Considering 

Communities in 

Forest Management 

Planning in 

Western Oregon

Ellen M. Donoghue, N. Lynnae Sutton, 

and Richard W. Haynes

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service 

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-693 

December 2006
Authors

Ellen M. Donoghue and Richard W. Haynes are research foresters, 

N. Lynnae Sutton is a geographic information system specialist, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208-3890. 

Cover photographs by Frank Vanni and other Forest Service staff.

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, 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.
Abstract

Donoghue, Ellen M.; Sutton, N. Lynnae; Haynes, Richard W. 2006. 

Considering communities in forest management planning in western 

Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-693. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 95 p.

A recurrent theme in the development of U.S. forest policies has been the assertion 

of strong positive relations among communities, economies, and natural resource 

management. Now as a new round of federal land management planning is getting 

underway, questions are being raised about the strength of that assertion and how 

to view communities following a decade of reduced federal harvests. This report 

examines these questions considering the 433 communities in six Bureau of Land 

Management districts in western Oregon. It discusses the ways that forest-based 

communities have been considered in the context of federal forest management 

planning, and it summarizes information on socioeconomic conditions and trends 

for communities in western Oregon.

Keywords: Communities, land management planning, socioeconomic 

well-being.
Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Introduction

A recurrent theme in the development of U.S. forest policies has been the assertion 

of strong positive relations among communities, economies, and natural resource 

management. This theme emerged for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in 

1937 with the Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management 

Act (O&C Act), which required the management of O&C lands to contribute to 

economic stability of local communities. For the USDA Forest Service, the National 

Forest Management Act of 1976 (Act of October 22, 1976; 16 U.S.C. 1600) required 

planners to examine the consequences of their planned actions on the stability of 

forest-dependent communities. By the early 1990s, the term stability was associated with jobs and income generated directly or indirectly through the harvest and 

processing of forest products by residents of communities (SAF 1989). The goals for 

forest management were also shifting during the 1990s to focus more on achieving 

desired future conditions or broad environmental gains and how management for 

these goals influences local social and economic conditions. There also was a gradual revelation that the indirect and induced jobs and associated economic impacts 

estimated as part of forest policy discussions generally cannot be verified by looking 

at how local or regional economies actually changed following changes in federal 

timberlands (e.g., FEMAT 1993, Robertson 2003). Finally, the commitment of the 

United States to participate in national and international initiatives such as the Montréal Process for assessing progress toward sustainable forest management increased 

interest among decisionmakers and researchers in understanding the viability and 

adaptability of forest-based communities to changing economic conditions. 

This report is motivated by a new round of federal land management planning 

that is getting underway and raising questions about how we view communities. 

These questions are being asked in western Oregon where federal timber harvests 

dropped 90 percent during the 1990s, altering the relations between federal forests, 

neighboring communities, and the forest products processing industries. Here the 

BLM is updating its land use plans and is asking for information on socioeconomic 

conditions and trends for communities. The purpose of this report is twofold. First 

we discuss conceptually the ways forest-based communities have been considered in 

the context of federal forest management planning. Second, we contribute to forest 

planning in Oregon, in particular to BLM processes, by presenting information on 

socioeconomic conditions and trends for communities in western Oregon, some of 

which is presented for the six BLM districts in the area: Salem, Eugene, Roseburg, 

Coos Bay, Medford, and Lakeview.1

1 For the Lakeview District, only communities in the western portion of the district are 

included in the data and analysis in this report.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

This report has three major sections. In the first we discuss the evolution of 

concepts and the need to understand how land management actions influence the 

social and economic conditions of associated communities. The second presents 

our definition of community that we developed for analytical purposes. The third 

section discusses the conditions and trends in 433 communities that lie in six BLM 

districts in western Oregon (fig. 1) and presents one approach for assessing the 

socioeconomic well-being (SEWB) of these communities and how it has changed 

between 1990 and 2000. 

Conceptualizations of Forest-Based Communities 

The past two decades have seen an evolution of concepts used to depict communities and their connections to forest resources and forest management. The evolution 

of concepts shows a growing emphasis on the complex, dynamic, and interrelated 

aspects of rural communities and the natural resources that surround them. The 

earliest concepts dealt with the links between forest management and stable communities achieved through stable employment in the forest sector. Forest policy 

played a role in developing and institutionalizing these concepts, as the legislation 

reflected the assumption that timber flows from public forest lands could play an 

important role in providing economic stability for communities. For instance, the 

O&C Act of 1937, which placed the administration of Oregon and California Railroad Company lands under the Department of the Interior to be administered by the 

BLM, explicitly specified a “permanent source of timber supply...contributing to 

the economic stability of local communities” (Act of August 28, 1937, 50 Stat. 874). 

With its reference to economic stability of communities, the act continues to influence forest management on O&C lands, and emphasizes the ongoing importance 

of developing better understanding of how levels of timber harvest on public lands 

affect economies of forest-based communities. 

 Other key legislation includes the Sustained Yield Unit Management Act of 

1944, which promoted the “stability of forest industries, of employment, of communities, and of taxable forest wealth, through continuous supplies of timber...for the 

purpose of maintaining the stability of such community or communities” (58 Stat. 

132; 16 U. S. C. 583-5831). Also, the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (Act 

of June 12, 1960, 16 U.S.C. (note), 528-531), responding to increasing demand for 

wood, recreation, and water, expanded the principle of sustained yield to include all 

renewable resources on national forests, omitting mention of the link between sustained yield and stable communities. The National Forest Management Act (1976) 

required the Forest Service to consider in the sale of forest products “the economic 

stability of communities whose economies are dependent on such National Forest 
Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Figure 1—Community boundaries and population centers found within the six western Oregon Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Districts.

! ! ! ! !! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!!! !

! ! ! !

! !

!!

! !

! !

!!!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

! ! !! !

!

! !!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!! !!

!

! !! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!!

! ! !

!! !

! !

!

!! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! ! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

! ! !! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!! ! !

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!! !

!

! !

! !

! !

!!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!

! !

!!

! !

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

! !

!

!! !

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!! !

!

! ! !!

!

Roseburg

District

Eugene-Springfield

I-84

I-5

I-5

! Community population centers

Community area boundaries

BLM district boundaries

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

Metropolitan areas

 Major roads

Lakes and rivers

Coos Bay

District

Eugene

District

Salem

District

Columbia River

Salem-Keizer

Portland-Vancouver

Crater

Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Upper

Klamath

Lake

Lakeview

District

Medford

District

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

C A L I F O R N I A

Columbia River

o

0 10 20 40 Miles 75

I-5

Waldo

Lake

I-5
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

materials.” The ensuing Forest Service guidelines led to a list of dependent communities (defined by proportion of employment in the wood products industry) and 

continued descriptions of community stability as “the rate of change with which 

people can cope without exceeding their capacity to deal with it” (Schallau 1990: 

74). These changes led to an informal alliance between the timber industry (those 

parts purchasing federal timber) and communities where processing or logging 

facilities were located. Both sets of stakeholders advocated that the provision of 

continuous supplies of forest products constitutes the basis for determining whether 

community stability was being achieved. Over time, maintaining status quo in 

timber employment emerged as the defining attribute of community stability. 

The original broader intent–the well-being of forest-based communities–became 

obscured by the adoption of mandates of nondeclining even flow of timber, such as 

those adopted by the Forest Service in 1974. 

Most early research tested the premise that sustained yield would result in 

community stability (Drielsma et al. 1990). Questions about whether even flows 

of timber ensured stability in aspects of community life such as population and 

social structure emerged, particularly when technological advances began reducing 

labor demands. Some economists questioned the “even-flow” and “nondeclining 

even-flow” policies, and rural sociologists challenged the limited focus on timber 

harvests. These concerns were echoed in later studies emphasizing community 

diversity (Fortmann et al. 1989) and community well-being (Kusel and Fortmann 

1991), drawing on Kaufman and Kaufman’s position that “how well they live” was 

more complex and relevant than “what people do for a living” (Kusel 2001). By the 

late 1980s, the notion that sustained-yield management led to community stability 

was being called into question (Lee 1990, Schallau 1989). 

Although the use of the term “stability” continued to endure in policy debates, 

concern was raised about the lack of a clear definition of stability and how it might 

be measured (Fortmann et al. 1989, Lee 1989, Machlis and Force 1988, Richardson 

1996). Some researchers began looking beyond employment indicators to other 

aspects of community life to assess community well-being (Doak and Kusel 

1996, Kusel and Fortmann 1991). In addition to economic measures, indicators for 

poverty, education, crime, and other sociodemographic measures have been used to 

assess conditions in communities. 

Research during past decades has documented the significant challenges faced 

by forest-based communities, such as mill closures, and abilities of communities 

to cope with socioeconomic changes (Gray et al. 2001, Kusel and Adler 2003). 

The concept of forest dependence expanded to include economic ties beyond those 

based on wood products, such as recreation. Social scientists also expanded the 


Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

concept of forest dependence to include noneconomic connections to forests such 

as the amenity values and symbolic living traditions people have with forested 

places (Stedman 2003). More recently, researchers have dropped the connotation 

of dependence altogether, simply referring to forest-based communities (Donoghue 

and Sutton 2006b). 

The debate about concepts that adequately reflect forest-based communities is 

part of an international discussion related to sustainable forest management, initiated as part of the Montréal Process for criteria and indicators (Montréal Process 

Working Group 1998). The basic tenet is that when managed sustainably, forests 

can supply society with goods and services, conserve biodiversity, and stabilize the 

environment for future generations. Although not formally defined, the concepts of 

community viability and adaptability are central to one of the criteria for sustainable forest management. 

Two related concepts that emerged in the past decade are community capacity 

and community resiliency, both defined similarly as the ability of a community to 

adapt to changes and take advantage of opportunities to meet the needs of residents 

(Doak and Kusel 1996, Harris et al. 2000, Kusel 1996). Developed as part of social 

assessments associated with broad-scale resource management planning processes, 

the concepts have application beyond the resource management sector. Intentionally, these concepts have different connotations than the traditional notion of stability. Capacity and resiliency are understood in terms of the attributes maintained 

by a community, such as leadership and civic cohesiveness. In contrast, stability is 

generally understood in terms of the effects of external actions (namely changes in 

the timber sector) on the community. Although today social scientists focus more 

on measures of community capacity and community resiliency, these analyses are 

consistent with the original intent of the laws that addressed the concerns about 

community stability. 

Although several measures of SEWB, community capacity, and community 

resiliency have been developed, no universally accepted measures exist. Measures 

of socioeconomic well-being have been used in connection with discussions of 

community viability and adaptability (Donoghue and Haynes 2002), and measures 

of socioeconomic status have been related to measures of community capacity and 

community resiliency in bioregional social assessments (Doak and Kusel 1996, 

Harris et al. 2000). No adequate proxies for resiliency and capacity that are based 

on secondary data, such as from the census, have been developed. One reason 

for this is that community capacity and community resiliency are fundamentally 

about dynamic processes that involve the actions of community leaders and 

residents. Such actions, namely leadership, social cohesion, and decisionmaking, 

Although several 

measures of SEWB, 

community capacity, 

and community 

resiliency have 

been developed, no 

universally accepted 

measures exist.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

are important to how a community adapts to change and betters the lives of its 

residents, but they are not attributes found in the socioeconomic data of the census. 

Community Socioeconomic Well-Being 

The evolution in thinking on the part of decisionmakers, researchers, resource managers, and the public about the relations between communities and forests reflects 

a consistent concern for the ways that forest management influences community 

socioeconomic well-being. Perspectives about the determinants of well-being as 

related to forest management have evolved from those largely concerned with 

employment in the timber sector to those that consider well-being in conjunction 

with other influences on community life, such as global and regional economic 

trends. 

Although the concept of “well-being” has been widely discussed, it lacks a 

precise definition. Well-being has been distinguished on the basis of capabilities 

and achievements of individuals (Sen 1985) and on the social, cultural, and psychological needs of people and communities (Wilkinson 1991). Studies of community 

well-being have focused on understanding the contribution of the economic, social, 

cultural, and political components of a community in maintaining itself and fulfilling the needs of local residents (Christakopoulou et al. 2001, Force and Machlis 

1997, Kusel and Fortmann 1991). 

Until recently, the Forest Service and other land management agencies 

developed lists of dependent communities for use in planning. These lists played 

various roles in planning processes, including a way to frame the social and 

economic impacts associated with different management actions. The definition 

of dependency involved (1) 50-percent reliance on national forest sales for log 

supplies and (2) the forest products industry accounting for at least 10 percent 

of employment. The last list was compiled in 1987 and listed 62 communities in 

western Oregon as being dependent on national forest timber sales. Lists like this, 

and the lists of distressed communities used by the state of Oregon, focus more on 

economic measures and not the broader concept of socioeconomic well-being. 

In this report, we present an index that serves as a proxy for community socioeconomic well-being for communities in the Pacific Northwest, with specific focus 

on western Oregon communities. Causality between changes in forest management policy and community socioeconomic conditions is difficult to demonstrate. 

However, information about socioeconomic conditions and trends enables forest 

managers and community development specialists to identify areas where further 

information or work may be needed in anticipation of policy changes.


Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Defining Communities for Analytical Purposes

In addition to conceptual concerns, considerations about defining the community 

are important to socioeconomic assessment processes associated with forest planning and other purposes. Defining the community-level unit of analysis is usually 

one of the first steps in social assessments. The concept of community is a sociological phenomenon that continues to be shaped by differing interpretations of social 

structures, processes, relations, actions, and change related to human groupings. 

Understanding the relational and territorial dimensions of community life (Gusfield 

1975) as part of defining the community unit of analysis may be important, but 

it rarely is used in large social assessments because resources are lacking. Social 

interactions contribute to defining a community as much as, or arguably more than, 

the place itself (Kaufman 1959, Luloff 1998, Wilkinson 1991), but such interactions 

are difficult to measure in a single community case study let alone hundreds of 

communities in a regional assessment. Thus, broad-scale social assessments often 

rely on secondary data sources with predefined boundaries of communities and 

limited socioeconomic measurements. 

In the United States, social science research at the small scale is influenced by 

the availability of census and other secondary data. Secondary data influence how 

the geographic boundary of the unit of analysis is defined and what indicators and 

measures are used to assess socioeconomic conditions and processes. One of the 

most commonly used designations of communities in social assessments is a census 

place. Census places include incorporated places and census-designated places, 

which are unincorporated communities that meet criteria defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Census places only represent a portion of the population, however, and 

often do not represent people in rural, natural-resource-based areas. This limitation 

may be problematic for socioeconomic assessments and planning processes that 

focus on understanding relations between communities and the management of 

public lands. Also, timeframes of social assessments that are based on secondary 

data are limited by the frequency of original data collection. 

Communities in Western Oregon

Many people in western Oregon live in unincorporated localities near public forest 

lands. Thus, choosing the community-level unit of analysis is critical, particularly 

when the analysis is subject to the constraints of secondary data. As part of the 

Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) community socioeconomic assessment, we used 

census data to define communities across the region, encompassing 72 counties 

of western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California. We developed 

a process for aggregating 7,776 block groups (the smallest census geography for 
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

which all socioeconomic data are available) from the 1990 census into 1,314 communities and 10 metropolitan areas in the region. This definition of communities 

represents all communities and all people in the Plan region. We used a proportional measurement that allowed us to compare 1990 and 2000 census data across a 

number of indicators. More information about defining the community-level unit of 

analysis and the census block group aggregation process is available in Donoghue 

(2003) and Donoghue and Sutton (2006b). The data presented for the 433 communities in western Oregon in the tables and maps of this report are based on the definition of the community-level unit of analysis for the 1,314 communities in the region. 

We defined place-based communities, rather than communities of interest 

(groups of like-minded people who gain strength from their relations and associations). We recognize that place-based communities are not the only form of 

community affected by changes in resource management, but agree it may be an 

appropriate unit of analysis for assessing the effects of landscape-scale resource 

management on local people (Force and Machlis 1997). In this report, we do not 

include data on three metropolitan areas in Oregon, namely Portland, Eugene, and 

Salem, because this work was conducted as part of an ongoing research project 

related to the Northwest Forest Plan. As directed by the Plan’s record of decision, 

the focus of the research has been on rural communities (USDA and USDI 1994). 

The block group aggregation process identified 433 communities in western 

Oregon. For analytical purposes, each community was spatially represented as a 

polygon and a point. The community polygons are contiguous and span all of western Oregon (fig. 1, see also maps in app. A2

). Some communities that are relatively 

small in population may be geographically large, as designated by the census block 

groups. The boundaries of many communities contain public lands. Also, many 

polygons contain several population centers or small localities. A single community 

point was located in each polygon to reflect the largest population center. These 

points should not be interpreted as reflecting the only location of the people within 

the polygon. Block group aggregation allowed us to examine socioeconomic data 

for all residents in western Oregon. Although further aggregation of block groups 

may have more accurately reflected some communities, we believe that this data 

set, containing perhaps more communities, provides opportunities for further 

aggregation to reflect questions of interest. 

2The nine maps display points and polygons for each of the six BLM districts. These maps 

contain a community identification number that can be used to reference community-level 

socioeconomic data available in other appendixes.
Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Readers interested in socioeconomic data for communities in western Oregon, 

northern California, and western Washington may be interested in a companion 

Community Socioeconomic Information System (CSIS) tool available on compact 

disk (CD-ROM) from the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

(Donoghue and Sutton 2006a). The CSIS CD-ROM tool includes a spatial data 

set of community boundaries and data on a variety of socioeconomic indicators 

based on the 1990 and 2000 censuses. The tool includes applications for viewing 

and reporting data. There is also an application that allows users to build their own 

community by further aggregating the community block group aggregations and 

obtaining socioeconomic data based on the newly created aggregations. This feature in the CSIS tool for defining custom communities is intended to help broaden 

the discussion about “communities at risk” and “forest-dependent” communities. 

Historically, such discussions have been limited to rather small sets of communities, and are largely based on data associated with income and employment in the 

timber sector. Socioeconomic data for these communities are often at the census 

place level, thus leaving out large sectors of the population that live in unincorporated places, many of them in proximity to public forests (Donoghue 2003). 

Conditions and Change in Western 

Oregon Communities

This section presents conditions and trends for a selection of demographic measures 

for communities in western Oregon. It also presents methods and findings for a 

composite measure of community SEWB. Additional community-level socioeconomic data based on census data are available in the appendixes. Appendix B 

contains several tables of socioeconomic data: table 4 presents population data; 

table 5 contains race and ethnicity data; table 6 contains data on age; and table 7 

has data on income. These and other data are available in electronic form in the 

CSIS CD tool mentioned above. 

Demographic Conditions and Trends

The size of a community is often considered an important factor influencing 

whether a community has the institutional structure to meet the needs of its 

residents (Wilkinson 1991). Population and population density have been used as 

proxies for civic infrastructure and have been included in composite measures 

of socioeconomic resiliency, viability, and adaptability (Haynes 2003, Horne and 

Haynes 1999). Recent regional social assessments suggested that the higher the 

population in a rural community, the greater the infrastructure and the higher the 

socioeconomic resilience (Harris et al. 2000). 

Readers may be 

interested in a 

companion Community 

Socioeconomic 

Information System 

(CSIS) tool available 

on compact disk 

(CD-ROM).
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Population in western Oregon increased slightly more than the United States 

overall population between 1990 and 2000. Total population for the entire United 

States increased between 1990 and 2000 by 13.2 percent, with the highest increases 

in the West (20 percent) and South (17 percent) and the lowest increases in the 

Midwest (8 percent) and Northeast (6 percent). Not including the Portland, Salem, 

and Eugene metropolitan areas, the total population in western Oregon went from 

1.18 million in 1990 to 1.37 million in 2000, an increase of 16.3 percent. Although 

population increased for all BLM districts, the percentages of increase differ (table 

1). In 2000, the population of communities in western Oregon ranged from 110 to 

62,828 (fig. 2), with the majority of communities having between 501 and 2,000 

people (fig. 3). The average population in the communities in 1990 was 2,718 and 

in 2000 was 3,161. 

Table 1—Population change by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district

Total district Total district Change in

Number of population population total district

BLM district communities 1990a 2000a population

Percent

Coos Bay 47 90,307 93,208 3.2

Eugene 51 94,933 104,477 10.1

Lakeview 15 55,610 61,048 9.8

Medford 49 211,150 258,202 22.3

Roseburg 34 84,202 90,628 7.6

Salem 237 640,830 761,030 18.8

a

The total population excludes Portland, Salem, and Eugene.

Changes in population and population density are important because of the 

possible effects on land use planning and quality of life. Although population 

is increasing in western Oregon, one-quarter of the communities (25.6 percent) 

experienced population decreases between 1990 and 2000 (fig. 4). Throughout the 

Pacific Northwest, communities that lost population between 1990 and 2000 tended 

to be fairly small, with the majority between 2,000 and 5,000 people (Donoghue 

and Sutton 2006b). 

Population density (fig. 5) was calculated as the total community population 

divided by the area of the community polygon not including acres of public lands. 

Public lands are BLM, Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state lands, and military lands. Often in social assessments, population 

density measures include public lands, thereby providing a sense of relative rurality 

of localities in an area. Such measures, however, do not provide information about 

limits to growth in rural areas. Our measure of density does not include public 

lands and instead reflects how much a community can grow within the area that 
11

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Figure 2—Community population, 2000.

Eugene-Springfield

I-84

Salem-Keizer

Portland-Vancouver

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

C A L I F O R N I A

Population, 2000

110–500

501–2,000

2,001–5,000

5,001–50,000

50,000–62,828

BLM district boundaries

Metropolitan areas

Major roads

Lakes and rivers

I-5

I-5

o

0 10 20 40 Miles

Roseburg

District

Coos Bay

District

Eugene

District

Salem

District

Columbia River

Crater

Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Upper

Klamath

Lake

Lakeview

District

Medford

District

Roseburg

District

Coos Bay

District

Eugene

District

Salem

District

Lakeview

District

Medford

District

Waldo

Lake
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

is not public land. The contribution of public open spaces to a sense of rurality 

can be interpreted from land ownerships displayed on the map. 

Over half of communities in western Oregon (60.7 percent) had between 1 and 

100 people per square mile on nonpublic lands, and slightly less than one-third 

(29.1 percent) had between 101 and 500 people per square mile. Larger communities tended to have higher population densities, and smaller communities tended 

to have lower population densities, although exceptions exist for both types. 

However, regional data for western Oregon, western Washington, and northern 

California revealed that of the communities with the highest percentage increase in 

population between 1990 and 2000, half had the lowest population density in 2000 

(Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). From a planning perspective, it may be useful to 

identify those communities adjacent to large areas of public lands that have high 

percentage increases in population and relatively high or increasing population 

density, as such changes may affect issues associated with quality of life. 

In the context of the Montréal Process criteria and indicators process (Montréal Process Working Group 1998), there is an emphasis on understanding the 

relations between indigenous communities and forests. For instance, indicator 

Figure 3—Number of communities in western Oregon by total population categories, 2000.

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

110–250

251–500

501–2,000

2,001-5,000

5,001–50,000

50,001–62,828

Total population category, 2000

Number of communities

0.7%

4.6%

60.5%

22.4%

11.3%

0.5%
13

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Figure 4—Change in community population, 1990–2000.

