed that 

the Plan’s thinning regime for late-successional reserves 

did not make sense for the Coos Bay area, where a large 

percentage of the late-successional reserves contain 50- to 

70-year-old stands in need of thinning. An interviewee who 

does restoration work said that the Plan’s inventorying and 

monitoring requirements had done little to protect the environment. In his view, the BLM would have accomplished 

more if it had invested the survey and manage funding into 

restoration work. 

Recreational/Subsistence/Spiritual/

Quality-of-Life Values 

Views on how the Plan had affected recreational, subsistence, and spiritual values that community members place 

on the forest also differed. A small number of interviewees 

stated that the Plan had negatively affected noncommodity 

kinds of values, primarily by decreasing browse for deer 

and elk, and limiting road and off-road vehicle access for 

hunting and pleasure riding. The majority of interviewees, 

however, expressed favorable views, noting that they 

strongly approved of the improvements the BLM has made 

in campgrounds, trails, and interpretive facilities. Several 

of the interviewees who hunt regularly stated that the road 

closures had actually improved hunting opportunities as the 

game in areas with closed roads was less likely to be scared 

off by vehicle traffic. 

Issues and Concerns Relating to 

Forest Management

Coos Bay District employees and community members 

identified the following issues and concerns about forest 

management on the Coos Bay District: 

• Importance of providing certainty in the federal 

timber supply and meeting Plan timber harvesting 

goals. 

• Need for BLM to structure timber sales and other 

contracts so that small-scale contractors can bid on 

them.

• Need for BLM to maintain its road system for the 

general public good and to provide public access 

for recreational users.

• Need for BLM to maintain, and in some cases, 

expand its environmental protection efforts.

• Need for the Coos Bay District to resolve its 

ongoing identity crisis.

Timber Harvesting Concerns

All of the professional foresters and timber industry 

stakeholders stated that the biggest issue for the local timber 

industry was the uncertainty about how much and what 

kind of timber the federal agencies will offer each year. 
125

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

They also noted that the region now lacks the infrastructure 

to process large quantities of logs measuring more than 32 

inches in diameter. This situation is likely to continue as 

long as potential investors are uncertain whether the federal 

agencies will supply local markets with a continuous and 

reliable quantity of larger diameter logs. 

Structure of Contracts

The two contractors and small mill owner interviewed 

articulated concern about the structuring of timber sales, 

which they felt typically are so large that a small contractor cannot afford to pay the bid deposit of $50,000. They 

expressed concern that the BLM would favor large-scale 

contractors, many of whom are based outside of Coos Bay, 

as it expands its density management sales operation. 

Road and Off-Road Access

Many community members articulated concerns about 

continued access to district lands. In the past decade, most 

of the tensions over access to BLM lands in the Coos Bay 

District have centered on the district’s gradual closing down 

of beach and shoreline areas to off-road vehicles and hikers 

as a means to protect snowy plover nesting sites. Similar 

tensions exist over whether the district should invest in 

building trails and interpretive sites in some of the remaining old-growth stands. 

Environmental Protection Concerns

As noted in the previous section, community members 

articulated concerns about whether BLM’s current management approach adequately protects environmental values. 

One group of interviewees, consisting mostly of people 

affiliated with the timber industry, stated that the Plan is 

counter-productive from an ecological protection standpoint 

in that it has created incentives for adjoining private landowners to adopt shorter timber rotations and build longer 

roads in more sensitive areas on private lands. A second set 

of interviewees, primarily composed of people who categorized themselves as environmentalists, commented that the 

Plan provides insufficient protection for old growth. 

BLM’s Ongoing Identity Crisis

Many district employees and community members stated 

that the district’s shift away from timber production as its 

primary objective has created an identity crisis among its 

employees. This in turn has heightened feelings of tension and distrust internally and externally. One employee 

summed up the situation as a lack of overlap between the 

area’s demographic trends, in which retirees will constitute a much larger percentage of the population, and the 

district’s primary assets, which are timber and habitat 

production. The lack of overlap between these two factors 

strongly suggests that BLM, like the timber industry, will 

gradually transition into playing a less prominent role in the 

community over the next decade. Recognizing that trend, 

and managing (or accepting) that transition, constitute the 

key tasks facing both the Coos Bay District staff and community residents on Oregon’s southwest coast.

Local Views of the Plan 

We asked interviewees to comment specifically on the 

impacts of the following Plan subelements: retraining 

(including JITW training programs), watershed restoration, 

NEAI funding, and ecosystem management provisions (i.e., 

timber ASQ levels, survey and manage, Aquatic Conservation Strategy, riparian reserves, etc.). 

Ecosystem Management Provisions

Only a narrow segment of the community interviewees 

were familiar with the ecosystem management provisions 

of the Plan. Interviewees familiar with some or all of these 

provisions, included most of the interviewees who categorized themselves as environmentalists, most of the timber 

industry stakeholders, and about half of the watershed 

restoration stakeholders. Few of the interviewees in the 

tourism industry, economic development organizations, or 

municipal and county government were familiar with the 

Plan’s forest management standards and guidelines. 

The majority of the interviewees, including some in the 

timber industry, stated that the Plan’s estimated ASQ was 

reasonable. A few of the timber industry stakeholders and 

county officials interviewed commented that they thought 
126

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

the ASQ estimates should have been set higher. Several of 

the environmentalists interviewed stated that, in their view, 

the Plan was insufficiently protective because it allowed 

old-growth harvesting to continue in the matrix allocations. 

Only a few of the community interviewees felt they 

knew enough to comment on the specifics of the Plan, 

such as survey and manage, riparian reserves, and so 

forth. Among those who commented on these provisions, 

the overwhelming view was that the provisions were too 

cumbersome and had resulted in the BLM’s near paralysis 

with respect to preparing and implementing timber sales 

and according road rights-of-way. The watershed conservation interviewees, however, spoke favorably of the riparian 

reserve requirements. One community member also pointed 

out that the survey and manage provision was useful in that 

it had greatly increased knowledge within the district about 

the forest ecosystems they manage. 

Retraining and Employment

Views among the community interviewees about the Plan’s 

retraining and employment provisions also differed considerably. Most interviewees stated that the JITW program 

had been very helpful in providing some displaced woods 

workers and fishermen with jobs during a difficult transition time. A number of interviewees commented that an 

additional benefit of the JITW program was that it created 

a bridge between the timber harvesting community and 

the watershed restoration community. The contractors who 

had obtained JITW contracts indicated that the BLM had 

done a good job of outreach and letting people within the 

community know that the funds were available, as well as 

providing pointers on how to fill out bid-related paperwork. 

Most of the interviewees in Greater Coos Bay and 

Greater Myrtle Point also commented favorably on the 

retraining programs sponsored with NEAI funds through 

Southwestern Oregon Community College. They noted that 

part of the success of that program was due to the fortuitous 

arrival of a call center to the area, a business that not only 

supported the program by providing working space, but 

which also hired many of the trainees. 

Although most interviewees viewed the retraining and 

displaced worker programs in a positive light, many, including the contractor quoted below, stated that the programs 

were grossly inadequate to address the scale of layoffs that 

took place in their communities in the early and mid-1990s. 

One restoration contractor also criticized the JITW program 

because it channeled so much money to unskilled watershed association crews, rather than relying on professional 

independent contractors and their already-trained crews to 

provide employment. 

All of the interviewees involved with the watershed restoration efforts had negative views about the government’s 

insistence on packaging the JITW work with ecosystem 

restoration training programs. Two views emerged on this 

aspect of JITW: one view was that displaced loggers and 

fishers already had the skills needed to do restoration work, 

and thus it was a waste of money to require the training 

programs. The other view was that the Hire-the-Fisher program in particular was “taking people with no background 

in timber and training them up for jobs for which there is no 

demand.” Interviewees with both views, however, agreed 

that insufficient demand exists for full-time year-round employment in watershed restoration work. As one watershed 

restoration employee noted, “Restoration isn’t an industry. 

No one is in the business of restoration.”

Watershed Restoration

Watershed restoration is not yet an industry, but it is nonetheless a highly visible activity in the Coos and Coquille 

watersheds. Many of the interviewees from Greater Myrtle 

Point and Greater Coos Bay commented favorably on the 

watershed restoration aspects of the Plan. Positive aspects 

included that it brought money to the communities, funds 

were spent to employ local workers or contractors, the 

projects were cost-effective for landowners, and the funds 

were easily accessible. In addition, several interviewees 

noted that many of the watershed projects also addressed 

the county’s road maintenance needs. Community members 

observed that the Wyden amendment, which allowed the 

use of federal watershed restoration funds on private lands, 

had greatly increased the relevance of the program to smallholders and thus had allowed the associations to accomplish 

work in the lowlands that they might otherwise have been 

unable to do. 
127

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

A few community interviewees expressed unfavorable 

views of the watershed restoration program. One county 

commissioner, for example, called it, “a little better than a 

poke in the eye.” He added, “We’ve been doing restoration 

since the 1970s,” and noted that the “money we put into the 

plow-back fund was greater and not paid for with tax dollars 

either.” Another county commissioner called watershed 

restoration “just a waste,” observing that there’s “no way to 

account for it, you don’t know if it’s successful or not.” 

Some interviewees who expressed overall favorable 

views of watershed restoration identified a number of flaws 

that hindered the program’s effectiveness. The restoration 

contractors, for example, stated that restoration work is 

unlikely to replace the employment opportunities that 

timber harvesting used to provide workers in the Coos Bay 

region. Indeed, one contractor called restoration a “flash in 

the pan.” The contractors also pointed out that the current 

system in which the Coquille Watershed Association is 

running a crew much of the year limits the opportunities 

for independent contractors to hire on larger crews or work 

more throughout the year. One contractor noted that the 

restoration business has become more competitive, making 

it increasingly difficult for him to piece together sufficient 

jobs to keep him and his crew working year-round. 

Several interviewees raised concerns about the future 

of the watershed restoration work as the bulk of the work 

moves from the uplands, which are mostly in forest cover, 

to the lowlands, which are primarily in pasture. One county 

employee pointed out that the projects that require turning 

pastures into wetlands are the most controversial because 

of the domino effect it has on the overall farm economy 

and the ability of neighboring farms to survive: “If a, b, c, 

and d turn land into wetland, then e, f, g, and h don’t have 

a critical mass to produce enough milk to supply the local 

dairy, so that would have an effect on those farmers if the 

dairy shuts down.” Another interviewee who had worked 

for many years with the Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife criticized the BLM-sponsored watershed restoration projects for relying too much on an engineered approach rather than working more with natural systems. 

In Reedsport, the recent creation of the Smith River 

Watershed Council has improved the relationship between 

landowners and federal forest managers. Their local chair 

often serves as a mediator between the two entities, which 

increases understanding and facilitates trust. Residents 

along the Smith River believe that this has given them a 

voice in watershed decisions making them more likely to 

be amenable to requests that impact their land. “This has 

cleared the way for agencies to do a better job and reevaluate what they did in the past,” a Smith River resident said. 

“They are getting real information and finding out the real 

issues.”

NEAI Projects

As with other aspects of the Plan, community interviewees 

expressed a broad range of views about the NEAI-funded 

projects. Projects that many community members in Greater 

Coos Bay viewed as successful included the business 

incubator, the trails system, and tourism projects, such 

as the Tourism Strategic Plan, the Coos Bay waterfront 

improvements, and the interpretive exhibits at various sites 

in the region. Residents in Greater Myrtle Point identified 

the fairgrounds improvement, the trails system, the Spruce 

Street downtown improvement project, and the interpretive 

programs as successful. In Greater Reedsport, interviewees 

viewed the Salmon Harbor Marina RV Park improvements, 

Umpqua Discovery Center, and the Port dock renovations as 

successful projects. Site development investments to attract 

American Bridge to the area, on the other hand, have yet to 

yield the large number of jobs that community members had 

hoped would materialize from that project. 

A number of interviewees in all three communities 

questioned the merits of the NEAI program’s focus, noting 

that most of the projects focused on infrastructure development instead of benefiting displaced workers directly. 

Although many of the interviewees spoke favorably of the 

tourism investments, most of the interviewees affiliated 

with the timber industry questioned the utility of such 

projects. In their view, tourism will never be able to provide 

the high-paying jobs that used to be available in the timber 

industry. 
128

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Some of the problems that interviewees listed with 

NEAI projects included the hidden costs associated with 

grants in the form of extra administrative workloads, a 

lack of followup in action plans to ensure that the proposed 

projects actually get done, insufficient followup in the 

training programs, reliance on outsiders to do feasibility 

studies and subsequent inappropriateness of business plans 

for local conditions and lack of ownership in the plans at the 

local level. Despite this long list of drawbacks to the NEAI 

projects, most community members commented that the 

projects have helped their communities begin diversifying 

their economies. 
129

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

The Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) had five primary 

socioeconomic objectives: to provide a predictable supply 

of products and opportunities, to contribute to community 

stability and well-being, to promote economic development 

and diversification, to protect environmental qualities and 

values, and to improve collaborative relationships between 

agencies and communities. The following section summarizes community and district employee perceptions about 

the extent to which the Plan achieved, or did not achieve, 

each of the five goals. Owing to the extreme variability in 

how different stakeholders view the Plan and its outcomes, 

and the difficulty of coming up with an objective rating 

system that most stakeholders would agree upon, the assessment team opted to describe the range of variation rather 

than assign numerical scores to each goal.