# # #

# ## *

#

*

* #

#

## #

#

### #

** # #

# #

# *# #

# #

## *

#

# #

* * #

* #

# #

#

#

#

##

#

#

# # * #

#

#

#

# # #

# *

#

#

# #

#

#

#

# # #

#

# *

#

#

# #

# #

#

#

#

*#

***

#

#

#

*

#

*# *#

#

# * # * ##

#

*

* #*

#

* #

#

*

#

*

*

#

##

*

*

* *

#

*

* *

#

*

# #

#

* #

#

#

*

#

#

# #

# # * #

#

#

#

##

# # #

**# * *

*

** #

#

# #

#

#

*

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

*

*

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

# #

*#

#

#

#

# #

#

* *

*

#

#

# #

#

# *

# *

*#

#

#

#

# #

# * #

*

*#

#

* # # #

*

*

*

#

*

#

** #

#

*

# * # # #

#

#

#

#

*

#

#

* # * #

#

#

*

* #

*#

#

# #

#

#

#

# # *

# #

#

#

#

*

#

#

* #

#

* #

* * *# #

#

#

#

# # # *

#

*

*

#

# # #

*

# #

#

#

#

*

#

* ##

## #

#

#

#

#

#

*

#

* #

#

#

#

# * #

#

# #

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

*

# # *

## #

#

# #

# #

# #

*#

*

#

*

# * # *

#

#

#

* #

*

##

#

#

# #

*#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

* #

##

#

#

# #

# #

*

#

#

* * # #

## #

#

# # ##

#

o

0 10 20 40 Miles

Percent change in

population, 1990–2000

Decreased population (-74–0)

Population increased, below

regional average (1–20)

High increase in

population (21–75)

Very high increase in

population (75–200+)

BLM district boundaries

Metropolitan areas

 Major roads

Lakes and rivers

*

Roseburg

District

I-84

I-5

I-5

Roseburg

District

Eugene-Springfield

I-84

Coos Bay

District

Eugene

District

Salem

District

Salem-Keizer

Portland-Vancouver

Crater

Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Upper

Klamath

Lake

Lakeview

District

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

I-5

I-5

Waldo

Lake

C A L I F O R N I A

Columbia River

*

*

#

#

#

##

#

#

# ##

#

#

##

#

#

###

#

# #

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# # #

# # #

#

#

#

## # #

#

##

# #

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

# #

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

# # #

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

# #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

Medford

District
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Figure 5—Community population density on nonpublic lands, 2000.

Salem

District

Roseburg

District

Eugene-Springfield

I-84

Coos Bay

District

Eugene

District

Salem

District

Columbia River

Salem-Keizer

Portland-Vancouver

Crater

Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Upper

Klamath

Lake

Waldo

 Lake

Crater

Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Upper

Klamath

Lake

Lakeview

District

Medford

District

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

I-5

I-5

Number of people per square

mile on nonpublic lands, 2000

1–100

101–500

501–1,500

1,501+

BLM district boundaries

Metropolitan areas

Major roads

Lakes and rivers

Land ownership

Bureau of Land 

 Management

Forest Service

National Park Service

State lands

Tribal lands

U.S. Fish and

 Wildlife Service

C A L I F O R N I A

o

0 10 20 40 Miles

Waldo

 Lake

Salem

District
15

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

46 of criterion 6 of the Montréal Process addresses “the viability and adaptability 

to changing economic conditions, of forest-dependent communities, including 

indigenous communities” (Montréal Process Working Group 1998). In 2000, people 

of American Indian descent made up 0.87 percent of the population in the United 

States. For over half of the communities in western Oregon, 1 percent or less of the 

residents were of Native American decent in 2000; for 176 communities, between 

1.06 percent and 4.23 percent of the population were of Native American descent. 

And, 20 communities had populations from 4.25 percent to 21.24 percent Native 

Americans.3

Unfortunately, change in racial composition cannot be reported from census 

data because information on race was collected differently in the 1990 and 2000 

censuses. The percentages among races for the United States in 2000 were White 

75.10 percent, Black 12.21 percent, American Indian 0.87 percent, Asian and Pacific 

Islanders 3.75 percent, other 5.49 percent, and two or more races 2.58 percent. 

Compared to the Nation, communities in western Oregon had higher percentages 

of White (90.69 percent) and American Indian (1.38 percent), and lower percentages 

of Black (0.38 percent) and Asian and Pacific Islanders (3.47 percent) people. 

Census data are comparable between 1990 and 2000 for the population of 

people defined by the census as of Spanish, Hispanic, and Latino origin. For the 

United States, the percentage of the population of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 

origin was 9.0 percent in 1990 and 12.5 percent in 2000 (39 percent increase). 

On average, the percentage of people of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin in 

communities in western Oregon increased from 3.3 percent in 1990 to 4.7 percent 

in 2000 (42 percent increase). 

Measuring Community Socioeconomic Well-Being

Although no definitive conceptual or operational definition of community SEWB

exists, it is an accepted notion that measures of SEWB should represent multiple 

dimensions of the human community, such as social, economic, and human 

concerns (Force and Machlis 1997). There is increased emphasis on the need to 

combine secondary data with primary data from fieldwork in communities to 

fully understand the relations between socioeconomic indicators and community 

well-being (Beckley 1995, Kusel 1996, Parkins 1999). 

Because we wanted to examine change in community SEWB for hundreds of 

communities in a large region where collecting primary data was not feasible, we 

relied on census data to develop an index that served as a proxy for community 

3

These 20 communities are located in the following BLM districts: Coos Bay (6), 

Roseburg (2), Lakeview (2), Eugene (1), and Salem (9).
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

SEWB, and was comparable between the 1990 and 2000 censuses. Developing an 

index enabled us to reduce a large data set of socioeconomic indicators to a convenient single numeric score while still retaining the meaning of underlying variables. 

Indices and proxies are useful for revealing patterns and areas for further inquiry. 

But they have their limitations, and perhaps may be most effective when used in 

conjunction with other socioeconomic information. 

Our basic assumption of the concept and measure of community SEWB is that 

it can be enhanced or reduced. Thus, indicators must clearly contribute in a positive 

or negative way to community SEWB. Although secondary data are sometimes 

perceived as useful in social science research because they are generally easy to 

collect, not based on perception, and generally understandable, secondary data also 

have many limitations (Diener and Suh 1997). For census data, many indicators are 

not measured in the same way from one census to the next, and complex procedures 

to make data comparable are only available for some indicators. For instance, we 

applied a “crosswalk” provided by the census to make one of the measures in the 

SEWB index, diversity of employment by industry, comparable between 1990 and 

2000. 

The SEWB index consists of six indicators derived from U.S. census data: 

diversity of employment by industry, percentage of population 25 years and older 

with bachelor’s degree or higher, percentage unemployed, percentage of persons 

living below the poverty level, household income inequality, and the average travel 

time to work. The index is the summation of equally weighted socioeconomic 

indicators and was calculated as SEWB = EmD + Ed - PUn - PP - InIn - ATT (see 

table 2 for definitions).4 Two indicators, diversity of employment by industry and 

percentage of the population with bachelor’s degree or higher, positively contribute 

to the SEWB index. The other four indicators, percentage unemployed, percentage in poverty, household income inequality, and average travel time to work, are 

thought of as negatively contributing to the SEWB index. The assumption is that 

higher amounts of education and employment diversity in a community indicate 

higher SEWB, but higher unemployment, poverty, income inequality, and commute 

time indicate lower SEWB. 

To assess change in community SEWB, we categorized the 1990 well-being 

data and treated them as a baseline. We normalized the raw data for both years to 

a range of 0 to 100. Using the boundaries for the 1990 categories, we fit the 2000 

data into them, allowing us to see, on a scale of 0 to 100, how communities 

increased or decreased relative to each other in SEWB between the two decades. 

4The index is a linear summation of standardized z-scores that were normalized on a scale 

of 0 to 100.
17

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Table 2—Indicators included in socioeconomic well-being index

Indicator Indicator name Description

EmD Diversity of employment Employment by industry relates to the kind 

by industry of business conducted by the organization 

 where the person is employed. Diversity of 

 employment by industry is a single measure 

 of diversity, or variety, of industries that 

 employ people from the community (the 

 actual place of employment may be outside 

 the community). This measure was genera-

 ted for each community by using a Shannon-

 Weaver index. The diversity index ranges 

 from a value of 0 (least diverse) for commu-

 nities with only a single employment industry 

 to 1 (most diverse) for communities having 

 equal employment among all of the reported 

 employment industries. 

Ed Percentage of population Persons with a bachelor’s degree or higher are 

25 years and older having those who have received a bachelor’s degree 

bachelor’s degree or higher from a college or university, or a master’s, 

 professional, or doctorate degree. These data 

include only persons 25 years old and over. 

PUn Percentage of the All civilians 16 years old and over are classified 

population unemployed as unemployed if they (1) were neither “at 

work” nor “with a job but not at work” during 

 the reference week, and (2) were looking for 

 work during the last 4 weeks, and (3) were 

 available to start a job. Also included as 

 unemployed are civilians who did not work 

 at all during the reference week but were 

 waiting to be called back to a job from which 

 they had been laid off and were available for 

 work except for temporary illness. (For more 

 information on census unemployment data, 

 see http://www.census.gov.)

PP Percentage of persons Number of persons below poverty threshold 

living below the divided by total population for whom poverty 

poverty line status is determined. Total population for 

 whom poverty status is determined does not 

 include people in institutions, military group 

 quarters, or college dormitories, and unrelated 

individuals under 15 years old. (For more 

 information on census poverty data, see 

 http://www.census.gov.)

InIn Household income Ratio of total household income of the 50 

 percent of households earning the highest 

income to total household income of the 50 

 percent of households earning the lowest 

 income. Higher ratios indicate greater income 

 inequality. Calculations used group data.

ATT Average travel time to work Average travel time to work (in minutes) for 

 workers ages 16 years and older. Calculations 

 used group data.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

The SEWB scores for western Oregon communities presented here were 

developed as part of the Northwest Forest Plan Socioeconomic Economic Monitoring report (Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). Thus, the SEWB score for a given community in the region was relative to the scores of the other 1,313 communities. The 

western Oregon data presented here are from this larger data set and have not been 

adjusted to reflect scores relative only to those communities in western Oregon. 

Socioeconomic well-being of western Oregon communities—

Many communities in western Oregon either increased or decreased in their SEWB 

score between 1990 and 2000. Specifically, 27 percent of communities in western 

Oregon had SEWB scores that decreased by more than 3 percent between 1990 

and 2000; 28 percent stayed relatively the same (within plus or minus 3 percent); 

and 45 percent of communities increased in their SEWB score by greater than 3 

percent (figs. 6 and 7). Table 3 presents average community SEWB scores for the 

six BLM districts, with Eugene, Roseburg, and Salem districts showing statistically 

significant (P <0.05) increases in SEWB scores. Appendix C (table 8) contains the 

community SEWB scores for the 433 communities in western Oregon, sorted by 

BLM district, as well as data on the six measures that make up the SEWB index 

for the year 2000. 

Each population size class, say of small, medium, and large communities, had 

communities with a range of SEWB scores. In general, however, the smaller community size classes (e.g., 501 to 2,000 people) had proportionately more communities with relatively lower scores, whereas the larger population size classes of 2,001 

to 5,000 people and 5,001 to 50,000 people had proportionately more communities 

with higher SEWB scores (Donoghue and Sutton 2006b). 

Table 3—Averages and differences in 

community socioeconomic well-being 

scores for all communities, by Bureau of 

Land Management district, 1990 and 2000

District 1990 2000 Difference

Coos Bay 61.51 62.44 0.93

Eugene 67.82 70.76 2.94*

Lakeview 59.69 59.39 -.30

Medford 63.00 64.08 1.08

Roseburg 62.99 66.94 3.95*

Salem 70.90 73.68 2.77*

*Significant at P < 0.05 level.

Twenty-seven percent 

of communities in 

western Oregon 

had SEWB scores 

that decreased by 

more than 3 percent 

between 1990 and 

2000, 28 percent stayed 

relatively the same, 

and 45 percent of 

communities increased 

in their SEWB score by 

greater than 3 percent.
19

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Figure 6—Change in community socioeconomic well-being, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Eugene and Salem Districts. Low, 

medium, and high categories are based on standard deviations from the mean. See Donoghue and Sutton (2006b). 

À

M H À

H

À H

H

À À H

H

À

H

À

H

À

M

À

M

À

H

H

H H

H

À

HH

À

H

À

HÀ À H

H

À

H À

M

À

H H

À

H

H

H À

H À À H M À

M

À

L

À

H

À

H

ÀL H À H H

À

H

M

À

M

M

À

M

M

À

M

À

M

L

ÀL

ÀL

M

M

À

M

ÀL

ÀL

ÀL

À

M

À

H

À M H M

M À

H

H

À

M

À

M À

M

À

L

À

M

À

L

À

H

À

H

M M M

ÀL

ÀL

À

M

ÀL M

M

L

À M M

H À

M

À

M

À

H

À

L

À

M

À

M

L À

H

À

M

À

M

ÀL

M

À

M

À

M

L ÀL M

À

H

À

L

ÀL

À L L

ÀL

ÀL

L L

À

M

À

M À ÀM

L

À

M

À

L M

À

H

À

H

H À

H À

M

À

H À

H

H ÀL

À À M

H

À

H

À

M À

H

À

HÀ

H À

M H

ÀÀ

M

L

À

M

M

À

M

À

H À

M

L ÀL

M

H

M

À

H

À À

M M H

M

H

À

M

M

À

H

M

À

M

À

M

À

M

ÀL

À

M

À

M À

M

À

H

À À

M L

À

H À

HÀ

H

À

M

ÀL

À

M

M

À

H

À

M

À

H M

À M M

À

M

À

M

À

M

L

À

M

M

À

H

À

H

À

M

M

À

M

À

M À

M

À

M

À

M H

M

À

M

ÀL

À

L

À À M

M

À

M

À

M

À

H

M

À

M

À

H

À

H L

À

H

À

M

À

M

À

H

À

H

À

H

H

H

À À H

HÀ

H

À

M À

H

H

HÀ

H

M

À

MÀÀM

L

À

M

ÀL

M

À

H

H

À À L

L

À

M

À

M

À

H

À

M

M ÀÀH

ÀH

M

À

H

À

H

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

HM H

À

ÀL

H À

H

À

M

À

M

À

M

À

M

ÀL

À

H À

M

H À

M

H À À H

M

À

H À

H

À

M

H

À À H ÀM

H À

H M

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

M

À

H

À

H

À

H

M ÀL

À

H

À

À

M H

H H

À

M

À

H À ÀH

M

À

H

À

HÀ

H

À

M À

H

H ÀM M

À

H

ÀHH

À

M

À

M

M H

À

M

À

H

À

H

US Hwy 101

I-84

I-5

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 18

St Hwy 36

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 6

St Hwy 228

St Hwy 99w

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 224

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 18

St Hwy 36

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 6

St Hwy 228

St Hwy 99w

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 224

"L

"

M

"

H

À

À

Roseburg District

Eugene-Springfield

Coos Bay

District

Eugene District

Salem District

Columbia River

Salem-Keizer

W A S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

Change in socioeconomic

well-being score from 

1990 to 2000

Decrease (<3)

Little change (-3 to 3)

Increase (>3)

Status of socioeconomic

well-being, 2000

Very low, low

Medium

High, very high

BLM district boundaries

Bureau of Land 

 Management

Forest Service

Metropolitan areas

Major roads

Lakes and rivers

US Hwy 3

US Hwy 2

0

6

o

0 10 20 Miles

Portland-Vancouver
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Figure 7—Change in community socioeconomic well-being, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay, Medford, Lakeview, and Roseburg Districts. Low, medium, and high categories are based on standard deviations from the mean. See Donoghue and Sutton (2006b). 

À

M M

À

L

À

H

M

À

M

À L

À M

M

ÀM

ÀL L

À M

À

H

L

À

M ÀÀ

M

L

À

M

M

ÀM

À

M

À

L

À

L

À

M

L

L

L

À

À

L

M

À

À

L

À

H

À

H

H

H

À

HM

À

À

L

L

À L L

À

L

À

L

ÀL L

M

À

À

M À

M L

ÀÀ

M

À

L M

À

H

H

À

H

À

H

À

H

À

M

H

M

À

À

H À

M

M

À

À

H

MÀ

M

ÀMM À

M

L À

MÀ

ML

ÀL À

M L

À

M

ÀÀ

LM

L

M

ÀM

À

M

H

H

L À

L

M

H À

M

M

À

À

H

H

À

M

À

L

À

M

M

À

M

M

À

À

M

L

M

M

M

À

M

ÀM

M

À

À

M

L

À M

L

À

À

M

M

À

À

M

M À

L

L À

M L

À

À

L

M

À

À

L

L

L

ÀÀ

L À

L

ÀL

L

L

À

L

À

L

L

À

M

L

À

À

L

M L

À

H H

M

L

À

H

À

À

H H

À H L

À

À

M À

H

À

H

À

M À

H

À

H À

M H

ÀL

À

M

À

M

M

M

À

À

H L

M

À

L

À

M

H

M

À

H

À

H M

À M

M

H

À

M

À

M

H

M

À

M

À

M

À

M L

À M

À

À

M À

M

À

H

M

À L

À

À

H À

HÀ

H

US Hwy 97

US Hwy 199

US Hwy

7 9

St Hwy 62

St Hwy 66

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 36

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 227

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 140w

St Hwy 46

US Hwy 97

US Hwy 199

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 101

US Hwy

7 9

5ISt Hwy 62

St Hwy 66

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 36

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 227

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 140w

St Hwy 46

À

L"

M"

H"

À

Change in socioeconomicwell-being score from 1990 to 2000

Decrease (<3)Little change (-3 to 3)Increase (>3)

Status of socioeconomicwell-being, 2000

Very low, lowMediumHigh, very highBLM district boundariesBureau of Land  ManagementForest ServiceMetropolitan areasMajor roadsLakes and rivers

o

20 Miles 10 0

Roseburg District

Coos BayDistrict

Eugene District

Crater

Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Upper Klamath

Lake

LakeviewDistrict

MedfordDistrict

Waldo

Lake

Eugene-Springfield

O R E G O N

C A L I F O R N I A
21

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Conclusion

From a planner’s perspective, maps like those shown in figure 1 suggest that there 

are far more communities than generally perceived and that in western Oregon 

many are in proximity to BLM and Forest Service lands. This adds complexity to 

management goals that try to support community development. First, there are the 

obvious questions about which communities are likely to be impacted and what are 

the capacities of communities to deal with largely exogenous changes. Second, the 

diversity in communities (here demonstrated by using SEWB) is large, with some 

being moderate in size but with high or increasing SEWB, and some large with 

relatively unchanged socioeconomic conditions. And, third, how do agencies decide 

the communities on which to focus their limited resources for engaging, collaborating, and contributing to community SEWB? It is difficult to demonstrate how 

changes in forest management affect the well-being of communities; these data can 

be used to identify areas where more indepth assessment that combines quantitative 

and qualitative analyses may be needed. 

Some may question the need for community-level analysis, but it is essential 

when research or management objectives emphasize forest-based communities. 

Traditional community-level units of analysis, such as census places with their 

focus on incorporated, and often larger, communities, may not reflect forest-based 

populations. Our findings indicate that there are many communities in western 

Oregon, and many of them are close to BLM and Forest Service lands. Some 

communities may be quite small and may have strong connections to nearby 

forests. Again, a companion Community Socioeconomic Information System CD 

tool, available from the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

(Donoghue and Sutton 2006a), contains 1990 and 2000 socioeconomic data for 

communities in western Oregon, northern California, and western Washington. 

The intense scrutiny of the Northwest Forest Plan area has increased the awareness of the numerous and diverse communities that are close to forests (Charnley 

2006). It also led to a widespread examination of how changes in federal land 

management influence the well-being of communities. It has revealed that there are 

broader concerns than just notions of stability reflecting only employment in the 

timber sector. Interested analysts and stakeholders are increasingly examining the 

extent that the relations between communities and forests reflect a range of values, 

including amenity, recreation, cultural, sense of place, and economic. They ask 

how can forest management meet complex needs and interests? Although these 

are difficult relations to define, attempting to understand the basic socioeconomic 

conditions of forest-based communities may reveal various aspects helpful to 

managers as they explain the consequences of their land management actions. 

The range in 

socioeconomic 

well-being among 

communities is large.
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Finally empirical measures, such as the SEWB index, attempt to assemble complex, 

community-level, indicators into a single measure so that communities can be 

assessed across a large region. This information provides a baseline for further 

inquiry into understanding socioeconomic change of specific communities or types 

of communities. Such inquiries may benefit from multi-method approaches that 

combine quantitative and qualitative analyses for understanding the links between 

forest management and community socioeconomic well-being. 

Acknowledgments

We thank Anne Schneider and Gosia Bryja for data compilation and consultation related to the 1990 census block group aggregation process. Thanks to Susan 

Charnley and Jon Martin for supporting the development of the SEWB index. 

Thanks to Rebecca McLain, Susan Charnley, and Christina Caswell for helpful 

review comments. Thanks to Judy Mikowski for review and formatting. 

Literature Cited

Beckley, T.M. 1995. Community stability and the relationship between economic 

and social well-being in forest-dependent communities. Society and Natural 

Resources. 8(3): 261–266. 

Charnley, S., tech ed. 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 vol. 

Christakopoulou, S.; Dawson, J.; Gari, A. 2001. The community well-being 

questionnaire: theoretical context and initial assessment of its reliability and 

validity. Social Indicators Research. 56: 321–351. 

Diener, E.; Suh, E. 1997. Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and 

subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research. 40: 189–216. 

Doak, S.; Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. Part 

2: A social assessment. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to 

Congress—assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA: 

University of California, Center for Water and Wildland Resources: 375–402. 

Vol. 2. 

Donoghue, E.M. 2003. Delimiting communities in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-570. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p. 
23

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Donoghue, E.M.; Haynes, R.W. 2002. Assessing the viability and adaptability 

of Oregon communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-549. Portland, OR: U.S. 

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

13 p. 

Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006a. Community socioeconomic information 

system [CD-ROM]. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Donoghue, E.M.; Sutton, N.L. 2006b. Socioeconomic conditions and trends for 

communities in the Northwest Forest Plan region, 1990 to 2000. In: Charnley, S., 

tech. ed. Northwest Forest Plan: the first 10 years (1994–2003): socioeconomic 

monitoring results. Volume III: Rural communities and economies. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-649. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 7–35. Chapter 2. 

Drielsma, J.; Miller, J.; Burch, W., Jr. 1990. Sustained yield and community 

stability in American forestry. In: Burch, W., Jr.; Field, D.; Lee, R., eds. 

Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural resources. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 55–68. 

Force, J.E.; Machlis, G.E. 1997. The human ecosystem. Part II: Social indicators 

in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources. 10: 369–382. 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 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]. 

Fortmann, L.; Kusel, J.; Fairfax, S. 1989. Community stability: the foresters’ fig 

leaf. In: LeMaster, D.C.; Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based 

economies: proceedings of a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 44–50. 

Gray, G.J.; Enzer, M.J.; Kusel, J., eds. 2001. Understanding community-based 

forest ecosystem management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press. 447 p. 

Gusfield, J.R. 1975. Community: a critical response. New York: Harper and Row. 

120 p. 

Harris, C.C.; McLaughlin, W.; Brown, G.; Becker, D. 2000. Rural communities 

in the inland Northwest: an assessment of small communities in the interior and 

upper Columbia River basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-477. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 120 p. 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Haynes, R.W. 2003. Assessing the viability and adaptability of forest-dependent 

communities in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-567. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 33 p. 

Horne, A.L.; Haynes, R.W. 1999. Developing measures of socioeconomic 

resiliency in the interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-453. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 41 p. (Quigley, T.M., ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem 

Management Project: scientific assessment). 

Kaufman, H. 1959. Towards an interactional conception of community. Social 

Forces. 38(1): 8–17. 

Kusel, J. 1996. Well-being in forest dependent communities. Part 1: a new 

approach. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. Status of the Sierra Nevada: 

final report to Congress. Davis, CA: University of California, Wildland 

Resources Center: 361–374. Vol. 2. 