Goal 1—Predictable Supply of Products 

and Opportunities

The Coos Bay District has a mixed record in meeting the 

Plan’s goal of providing predictable supplies of products and 

opportunities. It fell significantly short of making available 

the estimated timber allowable sales quantity (ASQ) each 

year, and the amount of salvage wood and firewood available has declined substantially from pre-Plan years. The 

no-surface-occupancy restrictions placed on an oil and gas 

lease that the district issued after the passage of the Plan 

may have resulted in the lack of bids for exploration and 

development of potential oil and gas resources.

On the other hand, the Plan’s standards and guidelines 

do not appear to have significantly affected access to commercial and recreational mining, grazing, hunting, fishing, 

wild mushrooms, transplants, Christmas trees, boughs, or 

floral greens. Moreover, the implementation of the Plan 

allowed the district to greatly expand the recreational and 

environmental education opportunities available to the 

public. For example, the slow-down in timber sales freed 

up the funds and personnel the district needed to refurbish 

its existing 11 campgrounds and to develop 4 new campgrounds. The increase in funds and personnel available to 

the recreation program also enabled the district to expand 

its trail system from less than a mile of maintained trail in 

1994 to roughly 30 miles of trails in 2001. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees and 

community members stated that the district had not met 

the goal of providing a stable or predictable supply of 

timber. Most interviewees considered this unfortunate, 

even if they believed that pre-Plan harvest levels had been 

excessively high, both because it increased the economic 

hardship within local communities and because it made it 

difficult to ascertain whether the timber harvesting levels 

set in the Plan constituted reasonable levels. All of the BLM 

employees and most community members observed that the 

district’s inability to provide a volume of timber approaching the Plan’s estimated ASQ was due to legal challenges 

from outside groups, rather than to the lack of political will 

within the agency itself to make available the volume of 

timber specified in the Plan. Because of this, timber sales 

have not been predictable. 

The community members included in the study 

expressed diverse opinions about the impact of the Plan 

on access to recreational activities on federal forest lands. 

Road closures combined with increased permitting requirements and fees have somewhat diminished access for local 

residents, who have traditionally used these lands as if they 

were their own. However, most of the road closures predated the Plan, and the recreation fees would have been imposed even without the Plan. Focused attention on tourism 

as an economic development tool, however, has encouraged 

the BLM and Forest Service to invest in recreation infrastructure. As a result, the district now provides substantially 

more recreational opportunities (i.e., trails, interpretive 

sites, improved campgrounds) than it did prior to the Plan. 

Goal 2—Contribution to Community 

Stability and Well-Being

Most BLM employees and members of the three case-study 

communities stated that the Plan’s second goal of contributing to community stability and well-being had not been 

met. Of the three communities, Greater Coos Bay was less 

heavily affected than either Greater Reedsport or Greater 

Myrtle Point. Interviewees attribute this difference to Coos 

Bay’s more diverse economy and its position as the south 

coast’s shopping and services center. 

Chapter 6: Meeting the Plan Goals and Expectations
130

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Community members voiced strong concerns about the 

departure of many younger families with children, and the 

resulting school closures. They noted that the school closures caused the loss of important social spaces where the 

bonds of community are formed and nurtured. Additionally, 

they are concerned about the loss of job opportunities for 

high school graduates, many of whom now leave the area to 

look for work elsewhere or attend school instead of remaining to work in the woods or mills. 

Numerous interviewees noted that their communities 

would still have been badly affected even if the estimated 

ASQ had been supplied because the timber industry would 

have undergone a considerable amount of downsizing 

independent of the federal timber available. Additionally, 

the fishing sector collapsed at the same time, increasing the 

stress on local economies. However, many interviewees indicated that the availability of some larger diameter timber 

on local markets would have helped cushion the negative 

impacts by allowing more of the smaller mills to remain in 

business. 

Several interviewees noted that the Jobs-in-the Woods 

(JITW) and retraining programs helped provide some 

jobs for displaced workers, but added that the number of 

jobs provided was insufficient relative to the need. Many 

community members commented that Northwest Economic 

Adjustment Initiative (NEAI) grants have enhanced cultural 

opportunities and spurred community revitalization and 

beautification. 

Some community interviewees expressed the view that 

in the long run the Plan may have placed their communities 

in a better economic position, although at the cost of shortterm economic hardship. This was particularly the case in 

Coos Bay, where a substantial amount of NEAI funding has 

been invested in a variety of economic diversification and 

infrastructure development projects. Some of these investments, such as a business incubation center and retraining 

programs, have already shown a positive outcome in 

providing alternative job opportunities. Others, such as the 

Coastal Environments Learning Network feasibility study 

and the Tourism Strategic Plan, have played an important 

role in the gradual development of the infrastructure needed 

to support a regionwide nature-based tourism industry. 

Goal 3—Promotion of Economic 

Development and Diversification

Interviewees expressed a broader range of views when 

asked whether the Plan’s third economic goal had been 

achieved. Among the BLM employees, many commented 

that the JITW program had poured a substantial amount 

of money into watershed restoration work. However, they 

noted that the hoped-for establishment of a restoration 

industry had not materialized and was unlikely to appear in the foreseeable future owing to the lack of private 

demand. Many BLM employees stated that the inability to 

achieve goal 3 had more to do with factors outside of BLM’s 

control, including internal restructuring of the timber and 

fisheries industries, than with the Plan.

At the community level, interviewees expressed mixed 

views about whether progress has been made toward 

achieving the Plan’s goal of promoting economic development and diversification. Some community members 

observed that although diversification has not yet happened, 

over time, the investments their communities have made in 

infrastructure will bring in new businesses. Other interviewees, however, are less optimistic, noting the region’s 

limited transportation network as a key barrier to attracting 

industries that offer high-paying job opportunities. To some 

extent, the economies of Greater Coos Bay and Greater 

Myrtle Point already have diversified, in the sense that the 

services sector has expanded greatly in both communities 

over the past decade, while the wood products manufacturing sector has shrunk. 

The NEAI provided Greater Reedsport with several 

million dollars in economic development funding, mostly 

for infrastructure development. These efforts have helped 

the community retain local companies, recruit new businesses, and expand employment in service and tourism. 

Although the Greater Reedsport area has shifted its economic base to tourism, many community members voiced 

doubts about the economic viability of their new economic 

base. One resident pondered if the Reedsport Area is simply 

trading one dependency (natural resources) for another 

(tourism). Community members involved in economic 

development are keenly aware of the need to recruit light 
131

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

industrial businesses and have been working toward this 

goal since the early 1990s. 

Goal 4—Protection of Environmental 

Qualities and Values

Bureau of Land Management employees had mixed views 

as to whether the Plan had met its fourth socioeconomic 

goal, the protection of environmental qualities and values. 