Kusel, J. 2001. Assessing well-being in forest-dependent communities. In: 

Gray, G.J.; Enzer, M.J.; Kusel, J., eds. Understanding community-based forest 

ecosystem management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press: 359–384. 

Kusel, J.; Adler, E., eds. 2003. Forest communities, community forests. Lanham, 

MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 297 p. 

Kusel, J.; Fortmann, L. 1991. Well-being in forest-dependent communities. 

Sacramento, CA: California Department of Forestry, Forest and Rangeland 

Protection Program. 245 p. 

Lee, R.G. 1989. Community stability: Symbol or social reality? In: LeMaster, D.C.; 

Beuter, J.H., eds. Community stability in forest-based economies: proceedings of 

a conference. Portland, OR: Timber Press: 36–43. 

Lee, R.G. 1990. Sustained yield and social order. In: Lee, R.G.; Field, D.R.; Burch, 

W.J., eds. Community and forestry: continuities in the sociology of natural 

resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 83–94. 

Luloff, A.E. 1998. What makes a place a community? The fifth Sir John Quick 

Bendigo lecture. Bendigo, Australia: La Trobe University. 23 p. 

Machlis, G.E.; Force, J.E. 1988. Community stability and timber-dependent 

communities. Rural Sociology. 53: 220–234. 
25

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Montréal Process Working Group. 1998. The Montréal Process. 

http://www.mpci.org. (January 9, 2002). 

Parkins, J. 1999. Enhancing social indicators research in a forest-dependent 

community. The Forestry Chronicle. 75(5): 771–780. 

Richardson, C.W. 1996. Stability and change in forest-based communities: a 

selected bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-366. Portland, OR: U.S. 

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

36 p. 

Robertson, G. 2003. A test of the economic base hypothesis in the small forest 

communities of southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-592. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 101 p. 

Schallau, C.H. 1989. Sustained yield versus community stability: An unfortunate 

wedding? Journal of Forestry. 87(9): 16–23. 

Schallau, C.H. 1990. Community stability: issues, institutions, and instruments. 

In: Burch, W., Jr.; Field, D.; Lee, R., eds. Community and forestry: continuities 

in the sociology of natural resources. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 69–81. 

Sen, A. 1985. Commodities and capabilities. New York: North Holland. 130 p. 

Society of American Foresters [SAF]. 1989. Community stability. SAF 89-06. 

Bethesda, MD. 42 p. 

Stedman, R.C. 2003. Sense of place and forest science: toward a program of 

quantitative research. Forest Science. 49(6): 822–829. 

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. [Place of 

publication unknown]. 74 p. [plus attachment A: standards and guidelines]. 

Wilkinson, K.P. 1991. The community in rural America. New York: Greenwood 

Press. 152 p.
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Appendix A: BLM District Maps

Figure 8—Coos Bay District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.

Coos 174

Bay

Community population centers

Community area boundaries

BLM district boundaries

Land ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

State lands

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Major cities

Metropolitan areas

Major roads

Lakes and rivers

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

US Hwy 199

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 101

I-5

I-5

I-5

1

4

8

2

6

5

9

7

3

62

58

77

89

21

17

65

33

18

41

43

40

19

23

36

22

47

34

37

45 38

30

29

28

10

31 39 42

14

15

35

27 26

12

32

46

13

20

44

25

24

153

117

121

120

146

159

142

137

138

131

158

129

161 140

136

151

126

162

114

125

150

144

160

127

116

143

166

164

188 183

191

179

163 169

194

173

180

168

193

184

177

176

165

192

185

187

189

174

182

195

196

171

175

170

186

11

16

167I-5 I-5

I-5

1

4

8

2

6

5

9

7

3

62

58

77

89

21

17

65

33

18

41

43

40

19

23

36

22

47

34

37

45 38

30

29

28

10

31 39 42

14

15

35

27 26

12

32

46

13

20

44

25

24

153

117

121

120

146

159

142

137

138

131

158

129

161 140

136

151

126

162

114

125

150

144

160

127

116

143

166

164

188 183

191

179

163 169

194

173

180

168

193

184

177

176

165

192

185

187

189

182

195

196

171

175

170

186

11

16

167

C A L I F O R N I A

o

0 5 10 20 Miles

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 101

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 138

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 42

St Hwy 46

US Hwy 199

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 101

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 138

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 42

St Hwy 46

US Hwy 101

Siltcoos

 Lake

Eel

 Lake

Loon

 Lake

Siuslaw River

Umpqua River

South

 Slough

Siltcoos

 Lake

Eel

 Lake

Loon

 Lake

Siuslaw River

Umpqua River

South

 Slough

Roseburg

Coos Bay District
27

Figure 9—Eugene District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

Eugene-Springfield Eugene District

0 5 10 

Umpqua River

Fern Ridge Lake

WaldoLake

Detroit Lake

Green Peter Lake

Siltcoos Lake

Foster Lake

Hills Creek Lake

Dorena Lake

TahkenitchLake

Lookout Point  Lake

Cougar Reservoir

Fall Creek Lake

Cottage Grove Lake

Siuslaw River

Mercer Lake

B

Clear Lake

Umpqua River

Fern Ridge Lake

WaldoLake

Detroit Lake

Green Peter Lake

Siltcoos Lake

Foster Lake

Hills Creek Lake

Dorena Lake

TahkenitchLake

Lookout Point  Lake

Cougar Reservoir

Fall Creek Lake

Cottage Grove Lake

Siuslaw River

Mercer Lake

B

Clear Lake

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 20

St Hwy 36

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 99

8 w

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 138

St Hwy 99 E

S

St Hwy 223

St Hwy 180

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 22

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 20

St Hwy 36

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 99

8 w

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 138

St Hwy 99 E

S

St Hwy 223

St Hwy 180

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 126

I-5

I-5

I-5

1

4

68

51

69

56

70

52

53

86 67

60 79

63

78

72

87

85 98

61

76

66

95

55

57

62

48

90 97 83 93

92

58

77

89

21

17

91

65

59

64

81

49

71 73

74

54

80

82

84

88

50

94

75

96

18

41

43

40

19

25 24

358 275

406

305

325

384

204

399

333

286

258

301

422

395

316

407

353

360

221

293

405

213

386 322

274 302

332

216

247

380

334

389

265

377

432

382

419

408

412

346 281

354

257

182

195

196

171

175

170

186

359

336

253

200

277

308

197

356

347

245

431 244

198

St Hwy 126

I-5

I-5

I-5

1

4

68

51

69

56

70

52

53

86 67

60 79

63

78

72

87

85 98

61

76

66

95

55

57

62

48

90 97 83 93

92

58

77

89

21

17

91

65

59

64

81

49

71 73

74

54

80

82

84

88

50

94

75

96

18

41

43

40

19

25 24

358 275

406

305

325

384 399

333

286

258

301

422

395

316

407

353

360

221

293

405

213

386 322

274 302

332

216

247

380

334

389

265

377

432

382

419

408

412

346 281

354

257

182

195

196

171

175

170

186

359

336

253

200

277

308

197

356

347

245

431 244

198

St Hwy 126

I-5

I-5

I-5

1

4

68

51

69

56

70

52

53

86 67

60 79

63

78

72

87

85 98

61

76

66

95

55

57

62

48

90 97 83 93

92

58

77

89

21

17

91

65

59

64

81

49

71 73

74

54

80

82

84

88

50

94

75

96

18

41

43

40

19

25 24

358 275

406

305

325

384 399

333

286

258

301

422

395

316

407

353

360

221

293

405

213

386 322

274 302

332

216

247

380

334

389

265

377

432

382

419

408

412

346 281

354

257

182

195

196

171

175

170

186

359

336

253

200

277

308

197

356

347

245

431 244

198

! Community population centers

Community area boundariesBLM district boundariesMetropolitan areasMajor roadsLakes and rivers

Land ownership

Bureau of Land ManagementForest ServiceState landsTribal landsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

O 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Upper

 Klamath 

 Lake

Crater

Lake

Agency

Lake

Aspen

 Lake

Gerber

 Reservoir

Diamond

 Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Round

 Lake

Lake of 

the Woods Swan

 Lake

Fourmile

 Lake

John Boyle 

 Reservoir

Willow Valley 

 Reservoir

Klamath Falls

Upper

 Klamath 

 Lake

Crater

Lake

Agency

Lake

Aspen

 Lake

Gerber

 Reservoir

Diamond

 Lake

Klamath

Marsh

Round

 Lake

Lake of 

the Woods Swan

 Lake

Fourmile

 Lake

John Boyle 

 Reservoir

Willow Valley 

 Reservoir

US Hwy 97

US Hwy 97

St Hwy 140

St Hwy 66

St Hwy 232

St Hwy 230

St Hwy 138

St Hwy 39

St Hwy 209

St Hwy 140w

99

109

108

105 112

110 111

101

102

107

113

100

104

106

103 ! Community population centers

Community area boundaries

BLM district boundaries

Major cities

 Major roads

Lakes and rivers

Lakeview District

US Hwy 97

US Hwy 97

St Hwy 140

St Hwy 66

St Hwy 232

St Hwy 230

St Hwy 138

St Hwy 39

St Hwy 209

St Hwy 140w

99

109

108

105 112

110 111

101

102

107

113

100

104

106

103

o

0 5 10 15 Miles

Lakeview District

O R E G O N

C A L I F O R N I A

Land ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

National Park Service

State lands

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Figure 10—Lakeview District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.
29

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Lost Creek  Lake

H  

 HyRes

Emigrant Lake

Wi L

Lost Creek  Lake

H  

 HyRes

Emigrant Lake

Wi L

US Hwy 199

St Hwy 140

St Hwy 62

St Hwy 238

St Hwy 46

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 234

St Hwy 238

St Hwy 62

I-5

I-5

2

33

153

117

121

120

146

159

142

137 138

131

158

129

161 140

136

151

126

162

145

114

125

150

144

160

128

148

147

152

149

132

119

141

133

123

118

115

154

156

124

135

157

122

155

130 134

127

116

143

166

178

164

188

183

139

191

Medford

! Community

population centersCommunity area boundariesBLM district boundariesMajor cities Major roadsLakes and rivers

o

0 5 10 15 Miles

US Hwy 199

St Hwy 140

St Hwy 62

St Hwy 238

St Hwy 46

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 234

St Hwy 238

St Hwy 62

I-5

I-5

2

33

153

117

121

120

146

159

142

137 138

131

158

129

161 140

136

151

126

162

145

114

125

150

144

160

128

148

147

152

149

132

119

141

133

123

118

115

154

156

124

135

157

122

155

130 134

127

116

143

166

178

164

188

183

139

191

Medford District

National Park ServiceState landsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Grants Pass Medford

Land ownership

Bureau of Land ManagementForest ServiceNational Park Service

State landsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

C A L I F O R N I A

O R E G O N

Figure 11—Medford District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.
30

Figure 12—Roseburg District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

! !

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

St Hwy 99

Crater Lake

Diamond Lake

HillsCreekLake

Dorena Lake

Lookout Point Lake

Fall Creek Lake

 Cottage  Grove Lake

Lemolo Lake

Toketee Reservoir

Crater Lake

Diamond Lake

HillsCreekLake

Dorena Lake

Lookout Point Lake

Fall Creek Lake

 Cottage  Grove Lake

Lemolo Lake

Toketee Reservoir

St Hwy 138

St Hwy 62

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 227

St Hwy 232

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 230

St Hwy 209

Rim Dr

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 42

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 99 St Hwy 138

St Hwy 62

St Hwy 58

St Hwy 227

St Hwy 232

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 230

St Hwy 209

Rim Dr

St Hwy 38

St Hwy 42

St Hwy 99

St Hwy 138

I-5

53 60 79 78

87

85 98

61

76

66

95

55

57

77

18

143

166

178

164

188 183

191

179

169

163 167

194

173

180

168

190 181

172 193

177 184

176

165

192

185

187

189

174

182

195

196

171

175

170

186

116

I-5

53 60 79 78

87

85 98

61

76

66

95

55

57

77

18

143

166

178

164

188 183

191

179

169

163 167

194

173

180

168

190 181

172 193

177 184

176

165

192

185

187

189

174

182

195

196

171

175

170

186

116

!

Roseburg District

Roseburg

CommunpopulatioCommun boundaBLM dist

bound

Land owne

Bureau o ManageForest SNational State lanU.S. Fish  Wildlife Major cit Major rLakes an

!

o 0 5 10 15 Miles
31

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Figure 13A—Salem District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.

o

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Columbia River

Willamette River

US Hwy 30

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 30

St Hwy 47

St Hwy 202

St Hwy 6

St Hwy 10

St Hwy 53

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 210

St Hwy 8

St Hwy 99W

St Hwy 240

St Hwy 47

St Hwy 6

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 8

St Hwy 47

I-5

I-205 I-5

388

254

328

327

226

227

433

321

268

313

263

402

259

345 371

235

400

240 323

339

282

285

243

329

348

236

315

330

428

234

409

210

361

344

350

393

269

410

411

209

284

372

423

324 342

363

298

261

272

205 397

418

379

420

396

394

413

242

255

211

368 367

369

238

256

304

237 307

319

290

306

309

220

225 341

383

287

331

294

421 276 404

352

203

223

208

398

312

427

299

207

273

US Hwy 30

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 30

St Hwy 47

St Hwy 202

St Hwy 6

St Hwy 10

St Hwy 53

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 210

St Hwy 8

St Hwy 99W

St Hwy 240

St Hwy 47

St Hwy 6

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 8

St Hwy 47

I-5

I-205 I-5

388

254

328

327

226

227

433

321

268

313

263

402

259

345 371

235

400

240 323

339

282

285

243

329

348

236

315

330

428

234

409

210

361

344

350

393

269

410

411

209

284

372

423

324 342

363

298

261

272

205 397

418

379

420

396

394

413

242

255

211

368 367

369

238

256

304

237 307

319

290

306

309

220

225 341

383

287

331

294

421 276 404

352

203

223

208

398

312

427

299

207

273

Salem District Salem District

Community population centers

Community area boundaries

BLM district boundaries

Metropolitan areas

 Major roads

Lakes and rivers

Land ownership

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

State lands

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

O R E G O N

0 5 10 15 Miles

W A S H I N G T O N

!

O R E G O N

Portland
32

Figure 13B—Salem District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

O R 

W A S H I N G T O N

o

0 5 10 15 Miles

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 30 Bypass

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 30

St Hwy 8

St Hwy 10

St Hwy 213

St Hwy 211

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 210

St Hwy 99W

St Hwy 99e

St Hwy 213

St Hwy 211

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 219

I-84

I-5

I-205

I-84

I-5

388

362

254

263

402

259

345 371

339

243

329

348

236

315

330

428

234

273

314

364

365

363

298

218

430

429

300

261

272

205

233

397

379

420

396

394

413

242

288

278

199

338

222

283

271

267

351

230

241

335

374

424

320

415

340

260

296

262

248 357

264

378

246

202

214

297

229

252

231 370

232

228

279

224 223

208

398

312

427

299

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 30 Bypass

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 26

US Hwy 30

St Hwy 8

St Hwy 10

St Hwy 213

St Hwy 211

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 210

St Hwy 99W

St Hwy 99e

St Hwy 213

St Hwy 211

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 219

I-84

I-5

I-205

I-84

I-5

388

362

254

263

402

259

345 371

339

243

329

348

236

315

330

428

234

273

314

364

365

363

298

218

430

429

300

261

272

205

233

397

379

420

396

394

413

242

288

278

199

338

222

283

271

267

351

230

241

335

374

424

320

415

340

260

296

262

248 357

264

378

246

202

214

297

229

252

231 370

232

228

279

224 223

208

398

312

427

299

Salem District Salem District

Vancouver

Columbia Rive

Willamette Rive

r

r

Portland

! Community population centers

Community area boundariesBLM district boundariesMetropolitan areasMajor roadsLakes and rivers

Land ownership

Bureau of Land ManagementForest ServiceState landsTribal landsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

O R 
33

Figure 13C—Salem District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

SalemKeizer

GreenPeterLake

FosterLake

DetroitLake

GreenPeterLake

FosterLake

DetroitLake

US Hwy 20

Main St

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 228

St Hwy 99w

St Hwy 213

St Hwy 18

St Hwy 99 E

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 224

St Hwy 99 W

St Hwy 211

St Hwy 226

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 214

St Hwy 221

St Hwy 242

I-5 I-5

68

51

69

56

70

52

73

74

201

266

416

362

328 254

327

387 212

358

275

303

251

249

250

206 349 376

406

305

325

384

204

399

401

333

286

258

301

391

390

381

337

218

430 429

300

261

205

233

397

375 403

385

414

366

280

295

392 422

395

407 316

353

360

221

293

405

213

386

322

274

302

332

311 216

247

380

334

198

283

351

230

241

310

326

374 335

424

320

415

340 260

359

336

253

277

197

356

347

245

431

244

289

219

US Hwy 20

Main St

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 228

St Hwy 99w

St Hwy 213

St Hwy 18

St Hwy 99 E

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 224

St Hwy 99 W

St Hwy 211

St Hwy 226

St Hwy 126

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 214

St Hwy 221

St Hwy 242

I-5 I-5

68

51

69

56

70

52

73

74

201

266

416

362

328 254

327

387 212

358

275

303

251

249

250

206 349 376

406

305

325

384

204

399

401

333

286

258

301

391

390

381

337

218

430 429

300

261

205

233

397

375 403

385

414

366

280

295

392 422

395

407 316

353

360

221

293

405

213

386

322

274

302

332

311 216

247

380

334

198

283

351

230

241

310

326

374 335

424

320

415

340 260

359

336

253

277

197

356

347

245

431

244

289

219

0 5 10 

O R E G O N

! Community populat

Community area boBLM district boundaMetropolitan areasMajor roadsLakes and rivers

Land ownership

Bureau of Land MaForest ServiceState landsTribal landsU.S. Fish and Wildl

Salem District
34

Figure 13D—Salem District. The numbers on the map correspond to the community data presented in appendixes B and C.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

! ! !

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

St Hwy 18

St Hwy 229

St H

St Hwy 99w

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 99 E

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 99 W

St Hwy 221

St Hwy 223

St Hwy 99 W

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 34

I-5 I-5 68 51

69

56

71 73

74

217

201

266

416

362

327

292 425

387 212 343

239

355

270

417

215 426

358

275

251

249

250

206 349 376

406

305

325

21

430 

233

397

375

403

414

2

295

395

407 3

353

360

221 

334

198

389

265

377

432

382

419 408

412

281 346

354

257

318

317

373

359

336

253

200

277

308

197

356

347

245

431

244

254

303

219

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 101

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 20

St Hwy 18

St Hwy 229

St H

St Hwy 99w

St Hwy 34

St Hwy 99 E

St Hwy 219

St Hwy 99 W

St Hwy 221

St Hwy 223

St Hwy 99 W

St Hwy 22

St Hwy 34

I-5 I-5 68 51

69

56

71 73

74

217

201

266

416

362

327

292 425

387 212 343

239

355

270

417

215 426

358

275

251

249

250

206 349 376

406

305

325

21

430 

233

397

375

403

414

2

295

395

407 3

353

360

221 

334

198

389

265

377

432

382

419 408

412

281 346

354

257

318

317

373

359

336

253

200

277

308

197

356

347

245

431

244

254

303

219

o

0 5 10 15 Miles

O R E G O N

! Community population 

 centersCommunity area  boundariesBLM district boundariesMetropolitan areas Major roadsLakes and rivers

Land ownership

Bureau of Land  ManagementForest ServiceState landsTribal landsU.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service

Salem District

SalemKeizer
35

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Appendix B: Socioeconomic Data

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

Coos Bay District:

1 Ada–Siltcoos–Canary 317 -15.9 11.1

2 Agness–Illahe–Marial 110 -9.8 2.8

3 Allegany–Dellwood–Fairview 1,088 0.2 4.5

4 Ash 447 10.1 4.9

5 Bandon 3,163 22.7 729.8

6 Bandon (part)–Twomile–Fourmile 1,999 28.1 23.7

7 Barview CDPb–Crown Point 1,982 26.1 177.5

8 Brookings 8,312 17.3 179.9

9 Bullards–Randolph 729 22.7 24.9

10 Cheney–Bridge–Remote 669 -20.3 6.8

11 Coos Bay (city)–Bunker Hill CDP 19,028 4.5 1,054.8

12 Coos Head Naval Facility–Charleston 778 -1.4 17.0

13 Cooston 781 9.2 38.8

14 Coquille 4,866 -1.9 163.5

15 Coquille (part)–Leneve–Coaledo 1,093 9.8 78.6

16 Cordes–Hauser–(Saunders Lake) 1,252 -21.9 71.0

17 Dunes City 1,027 -3.2 386.0

18 Elkton 582 -9.9 4.2

19 Gardiner–Kroll–Sulphur Springs 544 -8.1 5.9

20 Glasgow 1,034 -1.8 48.0

21 Glenada–Westlake 973 0.4 115.8

22 Gold Beach 2,555 -1.1 62.8

23 Harbor CDP 4,735 7.0 179.8

24 Lakeside 1,375 -2.8 381.3

25 Lakeside (part)–Templeton 572 51.7 20.0

26 Libby–Southport 1,089 -13.8 113.1

27 McCormac 1,226 10.2 140.9

28 Myrtle Point 1,651 -15.3 495.3

29 Myrtle Point (part)–Arago 908 4.0 26.2

30 Myrtle Point (part)–Estabrook–Warner 935 6.3 21.9

31 Myrtle Point (part)–Norway–Sitkum–McKinley 763 -9.4 7.8

32 North Bend 9,568 -0.7 2,380.7

33 O’Brien 609 -0.2 30.0

34 Ophir 224 3.2 4.6

35 Overland–Delmar–Green Acres 1,359 13.3 35.8

36 Pistol River–Carpenterville 706 5.5 6.6

37 Port Orford 2,042 13.4 91.4

38 Powers 1,033 6.9 6.5

39 Prosper–Parkersburg–Winterville 913 13.1 43.0

40 Reedsport 3,284 -16.2 969.4

41 Reedsport (part)–Winchester Bay 1,718 -1.0 66.4

42 Riverton 625 -0.3 23.1

43 Scottsburg 423 -0.9 8.4
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

44 Shorewood 980 -5.1 99.0

45 Sixes–Denmark–Langlois 901 -6.0 4.7

46 Sumner 786 12.0 55.2

47 Wedderburn–Nesika Beach 1,454 -0.8 53.4

Eugene District:

48 Alvadore 2,442 8.7 98.1

49 Bear Creek–Cheshire–Franklin–Goldson 2,217 4.2 34.7

50 Blue River–Finn Rock–Nimrod 862 -5.4 9.1

51 Cartney–Miller–Rowland 1,083 -5.8 15.9

52 Cascadia–Santiam Junction–Marion Forks (part) 344 3.3 1.7

53 Cloverdale 1,081 9.3 44.8

54 Coburg 2,250 9.8 59.6

55 Cottage Grove 12,106 11.9 263.4

56 Crawfordsville–Union Point 1,138 -5.4 11.1

57 Creswell 8,524 23.1 107.7

58 Crow 900 -4.6 55.4

59 Deadwood–Triangle Lake–Blachly 947 -3.3 11.7

60 Dexter 1,117 -0.5 126.5

61 Dorena–Culp Creek–Disston 858 -10.2 7.9

62 Eugene (part)–(Bailey Hill)–(Spencer Creek) 4,193 11.5 90.0

63 Fall Creek–Unity 899 -6.7 26.1

64 Firo–Swisshome–(Deadwood Creek West) 570 -5.0 45.3

65 Florence 10,476 34.2 330.0

66 Gap 1,849 14.3 32.9

67 Goshen 1,499 -19.1 137.2

68 Halsey 1,728 -2.5 22.5

69 Harrisburg 2,837 38.5 781.0

70 Holley–Calapooia–Dollar 1,120 21.1 9.0

71 Horton 1,085 4.4 31.7

72 Jasper–Trent 1,219 24.9 67.6

73 Junction City 7,463 21.4 288.5

74 Lancaster 920 -9.0 47.6

75 Leaburg–Deerhorn 1,477 4.2 48.2

76 London–(Black Butte) 534 2.5 7.6

77 Lorane 937 16.7 18.6

78 Lowell 854 10.1 511.0

79 Lowell (part)–Minnow–Crale–Winberry 896 22.6 10.0

80 Mabel–Wendling 783 6.8 9.7

81 Mapleton–Tiernan–Nekoma 841 -5.9 19.1

82 Marcola 1,594 -3.0 45.0

83 Maywood 705 11.6 77.1

84 Mohawk 1,519 -0.6 43.2

85 Oakridge 2,892 -15.5 1,032.0

86 Pleasant Hill 2,722 8.6 120.8

87 Pryor–Kitson Hot Springs–Frazier 994 40.6 14.3

88 Rainbow–McKenzie Bridge–Belknap Springs– Foley Springs 650 1.2 42.9
37

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

89 Richardson–Alma–Wolf Creek 775 23.2 5.6

90 Sailor–Elrus–Long Tom–Vaughn 1,145 10.9 65.5

91 Searose Beach–Minerva 426 -3.0 15.3

92 Veneta 3,366 7.3 625.0

93 Veneta (part)–Elmira 3,823 1.6 153.9

94 Vida 1,031 6.3 15.1

95 Walker–Saginaw–Royal 1,547 -6.4 52.8

96 Walterville 1,839 10.3 75.0

97 Walton–Noti–Penn 886 -8.3 17.6

98 Westfir 514 15.0 151.2

Lakeview District:

99 Algoma–Shady Pine 927 25.3 23.9

100 Beatty–Sprague River 1,286 30.2 5.0

101 Bonanza (east)–Bly–Langell Valley 1,482 -2.6 3.0

102 Bonanza (west)–Hildebrand–Yonna 1,436 23.9 8.4

103 Chemult–Beaver Marsh–Diamond Lake Junction 159 -51.8 2.1

104 Chiloquin 2,526 7.4 29.2

105 Falcon Heights 762 98.4 121.1

106 Fort Klamath–Sand Creek–Yamsay 495 21.6 1.3

107 Keno–Worden 2,881 31.2 15.4

108 Klamath Falls–Altamont CDP 43,050 8.3 416.8

109 Klamath Falls–Altamont (part)–Pine Grove–Olene 1,620 16.5 35.0

110 Malin 1,035 -10.4 43.0

111 Merrill 2,451 6.3 15.9

112 Midland 544 -5.1 35.4

113 Rocky Point–Lake of the Woods 394 9.7 1.6

Medford District:

114 Applegate 1,064 -12.2 49.1

115 Ashland 21,628 17.6 738.7

116 Azalea–Galesville–Fortune Branch 681 -0.4 27.3

117 Bridgeview–Holland 1,201 30.8 46.6

118 Buncom 735 13.3 28.4

119 Butte Falls 646 42.3 9.0

120 Cave Junction 3,784 29.8 137.4

121 Cave Junction (part)–Dryden 1,173 10.9 36.5

122 Central Point (city) 15,685 43.1 1,122.8

123 Colestin 849 36.9 26.3

124 Eagle Point 6,735 34.5 225.9

125 Foots Creek 3,330 -10.1 68.0

126 Galice–Rand 1,170 29.7 33.1

127 Glendale (city)–Fernvale 1,488 4.7 10.9

128 Gold Hill 3,587 14.6 83.3

129 Grants Pass (city)–Harbeck–Fruitdale CDP–Redwood CDP 42,048 23.1 717.1

130 Jacksonville 6,426 12.7 214.1

131 Jerome Prairie 3,244 10.7 261.4
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name, 2000 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

132 Lakecreek–Brownsboro 902 11.2 10.9

133 Lincoln–Climax–Steinman 1,805 24.2 6.0

134 Medford 62,828 25.7 1,875.2

135 Medford (part)–White City CDP (part) 3,083 50.7 104.7

136 Merlin 3,736 20.6 135.4

137 Murphy 3,214 17.7 166.7

138 New Hope 1,632 -3.8 296.8

139 Phoenix 13,030 28.6 885.9

140 Pleasant Valley–Three Pines–Hugo 2,902 22.1 204.8

141 Prospect–Cascade Gorge–McLeod 1,090 0.9 7.5

142 Provolt 1,303 19.2 77.5

143 Quines Creek 526 -14.7 10.4

144 Rogue River 3,306 10.8 196.0

145 Ruch–McKee Bridge–(Applegate Lake) 2,100 24.4 47.3

146 Selma 1,905 33.2 39.8

147 Shady Cove 2,435 56.9 805.3

148 Shady Cove (part)–Rogue Elk 1,442 9.7 21.7

149 Spikenard–Trail 655 38.8 19.7

150 Starvation Heights 1,072 13.6 74.5

151 Sunny Valley–Placer–Golden–Speaker 718 4.7 26.1

152 Table Rock–Beagle 4,006 22.9 55.3

153 Takilma 707 -1.3 61.8

154 Talent 7,414 43.0 258.1

155 Tolo 4,277 9.2 129.1

156 Voorhies 1,600 6.9 169.9

157 White City CDP 5,835 -3.8 902.3

158 Wilderville–Wonder 2,490 21.3 51.1

159 Williams 1,875 15.3 52.1

160 Wimer–Bybee Springs 2,828 30.5 27.9

161 Winona 1,577 27.0 52.2

162 Wolf Creek–Leland 435 2.8 16.9

Roseburg District:

163 Camas Valley–Reston–Olalla–Tenmile 2,625 3.8 16.8

164 Canyonville 1,299 -7.9 798.5

165 Cleveland–Elgarose–Callahan 1,708 10.0 16.0

166 Days Creek 910 -5.1 13.9

167 Dillard–Carnes 545 2.4 66.4

168 Dixonville 1,267 25.1 21.1

169 Dole 1,030 2.1 23.7

170 Drain 926 -15.7 134.7

171 Drain (part)–Skelley 406 -21.8 12.8

172 Glide–Idlewild 2,779 9.5 37.5

173 Green CDP 6,174 21.6 1,103.1

174 Hawthorne–Nonpareil 698 -0.6 6.1

175 Kellogg–Tyee 788 3.1 9.0

176 Lookinglass 2,459 13.5 56.6
39

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name, 2000 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

177 Melrose 1,166 5.0 82.5

178 Milo–Tiller–Drew 634 -14.2 6.4

179 Myrtle Creek 4,860 6.5 55.4

180 Oaks–Glengary–Round Prairie 828 28.0 21.6

181 Peel–Steamboat 925 -14.6 6.3

182 Rice Hill–Isadore 840 22.4 18.7

183 Riddle 2,048 -4.3 47.8

184 Roseburg–Roseburg North CDP 25,240 2.3 587.6

185 Roseburg (part)–Riversdale 4,862 23.1 200.9

186 Safley–Anlauf–Curtin–Comstock 1,079 -0.2 14.9

187 Stephens–Akin 791 17.2 36.0

188 Surprise Valley 1,244 11.1 64.8

189 Sutherlin–Oakland 10,652 20.5 93.3

190 Tokatee Falls–Clearwater–Diamond Lake 275 4.6 50.8

191 Tri City CDP 3,832 -1.2 269.0

192 Umpqua–Millwood–Green Peak 354 -14.9 3.8

193 Wilbur–Redbell 835 4.1 26.0

194 Winston 4,796 17.3 1,746.5

195 Yoncalla 1,151 14.6 255.6

196 Yoncalla (part)–Elkhead 602 4.2 9.7

Salem District:

197 Adair Village 1,803 20.0 91.1

198 Albany 38,226 18.4 815.5

199 Alder Creek–Cherryville 2,976 13.0 79.4

200 Alsea 2,006 -2.6 17.5

201 Amity 1,451 21.6 1,263.0

202 Anderson 1,513 0.5 367.1

203 Astoria 10,029 3.0 1,834.1

204 Aumsville 2,499 43.5 1,888.1

205 Aurora 3,021 5.4 209.1

206 Ballston–McCoy–Walkers Corner 1,306 -0.5 17.4

207 Banks 2,289 24.8 125.1

208 Barlow 731 17.0 119.6

209 Bay City (city)–Idaville 2,361 22.5 74.0

210 Beaver–Hemlock–Sand Lake 851 -5.7 30.1

211 Beaver Homes–Goble 945 14.5 41.4

212 Bellevue 1,225 -1.8 21.9

213 Berlin–(McDowell Creek) 797 21.9 13.3

214 Boring 1,417 -4.5 198.5

215 Boyer–Grand Ronde–Gold Creek 1,857 34.4 27.1

216 Brewster–Griggs 1,275 -2.4 38.1

217 Briedwell–Winch 712 36.9 33.1

218 Broadacres 912 29.0 102.2

219 Brooks–Waconda–Lakebrook 7,096 187.5 236.7

220 Brownsmead–Westport–(Tenasilahe Island & Others) 1,047 7.3 42.0

221 Brownsville 2,965 15.6 38.5
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name, 2000 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

222 Bull Run–Marmot 1,114 17.6 40.1

223 Canby 12,992 35.1 2,125.1

224 Canby (part)–O’Neil Corners 2,098 44.4 221.2

225 Cannon Beach 1,376 11.9 417.5

226 Carlton 1,737 6.4 112.2

227 Carlton (part)–Yamhill (part) 1,166 19.3 30.8

228 Carus 3,460 -5.0 210.7

229 Carver 1,912 42.5 745.5

230 Cedardale–Dickey Prairie–Fernwood 1,676 2.7 60.0

231 Cedarhurst Park–Logan 1,310 1.7 101.3

232 Central Point 413 -3.7 138.4

233 Champoeg–Fairfield 929 1.0 31.0

234 Chehalem–Middleton 1,740 1.2 121.7

235 Cherry Grove–(South Henry Hagg Lake) 794 6.6 18.4

236 Christie–Greenville–Starkey Corner 2,790 5.5 89.5

237 Clatskanie 991 -14.5 255.1

238 Clatskanie (part)–Swedetown–Apiary 1,287 5.0 14.6

239 Cloverdale–Hebo–Dolph–Winema Beach 1,060 10.1 27.7

240 Cochran–Glenwood–Timber 774 1.8 17.2

241 Colton–Clarkes–Timber Grove 1,897 17.3 148.4

242 Columbia City–St. Helens 11,987 28.5 1,269.4

243 Cornelius–Forest Grove 30,973 31.3 779.2

244 Corvallis 52,543 8.7 654.6

245 Corvallis (part)–Lewisburg 3,096 1.4 262.1

246 Cottrell–Kelso 3,364 0.9 264.6

247 Crabtree 1,259 1.2 41.4

248 Currinsville 812 5.0 227.9

249 Dallas 8,199 9.1 2,938.5

250 Dallas (part)–Ellendale 6,214 54.1 147.8

251 Dallas (part)–Rickreal–Orrs Corner 2,180 56.9 157.8

252 Damascus–Wetzels Corner–Wilson Corner 7,085 1.4 437.8

253 Dawson–Glenbrook–Alpine–Bellfountain 743 -0.1 14.7

254 Dayton 2,406 30.1 455.7

255 Deer Island–Reuben 1,270 13.8 43.3

256 Delena–Downing 1,116 4.6 93.8

257 Depoe Bay 1,208 31.4 208.8

258 Detroit 368 -3.9 25.5

259 Dewey–(Chehalem Mountain) 1,664 3.4 66.6

260 Dodge–Springwater 1,438 23.3 110.5

261 Donald (city) 1,120 8.5 125.6

262 Douglass Ridge 1,509 -17.1 132.4

263 Dundee 3,380 54.0 718.5

264 Eagle Creek–Barton 2,478 0.9 182.6

265 Elk City–Burnt Woods–Harlan–Siletz Indian Reservation (part) 933 -8.2 5.9

266 Eola Crest–Hopewell–Yampo 1,721 12.1 59.0

267 Estacada 3,429 10.9 572.8
41

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name, 2000 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

268 Fairdale–Pike 879 16.6 13.0

269 Fairview 1,221 -7.2 51.9

270 Falls City 1,577 12.8 74.6

271 Faraday 772 2.9 67.2

272 Fargo–Butteville–Curtis 1,366 13.1 90.8

273 Farmington–Hazeldale–Jacktown 4,190 8.1 140.5

274 Fawn–Jordan–Fox Valley 1,080 -4.4 15.6

275 Fern Corner–Bridgeport–Airlie 1,795 9.3 16.7

276 Fern Hill 1,665 15.9 50.8

277 Fern Road 1,318 6.0 63.3

278 Firwood–Dover 1,271 -2.2 146.2

279 Fishers Corner–Beaver Creek–Echo Dell 3,393 14.6 365.7

280 Fruitland–Geer 998 10.0 80.8

281 Fruitvale 647 33.4 47.3

282 Gales Creek–Kansas City–Thatcher 1,658 4.9 25.8

283 Garfield–Tracy–Whitewater 1,294 3.7 28.1

284 Garibaldi 1,057 -2.3 197.8

285 Gaston 3,645 5.2 102.0

286 Gates 670 3.9 17.5

287 Gearhart 1,746 9.5 209.8

288 George–Bissell 547 8.3 44.8

289 Gervais 2,254 87.1 375.8

290 Glenwood–Sunset Beach–Westlake 2,136 8.8 176.1

291 Government Camp–Timberline Lodge 799 48.8 209.1

292 Grand Ronde Agency–Midway 1,089 13.8 15.0

293 Greenville–Narrows–Santiam Terrace 1,357 7.0 78.8

294 Hammond–Warrenton (part) 1,084 58.9 290.5

295 Hazel Green–Labish Village 2,502 4.5 152.3

296 Highland–Upper Highland–Viola 3,499 0.5 90.0

297 Hillsview 1,770 1.4 432.4

298 Holbrook–(Sauvie Island) 2,332 11.2 55.3

299 Hoodview–Mulloy 571 13.5 176.1

300 Hubbard 2,899 12.3 493.3

301 Idanha 271 9.3 17.6

302 Idanha (part)–Gates (part) 638 -12.1 6.2

303 Independence–Monmouth 14,328 26.7 607.3

304 Inglis–Quincy 893 -4.9 48.3

305 Jefferson 3,770 23.7 282.8

306 Jewell–Elsie–Hamlet 936 1.0 6.0

307 Kerry–Marshland 1,088 8.0 23.1

308 Kings Valley–Blodgett–Harris 1,067 -1.5 12.0

309 Knappa–Knappa Junction–(Karlson Island) 988 -5.9 27.2

310 Kokel Corner 1,096 33.0 7.5

311 LaComb–Marion Forks (part) 1,995 7.5 15.5

312 Ladd Hill 1,357 29.0 124.1

313 Lafayette 3,450 60.0 222.0
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name, 2000 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

314 Latourell–Warrendale–Bonneville 753 -2.2 51.6

315 Laurel 839 -3.3 101.6

316 Lebanon (city)–South Lebanon CDP 18,846 13.8 352.7

317 Lincoln City 8,905 16.9 534.0

318 Lincoln Beach CDP 2,843 31.0 44.0

319 Locoda–Woodson–(Wallace Island) 621 11.1 26.4

320 Lone Elder–Macksburg–Dryland 2,039 -5.6 108.5

321 Lunnville–Cove Orchard–Dellwood–Wapato 2,276 5.2 45.6

322 Lyons 1,092 2.2 337.7

323 Manning–Scofield–Tophill 1,233 -9.1 22.2

324 Manzanita–Nehalem (part) 1,338 -3.3 338.8

325 Marion 1,869 2.5 80.3

326 Marquam–Wilhoit 1,930 14.0 58.0

327 McMinnville 26,270 38.4 715.4

328 McMinnville (part)–Orchard View 2,048 43.3 121.2

329 Meacham Corner 499 -19.3 14.3

330 Midway–Scholls 1,300 4.8 113.6

331 Miles Crossing 2,353 -4.6 33.0

332 Mill City 1,415 -3.6 749.2

333 Mill City (part)–Mehama 1,401 7.9 54.8

334 Millersburg 1,924 -4.6 63.2

335 Molalla 7,393 38.9 436.2

336 Monroe 2,205 12.8 42.9

337 Mount Angel 2,945 -34.8 939.1

338 Mount Hood Village CDP 3,670 50.1 277.8

339 Mountaindale 1,023 14.4 62.6

340 Mulino 1,873 0.4 113.0

341 Necanicum 757 49.6 8.1

342 Nehalem (part)–Salmonberry 952 90.8 16.1

343 Neskowin 399 28.3 25.6

344 Netarts–(Netarts Bay) 1,638 18.9 41.8

345 Newberg 18,780 29.4 1,938.6

346 Newport 11,364 10.7 356.9

347 North Albany CDP 5,401 22.9 606.3

348 North Plains 4,055 18.3 100.5

349 Oak Grove–Bethel–Bethel Heights 1,054 12.2 25.7

350 Oceanside–Cape Meares–Bayocean 585 19.6 39.0

351 Old Colton–Elwood 1,419 6.1 28.0

352 Olney 981 2.7 16.7

353 Orleans 776 5.0 120.4

354 Otter Rock–Beverly Beach 536 19.1 21.4

355 Pacific City–Woods 1,017 24.6 205.1

356 Palestine 1,594 16.4 138.8

357 Paradise Park 1,024 18.7 157.5

358 Parker–Buena Vista–Hopville–Modeville 971 4.9 26.8

359 Philomath 4,119 32.5 844.9
43

Considering Communities in Forest Management Planning in Western Oregon

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name, 2000 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

360 Pirtle–Riverside 857 2.6 89.1

361 Pleasant Valley–Blaine 767 37.5 18.4

362 Pleasantdale 686 1.2 32.7

363 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Burlington–Folkenberg 571 19.5 90.3

364 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Corbett–Springdale 3,007 0.4 85.9

365 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Orient–Pleasant Home 4,668 10.0 352.7

366 Pratum–North Howell 1,094 -2.7 45.3

367 Prescott–Ranier (part) 1,553 -9.9 97.7

368 Rainier (city) 1,837 4.0 156.6

369 Rainier (city) (part)–Alston–Mayger 811 -2.2 85.6

370 Redland–Fishers Mill 4,545 7.7 188.0

371 Rex–(Parrett Mountain) 2,355 27.3 128.1

372 Rockaway Beach 1,480 34.3 97.4

373 Rose Lodge CDP 2,881 33.6 36.3

374 Rural Dell–Yoder–Ninety–One–Needy 3,725 -2.8 75.4

375 Salem (part)–Rosedale 1,887 3.2 396.0

376 Salem–Keizer (part)–Eagle Crest Corner–Zena–Lincoln 5,338 35.2 204.3

377 San Marine 390 27.9 351.3

378 Sandy 7,890 20.4 530.5

379 Scappoose–(N. Sauvie Island) 7,564 22.8 189.6

380 Scio 1,948 2.8 84.3

381 Scotts Mills 1,525 19.2 101.7

382 Seal Rock–Ona 396 1.3 59.0

383 Seaside 6,513 13.7 106.6

384 Shaff–West Stayton–North Santiam 1,823 10.0 81.1

385 Shaw–Macleay 1,110 -7.7 94.1

386 Shelburn–Kingston 1,841 15.2 42.8

387 Sheridan 6,533 27.1 103.1

388 Sherwood 12,048 250.8 1,693.3

389 Siletz–Siletz Indian Reservation 2,720 14.7 23.0

390 Silver Falls City–Drake Crossing 3,045 13.6 25.4

391 Silverton 9,103 17.0 220.6

392 Sodaville 1,354 8.8 123.5

393 South Prairie 1,075 5.6 32.9

394 Spatenberg 2,709 22.9 82.4

395 Spicer–Tallman–Irvinville 839 -10.8 45.8

396 St. Helens (city) (part)–McNutty 2,085 15.5 631.7

397 St. Paul 893 18.8 43.0

398 Stafford 2,169 11.9 153.2

399 Stayton 9,089 35.8 383.4

400 Stimson Mill 915 -7.8 55.2

401 Sublimity 3,400 17.1 59.9

402 Sunnycrest 1,312 11.1 135.0

403 Sunnyside–Orville 1,417 20.2 88.6

404 Svensen–(Russian Island) 757 12.3 84.2

405 Sweet Home 10,397 13.4 289.2
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-693

Table 4—Community population and education indicators, 2000 (continued)

Com- Total Population Population

munity population, change, density, 

numbera Community name, 2000 2000 1990 to 2000 2000

 Number of people

 Number Percent per square mile

406 Talbot–Sidney 1,126 7.4 52.5

407 Tangent 2,199 16.4 48.5

408 Tidewater 503 18.9 28.7

409 Tierra del Mar 429 -11.9 41.4

410 Tillamook 6,407 14.8 434.0

411 Tillamook (city) (part)–Jordan Creek 824 -0.7 85.7

412 Toledo 4,660 -4.5 92.6

413 Trenholm–Waterview–Yankton 1,980 12.8 35.5

414 Turner 6,251 9.5 230.2

415 Union Mills 1,683 2.4 115.1

416 Unionvale–Wheatland 903 11.9 33.4

417 Valsetz 432 24.5 2.5

418 Vernonia 3,696 17.9 18.8

419 Waldport 4,878 17.6 187.9

420 Warren 1,100 15.9 268.2

421 Warrenton 2,863 17.7 331.9

422 Waterloo 1,552 16.1 120.2

423 Wheeler 768 -17.3 47.3

424 Whiskey Hill 913 -16.2 107.1

425 Willamina (part) 1,177 -2.6 340.0

426 Willamina (part)–Buell–Fort Hill 1,134 21.7 65.8

427 Wilsonville 14,940 72.5 900.5

428 Wilsonville (part)–Tonquin 1,721 109.1 346.4

429 Woodburn 21,997 39.9 941.9

430 Woodburn (part)–Saint Louis 826 -4.0 63.0

431 Wren 2,251 14.1 40.5

432 Yachats 1,437 11.7 45.4

433 Yamhill 854 -12.7 379.8

a

The location of the communities can be found on the maps in Appendix A.

b

CDP = census designated place.
45

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent

Coos Bay District:

1 Ada–Siltcoos–Canary 96.9 0 0.1 1.3 0 1.7 

2 Agness–Illahe–Marial 87.1 0 0 4.2 0.6 8.1 

3 Allegany–Dellwood–Fairview 92.9 0 0 0 0 7.1 4 Ash 92.2 0 0 1.2 0.5 6.1 

5 Bandon 93.6 0.8 0 1.0 0.7 3.9 

6 Bandon (part)–Twomile–Fourmile 88.5 0 0 4.6 3.7 3.2 

7 Barview CDPb–Crown Point 93.8 0 0 3.2 0 2.9 

8 Brookings 92.1 0.1 1.7 2.8 1.0 2.2 9 Bullards–Randolph 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 

10 Cheney–Bridge–Remote 91.9 0 0.9 6.1 0 1.2 

11 Coos Bay (city)–Bunker Hill CDP 88.4 0.3 0.9 2.9 2.0 5.3 

12 Coos Head Naval Facility–Charleston 95.1 0 0 1.0 0 3.8 

13 Cooston 98.0 0 0.5 0 0 1.5 

14 Coquille 93.8 0 0.3 3.1 1.1 1.8 

15 Coquille (part)–Leneve–Coaledo 86.7 0 0.9 2.7 0.3 9.4 

16 Cordes–Hauser–(Saunders Lake) 90.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 1.4 6.8 

17 Dunes City 95.8 0 1.4 1.2 0.2 1.5 

18 Elkton 97.0 0 0 0.4 0 2.6 

19 Gardiner–Kroll–Sulphur Springs 91.4 0 0 1.3 1.5 5.7 

20 Glasgow 97.9 0 0 0 0 2.0 

21 Glenada–Westlake 95.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0 3.4 

22 Gold Beach 95.6 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.1 2.6 

23 Harbor CDP 92.8 0.1 0 2.8 2.0 2.3 

24 Lakeside 92.6 0.4 1.0 1.9 0.5 3.6 

25 Lakeside (part)–Templeton 93.9 0.2 1.0 0.9 1.4 2.6 

26 Libby–Southport 99.7 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 

27 McCormac 94.1 0.6 3.4 0.5 0.3 1.1 

28 Myrtle Point 93.3 0 0.6 0.7 2.2 3.2 

29 Myrtle Point (part)–Arago 94.1 0.4 0 2.8 0 2.7 

30 Myrtle Point (part)–Estabrook–Warner 93.3 0 0.1 2.8 0.5 3.2 

31 Myrtle Point (part)–Norway–Sitkum–McKinley 90.8 0 0.5 6.2 2.5 0 

32 North Bend 91.7 0.1 1.0 2.8 1.0 3.3 

33 O’Brien 94.5 0 1.7 0.7 0 3.0 

34 Ophir 95.6 0 0.8 1.6 0.2 1.7 

35 Overland–Delmar–Green Acres 94.8 0 0 2.0 0 3.2 

36 Pistol River–Carpenterville 95.8 0.3 0.2 1.8 0.2 1.7 
46

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued) Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent 37 Port Orford 93.4 0.1 0.4 1.5 1.0 3.6 

38 Powers 86.4 0 0.5 6.6 0.2 6.3 

39 Prosper–Parkersburg–Winterville 92.9 0.1 0 6.6 0 0.4 

40 Reedsport 95.2 0.1 1.0 0.3 1.4 2.0 

41 Reedsport (part)–Winchester Bay 93.3 0 0.1 1.0 0.4 5.2 

42 Riverton 92.6 0 0 6.4 0 1.0 

43 Scottsburg 91.4 0 0 1.3 1.5 5.7 

44 Shorewood 95.5 0 0.1 0.5 0.2 3.7 

45 Sixes–Denmark–Langlois 87.2 0 0 4.2 0.6 8.0 

46 Sumner 89.5 0 1.1 0 0 9.4 

47 Wedderburn–Nesika Beach 95.6 0 0.8 1.6 0.2 1.7 

Eugene District:

48 Alvadore 95.3 0.5 0.8 0 0.3 3.0 

49 Bear Creek–Cheshire–Franklin–Goldson 92.0 0 0.8 0.7 4.5 1.9 

50 Blue River–Finn Rock–Nimrod 89.8 1.5 1.0 1.7 0 5.9 

51 Cartney–Miller–Rowland 91.9 0.1 0.3 0.2 5.0 2.6 

52 Cascadia–Santiam Junction–Marion Forks (part) 97.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 

53 Cloverdale 94.6 0 0 2.3 0 3.1 

54 Coburg 90.8 0.3 1.7 2.5 1.0 3.7 

55 Cottage Grove 92.8 0.1 1.8 1.0 2.1 2.2 

56 Crawfordsville–Union Point 95.9 0 0.2 1.2 0.4 2.3 

57 Creswell 91.4 0.6 0.5 2.8 1.3 3.5 

58 Crow 93.9 0 0 2.1 0 4.1 

59 Deadwood–Triangle Lake–Blachly 96.1 0 0 1.5 0 2.4 

60 Dexter 93.4 0 0 2.8 0 3.7 

61 Dorena–Culp Creek–Disston 91.5 0 4.4 0 0 4.1 

62 Eugene (part)–(Bailey Hill)–(Spencer Creek) 92.3 0.1 3.2 0.4 1.0 3.1 

63 Fall Creek–Unity 91.3 0 0.9 0.8 0 6.9 

64 Firo–Swisshome–(Deadwood Creek West) 89.9 0 3.3 0 0 6.8 

65 Florence 96.0 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.2 1.9 

66 Gap 95.8 0 0.8 0.2 0.1 3.0 

67 Goshen 96.8 1.0 0 0.3 0.6 1.3 

68 Halsey 94.7 0.2 0.1 1.5 2.1 1.3 

69 Harrisburg 92.2 0.2 1.4 0.7 3.7 1.7 

70 Holley–Calapooia–Dollar 95.5 0 1.2 0.5 0.7 2.1 

71 Horton 94.4 0 1.4 1.2 0.1 3.0 
47

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued)Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent

72 Jasper–Trent 97.3 0 0.3 0.2 0 2.1 

73 Junction City 92.4 0.8 0.4 1.8 3.4 1.3 

74 Lancaster 94.9 0 2.0 0.7 0 2.3 

75 Leaburg–Deerhorn 97.7 0 1.3 0.9 0 0.1 

76 London–(Black Butte) 97.1 0 1.1 0.2 0.2 1.4 

77 Lorane 89.1 0 0.7 0.7 6.3 3.2 

78 Lowell 92.0 0.7 0 0.5 2.3 4.5 

79 Lowell (part)–Minnow–Crale–Winberry 84.8 4.1 0 0.9 1.3 8.9 

80 Mabel–Wendling 94.0 0 0 3.5 0 2.4 

81 Mapleton–Tiernan–Nekoma 86.0 0 0.1 4.7 2.5 6.7 

82 Marcola 95.0 0 0.9 2.3 1.2 0.6 

83 Maywood 98.0 0 1.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 

84 Mohawk 94.2 0 1.9 0 1.8 2.0 

85 Oakridge 92.6 0 0.6 2.1 2.3 2.4 

86 Pleasant Hill 95.7 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.5 1.8 

87 Pryor–Kitson Hot Springs–Frazier 92.8 0 0.4 1.9 3.7 1.2 

88 Rainbow–McKenzie Bridge–Belknap Springs– 95.0 0 0 4.0 0 0.9 

 Foley Springs

89 Richardson–Alma–Wolf Creek 91.1 2.2 1.9 1.2 2.4 1.2 

90 Sailor–Elrus–Long Tom–Vaughn 94.3 0 0 2.0 0.9 2.8 

91 Searose Beach–Minerva 95.5 1.0 0 0.8 0 2.7 

92 Veneta 92.8 0.3 0.2 1.3 2.3 3.2 

93 Veneta (part)–Elmira 95.3 0 0.4 0 1.2 3.1 

94 Vida 96.9 0 0.6 0 0 2.5 

95 Walker–Saginaw–Royal 93.7 0.1 1.2 0.4 0.7 3.9 

96 Walterville 95.0 0 0.8 0.5 1.5 2.2 

97 Walton–Noti–Penn 93.8 0 1.0 3.2 0 2.0 

98 Westfir 97.0 0 0.5 0.2 1.8 0.5 

Lakeview District:

99 Algoma–Shady Pine 93.1 0 4.2 0.1 0 2.5 

100 Beatty–Sprague River 85.9 1.5 0 7.4 0.4 4.7 

101 Bonanza (east)–Bly–Langell Valley 88.7 0.6 0.9 1.9 1.9 6.0 

102 Bonanza (west)–Hildebrand–Yonna 93.9 0 1.7 0.7 2.4 1.3 

103 Chemult–Beaver Marsh–Diamond Lake Junction 92.7 0 0.8 0 1.2 5.3 

104 Chiloquin 70.7 0.1 1.6 21.2 2.2 4.2 

105 Falcon Heights 95.0 0 1.2 0.7 0 3.2 
48

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued) Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent 106 Fort Klamath–Sand Creek–Yamsay 90.6 0 0 3.8 0.1 5.5 

107 Keno–Worden 91.6 0.2 0.8 3.8 0.7 2.9 

108 Klamath Falls–Altamont CDP 87.5 0.5 1.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 

109 Klamath Falls–Altamont (part)–Pine Grove–Olene 89.0 0.8 0.6 1.4 4.9 3.3 

110 Malin 65.1 2.6 0 2.4 22.7 7.2 

111 Merrill 82.8 0 0.1 1.5 12.0 3.7 

112 Midland 95.0 0 1.2 0.7 0 3.2 

113 Rocky Point–Lake of the Woods 91.6 0 0 0 4.2 4.2 

Medford District:

114 Applegate 95.9 0.5 1.3 1.6 0 0.7 

115 Ashland 91.2 0.6 1.7 1.6 2.0 3.0 

116 Azalea–Galesville–Fortune Branch 97.8 0 0 0.9 0 1.3 

117 Bridgeview–Holland 94.9 0 0 0.9 1.4 2.9 

118 Buncom 92.5 0 0 0 2.8 4.6 

119 Butte Falls 91.3 0.7 0.5 2.4 2.9 2.3 

120 Cave Junction 92.2 0.1 0.9 1.1 1.2 4.4 

121 Cave Junction (part)–Dryden 92.8 0 2.5 2.1 0.2 2.4 

122 Central Point (city) 93.5 0.4 0.5 1.0 1.4 3.2 

123 Colestin 96.5 1.6 0.1 0.1 0 1.6 

124 Eagle Point 94.5 0.2 0.7 1.1 0.8 2.7 

125 Foots Creek 97.3 0 0.7 0.7 0.2 1.1 

126 Galice–Rand 97.5 0 0.6 0.2 0.5 1.2 

127 Glendale (city)–Fernvale 91.0 0.5 0.6 3.0 0.7 4.2 

128 Gold Hill 93.2 0 0.4 1.1 2.6 2.7 

129 Grants Pass (city)–Harbeck–Fruitdale CDP– 93.2 0.1 0.6 1.5 1.5 3.2 

 Redwood CDP

130 Jacksonville 94.1 0.5 0.2 1.0 1.2 3.0 

131 Jerome Prairie 96.4 0 0.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 

132 Lakecreek–Brownsboro 91.4 0.7 0.4 2.4 2.9 2.3 

133 Lincoln–Climax–Steinman 94.1 0 0.7 1.5 0.1 3.6 

134 Medford 89.1 0.4 1.3 1.2 3.9 4.1 

135 Medford (part)–White City CDP (part) 89.6 0 0.3 0.9 5.8 3.4 

136 Merlin 93.6 0.3 0.8 0.7 1.2 3.4 

137 Murphy 93.4 0.7 0.3 1.3 2.3 2.0 

138 New Hope 98.2 0 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.8 

139 Phoenix 91.7 0.7 1.2 0.9 3.8 1.7 
49

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued)Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent

140 Pleasant Valley–Three Pines–Hugo 96.6 0 0.1 1.0 0 2.4 

141 Prospect–Cascade Gorge–McLeod 98.4 0 0 0.5 0 1.1 

142 Provolt 96.0 0.5 0 1.3 0 2.2 

143 Quines Creek 94.3 0 0 0 2.1 3.6 

144 Rogue River 94.3 0 1.3 0.9 1.4 2.1 

145 Ruch–McKee Bridge–(Applegate Lake) 98.7 0 0 0.7 0 0.5 

146 Selma 92.3 0 0.3 2.1 2.3 3.0 

147 Shady Cove 96.4 0 1.0 0.9 0.2 1.5 

148 Shady Cove (part)–Rogue Elk 95.8 0.9 0 1.1 0 2.1 

149 Spikenard–Trail 90.6 0 0 0.1 6.9 2.4 

150 Starvation Heights 93.3 0 0 0.5 2.7 3.5 

151 Sunny Valley–Placer–Golden–Speaker 91.9 0.2 0.1 3.0 0.5 4.3 

152 Table Rock–Beagle 95.1 0 0 0.6 2.0 2.4 

153 Takilma 80.1 0 0 2.2 1.8 15.9 

154 Talent 90.0 0.5 0.6 0.5 6.0 2.4 

155 Tolo 95.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.2 2.3 

156 Voorhies 95.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 0 2.1 

157 White City CDP 86.7 1.6 0.4 1.8 6.1 3.5 

158 Wilderville–Wonder 96.3 0 0.1 0.9 0.7 2.0 

159 Williams 95.0 0.4 0 1.4 1.6 1.6 

160 Wimer–Bybee Springs 97.4 0 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.4 

161 Winona 95.4 1.5 0.8 0.4 0.5 1.3 

162 Wolf Creek–Leland 91.4 0 0 3.4 0.5 4.7 

Roseburg District:

163 Camas Valley–Reston–Olalla–Tenmile 92.2 0.2 0.2 3.8 0.5 3.2 

164 Canyonville 89.9 0.2 0.8 4.6 1.6 2.9 

165 Cleveland–Elgarose–Callahan 94.0 0 0.9 0.4 0.3 4.5 

166 Days Creek 95.0 0.3 0 0.9 0.9 2.8 

167 Dillard–Carnes 87.7 0 0.5 2.2 0 9.6 

168 Dixonville 93.5 0 0.9 5.3 0 0.4 

169 Dole 93.9 0 0 2.3 0 3.7 

170 Drain 90.5 0.4 0 3.6 1.3 4.3 

171 Drain (part)–Skelley 93.3 0 0.7 1.0 0.3 4.7 

172 Glide–Idlewild 93.9 0 0.9 1.1 0 4.1 

173 Green CDP 92.7 0 0.3 1.7 2.6 2.7 

174 Hawthorne–Nonpareil 95.1 0 0 0 0 4.8 
5

0

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued) Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent 175 Kellogg–Tyee 93.3 0 0.7 1.0 0.3 4.7 

176 Lookinglass 95.4 0 0.8 1.8 0 2.0 

177 Melrose 97.5 0 0 0.6 0 1.9 

178 Milo–Tiller–Drew 88.9 0.5 1.5 2.3 0.9 6.0 

179 Myrtle Creek 92.9 0.1 0.7 2.5 1.0 2.8 

180 Oaks–Glengary–Round Prairie 92.6 0 0.1 0.5 1.3 5.5 

181 Peel–Steamboat 90.1 0.4 0.2 3.1 0 6.2 

182 Rice Hill–Isadore 89.3 0 2.5 1.1 1.4 5.7 

183 Riddle 91.2 0.2 0 2.0 1.2 5.4 

184 Roseburg–Roseburg North CDP 94.1 0.3 1.1 1.6 0.5 2.3 

185 Roseburg (part)–Riversdale 96.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 2.4 

186 Safley–Anlauf–Curtin–Comstock 91.1 0.2 0 1.2 1.7 5.8 

187 Stephens–Akin 96.8 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.9 

188 Surprise Valley 91.8 0 0 1.7 0.1 6.3 

189 Sutherlin–Oakland 94.3 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.2 2.8 

190 Tokatee Falls–Clearwater–Diamond Lake 89.6 0.4 0 3.4 0 6.5 

191 Tri City CDP 93.5 0.2 0.5 2.5 0.2 3.1 

192 Umpqua–Millwood–Green Peak 97.9 0 1.9 0 0 0.1 

193 Wilbur–Redbell 92.6 0.1 0.8 1.0 2.8 2.7 

194 Winston 95.0 0.2 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.4 

195 Yoncalla 92.5 0 0.2 0.5 2.2 4.6 

196 Yoncalla (part)–Elkhead 96.2 0 1.1 0.9 0 1.8 

Salem District:

197 Adair Village 91.9 0.3 2.5 0.6 1.4 3.3 

198 Albany 91.1 0.4 1.5 1.3 3.1 2.6 

199 Alder Creek–Cherryville 96.9 0.3 0 1.1 0.4 1.3 

200 Alsea 94.3 0 0.5 1.7 1.7 1.8 

201 Amity 89.5 0.3 0.3 1.3 5.6 2.9 

202 Anderson 92.1 0.7 2.4 0.4 0.4 4.1 

203 Astoria 88.3 1.6 1.7 0.9 3.0 4.7 

204 Aumsville 87.8 0 1.0 1.5 5.9 3.8 

205 Aurora 82.6 0.2 1.4 0.5 11.6 3.7 

206 Ballston–McCoy–Walkers Corner 91.7 0.7 0.3 1.2 2.8 3.3 

207 Banks 92.8 0.1 2.8 0.5 1.5 2.4 

208 Barlow 90.4 0.7 0.1 0 7.7 1.1 

209 Bay City (city)–Idaville 93.0 1.6 0.4 0.9 0.6 3.5 
51

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued)Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent

210 Beaver–Hemlock–Sand Lake 92.4 0 0 0 4.5 3.2 

211 Beaver Homes–Goble 92.7 0 0 1.9 0.7 4.8 

212 Bellevue 96.7 0 0.4 0 1.6 1.2 

213 Berlin–(McDowell Creek) 93.7 0 1.0 2.6 0 2.7 

214 Boring 87.0 0 0.7 1.7 4.7 5.8 

215 Boyer–Grand Ronde–Gold Creek 80.4 0 0.5 13.1 0.5 5.4 

216 Brewster–Griggs 96.9 0 1.0 0.9 0 1.2 

217 Briedwell–Winch 90.6 0 0.5 0.7 5.8 2.3 

218 Broadacres 81.4 0 0 0 8.9 9.7 

219 Brooks–Waconda–Lakebrook 89.1 0.1 2.0 0.8 4.9 3.1 

220 Brownsmead–Westport–(Tenasilahe Island & Others) 94.9 0 0 2.5 2.6 0 

221 Brownsville 95.0 0.2 0.3 1.3 0.7 2.4 

222 Bull Run–Marmot 99.0 0 0 0.9 0 0.1 

223 Canby 88.6 0.6 1.1 0.3 6.5 2.9 

224 Canby (part)–O’Neil Corners 96.3 0.8 0 0.8 1.3 0.8 

225 Cannon Beach 93.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.8 4.3 

226 Carlton 93.9 0.2 0.4 1.6 0.5 3.5 

227 Carlton (part)–Yamhill (part) 96.5 0 0 0.4 1.7 1.4 

228 Carus 95.4 1.2 1.4 0 0.3 1.7 

229 Carver 92.2 0 0 0 2.9 4.9 

230 Cedardale–Dickey Prairie–Fernwood 93.1 0 0.3 1.6 0 4.9 

231 Cedarhurst Park–Logan 95.5 0 0.2 0.5 0 3.9 

232 Central Point 97.1 0 0.8 0 0.4 1.7 

233 Champoeg–Fairfield 69.8 0 0.5 6.3 19.9 3.5 

234 Chehalem–Middleton 93.1 0.8 0.9 0.1 1.3 3.8 

235 Cherry Grove–(South Henry Hagg Lake) 92.5 0 2.9 0 3.4 1.3 

236 Christie–Greenville–Starkey Corner 88.3 0 3.6 1.3 5.8 1.0 

237 Clatskanie 96.6 0.1 0 1.1 0.4 1.8 

238 Clatskanie (part)–Swedetown–Apiary 94.8 0 0.4 4.1 0.2 0.5 

239 Cloverdale–Hebo–Dolph–Winema Beach 96.1 0 0 0 0 3.9 

240 Cochran–Glenwood–Timber 93.1 3.0 2.4 0 0.2 1.3 

241 Colton–Clarkes–Timber Grove 96.3 0 0 0.7 1.7 1.3 

242 Columbia City–St. Helens 92.9 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.5 3.3 

243 Cornelius–Forest Grove 78.4 0.4 1.6 1.2 15.6 2.8 

244 Corvallis 86.4 1.3 5.9 0.5 2.1 3.7 

245 Corvallis (part)–Lewisburg 93.5 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.6 3.0 

246 Cottrell–Kelso 90.0 0.1 0.5 1.6 4.4 3.4 
5

2

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued) Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent 247 Crabtree 94.5 0 0 3.5 0 2.0 

248 Currinsville 76.4 0 2.3 2.0 12.0 7.2 

249 Dallas 92.5 0.1 1.0 1.4 2.6 2.4 

250 Dallas (part)–Ellendale 95.0 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 2.6 

251 Dallas (part)–Rickreal–Orrs Corner 93.2 0 1.1 1.0 0.2 4.5 

252 Damascus–Wetzels Corner–Wilson Corner 94.5 0.7 1.0 0.1 2.2 1.6 253 Dawson–Glenbrook–Alpine–Bellfountain 97.7 0 0.1 0 0.1 2.1 

254 Dayton 82.7 0.9 0.7 1.0 11.4 3.2 

255 Deer Island–Reuben 90.1 0.6 0 0.5 3.4 5.4 

256 Delena–Downing 93.8 0 0 0.2 0.9 5.1 

257 Depoe Bay 92.9 0.9 0.3 1.4 0.2 4.2 

258 Detroit 94.3 0.5 0 0 3.7 1.5 

259 Dewey–(Chehalem Mountain) 95.1 0 0 0.6 1.6 2.7 

260 Dodge–Springwater 88.8 0 0.1 5.3 1.9 3.9 

261 Donald (city) 86.7 0 0.2 0.2 10.6 2.4 

262 Douglass Ridge 94.6 0 0.9 0 2.3 2.2 

263 Dundee 93.1 0.3 1.0 0.3 2.9 2.4 

264 Eagle Creek–Barton 93.4 0 1.7 0.6 2.4 1.9 

265 Elk City–Burnt Woods–Harlan–Siletz Indian 94.9 0 0 0.8 1.7 2.6 

 Reservation (part)

266 Eola Crest–Hopewell–Yampo 94.8 0.4 0 0 1.4 3.3 

267 Estacada 89.7 0 1.1 0.1 6.9 2.2 

268 Fairdale–Pike 89.5 0 0 5.0 0 5.5 

269 Fairview 96.6 0 0 1.6 0.6 1.1 

270 Falls City 90.1 0.6 0.3 2.3 1.9 4.9 

271 Faraday 94.8 0 0.9 0.1 0 4.2 

272 Fargo–Butteville–Curtis 91.2 0 0 1.2 5.8 1.9 

273 Farmington–Hazeldale–Jacktown 85.8 0 1.7 0.5 9.7 2.3 

274 Fawn–Jordan–Fox Valley 93.1 0.5 0.3 3.7 0.4 2.0 

275 Fern Corner–Bridgeport–Airlie 93.6 0 1.3 2.9 0.8 1.4 

276 Fern Hill 96.4 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.8 

277 Fern Road 97.7 0.6 0 0 0.9 0.7 

278 Firwood–Dover 96.8 0 0.3 0 0 2.9 

279 Fishers Corner–Beaver Creek–Echo Dell 96.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.5 1.0 

280 Fruitland–Geer 98.4 0 0 0 1.2 0.4 

281 Fruitvale 92.3 0 2.7 2.5 0.1 2.5 
5

3

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued)Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent

282 Gales Creek–Kansas City–Thatcher 92.2 0 2.3 0.4 3.5 1.7 

283 Garfield–Tracy–Whitewater 86.3 0 1.8 3.0 3.2 5.9 

284 Garibaldi 92.8 0 0.8 2.5 0.3 3.6 

285 Gaston 91.6 0 0.6 0.1 4.9 2.9 

286 Gates 86.7 0 0 3.5 4.1 5.6 

287 Gearhart 97.2 0 0.4 0.4 0.2 1.8 

288 George–Bissell 96.5 0 0.4 0 0.1 3.1 

289 Gervais 37.6 0 0.2 1.0 56.2 5.0 

290 Glenwood–Sunset Beach–Westlake 92.4 0 2.7 1.4 1.0 2.5 

291 Government Camp–Timberline Lodge 87.9 0 0 1.7 6.8 3.6 

292 Grand Ronde Agency–Midway 94.2 0 0 3.2 1.2 1.4 

293 Greenville–Narrows–Santiam Terrace 91.1 0 0 4.9 0 4.0 

294 Hammond–Warrenton (part) 94.0 0 1.4 0 1.5 3.1 

295 Hazel Green–Labish Village 78.4 0.4 0.3 0.8 15.0 5.1 

296 Highland–Upper Highland–Viola 95.2 0 1.3 0.3 0.9 2.3 

297 Hillsview 95.5 0 1.3 0.6 0.8 1.8 

298 Holbrook–(Sauvie Island) 92.5 0.2 1.2 1.5 2.4 2.2 

299 Hoodview–Mulloy 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 

300 Hubbard 75.1 0 0.1 3.3 18.7 2.8 

301 Idanha 94.4 0.5 0 0 3.7 1.4 

302 Idanha (part)–Gates (part) 96.1 0.3 0 0 0.6 3.0 

303 Independence–Monmouth 81.1 0.4 1.9 1.4 11.5 3.7 

304 Inglis–Quincy 94.0 0 1.2 3.6 0 1.2 

305 Jefferson 85.4 0.5 0.6 1.8 7.9 3.8 

306 Jewell–Elsie–Hamlet 96.0 0.5 0.2 0 1.5 1.7 

307 Kerry–Marshland 92.9 0 1.7 1.0 0.2 4.2 

308 Kings Valley–Blodgett–Harris 94.8 0 0 4.4 0.7 0 

309 Knappa–Knappa Junction–(Karlson Island) 97.1 2.0 0 0 0.4 0.5 

310 Kokel Corner 94.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 2.0 2.0 

311 LaComb–Marion Forks (part) 93.3 0 0 1.6 0 5.1 

312 Ladd Hill 92.2 0 3.3 2.5 0.3 1.7 

313 Lafayette 87.4 0.1 0.7 0.6 7.6 3.6 

314 Latourell–Warrendale–Bonneville 95.2 3.2 0 1.2 0.4 0 

315 Laurel 91.9 0 0 0 5.1 3.0 

316 Lebanon (city)–South Lebanon CDP 94.2 0.1 0.4 1.5 1.1 2.7 

317 Lincoln City 88.6 0.2 1.5 2.9 2.8 4.1 

318 Lincoln Beach CDP 92.9 0.4 0.3 1.8 1.6 3.0 
54

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued) Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent 319 Locoda–Woodson–(Wallace Island) 96.8 0.6 0.4 1.3 0 0.9 

320 Lone Elder–Macksburg–Dryland 92.9 0 0.6 0.5 3.6 2.3 

321 Lunnville–Cove Orchard–Dellwood–Wapato 96.4 0 0.2 0 0.9 2.4 

322 Lyons 91.8 0 1.7 1.3 1.8 3.4 

323 Manning–Scofield–Tophill 94.3 0 0 0.3 0 5.4 

324 Manzanita–Nehalem (part) 97.6 0 0 0 0.2 2.1 

325 Marion 95.9 0 0.7 0.5 0.5 2.4 

326 Marquam–Wilhoit 90.2 0 0.9 1.2 4.5 3.2 

327 McMinnville 86.4 0.4 1.5 0.9 7.5 3.3 

328 McMinnville (part)–Orchard View 94.3 1.4 1.1 0 1.2 2.0 

329 Meacham Corner 90.6 0 3.4 0 5.9 0 

330 Midway–Scholls 86.1 0.2 3.0 0.7 6.0 4.1 

331 Miles Crossing 96.0 0 1.3 0.9 0.6 1.1 

332 Mill City 86.3 0.2 0.6 2.3 6.4 4.1 

333 Mill City (part)–Mehama 92.8 0 0 1.8 2.9 2.5 

334 Millersburg 94.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 3.2 0.4 

335 Molalla 87.7 1.0 0.2 0.9 6.2 4.1 

336 Monroe 95.3 0.3 1.5 1.2 0.5 1.1 

337 Mount Angel 77.4 0.2 0.1 0.8 18.1 3.4 

338 Mount Hood Village CDP 91.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 4.0 2.7 

339 Mountaindale 89.9 0 3.1 3.2 0.1 3.8 

340 Mulino 94.0 0 0.7 1.5 0 3.7 

341 Necanicum 93.3 0.4 0 0.8 4.6 0.9 

342 Nehalem (part)–Salmonberry 97.0 0 1.3 0 1.5 0.2 

343 Neskowin 98.3 0 0 0 0 1.7 

344 Netarts–(Netarts Bay) 96.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.8 

345 Newberg 90.7 0.1 1.1 0.6 5.2 2.4 

346 Newport 89.5 0.3 1.0 2.1 3.3 3.7 

347 North Albany CDP 95.0 0 1.1 0.5 1.1 2.3 

348 North Plains 90.8 0.1 2.1 1.0 4.3 1.8 

349 Oak Grove–Bethel–Bethel Heights 95.6 0 0.8 0 2.7 0.9 

350 Oceanside–Cape Meares–Bayocean 92.6 0 0.5 0.4 1.3 5.1 

351 Old Colton–Elwood 98.1 0 0.3 0 1.1 0.4 

352 Olney 94.8 0.6 1.4 0 0.6 2.5 

353 Orleans 99.9 0 0 0 0 0 

354 Otter Rock–Beverly Beach 95.7 0 0 0 0.6 3.7 
55

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued)Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent

355 Pacific City–Woods 95.1 0 0 0 3.0 1.8 

356 Palestine 93.8 0.9 2.4 0.8 0.1 2.1 

357 Paradise Park 96.2 0 0.1 0 0.9 2.8 

358 Parker–Buena Vista–Hopville–Modeville 83.0 0 0.7 0 11.9 4.3 

359 Philomath 92.9 0.1 1.0 1.7 1.6 2.6 

360 Pirtle–Riverside 93.4 0 0.1 0 0 6.5 

361 Pleasant Valley–Blaine 97.5 0 0.3 0 0 2.2 

362 Pleasantdale 94.7 0 0 2.8 0.7 1.7 

363 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Burlington–Folkenberg 93.8 0 0.1 1.7 0.5 3.9 

364 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Corbett–Springdale 96.6 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 2.0 

365 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Orient–Pleasant Home 94.4 0.5 1.6 0.3 1.6 1.6 

366 Pratum–North Howell 92.6 0 0.7 1.8 2.5 2.4 

367 Prescott–Ranier (part) 93.8 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.5 4.0 

368 Rainier (city) 94.3 0 0.5 1.5 1.4 2.4 

369 Rainier (city) (part)–Alston–Mayger 94.3 0 0.8 1.6 0.5 2.8 

370 Redland–Fishers Mill 96.4 0 1.2 0 0.3 2.1 

371 Rex–(Parrett Mountain) 95.9 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.8 

372 Rockaway Beach 95.6 0 2.1 0.8 0 1.5 

373 Rose Lodge CDP 93.7 0 0 2.2 0.3 3.8 

374 Rural Dell–Yoder–Ninety–One–Needy 88.9 0.3 1.4 0.6 4.3 4.4 

375 Salem (part)–Rosedale 92.9 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.9 4.8 

376 Salem–Keizer (part)–Eagle Crest Corner– 92.4 0.8 2.4 0.8 3.1 0.6 

 Zena–Lincoln

377 San Marine 93.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.4 2.4 

378 Sandy 93.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.6 2.3 

379 Scappoose–(N. Sauvie Island) 94.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 2.9 

380 Scio 95.2 0.2 0 1.3 0.1 3.3 

381 Scotts Mills 92.9 0.1 0.1 0.5 4.8 1.6 

382 Seal Rock–Ona 99.1 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 

383 Seaside 93.4 0.1 0.8 1.3 2.4 2.0 

384 Shaff–West Stayton–North Santiam 88.6 0.5 0.8 1.4 4.2 4.4 

385 Shaw–Macleay 88.9 0 0.3 2.7 5.4 2.7 

386 Shelburn–Kingston 97.5 0 1.0 0 0 1.5 

387 Sheridan 81.4 5.5 2.9 4.2 3.8 2.3 

388 Sherwood 92.4 0.3 2.0 0.3 1.7 3.4 

389 Siletz–Siletz Indian Reservation 76.5 0 0.6 14.4 0.4 8.1 
5

6

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued) Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent 390 Silver Falls City–Drake Crossing 96.0 0.2 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.1 

391 Silverton 91.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 5.7 1.4 

392 Sodaville 93.5 0 0.9 1.0 0.1 4.6 

393 South Prairie 89.8 0 0.9 1.3 0 8.0 

394 Spatenberg 96.1 0 0.7 0.9 0 2.1 

395 Spicer–Tallman–Irvinville 95.6 0 0 0 0 4.4 

396 St. Helens (city) (part)–McNutty 94.7 0 0 2.1 1.8 1.3 

397 St. Paul 68.2 0 0.7 0.6 27.0 3.5 

398 Stafford 98.4 0.3 0.1 1.2 0 0 

399 Stayton 91.3 0 0.5 1.2 4.7 2.2 

400 Stimson Mill 98.1 0 0.1 0 1.0 0.7 

401 Sublimity 97.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.6 1.4 

402 Sunnycrest 97.1 0 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.8 

403 Sunnyside–Orville 87.0 1.0 0.3 0 10.5 1.2 

404 Svensen–(Russian Island) 93.8 6.2 0 0 0 0 

405 Sweet Home 93.1 0.1 0.8 1.9 0.4 3.6 

406 Talbot–Sidney 91.5 0 2.3 4.1 1.1 0.9 

407 Tangent 96.2 0 0.5 0.4 2.1 0.8 

408 Tidewater 95.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.1 2.8 

409 Tierra del Mar 95.7 0 0 0 2.6 1.7 

410 Tillamook 92.9 0 0.2 0.1 4.3 2.4 

411 Tillamook (city) (part)–Jordan Creek 92.9 0 5.3 0 0 1.7 

412 Toledo 92.2 0.1 1.4 1.8 1.2 3.3 

413 Trenholm–Waterview–Yankton 95.7 0 0.5 2.4 0.1 1.3 

414 Turner 95.6 0 1.7 0.5 0.9 1.3 

415 Union Mills 95.9 0 0.4 0.9 0 2.8 

416 Unionvale–Wheatland 87.7 0 0 0 11.2 1.1 

417 Valsetz 90.0 0 0.7 1.6 0 7.6 

418 Vernonia 96.3 0.3 0.6 1.0 0.2 1.6 

419 Waldport 92.8 0.2 0.7 1.4 0.7 4.3 

420 Warren 95.5 0.7 0 1.6 0.1 2.1 

421 Warrenton 90.9 0.3 1.7 0.7 1.1 5.4 

422 Waterloo 94.7 0 0.7 1.7 0.1 2.8 

423 Wheeler 94.8 0 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.8 

424 Whiskey Hill 91.1 1.2 0.2 0.1 4.9 2.6 

425 Willamina (part) 85.9 0.1 0 9.6 1.0 3.5 
57

Table 5—Community race and ethnicity indicators, 2000 (continued)Com– Asian/Pacific Native Two o

munity White, Black, Islander, American, Other, more ra

numbera Community name 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 

Percent

426 Willamina (part)–Buell–Fort Hill 86.1 0.1 1.8 7.0 1.5 3.6 

427 Wilsonville 91.2 0.6 2.0 0.4 2.6 3.2 

428 Wilsonville (part)–Tonquin 90.9 0 4.4 0.5 1.3 3.0 

429 Woodburn 61.1 0.7 0.5 0.7 33.2 3.9 

430 Woodburn (part)–Saint Louis 66.0 0.4 0 0.6 25.9 7.1 

431 Wren 94.3 0 1.9 1.1 0.3 2.4 

432 Yachats 93.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.4 2.4 

433 Yamhill 90.9 0 0.4 0.4 3.7 4.7 

aThe location of the communities can be found in the maps in Appendix A. bCDP = census designated place.
58

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

Coos Bay District: 1 Ada–Siltcoos–Canary 53 20.5 1.6 19.1 2.5 14.5 

2 Agness–Illahe–Marial 49 2.1 2.4 23.6 2.0 13.4 3 Allegany–Dellwood–Fairview 46 12.2 3.2 20.2 6.5 18.7 

4 Ash 45 9.8 9.0 18.0 9.2 13.2 5 Bandon 51 8.5 3.5 15.0 7.7 16.1 6 Bandon (part)–Twomile–Fourmile 47 11.9 4.9 17.2 6.2 16.7 7 Barview CDPb–Crown Point 44 18.9 4.7 17.9 9.7 19.8 

8 Brookings 46 12.2 5.1 18.3 7.4 18.1 

9 Bullards–Randolph 42 –8.7 4.5 24.2 2.7 24.5 

10 Cheney–Bridge–Remote 47 30.6 1.5 23.5 9.8 11.7 

11 Coos Bay (city)–Bunker Hill CDP 40 11.1 5.4 20.8 10.5 20.4 

12 Coos Head Naval Facility–Charleston 57 9.6 2.8 11.4 3.1 12.1 

13 Cooston 48 4.3 2.6 14.9 4.6 21.5 

14 Coquille 42 16.7 3.6 20.2 9.0 21.1 

15 Coquille (part)–Leneve–Coaledo 46 –2.1 4.5 18.0 7.6 18.2 

16 Cordes–Hauser–(Saunders Lake) 38 –5.0 6.6 23.5 6.6 23.6 

17 Dunes City 52 6.1 2.9 16.2 3.1 15.3 

18 Elkton 43 16.2 5.3 22.1 7.5 19.6 

19 Gardiner–Kroll–Sulphur Springs 42 7.7 4.9 21.4 8.6 22.0 

20 Glasgow 48 33.3 1.0 20.7 6.4 15.8 

21 Glenada–Westlake 48 23.1 3.9 17.3 7.1 16.5 

22 Gold Beach 45 7.1 4.0 18.2 7.5 19.5 

23 Harbor CDP 56 0 3.2 12.8 6.5 12.3 

24 Lakeside 51 24.4 3.2 13.8 5.0 16.6 

25 Lakeside (part)–Templeton 44 –8.3 3.2 16.2 11.1 21.5 

26 Libby–Southport 42 10.5 6.3 17.6 10.2 23.8 

27 McCormac 44 18.9 5.0 19.7 8.9 19.5 

28 Myrtle Point 41 20.6 5.3 23.8 7.4 19.7 

29 Myrtle Point (part)–Arago 45 4.7 5.9 18.0 7.2 18.5 

30 Myrtle Point (part)–Estabrook–Warner 40 8.1 7.7 18.0 10.4 21.3 

31 Myrtle Point (part)–Norway–Sitkum–McKinley 45 25.0 2.6 21.8 4.6 21.1 

32 North Bend 40 14.3 5.8 21.1 10.5 20.4 

33 O’Brien 47 17.5 1.6 20.3 3.9 20.8 

34 Ophir 53 29.3 2.9 14.3 4.5 14.8 

35 Overland–Delmar–Green Acres 44 18.9 6.5 18.3 8.4 18.0 
5

9

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued)Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

36 Pistol River–Carpenterville 46 –19.3 5.1 19.2 5.4 19.5 

37 Port Orford 49 8.9 3.7 15.4 5.2 18.0 

38 Powers 45 15.4 4.7 19.8 7.7 18.0 

39 Prosper–Parkersburg–Winterville 52 23.8 3.6 14.5 4.1 16.2 

40 Reedsport 51 30.8 2.4 16.7 6.1 16.7 

41 Reedsport (part)–Winchester Bay 47 27.0 6.3 16.1 11.4 13.1 

42 Riverton 44 51.7 5.6 19.5 7.8 19.1 

43 Scottsburg 42 –8.7 4.9 21.4 8.6 22.0 

44 Shorewood 50 25.0 3.8 8.1 7.2 22.1 

45 Sixes–Denmark–Langlois 49 16.7 2.4 23.5 2.0 13.5 

46 Sumner 41 13.9 5.2 21.3 11.1 19.6 

47 Wedderburn–Nesika Beach 53 35.9 2.9 14.3 4.5 14.8 

Eugene District:

48 Alvadore 42 7.7 4.8 19.9 8.5 21.4 

49 Bear Creek–Cheshire–Franklin–Goldson 45 21.6 4.2 18.3 8.1 19.9 

50 Blue River–Finn Rock–Nimrod 45 32.4 2.0 23.6 2.3 23.2 

51 Cartney–Miller–Rowland 35 6.1 7.7 23.1 12.7 19.9 

52 Cascadia–Santiam Junction–Marion Forks (part) 44 15.8 5.7 18.5 6.9 19.8 

53 Cloverdale 37 12.1 6.1 28.4 8.1 21.3 

54 Coburg 41 7.9 6.0 22.4 7.5 21.2 

55 Cottage Grove 39 11.4 6.1 22.2 10.2 20.8 

56 Crawfordsville–Union Point 40 8.1 5.3 26.2 6.1 20.0 

57 Creswell 38 5.6 6.7 22.4 10.8 22.4 

58 Crow 42 23.5 6.0 23.1 5.8 24.0 

59 Deadwood–Triangle Lake–Blachly 39 11.4 5.4 23.9 7.9 24.7 

60 Dexter 39 18.2 5.5 26.5 6.0 23.9 

61 Dorena–Culp Creek–Disston 38 11.8 4.9 24.5 9.5 21.8 

62 Eugene (part)–(Bailey Hill)–(Spencer Creek) 39 5.4 4.9 23.8 11.7 21.6 

63 Fall Creek–Unity 43 22.9 4.9 19.8 7.2 22.9 

64 Firo–Swisshome–(Deadwood Creek West) 46 48.4 2.7 18.3 10.8 16.2 

65 Florence 55 22.2 3.7 14.3 5.4 14.2 

66 Gap 42 10.5 4.2 23.4 6.5 20.6 

67 Goshen 44 15.8 5.0 19.1 7.6 19.3 

68 Halsey 35 2.9 6.2 22.5 12.9 21.6 

69 Harrisburg 32 3.2 9.7 24.0 12.5 25.1 
60

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued) Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

70 Holley–Calapooia–Dollar 41 0 6.6 21.1 7.0 22.8 

71 Horton 41 24.2 5.4 24.4 4.2 29.6 

72 Jasper–Trent 41 13.9 3.1 25.0 10.6 18.2 

73 Junction City 36 2.9 7.2 22.0 13.5 20.2 

74 Lancaster 39 2.6 8.1 17.5 11.6 22.3 

75 Leaburg–Deerhorn 47 11.9 4.4 17.6 9.9 15.2 

76 London–(Black Butte) 45 32.4 2.8 23.5 5.0 18.9 

77 Lorane 32 –5.9 5.7 22.7 16.4 21.0 

78 Lowell 34 9.7 5.6 25.7 11.5 25.7 

79 Lowell (part)–Minnow–Crale–Winberry 40 14.3 6.1 21.2 8.6 28.1 

80 Mabel–Wendling 44 7.3 3.9 18.3 8.1 21.0 

81 Mapleton–Tiernan–Nekoma 45 15.4 5.0 22.1 7.4 14.8 

82 Marcola 42 20.0 4.1 23.5 8.1 19.1 

83 Maywood 46 24.3 5.4 20.9 3.2 17.7 

84 Mohawk 45 15.4 4.0 16.7 10.1 19.0 

85 Oakridge 42 16.7 5.2 23.2 6.2 19.8 

86 Pleasant Hill 45 9.8 4.8 19.2 7.9 17.2 

87 Pryor–Kitson Hot Springs–Frazier 43 22.9 5.3 20.6 7.5 20.8 

88 Rainbow–McKenzie Bridge–Belknap Springs– Foley Springs 47 –4.1 1.2 18.7 5.9 21.3 

89 Richardson–Alma–Wolf Creek 41 0 6.5 17.4 12.5 27.1 

90 Sailor–Elrus–Long Tom–Vaughn 38 0 3.6 25.3 6.8 26.7 

91 Searose Beach–Minerva 50 31.6 5.3 11.1 8.1 17.0 

92 Veneta 36 16.1 4.9 27.7 8.9 24.3 

93 Veneta (part)–Elmira 46 24.3 3.9 21.0 4.5 19.3 

94 Vida 47 20.5 1.7 18.0 7.7 18.2 

95 Walker–Saginaw–Royal 42 23.5 5.1 19.7 10.0 20.9 

96 Walterville 44 12.8 5.1 18.9 4.9 23.4 

97 Walton–Noti–Penn 37 5.7 3.6 21.9 14.0 21.2 

98 Westfir 45 25.0 4.6 17.9 6.1 20.6 

Lakeview District:

99 Algoma–Shady Pine 35 12.9 7.8 27.6 8.4 18.3 

100 Beatty–Sprague River 44 12.8 5.3 22.5 5.7 18.6 

101 Bonanza (east)–Bly–Langell Valley 47 34.3 6.7 17.8 6.9 15.9 

102 Bonanza (west)–Hildebrand–Yonna 37 8.8 4.9 31.3 6.1 21.8 

103 Chemult–Beaver Marsh–Diamond Lake Junction 40 73.9 6.8 21.9 7.9 21.9 
61

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued)Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

104 Chiloquin 45 25.0 6.0 20.7 6.4 16.4 

105 Falcon Heights 39 –11.4 7.0 20.0 9.9 21.2 

106 Fort Klamath–Sand Creek–Yamsay 45 –6.3 2.0 21.4 5.4 20.8 107 Keno–Worden 41 13.9 6.0 21.6 7.3 21.4 

108 Klamath Falls–Altamont CDP 36 5.9 6.8 22.1 13.7 20.1 

109 Klamath Falls–Altamont (part)– 44 12.8 1.4 26.4 4.8 18.8 

 Pine Grove–Olene

110 Malin 34 6.3 8.2 24.4 12.5 18.0 

111 Merrill 38 5.6 5.3 23.5 10.1 21.6 

112 Midland 39 –2.5 7.0 20.0 9.9 21.1 

113 Rocky Point–Lake of the Woods 46 2.2 2.2 21.7 3.5 20.7 

Medford District:114 Applegate 44 10.0 6.7 18.8 5.7 19.6 

115 Ashland 39 11.4 4.3 20.3 17.4 17.2 116 Azalea–Galesville–Fortune Branch 42 –4.5 3.8 25.8 6.0 18.9 

117 Bridgeview–Holland 43 4.9 5.9 21.0 11.1 15.2 

118 Buncom 46 17.9 2.8 20.3 5.8 18.5 

119 Butte Falls 39 –4.9 4.8 27.1 6.6 20.4 

120 Cave Junction 42 2.4 5.0 23.3 7.8 18.0 

121 Cave Junction (part)–Dryden 46 31.4 2.5 18.6 7.3 19.5 122 Central Point (city) 34 –2.9 8.0 23.1 12.8 21.7 

123 Colestin 50 11.1 2.3 17.8 2.8 16.1 

124 Eagle Point 34 0 7.7 25.1 12.3 21.3 

125 Foots Creek 48 20.0 2.3 18.9 5.4 17.9 

126 Galice–Rand 48 26.3 3.8 15.5 6.5 19.6 

127 Glendale (city)–Fernvale 39 18.2 5.0 24.8 9.0 21.1 

128 Gold Hill 41 10.8 5.0 20.7 8.8 21.6 129 Grants Pass (city)–Harbeck–Fruitdale CDP– Redwood CDP 41 2.5 6.1 20.4 9.8 19.4 

130 Jacksonville 46 9.5 3.7 20.4 6.3 18.0 

131 Jerome Prairie 45 4.7 4.3 19.0 7.3 18.8 

132 Lakecreek–Brownsboro 39 2.6 4.9 27.0 6.7 20.4 

133 Lincoln–Climax–Steinman 46 24.3 5.6 16.9 7.9 18.1 

134 Medford 37 5.7 7.1 21.1 12.5 21.4 135 Medford (part)–White City CDP (part) 37 8.8 4.5 26.1 8.5 24.6 136 Merlin 45 12.5 4.1 18.5 6.7 20.4 
62

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued) Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