The employees knowledgeable about the watershed restoration work stated that it was too early yet to know whether 

those projects had made a difference. One employee, 

however, noted that the “logic is that if we provide habitat 

they will come back to spawn. Likewise with wildlife 

habitat.” Several employees noted that the BLM now knows 

much more about what it has than they did before, and thus 

is better positioned to make better ecosystem management 

decisions than it was when it was a timber management 

organization. Other employees, however, stated that, in their 

view, the environmental benefits of the Plan are outweighed 

by the inability of the district to maintain the transportation 

system. This in turn has created increased sedimentation, 

accelerated the spread of noxious weeds, and increased the 

risk of catastrophic fire. 

Community interviewees mirrored the divisions that 

exist within the BLM regarding progress toward protecting 

environmental qualities and values. Interviewees from the 

timber industry stated that the Plan had created strong incentives for private and other public landholders to shift to 

shorter rotations. They also noted that the Plan encouraged 

the construction of longer roads through more sensitive 

environments on private lands so that contractors or timber 

companies can avoid the lengthy delays needed to negotiate 

a hauling or road construction right-of-way over BLM land. 

Views within the timber industry were mixed concerning 

the watershed restoration projects, with some stating that 

they had no discernible effect on increasing the numbers 

of fish in the streams, and others claiming that they have 

enabled salmon to return to streams where they had been 

absent for many decades. 

Other community members were uncertain whether the 

Plan had had a positive effect on environmental qualities 

and values. As one city employee put it, “The Plan didn’t 

hurt the environment, but I don’t know if it helped it. Community members active in watershed restoration activities, 

however, stated that the work being done to improve instream fish habitat and fish passage had had a clear positive 

effect on the numbers of salmon able to make their way 

into the upland streams. 

Goal 5—Collaboration Between 

Agencies and Communities

Views about whether the Plan had met its fifth socioeconomic goal, to improve collaboration between agencies 

and communities, differed considerably both among BLM 

employees and among community members. The BLM 

employees involved with nature-based tourism and watershed conservation activities stated that it had met this goal. 

However, they were concerned about whether this could 

continue as BLM establishes new priorities. Community 

members in Greater Coos Bay and Greater Myrtle Point 

who were involved in the watershed conservation and 

nature-based tourism projects held similar views, and expressed concern about what they perceived to be decreased 

commitment to community involvement on BLM’s part 

during the past 3 years. 

Some BLM employees said that they continue to 

collaborate with timber industry folks to maintain a working road system, control noxious weeds, and provide fire 

protection. However, the employees who work closely with 

the timber industry stated that industry people no longer 

view BLM as a key “player” in timber management. Timber 

industry interviewees indicated that much of the tension 

between them and the BLM is due to BLM’s inability to 

provide a reliable supply of timber over the past decade, as 

well as to the delays in processing road rights-of-way. They 

also believe that BLM is no longer adequately carrying 

out its road maintenance, weed control, and fire prevention 

responsibilities. 
132

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Bureau of Land Management employees said that they 

now collaborate much more with environmental stakeholders than they did in the past. The community interviewees 

who categorized themselves as environmentalists stated that 

they also have seen a marked improvement in how BLM 

interacts with them, but they expressed concern that BLM 

is going to close its doors to them again.

Bureau of Land Management employees noted that they 

collaborate closely with the Coquille Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. 

Relations with the Coquille have turned around completely, 

from overt hostility on the part of the district manager in the 

early 1990s, to a very close working relationship in assisting the Coquille Tribe manage its tribal forest beginning in 

1998. Additionally, employees in BLM’s cultural resource 

and interpretive programs work closely with the tribes 

on cultural resource management issues. The two tribal 

interviewees indicated that they collaborate with BLM in 

many activities, and that for the most part this collaboration 

is positive. 
133

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

By the time the record of decision for the Northwest Forest 

Plan (the Plan) was signed, the Coos Bay region’s timber 

sector had already lost a substantial portion of the wood 

products processing capacity and employment opportunities 

available during the three decades immediately following 

World War II. Additionally, the changes in socioeconomic 

conditions that took place in the mid and late 1990s—an 

outflow of younger workers, inmigration of older workers 

and retirees, school closures, increased levels of educational 

attainment, declines in manufacturing sectors, and expansion of the services sector—are changes that took place 

during the same period in rural communities across much 

of the Western United States. It is thus likely that the types 

of changes observed in the Coos Bay region’s socioeconomic conditions between 1990 and 2004, likely would 

have happened with or without the Plan. 

Many interviewees expressed the view that their 

communities, and particularly those portions of the communities dependent on the harvesting and processing of 

large-diameter timber for their livelihoods, would have 

weathered the restructuring of the wood products industry 

better if they had had access to a steady, albeit much smaller 

than in previous decade, supply of federal timber. However 

well-grounded these views may be in knowledge of local 

conditions, there is simply no way to determine what would 

have happened if all of the mitigation measures provided for 

in the Plan had actually been implemented as envisioned by 

its developers. 

The following section outlines lessons learned and 

management implications emerging from the data presented in this report. This discussion summarizes the ideas 

expressed by the interviewees, as well as the views of the 

authors based on their analysis of the interview and archival 

data, regarding how the district can continue to support 

community efforts to construct viable economies. 

Timber Resources

A thread common among most of the interviewees was that 

achieving a greater degree of certainty in the annual timber 

supply would be beneficial for woodland owners and the 

remaining mills. However, ensuring a predictable supply 

of timber from the Coos Bay District, particularly larger 

Chapter 7: Lessons Learned 

diameter logs, is likely to prove difficult given the litigation 

that has surrounded much of the district’s management 

activities during the past decade. 

Recognizing this, the district’s foresters have focused 

on developing density thinning management techniques 

for managing stands less than 80 years old in both matrix 

and reserve land allocations. The district has designed its 

density management sales in ways that it hopes will minimize legal challenges. Barring legal action, these sales will 

enable the district to provide a predictable supply of smaller 

diameter timber. Recent modifications of the Plan’s Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy provisions will also likely enable the 

district to offer a larger volume of timber from matrix land 

allocations than they have during the past 10 years.1

How such sales will affect local economies, however, 

is uncertain given that most of the timber harvested in the 

Coos Bay region is processed in Willamette Valley mills. 

The hope of many of the community members we interviewed was that a few new mills might open in the area if 

they could be assured of a steady supply of federal timber. 

They did not believe that expanded harvesting levels would 

return the wood products industry to its former position 

as the dominant driver of the region’s economy. Rather, 

they viewed the prospects of a small, but steady supply of 

timber from district holdings as a means to retain economic 

diversity within the region and foster competition within 

the local wood processing economy. 

Nontimber Forest Products

As long as forest management practices on the district 

remain in flux, it is unclear what volume of salvage timber 

constitutes a reasonable minimum amount for the district 

to make available. It is also unrealistic to expect the district 

to provide a predictable supply of salvage timber, as the 

amount that is available in any given year depends upon 

factors, such as windstorms and floods, outside the district’s 

1 In 2004, the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management issued a record of decision for a supplemental 

environmental impact statement releasing the agencies from the 

survey and manage standards and guidelines for species not listed 

as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act 

(USDA and USDI 2004). However, the U.S. District Court struck 

down the decision in August 2005, leaving the survey and manage 

guidelines in place for the foreseeable future (Johnson 2005). 
134

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

control. The district continues to make a broad array of 

nontimber forest products available. Our interviews with 

community members and district employees indicated that 

current nontimber forest products permitting levels have not 

generated any controversy, and thus the district is likely to 

continue implementing them as they are presently structured for the foreseeable future. 

Noncommodity Forest Values

A key lesson of the Coos Bay District’s experience with 

implementing the Plan is that, given internal political will, 

adequate funding, in-house expertise, and adequate staffing 

levels, it was possible for the district to transform itself from 

a timber management organization into a truly multiple-use 

land management organization with a much greater capacity 

to address the public’s demands for a broad array of values 

and opportunities on the district’s holdings. As noted earlier 

in this report, the district staff’s knowledge of its biological resources is much greater than it was prior to the Plan. 

This knowledge enhances the district’s capacity to develop 

and implement forest management practices that can assist 

the district in meeting its threefold legislative mandate for 

Oregon and California Railroad Company lands of protecting watersheds, producing a sustained yield of timber, and 

providing recreational opportunities. The use of volunteer 

labor and collaborative agreements with outside entities 

were critical elements in enabling the district to develop its 

recreational program and expand its watershed, habitat, and 

species restoration efforts. 

Community Economic Assistance

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not have 

a source of community assistance funds analogous to the 

Forest Service’s Rural Community Assistance Program. 

However, the Coos Bay District infused a substantial 

amount of funding into local communities for watershed 

restoration, environmental education, and habitat and 

species protection through the Jobs-in-the-Woods program 

and, to a much lesser degree, Challenge Cost Share grants. 

Additionally, the district provided substantial assistance 

to community development efforts in the form of donated 

office space, technical assistance from its staff, and access 

to supplies and equipment. The case study illustrates the 

importance that such in-kind contributions on the part of a 

public land management agency can play in helping rural 

communities leverage economic development funding.

Collaboration

During the past 10 years the district has greatly expanded 

its collaborative partnerships with recreation, fish and 

wildlife, and watershed conservation interests as well as 

local tribes. Although the district no longer works as closely 

as it did in the past with timber interests, it continues to 

collaborate with timber stakeholders in areas such as road 

maintenance and construction, fire protection, noxious 

weed control, and watershed conservation. The district has 

been most effective in community collaboration efforts that 

are closely linked to its management mandates, and hence 

its areas of primary expertise. These include watershed 

restoration efforts, particularly in the Coos and Coquille 

river valleys; nature-based tourism development efforts, 

particularly activities involving interpretive sites and trails 

development; and collaborations with the Coquille and 

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes. Key factors 

in the success of these collaborative partnerships include 

ongoing and substantial support from upper level leadership, a stable district budget (in marked contrast to the 

budget declines in neighboring national forests), and a 

relatively stable staffing level (in contrast to the downsizing 

that occurred in neighboring national forests). 

Looking Ahead

Many community members and district employees interviewed as part of this study noted that the Plan’s failure to 

allocate adequate funding toward a socioeconomic impact 

monitoring effort constituted a major impediment to its 

successful implementation. Numerous interviewees stated 

that a socioeconomic monitoring effort put into place early 

on in the Plan’s implementation would have identified 

shortcomings much sooner, and might have encouraged 

the development of viable compromises on controversial 

aspects, such as the survey and manage provisions and the 

aquatic conservation strategy, much sooner. Similarly, an 

adequately funded and adaptive socioeconomic monitoring 
135

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

program likely could have identified and addressed problems with the Jobs-in-the-Woods employment and training 

programs much earlier. These observations illustrate the 

need for the Forest Service and BLM to develop a comprehensive and fully integrated socioeconomic monitoring 

program funded at levels comparable to the biological and 

hydrological components of the Plan’s monitoring effort. 

As noted in previous sections of this report, we lacked 

the funds and time to gather key socioeconomic information, including quantitative data on the differential impacts 

of the Plan on small, medium, and large wood products 

firms, and on different types of workers, particularly selfemployed woods workers rather than mill workers. Much

of the ongoing controversy over the Plan, as well as subsequent forest management initiatives, centers on 

social and economic impacts. It is highly unlikely that 

those controversies will be resolved without better understandings on the part of the agencies of the nature and 

extent of those impacts. 

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the intellectual contribution of other 

members of the Northwest Forest Plan Socioeconomic 

Assessment team—Lita Buttolph, Candace Dillingham, 

Will Kay, Claudia Stuart, and Lynnae Sutton—in the design 

and analysis of this project. We thank all of the Coos Bay 

District employees and community members who graciously agreed to take part in this study. We acknowledge 

an intellectual debt to Jonathan Kusel of the Sierra Institute 

for Community and Environment, as well as other members 

of the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment team, whose work informed the design, methods, and 

fieldwork for this case study. We thank the many people—

community, technical, and peer reviewers—who provided 

invaluable feedback on various drafts. We thank Eric Jones 

and Kathryn Lynch of the Institute for Culture and Ecology 

for their input throughout the project. Lastly, we thank 

Lynnae Sutton of the PNW Research Station for her assistance in developing the charts and graphs for the community case studies, Claudia Stuart for providing budget and 

employment data, and Richard Phillips for putting together 

the timber and county payments data.

English Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Pounds 0.454 Kilograms

Inches 2.54 Centimeters

Feet .305 Meters

Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers

Square miles (mi2) 2.59 Square kilometers

Cubic feet (ft3) .0283 Cubic meters

Cubic yards (yd3) .765 Cubic meters

Acres .405 Hectares

Board feet (bf) .0045 Cubic meters

(log scale)

Board feet (bf) .0024 Cubic meters

(lumber scale)

References

Beckham, D. 1986. Land of the Umpqua: a history of 

Douglas County. Roseburg, OR: Douglas County 

Commissioners. 285 p.

Beckham, D. 1990. Swift flows the river. Lake Oswego, 

OR: Arago Press. 207 p.

Bernard, H.R. 2002. Research methods in anthropology: 

qualitative and quantitative approaches. Walnut Creek, 

CA: Altamira Press. 752 p.

Charnley, S., tech. coord. 2006. Northwest Forest 

Plan: the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic 

monitoring results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 6 vols.