137 Murphy 45 9.8 4.2 17.5 8.8 19.3 

138 New Hope 47 30.6 3.1 18.9 7.3 17.4 

139 Phoenix 45 9.8 6.0 16.2 10.6 17.0 

140 Pleasant Valley–Three Pines–Hugo 45 18.4 5.2 22.2 7.4 15.6 

141 Prospect–Cascade Gorge–McLeod 46 27.8 5.9 15.3 6.4 21.3 

142 Provolt 45 2.3 5.7 19.5 6.4 17.7 

143 Quines Creek 49 28.9 7.1 14.6 6.9 16.5 

144 Rogue River 49 6.5 3.6 18.9 5.2 15.8 

145 Ruch–McKee Bridge–(Applegate Lake) 44 15.8 3.3 24.4 5.8 18.5 

146 Selma 41 7.9 5.4 22.3 7.6 22.0 

147 Shady Cove 46 12.2 5.9 17.9 7.7 17.6 

148 Shady Cove (part)–Rogue Elk 44 22.2 2.7 17.0 10.2 22.9 

149 Spikenard–Trail 43 19.4 12.8 11.1 11.7 16.9 150 Starvation Heights 46 15.0 4.5 17.3 12.6 14.0 

151 Sunny Valley–Placer–Golden–Speaker 47 27.0 3.7 17.7 5.6 19.3 

152 Table Rock–Beagle 44 12.8 3.3 22.5 6.1 20.2 

153 Takilma 50 42.9 4.2 12.3 2.8 19.8 

154 Talent 36 –5.3 6.0 21.6 14.4 19.7 155 Tolo 44 10.0 4.0 21.7 5.1 21.1 156 Voorhies 45 18.4 4.7 20.8 4.7 18.9 

157 White City CDP 34 9.7 8.0 26.2 11.0 24.2 158 Wilderville–Wonder 46 9.5 4.3 19.9 6.2 18.5 

159 Williams 48 23.1 3.4 19.9 6.0 14.8 

160 Wimer–Bybee Springs 46 12.2 4.6 18.8 7.2 18.6 

161 Winona 53 15.2 3.8 13.6 5.8 15.4 

162 Wolf Creek–Leland 46 24.3 3.7 18.3 5.5 20.0 

Roseburg District:163 Camas Valley–Reston–Olalla–Tenmile 40 8.1 4.8 23.3 8.3 21.0 

164 Canyonville 41 13.9 6.2 20.1 11.3 17.4 

165 Cleveland–Elgarose–Callahan 44 7.3 4.3 22.4 4.7 19.3 166 Days Creek 45 28.6 4.5 20.4 8.2 17.2 

167 Dillard–Carnes 41 13.9 7.3 22.5 6.7 22.0 168 Dixonville 43 30.3 3.5 23.9 6.0 20.1 

169 Dole 45 21.6 2.9 20.8 4.1 22.5 

170 Drain 40 25.0 5.6 20.9 10.7 23.0 
63

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued)Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

171 Drain (part)–Skelley 47 6.8 4.1 18.2 7.8 16.2 

172 Glide–Idlewild 40 11.1 4.6 22.5 10.2 21.2 

173 Green CDP 33 6.5 8.1 25.2 12.3 22.8 

174 Hawthorne–Nonpareil 45 25.0 4.4 22.7 8.4 14.9 

175 Kellogg–Tyee 47 17.5 4.1 18.1 7.8 16.1 

176 Lookinglass 42 13.5 5.1 23.1 7.8 19.2 

177 Melrose 46 12.2 3.7 20.8 5.9 17.4 

178 Milo–Tiller–Drew 44 15.8 4.5 21.5 6.3 18.3 

179 Myrtle Creek 39 8.3 6.1 22.6 10.0 20.0 

180 Oaks–Glengary–Round Prairie 41 0 5.0 17.3 9.0 23.8 

181 Peel–Steamboat 40 2.6 3.4 27.8 7.4 17.8 

182 Rice Hill–Isadore 43 19.4 4.4 20.0 5.9 24.5 

183 Riddle 36 9.1 7.1 23.8 12.1 18.5 

184 Roseburg–Roseburg North CDP 40 11.1 6.2 18.8 12.6 20.3 

185 Roseburg (part)–Riversdale 52 15.6 2.8 18.3 5.4 13.0 

186 Safley–Anlauf–Curtin–Comstock 42 10.5 4.7 22.0 8.7 21.0 

187 Stephens–Akin 47 9.3 4.3 19.1 6.4 16.9 188 Surprise Valley 48 26.3 1.9 21.0 3.7 18.3 

189 Sutherlin–Oakland 41 17.1 5.8 20.7 9.5 19.3 

190 Tokatee Falls–Clearwater–Diamond Lake 40 48.1 3.3 27.9 7.2 17.7 191 Tri City CDP 39 18.2 7.0 21.1 11.6 18.9 192 Umpqua–Millwood–Green Peak 49 44.1 5.5 16.5 9.8 12.0 193 Wilbur–Redbell 39 8.3 6.5 23.3 5.1 25.8 

194 Winston 37 23.3 7.8 19.9 12.6 20.5 

195 Yoncalla 39 11.4 7.7 20.8 10.4 20.5 196 Yoncalla (part)–Elkhead 46 24.3 2.8 20.9 3.5 19.6 

Salem District:197 Adair Village 39 25.8 5.9 23.0 11.0 20.6 

198 Albany 34 3.0 7.9 21.0 14.7 22.1 

199 Alder Creek–Cherryville 41 7.9 4.9 21.2 7.9 24.4 

200 Alsea 39 11.4 4.6 26.3 8.3 20.5 201 Amity 29 –21.6 8.6 28.3 14.5 21.2 

202 Anderson 45 28.6 4.0 20.2 4.8 19.7 

203 Astoria 36 9.1 5.8 22.0 14.4 20.0 

204 Aumsville 30 11.1 9.6 27.3 12.5 22.2 
64

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued) Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

205 Aurora 39 5.4 6.8 18.8 12.0 21.5 

206 Ballston–McCoy–Walkers Corner 43 26.5 4.7 19.9 9.0 20.0 

207 Banks 33 10.0 8.4 24.7 12.1 26.5 

208 Barlow 40 21.2 4.0 22.2 11.4 21.6 

209 Bay City (city)–Idaville 41 0 3.8 18.1 10.0 22.9 

210 Beaver–Hemlock–Sand Lake 44 12.8 5.9 21.7 7.1 17.0 

211 Beaver Homes–Goble 40 5.3 7.6 21.7 10.3 17.5 212 Bellevue 45 25.0 3.7 15.4 5.8 25.5 

213 Berlin–(McDowell Creek) 40 11.1 2.2 24.0 3.6 29.5 

214 Boring 40 14.3 5.3 20.9 13.2 17.3 

215 Boyer–Grand Ronde–Gold Creek 37 0 6.9 22.5 10.6 23.1 

216 Brewster–Griggs 42 7.7 3.3 25.4 2.3 25.4 

217 Briedwell–Winch 36 2.9 5.7 27.4 9.5 23.1 218 Broadacres 24 –25.0 12.4 34.1 10.4 24.7 219 Brooks–Waconda–Lakebrook 34 –19.0 8.2 22.7 12.5 24.8 

220 Brownsmead–Westport–(Tenasilahe Island & Others) 40 11.1 6.7 25.1 6.6 21.5 221 Brownsville 40 17.6 6.1 22.4 9.9 19.4 

222 Bull Run–Marmot 42 20.0 6.0 22.6 8.1 19.0 223 Canby 33 –2.9 8.5 24.6 12.1 24.0 224 Canby (part)–O’Neil Corners 41 13.9 5.2 21.4 9.3 21.4 

225 Cannon Beach 49 8.9 3.9 15.6 9.8 14.0 

226 Carlton 35 2.9 6.3 26.4 9.6 23.9 227 Carlton (part)–Yamhill (part) 33 –10.8 9.4 21.4 12.9 23.5 

228 Carus 40 17.6 6.1 24.5 7.7 20.7 

229 Carver 40 –7.0 7.9 18.5 9.0 27.4 

230 Cedardale–Dickey Prairie–Fernwood 40 29.0 4.1 24.2 5.3 24.7 231 Cedarhurst Park–Logan 41 2.5 2.5 25.9 5.8 23.8 

232 Central Point 43 22.9 5.4 25.3 5.7 16.6 

233 Champoeg–Fairfield 33 13.8 6.5 25.6 8.9 30.3 234 Chehalem–Middleton 37 –2.6 6.5 22.5 9.0 26.0 

235 Cherry Grove–(South Henry Hagg Lake) 39 2.6 9.4 19.5 7.9 29.4 

236 Christie–Greenville–Starkey Corner 36 20.0 5.8 27.7 9.9 23.3 

237 Clatskanie 37 15.6 6.1 25.3 9.5 21.2 

238 Clatskanie (part)–Swedetown–Apiary 43 22.9 5.8 18.8 8.7 19.9 

239 Cloverdale–Hebo–Dolph–Winema Beach 50 31.6 3.6 18.0 5.1 14.1 240 Cochran–Glenwood–Timber 41 13.9 2.7 26.3 3.8 28.1 
6

5

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued)Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

241 Colton–Clarkes–Timber Grove 34 –8.1 7.5 28.3 8.1 25.0 

242 Columbia City–St. Helens 34 3.0 8.1 22.8 13.4 23.6 

243 Cornelius–Forest Grove 31 0 8.6 24.0 15.6 22.6 

244 Corvallis 28 3.7 4.6 21.5 27.0 18.8 

245 Corvallis (part)–Lewisburg 42 16.7 4.3 23.0 7.5 22.9 

246 Cottrell–Kelso 40 14.3 4.6 24.2 7.3 23.9 

247 Crabtree 45 15.4 2.8 21.8 7.2 17.7 

248 Currinsville 39 25.8 2.9 26.8 12.6 22.7 249 Dallas 35 –2.8 7.7 22.5 12.8 19.9 

250 Dallas (part)–Ellendale 41 7.9 5.6 24.8 6.7 19.4 

251 Dallas (part)–Rickreal–Orrs Corner 41 –4.7 5.9 19.2 12.1 17.9 

252 Damascus–Wetzels Corner–Wilson Corner 42 20.0 4.1 24.8 7.0 20.2 253 Dawson–Glenbrook–Alpine–Bellfountain 41 10.8 3.6 22.1 6.3 27.6 

254 Dayton 31 –3.1 7.9 30.7 10.5 25.3 

255 Deer Island–Reuben 40 8.1 4.5 24.4 7.2 21.2 

256 Delena–Downing 36 12.5 5.8 26.5 8.6 23.4 257 Depoe Bay 51 8.5 3.0 12.2 5.4 16.7 

258 Detroit 38 15.2 8.7 24.5 5.9 24.0 

259 Dewey–(Chehalem Mountain) 43 13.2 4.1 18.9 7.6 23.8 

260 Dodge–Springwater 41 20.6 3.9 21.9 8.2 24.1 261 Donald (city) 34 6.3 5.2 26.7 10.3 26.0 

262 Douglass Ridge 39 11.4 4.9 20.3 9.5 25.0 

263 Dundee 34 13.3 8.2 25.3 10.0 26.2 

264 Eagle Creek–Barton 39 2.6 6.7 21.8 7.3 23.9 

265 Elk City–Burnt Woods–Harlan–Siletz Indian 38 11.8 6.5 22.5 8.4 24.1 

 Reservation (part)

266 Eola Crest–Hopewell–Yampo 41 17.1 3.6 25.4 8.1 22.1 

267 Estacada 34 6.3 5.7 26.7 11.6 23.4 

268 Fairdale–Pike 38 15.2 3.8 28.1 6.3 35.5 

269 Fairview 34 –2.9 6.7 30.5 7.1 21.5 

270 Falls City 37 8.8 7.7 27.6 6.5 22.0 

271 Faraday 41 36.7 5.9 18.6 12.5 23.5 272 Fargo–Butteville–Curtis 41 5.1 5.4 26.6 4.6 22.8 

273 Farmington–Hazeldale–Jacktown 37 5.7 6.2 24.8 10.8 22.8 

274 Fawn–Jordan–Fox Valley 49 28.9 1.8 18.0 7.0 14.9 

275 Fern Corner–Bridgeport–Airlie 43 16.2 4.0 19.0 8.2 22.1 
66

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued) Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

276 Fern Hill 43 13.2 5.1 20.7 6.2 21.2 

277 Fern Road 43 10.3 3.6 23.8 3.7 22.5 

278 Firwood–Dover 39 25.8 4.8 26.4 6.5 26.4 

279 Fishers Corner–Beaver Creek–Echo Dell 40 21.2 6.2 21.3 9.0 25.7 

280 Fruitland–Geer 36 –2.7 8.2 26.3 6.9 22.9 

281 Fruitvale 45 7.1 3.7 19.3 5.8 20.3 282 Gales Creek–Kansas City–Thatcher 42 13.5 4.5 20.5 10.1 19.9 

283 Garfield–Tracy–Whitewater 35 29.6 6.0 28.6 12.8 16.0 

284 Garibaldi 49 11.4 2.8 15.9 7.4 18.1 

285 Gaston 37 12.1 6.4 26.8 7.5 23.7 

286 Gates 41 10.8 9.2 16.3 9.0 22.9 

287 Gearhart 46 21.1 3.3 19.8 7.7 18.1 

288 George–Bissell 39 5.4 4.7 26.8 6.4 26.6 

289 Gervais 25 4.2 9.2 31.8 18.4 25.5 

290 Glenwood–Sunset Beach–Westlake 44 10.0 3.3 22.7 6.4 19.3 

291 Government Camp–Timberline Lodge 37 0 4.9 21.6 11.0 26.5 

292 Grand Ronde Agency–Midway 48 41.2 1.9 17.5 4.7 19.8 

293 Greenville–Narrows–Santiam Terrace 48 26.3 3.1 19.1 6.4 16.2 

294 Hammond–Warrenton (part) 30 –14.3 11.0 22.3 16.3 21.5 

295 Hazel Green–Labish Village 33 –5.7 6.7 21.5 17.4 16.5 

296 Highland–Upper Highland–Viola 42 23.5 5.0 22.7 6.8 22.9 

297 Hillsview 40 –2.4 5.9 24.2 4.6 24.5 298 Holbrook–(Sauvie Island) 44 7.3 3.9 15.6 8.4 24.0 299 Hoodview–Mulloy 43 0 6.7 26.6 1.4 20.0 

300 Hubbard 30 7.1 8.6 28.8 12.9 23.4 

301 Idanha 38 18.8 8.7 24.6 5.9 24.0 

302 Idanha (part)–Gates (part) 44 25.7 5.4 23.2 4.0 20.1 

303 Independence–Monmouth 26 4.0 7.3 24.7 23.6 17.9 

304 Inglis–Quincy 42 20.0 3.4 26.8 1.8 21.8 

305 Jefferson 33 3.1 8.7 25.0 12.0 22.2 

306 Jewell–Elsie–Hamlet 43 13.2 7.0 17.6 9.9 19.0 

307 Kerry–Marshland 39 11.4 5.3 23.9 8.5 18.1 

308 Kings Valley–Blodgett–Harris 42 7.7 4.4 17.7 9.5 23.5 

309 Knappa–Knappa Junction–(Karlson Island) 40 33.3 5.4 23.4 8.3 19.0 310 Kokel Corner 29 –3.3 6.5 26.2 18.3 23.1 

311 LaComb–Marion Forks (part) 39 18.2 4.8 24.1 5.6 24.8 
6

7

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued)Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

312 Ladd Hill 45 12.5 6.3 21.9 2.9 18.2 

313 Lafayette 34 3.0 8.2 23.4 11.5 25.4 

314 Latourell–Warrendale–Bonneville 41 13.9 9.1 11.8 11.8 26.0 

315 Laurel 39 21.9 6.3 28.1 3.1 26.0 316 Lebanon (city)–South Lebanon CDP 38 8.6 6.9 22.6 11.2 20.0 317 Lincoln City 44 2.3 5.2 18.7 8.9 18.6 

318 Lincoln Beach CDP 52 6.1 3.8 11.9 5.1 17.2 

319 Locoda–Woodson–(Wallace Island) 39 –13.3 5.5 21.0 7.2 27.8 

320 Lone Elder–Macksburg–Dryland 47 30.6 2.4 22.1 6.9 13.9 

321 Lunnville–Cove Orchard–Dellwood–Wapato 43 26.5 4.4 24.4 5.4 19.6 

322 Lyons 39 18.2 6.8 23.1 8.3 20.5 323 Manning–Scofield–Tophill 39 21.9 4.1 23.4 11.1 24.3 324 Manzanita–Nehalem (part) 57 5.6 2.4 9.0 6.6 12.6 

325 Marion 40 14.3 7.0 24.0 7.0 24.0 

326 Marquam–Wilhoit 37 5.7 7.6 24.7 7.5 24.4 

327 McMinnville 32 3.2 7.3 23.4 17.1 19.8 

328 McMinnville (part)–Orchard View 41 –10.9 4.4 22.3 8.4 21.5 

329 Meacham Corner 41 24.2 0.1 24.3 8.0 27.8 

330 Midway–Scholls 38 2.7 6.9 22.0 8.8 25.1 

331 Miles Crossing 41 17.1 6.0 19.9 9.3 21.6 332 Mill City 36 12.5 6.8 25.5 9.7 21.5 

333 Mill City (part)–Mehama 43 26.5 3.1 20.4 8.2 23.0 

334 Millersburg 43 4.9 4.5 20.0 7.7 21.3 

335 Molalla 31 –3.1 8.5 24.6 15.2 22.8 

336 Monroe 36 5.9 6.5 23.6 10.2 25.2 

337 Mount Angel 34 9.7 7.3 25.0 12.0 19.8 

338 Mount Hood Village CDP 39 18.2 5.5 20.7 11.1 24.2 

339 Mountaindale 42 7.7 6.5 21.2 5.0 21.9 

340 Mulino 42 23.5 6.8 19.5 6.6 20.6 341 Necanicum 37 –2.6 6.0 21.1 13.7 19.3 342 Nehalem (part)–Salmonberry 46 –19.3 5.7 15.1 11.4 16.3 

343 Neskowin 53 29.3 0.9 12.3 4.8 17.5 344 Netarts–(Netarts Bay) 48 –5.9 4.4 15.9 5.9 19.2 

345 Newberg 31 0 7.7 23.5 17.8 23.0 346 Newport 43 13.2 5.3 18.1 10.5 19.2 

347 North Albany CDP 40 5.3 6.3 23.4 6.3 21.7 
68

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued) Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

348 North Plains 37 8.8 7.9 22.0 8.2 24.8 

349 Oak Grove–Bethel–Bethel Heights 39 –2.5 5.9 27.4 5.1 21.7 

350 Oceanside–Cape Meares–Bayocean 46 –2.1 4.1 16.6 9.0 18.2 351 Old Colton–Elwood 37 19.4 6.1 28.4 8.0 25.2 352 Olney 41 17.1 4.6 23.4 4.3 27.6 353 Orleans 54 38.5 3.3 14.3 7.9 15.0 354 Otter Rock–Beverly Beach 46 17.9 3.5 19.6 7.4 16.6 

355 Pacific City–Woods 45 –22.4 2.9 19.5 10.0 17.3 

356 Palestine 42 20.0 5.3 21.6 6.3 23.1 

357 Paradise Park 40 29.0 4.8 26.1 8.4 18.9 

358 Parker–Buena Vista–Hopville–Modeville 38 –7.3 6.8 26.0 9.5 15.9 

359 Philomath 32 0 8.0 26.2 13.5 23.3 360 Pirtle–Riverside 43 13.2 6.7 18.9 9.0 21.0 361 Pleasant Valley–Blaine 40 17.6 6.4 23.3 6.0 19.3 

362 Pleasantdale 46 64.3 3.0 19.9 10.8 14.0 

363 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Burlington–Folkenberg 43 13.2 6.7 15.6 7.9 23.8 

364 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Corbett–Springdale 39 14.7 3.5 25.5 9.4 21.0 

365 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Orient– 38 5.6 6.0 24.4 9.3 23.7 

 Pleasant Home

366 Pratum–North Howell 39 18.2 5.2 25.8 10.1 17.8 

367 Prescott–Ranier (part) 39 14.7 5.3 22.5 9.4 22.9 368 Rainier (city) 36 5.9 7.0 24.1 11.0 19.4 369 Rainier (city) (part)–Alston–Mayger 43 26.5 2.3 22.4 7.3 20.6 370 Redland–Fishers Mill 41 17.1 6.1 22.7 6.7 22.0 

371 Rex–(Parrett Mountain) 42 23.5 6.2 23.1 6.7 19.6 372 Rockaway Beach 52 –5.5 2.6 13.4 5.6 17.1 373 Rose Lodge CDP 44 0 3.7 19.2 8.5 20.2 

374 Rural Dell–Yoder–Ninety–One–Needy 38 15.2 6.6 25.2 9.7 21.6 

375 Salem (part)–Rosedale 42 13.5 6.2 20.9 8.1 22.5 

376 Salem–Keizer (part)–Eagle Crest Corner–Zena–Lincoln 43 13.2 5.5 20.5 8.9 19.6 

377 San Marine 49 36.1 2.4 20.6 6.5 13.5 

378 Sandy 36 9.1 6.8 23.9 11.3 23.5 

379 Scappoose–(N. Sauvie Island) 39 14.7 6.2 20.9 9.1 24.9 

380 Scio 38 8.6 7.3 20.3 16.2 14.6 

381 Scotts Mills 40 5.3 5.7 23.8 8.9 21.6 
69

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued)Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

382 Seal Rock–Ona 49 25.6 2.4 14.8 6.7 16.6 383 Seaside 41 5.1 5.1 18.7 11.3 20.2 

384 Shaff–West Stayton–North Santiam 36 9.1 7.5 22.9 8.6 24.6 

385 Shaw–Macleay 42 13.5 2.1 23.8 6.6 21.5 386 Shelburn–Kingston 37 –2.6 7.5 25.2 7.2 23.6 387 Sheridan 34 –2.9 5.5 18.5 17.4 28.9 

388 Sherwood 33 0 10.0 21.1 11.9 32.3 

389 Siletz–Siletz Indian Reservation 41 20.6 5.7 23.4 8.0 20.7 

390 Silver Falls City–Drake Crossing 41 17.1 6.0 24.8 8.1 20.5 391 Silverton 33 0 8.2 27.3 11.0 19.3 

392 Sodaville 40 25.0 5.6 22.3 10.0 21.8 

393 South Prairie 37 12.1 6.8 26.6 8.3 25.4 

394 Spatenberg 41 5.1 5.5 23.3 7.5 22.9 

395 Spicer–Tallman–Irvinville 44 15.8 2.9 16.1 5.7 26.4 

396 St. Helens (city) (part)–McNutty 40 5.3 7.4 19.1 9.0 22.2 

397 St. Paul 32 3.2 5.7 28.0 12.8 21.6 398 Stafford 43 13.2 3.4 25.1 7.6 18.0 

399 Stayton 34 0 9.0 23.3 12.8 21.6 

400 Stimson Mill 40 25.0 5.0 24.6 7.0 21.7 

401 Sublimity 43 13.2 4.4 21.5 7.7 18.7 402 Sunnycrest 40 0 6.0 23.4 5.9 23.5 

403 Sunnyside–Orville 39 2.6 4.1 20.8 16.2 16.0 

404 Svensen–(Russian Island) 30 –3.2 5.7 29.1 15.2 19.1 405 Sweet Home 38 8.6 6.8 23.3 10.2 19.9 406 Talbot–Sidney 42 –2.3 5.4 20.7 4.7 24.9 