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and 

Siuslaw Indians [CLUS]. 2002. Reservation plan and 

forest land restoration proposal. [Place of publication 

unknown]: 25 p. http://www.ctclusi.org/forestLand.asp. 

(August 31, 2004).

Coos Regional Trails Partnership [CRTP]. 2000. Coos 

Regional Trails Plan. [Place of publication unknown]: 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Coos Bay Office; 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (Southwest 

Region); Coos County Parks Department; U.S. Forest 

Service, Powers Ranger District; Bureau of Land 

Management, Coos Bay District. 184 p. 
136

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Coos Watershed Association. [N.d.]. Coos Watershed 

Association: organization. http://www.cooswatershed.

org/org.html. (August 31, 2004).

Coquille Watershed Association. 2005. Coquille 

Watershed Association: mission statement and 

objectives. http://www.coquillewatershed.org/

mission.html. (August 15, 2005).

Curry Coastal Pilot. 2001. Brookings: a new town 

across the Chetco. Brookings, OR: Curry Coastal 

Pilot. http://www.currypilot.com/news/story.cfm?

story_no=2059. (August 9, 2005). 

Danks, C.; Haynes, R.W. 2001. Socioeconomic research. 

In: Haynes, R.W.; Perez, G.E., tech. eds. Northwest 

Forest Plan research synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-498. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 52–62.

Dicken, S.N.; Dicken, E.F. 1979. The making of Oregon: 

a study in historical geography. Portland, OR: Oregon 

Historical Society. 208 p.

Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006. Socioeconomic 

conditions and trends for communities in the Northwest 

Forest Plan region, 1990 to 2000. In: Charnley, S., 

tech. coord. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 

years (1994–2003): socioeconomic monitoring results. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station: 7–35. Vol. 3. Chap. 2.

Douthit, N. 1999. A guide to Oregon south coast history: 

traveling the Jedediah Smith trail. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University Press. 208 p.

ECONorthwest. 2002. Comprehensive analysis of K-12 

education finance in Oregon. Portland, OR: Oregon 

School Boards Association. 11 p. http://www.osba.org/

hotopics/funding/2002/analysis. (August 31, 2004). 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ESA]; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1536, 1538–1540.

Emerson, R.M.; Fretz, R.I.; Shaw, L.L. 1995. Writing 

ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University 

of Chicago Press. 264 p.

Forest Counties Payments Committee [FCPC]. 2003. 

Recommendations for making payments to states and 

counties. Report to Congress by the Forest Counties 

Payments Committee. [Place of publication unknown]. 

66 p. http://www.forestco.tcde.tehama.k12.ca.us/Final_

Report.pdf. (August 13, 2005).

Forest Ecosystem Management Team [FEMAT]. 1993. 

Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, 

and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [et al.]. 

[Irregular pagination].

Franklin, J.F.; Dyrness, C.T. 1984. Natural vegetation of 

Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State 

University Press. 452 p.

George, H. 2003. Due to Measure 5 passage in 1990 

education funding shifted from local to state control. The 

Source: The Newsletter of Southern Oregon Education 

Service District. [No pagination]. http://www.jacksonesd.

k12.or.us/the_source/march_2003/measure_5.stm. 

(August 31, 2004). 

Grill, M. 2003. Profiles of change: economic development 

in Oregon’s cities. [Place of publication unknown]: 

League of Oregon Cities. 62 p. http://www.ci.gresham.

or.us/departments/cedd/bia/pdfs/profilesofchange.pdf. 

(August 15, 2005).

Hallock, M. 1998. Improving jobs, community, and the 

environment: lessons from the Ecosystem Workforce 

Project. Eugene, OR: Labor Education Research Center, 

University of Oregon. 39 p. http://ewp.uoregon.edu/pdfs/

publications/Improving.pdf. (August 13, 2005).

Hammond, N. 2002. Bridge company to build $10 million 

Reedsport facility. The Umpqua Post. January 30; A:1. 

Healthy Forests Restoration Act [HFRA] 2003. P.L. 

108–148.
137

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Heikkila, P. 1999. Addressing nonfishing threats to habitat 

through public and private partnerships. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium. 22: 1–17. 

International Tourism and Resort Advisors [INTRA]. 

1996. Tourism strategic and implementation plan, Coos 

County: strategic tourism development, marketing and 

action plans. Coos Bay, OR: Coos County Economic 

Development Department. 123 p. Unpublished report. On 

file with: Rebecca J. McLain, Institute for Culture and 

Ecology, P.O. Box 6688, Portland, OR 97228-6688.

Interrain Pacific. 1997. Coquille subbasin working atlas. 

Portland, OR: Ecotrust. http://www.inforain.org/coqatlas. 

(August 15, 2005).

Jackson, E.J.; Lee, R.G.; Sommers, P. 2004. Monitoring 

the community impacts of the Northwest Forest Plan: 

an alternative to social indicators. Society and Natural 

Resources. 17: 223–233. 

Johnson, I.G. 2005. Federal judge strikes down change 

in Northwest Forest Plan. Seattle Times. August 2. 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.

pl?document_id=2002417161&zsection_id=268898326&

slug=webforest02&date=20050802. (August 15, 2005).

Jones, E.T.; McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J. 2002. Nontimber 

forest products in the United States. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas Press. 445 p.

Kusel, J.; Buttolph, L.; Baker, M.; Cortner, H.; Kay, W.; 

Lavigne, P.; McLain, R.; Middleton, B.R.; Neimann, 

E.; Tobe, L.; Zilverberg, G. 2002. Assessment of the 

Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative. Taylorsville, 

CA: Forest Community Research. 343 p.

Mishler, E.G. 1986. Research interviewing: context and 

narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

189 p.

Moseley, C. 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 

years (1994–2003): Procurement contracting in the 

affected counties of the Northwest Forest Plan: 12 years 

of change. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-661. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p.

Moseley, C.; Shankle, S. 2001. Who gets the work? 

National forest contracting in the Pacific Northwest. 

Journal of Forestry. 99(9): 32–37.

Myrtle Point Community Plan Committee [MPCP]. 

2000. Myrtle Point Community Plan. 53 p. Unpublished 

report. On file with: Rebecca J. McLain, Institute for 

Culture and Ecology, P.O. Box 6688, Portland, OR 

97228-6688. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]; 

42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331–4335, 4341–4347.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; 16 U.S.C. 

P.L. 89-665, 80 Stat. 915.

Oregon Coast Environmental Awareness Network 

[OCEAN]. 2005. OCEAN: a discovery guide to 

Oregon’s south coast. http://www.ocean-oregon.org. 

(August 15, 2005).

Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association 

[OCZMA]. 2002. Oregon’s groundfishery trends, 

implications, and transitioning plans. Portland, OR: 

Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. 

[Variable pagination]. http://www.econ.state.or.us/

OCZMA02Rpt.pdf. (August 31, 2004). 

Oregon Criminal Justice Commission. 2004. Crime in 

Oregon: maps, graphs, and statistics. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Criminal Justice Commission. [No pagination]. http://

www.ocjc.state.or.us/Contacts.htm. (August 15, 2005).

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2002. Coos and 

Coquille Area Agricultural Water Quality Management 

Plan. [Place of publication unknown]: 73 p. http://

www.coosswcd.oacd.org/AqWQM_Page.htm. 

(January 28, 2006). 

Portico Group. 1995. The Coastal Environments Learning 

Center (CELN) feasibility study report. Coos Bay, 

OR: Oregon Division of State Lands; South Slough 

National Estuarine Research Reserve; Bureau of Land 

Management. 190 p. 
138

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Reeves, G.; Hohler, D.; Larsen, D.; Busch, D.; Kratz, K.; 

Reynolds, K.; Stein, K.; Atzet, T.; Hays, P.; Tehan, 

M. 2004. Effectiveness monitoring for the aquatic 

and riparian component of the Northwest Forest Plan: 

conceptual framework and options. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-577. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 71 p.

Richardson, E. 1980. BLM’s billion-dollar checkerboard: 

managing the O&C lands. Santa Cruz, CA: Forest 

History Society. 200 p.

Riessman, C.K. 1993. Narrative analysis. Qualitative 

Research Methods Series 30. Newbury Park, CA: 

Sage Publications. 79 p.

Robbins, W.G. 1988. Hard times in paradise: Coos 

Bay, Oregon, 1850–1986. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington Press. 194 p.

Ruby, R.H.; Brown, J.A. 1986. A guide to the Indian 

tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Norman, OK: University 

of Oklahoma Press. 289 p.

Rural Development Initiatives [RDI]. 2003. Lower 

Umpqua economic development forum, plan of action. 

Eugene, OR. 21 p.

Sandine, A. 2003. Plundertown USA: Coos Bay enters 

the global economy. Surrey, British Columbia: Hancock 

House. 175 p.

Secure Rural School and Community SelfDetermination Act 2000; Act of October 30, 2000; 

P.L. 106-393, H.R. 2389, 114 Stat. 1607. Title II: Special 

Projects on Federal Lands.

Smyth, A.V. 2000. Millicoma: biography of a Pacific 

Northwestern forest. Durham, NC: Forest History 

Society. 145 p.

South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve 

[SSNERR] and Oregon Division of State Lands. 2003. 

South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve 

2004–2009 management plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]. 38 p.

Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.; 

Moriwaki, C.B. 1996. The Northwest Forest Plan: a 

report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Forestry and 

Economic Assistance. 253 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1992. 1992 census of governments. 

Finances of County Governments. GC92 (4)3. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

234 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1997. 1997 census of governments. 

Finances of County Governments. GC97 (4)3. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

234 p.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. http://www.

census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. (August 15, 2005).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2002 census of governments. 

Finances of County Governments. GCO2 (4)3. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

247 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA]. 

2003. Wildfire effects evaluation project. Roseburg, OR: 

Umpqua National Forest. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/umpqua/

publications/weep.shtml. (August 15, 2005).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA]. 

2004. Cooperative programs: community investments in 

Oregon State by county, fiscal years 1994–2004. Portland, 

OR: Cooperative Programs, Pacific Northwest Region. 

[No pagination]. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/coop/programs/

investments/or/oregon_counties.htm. (August 9, 2005). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of 

decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management planning documents within the range 

of the northern spotted owl. Standards and guidelines 

for management of habitat for late-successional and 

old-growth forest related species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. [Place of publication unknown]. 

74 p. 
139

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 1998. South Coast–

Northern Klamath late-successional reserve assessment. 

[Place of publication unknown]: Coos Bay, Roseburg, 

Medford BLM Districts; Siuslaw National Forest, 

Mapleton Ranger District. 95 p. http://www.or.blm.gov/

coosbay/LSR/lsr.htm. (August 31, 2004).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDA and USDI]. 2004. Agencies 

amend the Northwest Forest Plan. [Press Release]. 

Portland, OR. http://www.reo.gov/library/acs/final-seis/

news_release.htm. (August 15, 2005).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI]. 1990–2002. BLM Facts Annual 

Reports. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI]. 1994. Coos Bay District 

proposed resource management plan environmental 

impact statement. Coos Bay, OR: Coos Bay District. 

[Variable pagination]. Vol. I.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI]. 1995. Coos Bay District record of 

decision and resource management plan. Coos Bay, OR: 

Coos Bay District. [Variable pagination]. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI]. 1996a–2004a. Annual program 

summaries for the BLM-Coos Bay District. North Bend, 

OR: Coos Bay District. http://www.or.blm.gov/coosbay/. 

(August 31, 2004). On file with: Rebecca J. McLain, 

Institute for Culture and Ecology, P.O. Box 6688, 

Portland, OR 97228-6688. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI]. 1996b. (updated 2002). 

Transportation management plan. [Place of publication 

unknown]: Western Oregon Districts. 34 p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI]. 1998b. Watershed restoration: a 

report on the accomplishments of the Coos Bay District 

in watershed restoration through the “Jobs in the Woods 

Program” and assistance to local watershed associations. 

Coos Bay, OR: Coos Bay District. 19 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management [USDI]. 2003b. Visual resource 

management: VRM system. Washington DC: 

Washington Office, Recreational Group. 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/VRM/vrmsys.html. 

(August 09, 2005). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management; Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife [USDI and ODFW].1993. Dean Creek Elk 

Viewing Area management plan. Coos Bay, OR: Coos 

Bay District. [pagination variable].

Wagner, D. 1986. Louie Simpson’s North Bend. Coos 

Bay, OR: Friends of Shore Acres. 60 p.

Wilkinson, K.P. 1991. The community in rural America. 

New York: Greenwood Press. 141 p.

Zucker, J.; Hummel, K.; Hogfoss, B. 1987. Oregon 

Indians: culture, history and current affairs, an atlas and 

introduction. Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society 

Press. 229 p.
140

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Acronyms

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern

ACS Aquatic Conservation Strategy

ASQ Allowable sales quantity

BGA Block group aggregation

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CBGA Census block group aggregation

CBWR Coos Bay Wagon Road

CELN Coastal Environments Learning Network

EA Environmental assessment

EDA Economic Development Administration

EIS Environmental impact statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEIS Final environmental impact statement

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPA Forest Practices Act

FS Forest Service

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HFR Hazardous fuels reduction

ILWU International Longshoremen and 

Warehousemen’s Union

IWA International Woodworkers of America

JITW Jobs in the Woods

LSR Late-successional reserve

LSRA Late-successional reserve assessment

LSW Lumber and Sawmill Workers

MARE Marine Activities, Resources, and Education

Mmbf Million board feet

NEAI Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative

NTFP Nontimber forest product

NWFP Northwest Forest Plan

O&C Oregon and California Railroad Company

OCEAN Oregon Coastal Environmental Awareness 

Network

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODNRA Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area

OSU Oregon State University

PAC Provincial advisory committee

PD Public domain

PILT Payment in lieu of taxes

PSQ Probable sales quantity

RAC Resource advisory committee

RCAP Rural Community Assistance Program

RDI Rural Development Initiatives

RMP Resource management plan

ROD Record of decision

STEP Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program

T&E Threatened and endangered species

TMP Transportation management plan

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDA-FS U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
141

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Appendix A—Interviewees

BLM Coos Bay District interviewees

District manager

Resource area manager–Umpqua Resource Area

Resource area manager–Myrtlewood Resource Area

Noxious weeds program coordinator

Timber sales administrator

Silviculturalist

Watershed analysis coordinator

Small sales administrator–Myrtlewood Resource Area

Small sales administrator–Umpqua Resource Area

Volunteer coordinator

Cultural resources program manager

Recreation specialist (2)

Fish biologist

Wildlife biologist

Fire program manager

District geologist

Watershed restoration coordinator

Public affairs officer

Road engineer–Umpqua Resource Area

Road engineer–Myrtlewood Resource Area

Interpretive specialist

Greater Coos Bay interviewees Residence

Chamber of commerce employee (tourism focus) Greater Coos Bay

Consulting forester/small woodland owners association member Greater Coos Bay

County commissioner Greater Coos Bay

County commissioner/rancher Greater Coos Bay

County forester Greater Coos Bay

Health services agency employee Greater Coos Bay

Large timber company manager Greater Coos Bay

Large timber company manager Works in Greater Coos Bay, lives in neighboring town

Large timber company manager, former local politician Greater Coos Bay

Local economic development agency employee Greater Coos Bay

(tourism and industrial development focus)

Nature reserve employee Greater Coos Bay

Tribal forester Greater Coos Bay

Tribal member/fish biologist Greater Coos Bay

Watershed association employee Works in Greater Coos Bay, lives in neighboring town

Watershed restoration contractor /forest worker Greater Coos Bay
142

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Greater Myrtle Point interviewees Residence

Brush shed operator Greater Myrtle Point

Business development specialist Active in economic development efforts affecting Greater Myrtle 

Point, lives in neighboring town

Environmental educator Greater Myrtle Point

Environmental group leader Active in Greater Myrtle Point environmental issues, lives in 

neighboring watershed

Farmer/environmental educator Greater Myrtle Point

Fisheries specialist with state educational agency Works in Greater Myrtle Point, lives in neighboring town

Large timber company manager Company has land in Greater Myrtle Point, lives in neighboring town

Mountain bike club member/carpenter Greater Myrtle Point

Municipal leader Greater Myrtle Point

Public works employee Greater Myrtle Point

Restoration contractor/forest worker Greater Myrtle Point

Retiree, fisheries volunteer, long-term resident Active in projects in Greater Myrtle Point, lives in neighboring town

Retiree, rockhound club member; newcomer Greater Myrtle Point

Small mill operator Greater Myrtle Point

Watershed association employee Active in projects in Greater Myrtle Point, lives in neighboring town

GreaterReedsport interviewees Residence

Cultural heritage organization leader/environmental education focus Greater Reedsport

Economic development leader/sportsfishing and tourism focus Greater Reedsport

Economic development leader/sportsfishing and tourism focus Greater Reedsport

Economic development/elk viewing area involvement Greater Reedsport

Forest products company employee Greater Reedsport

Former school district leader Greater Reedsport

Former wood products industry employee/small mill operator Greater Reedsport

Industrial manufacturing company employee Greater Reedsport

Local politician Greater Reedsport

Manager of municipality Greater Reedsport

Member volunteer fire department Greater Reedsport

Municipal planner Greater Reedsport

Owner of local media Greater Reedsport

Rancher/mill owner/watershed organization member Greater Reedsport

Small business owner (timber related) Greater Reedsport

Small business owner, elk viewing area involvement Greater Reedsport

Social services organization manager Greater Reedsport

Timber company manager Company has lands in Roseburg area, 

lives in neighboring watershed

Wood products industry worker Greater Reedsport
143

Northwest Forest Plan—the First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities

Appendix B—Scientific and Common Names

Common name Scientific name

Plants:

Grand fir Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.

Pink sand verbena Abronia umbellata Lam. ssp. Breviflora (standl.) Munz

Vine maple Acer circinatum Pursh

Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum Pursh

Red alder Alnus rubra Bong.

European beachgrass Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link

Pacific Madrone Arbutus menziesii Pursh

Bensonia Bensoniella oregana (Abrams & Bacig.) Morton

Oregon grape Berberis spp. L.

Incense-cedar Calocedrus decurrens (Torr.) Florin

Golden chinkapin Castanopsis chrysophylla (Dougl. ex Hook) A. DC.

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.

Salt marsh bird’s beak or Cordylanthus maritimus (Nutt. ex Benth.) ssp. palustris (Behr) Chuang & Heckard 

 Point Reyes bird’s beak

Port Orford cedar Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murr.) Parl.

Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius (L.) Link

Pursh’s buckthorn [Cascara] Frangula purshiana (DC.) Cooper

Salal Gaultheria shallon Pursh

Waldo gentian Gentiana setigera Gray

Iris family Iridaceae L.

Lily family Liliaceae L.

Western bog lily Lilium occidentale Purdy

Tanoak Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook. & Arn.) Rehd.

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria L.

Wolf’s evening primrose Oenothera wolfii (Munz) Raven, W. Dietr. & Stubbe

Silvery phacelia Phacelia argentea A. Nels. & J.F. Macbr.

Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.

Radiata pine Pinus radiata D. Don

Western swordfern Polystichum munitum (Kaulfuss) K. Presl

Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco

Pacific rhododendron Rhododendron macrophyllum D. Don ex G. Don

Blackberry Rubus spp. L.

Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa L.

Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea L.

Pacific yew Taxus brevifolia Nutt.

Western redcedar Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don

Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.

Gorse Ulex europaeus L.

Myrtle Umbellularia californica (Hook. & Arn.) Nutt.

Evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum Pursh

Beargrass Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.

Fungi:

King bolete Boletus edulis

Chanterelle Cantharellus spp.

Hedgehog Dentinum repandum

Lobster Hypomyces lactiflorum

Cauliflower Sparassis crispa

Matsutake Tricholoma magnivelare

Oregon white truffle Tuber gibbossum
144

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-675

Common name Scientific name

Fish:

Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki

Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Rainbow trout or steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Mammals and birds:

Red tree vole Arborimus longicaudus

Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus 

Roosevelt elk Cervus canadensis roosevelti

Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300