407 Tangent 42 10.5 4.8 21.5 8.0 21.2 

408 Tidewater 52 6.1 2.8 13.6 3.7 14.1 

409 Tierra del Mar 46 27.8 3.3 19.4 9.7 16.6 

410 Tillamook 36 2.9 7.0 23.4 11.4 20.6 

411 Tillamook (city) (part)–Jordan Creek 40 21.2 9.9 23.2 13.1 12.6 

412 Toledo 36 9.1 7.1 24.6 9.2 24.6 

413 Trenholm–Waterview–Yankton 39 11.4 3.6 26.7 6.3 24.7 

414 Turner 44 15.8 4.4 22.1 6.2 19.0 415 Union Mills 41 7.9 3.2 24.6 8.3 23.8 416 Unionvale–Wheatland 30 –28.6 9.0 25.0 15.7 19.7 417 Valsetz 43 10.3 5.5 26.4 5.9 16.3 
7

0

Table 6—Community age indicators, 2000 (continued) Com- Change in Age distribution, 20

munity Median median age, 

numbera Community name age, 2000 1990 to 2000 0–4 5–19 20–29 30–44 

Years - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - 

418 Vernonia 35 0 7.5 25.9 9.9 23.7 

419 Waldport 47 9.3 3.5 18.8 5.8 18.2 

420 Warren 42 7.7 4.6 19.8 7.5 23.8 

421 Warrenton 38 15.2 7.2 20.6 9.8 25.1 

422 Waterloo 39 –4.9 6.2 24.3 8.1 18.7 423 Wheeler 52 –3.7 2.3 15.6 7.6 13.6 

424 Whiskey Hill 34 0 7.0 31.9 6.1 31.1 425 Willamina (part) 32 6.7 7.0 27.0 13.8 21.3 

426 Willamina (part)–Buell–Fort Hill 36 9.1 7.2 24.0 10.5 21.8 

427 Wilsonville 35 –2.8 7.5 18.8 15.3 23.8 

428 Wilsonville (part)–Tonquin 39 18.2 9.1 28.2 2.9 25.0 

429 Woodburn 31 –8.8 9.1 24.0 15.3 18.0 430 Woodburn (part)–Saint Louis 30 15.4 4.1 33.6 12.3 23.0 

431 Wren 42 16.7 4.0 28.3 5.7 18.8 432 Yachats 49 –9.3 2.4 20.6 6.5 13.5 

433 Yamhill 32 18.5 6.2 27.8 14.0 20.4 

aThe location of the communities can be found in the maps in Appendix A. bCDP = census designated place.
71

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000

Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median housemunity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

Coos Bay District:

1 Ada–Siltcoos–Canary 36,564 44.5 29.1 38.9 25

2 Agness–Illahe–Marial 28,762 15.1 43.1 31.6 2

3 Allegany–Dellwood–Fairview 36,816 30.3 33.9 30.1 32

4 Ash 26,738 –22.8 45.5 30.1 20

5 Bandon 30,087 38.5 41.0 36.4 18

6 Bandon (part)–Twomile–Fourmile 28,544 12.5 40.9 36.4 157 Barview CDPb–Crown Point 28,199 64.9 45.0 39.8 10

8 Brookings 33,697 5.3 34.7 34.6 25

9 Bullards–Randolph 43,749 83.5 31.3 35.8 29

10 Cheney–Bridge–Remote 24,069 –16.9 51.1 30.4 18

11 Coos Bay (city)–Bunker Hill CDP 30,141 7.9 43.3 31.2 20

12 Coos Head Naval Facility–Charleston 24,381 –9.1 52.3 19.8 1

13 Cooston 58,104 41.0 18.6 25.6 3

14 Coquille 30,498 20.3 38.9 35.2 23

15 Coquille (part)–Leneve–Coaledo 28,891 12.3 43.8 30.1 2

16 Cordes–Hauser–(Saunders Lake) 30,977 –3.4 40.9 33.5 2

17 Dunes City 39,058 26.5 28.9 33.4 25

18 Elkton 29,572 12.0 38.8 42.1 16

19 Gardiner–Kroll–Sulphur Springs 30,299 24.9 40.6 28.4 26

20 Glasgow 43,313 9.6 35.9 21.4 34

21 Glenada–Westlake 26,100 2.4 47.8 31.5 16

22 Gold Beach 29,755 10.3 43.3 31.6 2

23 Harbor CDP 25,588 –13.7 50.1 32.4 12

24 Lakeside 26,440 0.9 49.0 33.2 15

25 Lakeside (part)–Templeton 32,579 –9.5 36.7 36.1 24

26 Libby–Southport 35,538 –0.4 36.0 32.3 30

27 McCormac 48,903 8.2 25.8 25.6 40

28 Myrtle Point 29,807 9.8 43.2 37.4 16

29 Myrtle Point (part)–Arago 25,974 11.6 48.3 33.2 17

30 Myrtle Point (part)–Estabrook–Warner 25,241 31.2 49.5 32.9 17

31 Myrtle Point (part)–Norway–Sitkum–McKinley 35,715 18.2 35.8 26.6 26

32 North Bend 33,128 7.3 38.8 32.8 24

33 O’Brien 21,785 26.0 56.2 28.6 1

34 Ophir 38,259 4.8 31.8 33.6 29
7

2

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued) Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median house- munity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

35 Overland–Delmar–Green Acres 41,031 29.8 27.4 34.1 25

36 Pistol River–Carpenterville 33,215 27.6 36.7 34.0 24

37 Port Orford 25,475 18.6 49.3 31.8 14

38 Powers 24,683 9.8 50.8 34.0 13

39 Prosper–Parkersburg–Winterville 27,210 24.7 44.6 25.2 25

40 Reedsport 27,764 –8.6 48.3 28.7 19

41 Reedsport (part)–Winchester Bay 26,943 –13.3 46.8 29.8 16

42 Riverton 28,689 37.7 39.4 32.5 13

43 Scottsburg 30,283 19.5 40.6 28.4 26

44 Shorewood 42,920 19.7 20.1 34.8 33

45 Sixes–Denmark–Langlois 28,711 40.2 43.2 31.6 2

46 Sumner 43,258 11.5 37.2 17.7 4

47 Wedderburn–Nesika Beach 38,265 22.4 31.8 33.6 29

Eugene District:

48 Alvadore 51,814 39.7 19.4 31.1 39

49 Bear Creek–Cheshire–Franklin–Goldson 46,952 18.0 21.7 31.5 38

50 Blue River–Finn Rock–Nimrod 37,293 14.5 30.1 34.3 29

51 Cartney–Miller–Rowland 45,985 11.4 22.5 31.8 29

52 Cascadia–Santiam Junction–Marion Forks (part) 48,055 201.5 25.5 27.1 40

53 Cloverdale 55,108 51.5 18.7 23.4 40

54 Coburg 50,385 27.5 18.6 29.4 3

55 Cottage Grove 32,775 21.6 38.3 34.2 23

56 Crawfordsville–Union Point 47,625 5.2 27.7 25.3 32

57 Creswell 42,773 29.3 30.8 28.7 32

58 Crow 47,077 43.1 12.9 38.5 39

59 Deadwood–Triangle Lake–Blachly 37,179 30.4 27.9 40.9 26

60 Dexter 31,861 7.1 42.5 25.0 28

61 Dorena–Culp Creek–Disston 34,891 –3.6 32.1 34.8 3

62 Eugene (part)–(Bailey Hill)–(Spencer Creek) 49,840 16.6 19.4 29.0 33

63 Fall Creek–Unity 45,530 21.0 26.0 31.6 25

64 Firo–Swisshome–(Deadwood Creek West) 21,078 –10.3 54.4 34.0 4

65 Florence 30,867 32.4 38.9 40.5 16

66 Gap 38,087 6.2 30.5 37.3 28

67 Goshen 34,611 14.4 29.2 38.0 20

68 Halsey 39,271 11.0 23.0 40.0 22
7

3

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued)

Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median housemunity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

69 Harrisburg 39,324 37.3 25.4 39.3 3

70 Holley–Calapooia–Dollar 39,998 2.4 26.3 35.0 3

71 Horton 50,496 54.4 23.9 24.9 38

72 Jasper–Trent 37,053 0.7 35.3 25.8 34

73 Junction City 37,692 21.2 31.2 35.5 2

74 Lancaster 46,928 21.5 24.8 28.4 39

75 Leaburg–Deerhorn 56,140 9.1 18.4 29.0 32

76 London–(Black Butte) 43,276 –7.4 27.5 31.4 34

77 Lorane 39,968 2.1 28.2 27.2 3

78 Lowell 36,354 26.9 30.1 44.2 24

79 Lowell (part)–Minnow–Crale–Winberry 41,535 17.0 26.8 28.2 33

80 Mabel–Wendling 44,750 23.4 22.4 34.8 3

81 Mapleton–Tiernan–Nekoma 27,943 –13.9 42.6 44.4 12

82 Marcola 48,512 29.6 18.7 34.5 39

83 Maywood 56,161 72.4 25.0 15.9 4

84 Mohawk 63,205 29.9 14.2 23.5 4

85 Oakridge 27,140 15.5 46.7 36.3 15

86 Pleasant Hill 47,885 19.2 24.6 26.7 34

87 Pryor–Kitson Hot Springs–Frazier 33,120 2.8 37.3 41.9 16

88 Rainbow–McKenzie Bridge–Belknap Springs–Foley Springs 41,703 34.7 28.6 33.2 34

89 Richardson–Alma–Wolf Creek 39,204 23.3 26.9 32.9 3

90 Sailor–Elrus–Long Tom–Vaughn 50,136 26.0 13.1 36.1 43

91 Searose Beach–Minerva 36,888 –14.4 31.6 35.7 28

92 Veneta 37,221 32.9 28.9 43.5 23

93 Veneta (part)–Elmira 42,375 21.1 25.0 33.8 35

94 Vida 49,229 26.9 15.7 35.9 40

95 Walker–Saginaw–Royal 48,778 40.1 24.5 27.2 4

96 Walterville 46,186 29.4 20.2 37.3 30

97 Walton–Noti–Penn 43,188 42.3 22.8 38.2 32

98 Westfir 37,032 12.6 31.0 41.6 2

Lakeview District:

99 Algoma–Shady Pine 36,748 8.3 28.8 26.5 32

100 Beatty–Sprague River 21,992 25.8 54.9 34.0 8

101 Bonanza (east)–Bly–Langell Valley 27,782 –2.9 43.5 38.0 14

102 Bonanza (west)–Hildebrand–Yonna 32,444 10.6 39.2 34.8 2
74

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued) Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median house- munity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

103 Chemult–Beaver Marsh–Diamond Lake Junction 30,834 –24.8 39.1 35.8 2

104 Chiloquin 29,211 13.6 41.9 37.3 18

105 Falcon Heights 47,913 7.7 24.3 30.0 42106 Fort Klamath–Sand Creek–Yamsay 30,861 –4.1 46.4 26.6 22

107 Keno–Worden 38,964 15.2 32.8 26.2 36

108 Klamath Falls–Altamont CDP 32,106 9.9 40.8 32.5 22

109 Klamath Falls–Altamont (part)–Pine Grove–Olene 56,213 9.5 15.3 29.1 35

110 Malin 33,191 39.1 37.8 32.9 25111 Merrill 38,252 27.2 36.0 31.2 24

112 Midland 47,913 51.9 24.4 30.0 42

113 Rocky Point–Lake of the Woods 23,398 –10.3 53.3 24.7 19Medford District:

114 Applegate 40,326 26.8 35.7 28.4 2

115 Ashland 36,685 22.8 38.4 26.9 24

116 Azalea–Galesville–Fortune Branch 32,045 47.6 38.5 35.8 20

117 Bridgeview–Holland 32,161 65.9 38.8 35.0 24118 Buncom 45,747 26.6 25.3 30.0 26

119 Butte Falls 31,457 26.7 35.0 39.5 19

120 Cave Junction 22,739 22.3 60.6 24.0 12

121 Cave Junction (part)–Dryden 25,470 30.6 49.3 29.2 16122 Central Point (city) 41,894 12.9 25.5 35.2 33

123 Colestin 54,938 27.7 20.7 23.6 32

124 Eagle Point 38,642 30.2 28.0 36.2 29125 Foots Creek 35,485 25.8 35.6 29.0 25

126 Galice–Rand 32,023 –2.0 38.7 36.1 18

127 Glendale (city)–Fernvale 29,277 13.6 43.6 34.4 1

128 Gold Hill 38,629 39.7 31.1 35.3 25129 Grants Pass (city)–Harbeck–Fruitdale CDP–Redwood CDP 32,065 14.8 40.0 34.5 20

130 Jacksonville 40,379 21.8 28.1 33.6 2

131 Jerome Prairie 34,932 17.4 32.5 39.9 2

132 Lakecreek–Brownsboro 31,666 –1.2 34.8 39.4 19

133 Lincoln–Climax–Steinman 47,411 15.2 23.3 30.8 3

134 Medford 38,192 14.6 34.4 31.7 26

135 Medford (part)–White City CDP (part) 37,015 38.7 36.1 34.5 20

136 Merlin 37,529 29.2 31.6 34.6 28
75

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued)

Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median housemunity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

137 Murphy 35,227 19.8 39.0 30.6 23

138 New Hope 32,443 25.5 35.8 36.6 20

139 Phoenix 39,106 22.3 33.0 31.0 26

140 Pleasant Valley–Three Pines–Hugo 30,151 18.6 41.1 29.8 2

141 Prospect–Cascade Gorge–McLeod 31,143 6.4 33.2 37.1 22

142 Provolt 32,667 26.6 40.1 30.6 24

143 Quines Creek 32,344 8.3 40.8 33.1 24

144 Rogue River 29,133 26.7 46.8 28.1 20

145 Ruch–McKee Bridge–(Applegate Lake) 43,494 39.7 25.4 35.6 2

146 Selma 29,344 34.6 41.2 35.7 18

147 Shady Cove 33,931 35.5 36.6 33.7 25

148 Shady Cove (part)–Rogue Elk 39,429 19.1 24.3 34.7 32

149 Spikenard–Trail 30,756 21.4 29.7 37.4 28150 Starvation Heights 39,670 43.4 27.2 36.4 3

151 Sunny Valley–Placer–Golden–Speaker 23,746 23.0 48.7 31.1 15152 Table Rock–Beagle 42,882 12.8 26.8 32.0 34

153 Takilma 19,977 7.3 52.1 32.8 12

154 Talent 31,564 26.7 38.4 35.8 2

155 Tolo 41,581 32.0 24.3 36.9 30

156 Voorhies 55,250 20.5 13.9 28.2 44

157 White City CDP 31,725 14.9 40.5 38.3 18

158 Wilderville–Wonder 32,403 33.7 38.2 30.5 22

159 Williams 34,049 28.9 41.3 31.4 20

160 Wimer–Bybee Springs 41,643 59.9 32.9 23.5 33

161 Winona 39,854 24.8 22.3 41.1 25

162 Wolf Creek–Leland 22,217 25.1 51.3 30.2 14

Roseburg District:

163 Camas Valley–Reston–Olalla–Tenmile 35,475 37.6 33.1 37.0 26164 Canyonville 28,450 24.0 43.0 38.8 15

165 Cleveland–Elgarose–Callahan 45,506 23.7 17.8 41.8 34

166 Days Creek 30,980 25.2 37.7 42.0 1

167 Dillard–Carnes 32,046 35.5 33.3 37.6 25

168 Dixonville 46,414 14.3 15.4 41.5 39169 Dole 36,110 28.4 31.7 35.9 26

170 Drain 26,309 2.1 47.7 32.2 18
7

6

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued) Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median house- munity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

171 Drain (part)–Skelley 35,235 13.6 34.3 40.0 2

172 Glide–Idlewild 40,803 25.5 29.1 31.0 30

173 Green CDP 36,062 20.4 29.3 39.9 28

174 Hawthorne–Nonpareil 31,273 17.9 34.1 34.9 29175 Kellogg–Tyee 35,383 32.2 34.1 40.1 2

176 Lookinglass 43,700 8.3 23.3 34.9 35

177 Melrose 50,896 10.8 17.3 30.2 40178 Milo–Tiller–Drew 30,657 33.1 42.1 33.6 19

179 Myrtle Creek 35,924 31.1 35.7 34.6 23180 Oaks–Glengary–Round Prairie 36,672 –7.6 25.2 38.4 34

181 Peel–Steamboat 40,745 48.9 28.8 33.5 35

182 Rice Hill–Isadore 35,288 1.6 28.9 33.9 29183 Riddle 31,477 11.8 38.6 34.3 2

184 Roseburg–Roseburg North CDP 34,838 12.7 37.8 32.5 25

185 Roseburg (part)–Riversdale 35,210 –5.3 34.3 32.2 22

186 Safley–Anlauf–Curtin–Comstock 31,098 10.7 40.1 29.8 24

187 Stephens–Akin 52,946 7.1 23.9 23.9 43

188 Surprise Valley 32,917 5.2 34.7 40.8 18

189 Sutherlin–Oakland 30,851 14.2 39.8 36.3 20

190 Tokatee Falls–Clearwater–Diamond Lake 40,598 9.8 29.3 33.1 36

191 Tri City CDP 31,108 16.6 41.8 32.8 22192 Umpqua–Millwood–Green Peak 44,690 –13.7 22.2 44.0 30

193 Wilbur–Redbell 50,966 20.7 24.9 24.5 3194 Winston 29,715 23.7 41.2 35.1 22

195 Yoncalla 25,836 6.6 49.1 36.2 12

196 Yoncalla (part)–Elkhead 29,342 9.1 36.5 39.4 2

Salem District:

197 Adair Village 66,009 61.8 13.1 24.2 3198 Albany 37,669 19.0 34.0 32.0 29

199 Alder Creek–Cherryville 49,586 20.1 23.2 26.3 35

200 Alsea 41,758 35.3 24.7 35.8 35

201 Amity 40,052 56.7 26.8 36.0 33202 Anderson 61,593 33.5 16.8 25.9 39

203 Astoria 33,855 12.2 36.8 32.5 25204 Aumsville 41,445 44.0 29.1 34.3 33
77

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued)

Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median housemunity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

205 Aurora 41,760 33.4 21.5 40.5 29206 Ballston–McCoy–Walkers Corner 46,937 36.0 27.6 25.1 38207 Banks 60,348 49.4 11.4 28.4 45

208 Barlow 45,604 19.0 24.7 32.6 33

209 Bay City (city)–Idaville 35,147 18.7 31.7 34.8 28

210 Beaver–Hemlock–Sand Lake 35,660 16.0 37.1 31.7 19

211 Beaver Homes–Goble 47,971 10.2 20.2 32.2 44

212 Bellevue 59,195 23.1 16.2 26.0 44

213 Berlin–(McDowell Creek) 50,093 44.7 17.9 31.7 45

214 Boring 55,578 13.9 15.7 29.6 3

215 Boyer–Grand Ronde–Gold Creek 38,014 42.0 32.7 35.3 29216 Brewster–Griggs 37,433 21.9 27.9 41.3 25

217 Briedwell–Winch 57,421 123.3 13.0 25.2 50

218 Broadacres 47,118 36.4 21.8 33.8 35

219 Brooks–Waconda–Lakebrook 54,428 53.0 17.0 26.1 40

220 Brownsmead–Westport–(Tenasilahe Island & Others) 28,462 –17.1 42.0 33.3 22

221 Brownsville 41,603 28.5 23.5 38.9 30

222 Bull Run–Marmot 45,260 14.9 15.6 39.2 3

223 Canby 45,146 18.3 22.6 33.9 32

224 Canby (part)–O’Neil Corners 55,212 19.0 16.6 27.2 38

225 Cannon Beach 37,238 23.2 34.3 31.6 24

226 Carlton 40,887 27.2 19.2 41.2 33227 Carlton (part)–Yamhill (part) 48,970 28.4 19.6 31.5 45

228 Carus 58,238 11.5 10.0 30.8 44229 Carver 51,094 19.2 20.3 28.2 34

230 Cedardale–Dickey Prairie–Fernwood 50,977 37.9 23.6 24.4 40

231 Cedarhurst Park–Logan 59,371 37.7 14.9 29.3 3

232 Central Point 56,716 –2.4 12.7 27.4 44

233 Champoeg–Fairfield 49,446 60.5 19.9 30.7 30234 Chehalem–Middleton 67,182 45.5 7.3 19.4 49

235 Cherry Grove–(South Henry Hagg Lake) 43,859 22.9 14.1 40.9 3

236 Christie–Greenville–Starkey Corner 55,617 25.4 19.9 19.2 45

237 Clatskanie 36,981 –0.8 32.6 29.0 34

238 Clatskanie (part)–Swedetown–Apiary 49,830 13.9 27.1 23.1 40

239 Cloverdale–Hebo–Dolph–Winema Beach 44,182 70.5 31.9 25.3 3
78

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued) Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median house- munity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

240 Cochran–Glenwood–Timber 54,364 44.7 20.6 22.1 40

241 Colton–Clarkes–Timber Grove 46,857 27.6 19.2 33.8 36

242 Columbia City–St. Helens 41,552 28.5 28.7 32.1 32243 Cornelius–Forest Grove 42,682 26.4 26.7 31.4 34

244 Corvallis 40,323 27.1 36.1 26.3 2

245 Corvallis (part)–Lewisburg 68,968 22.8 15.4 23.3 34

246 Cottrell–Kelso 54,061 28.7 14.8 30.0 40

247 Crabtree 52,277 58.4 22.5 24.0 38

248 Currinsville 43,438 30.5 35.6 22.4 39249 Dallas 35,197 35.3 36.9 32.0 2

250 Dallas (part)–Ellendale 46,345 11.5 22.4 33.2 36

251 Dallas (part)–Rickreal–Orrs Corner 44,052 17.4 22.0 37.4 3

252 Damascus–Wetzels Corner–Wilson Corner 69,776 21.3 6.7 21.3 45253 Dawson–Glenbrook–Alpine–Bellfountain 45,535 22.5 27.8 25.0 40

254 Dayton 43,716 43.5 22.5 38.0 32

255 Deer Island–Reuben 44,178 12.9 18.5 38.2 35

256 Delena–Downing 47,058 24.2 27.5 25.7 39257 Depoe Bay 33,176 23.7 36.9 34.4 23

258 Detroit 32,460 19.3 33.1 38.5 23

259 Dewey–(Chehalem Mountain) 62,545 32.6 13.1 24.3 35

260 Dodge–Springwater 43,588 16.7 19.7 37.5 29

261 Donald (city) 46,816 22.6 13.6 41.6 3

262 Douglass Ridge 51,502 23.9 18.5 25.3 46

263 Dundee 51,948 18.6 18.6 28.4 39

264 Eagle Creek–Barton 44,917 24.5 23.4 33.0 35265 Elk City–Burnt Woods–Harlan–Siletz Indian 36,682 15.4 35.0 30.6 28

 Reservation (part)

266 Eola Crest–Hopewell–Yampo 49,148 2.6 14.8 35.8 35

267 Estacada 40,956 35.7 29.1 32.4 29

268 Fairdale–Pike 48,458 16.4 9.1 42.3 35

269 Fairview 42,470 20.5 26.7 40.0 25

270 Falls City 39,518 68.3 24.7 39.0 30

271 Faraday 44,772 35.9 21.6 30.5 36

272 Fargo–Butteville–Curtis 45,328 1.0 22.5 36.1 35

273 Farmington–Hazeldale–Jacktown 60,272 25.8 13.7 29.7 33
7

9

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued)

Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median housemunity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

274 Fawn–Jordan–Fox Valley 42,476 35.7 28.1 25.6 35

275 Fern Corner–Bridgeport–Airlie 56,976 37.9 14.4 24.5 50

276 Fern Hill 41,893 –3.6 22.2 41.1 2

277 Fern Road 54,280 19.9 19.4 24.1 40278 Firwood–Dover 50,002 17.0 24.8 24.9 39279 Fishers Corner–Beaver Creek–Echo Dell 64,604 19.5 7.5 24.9 4

280 Fruitland–Geer 61,064 41.8 13.6 24.6 44

281 Fruitvale 47,234 18.8 31.1 23.0 3

282 Gales Creek–Kansas City–Thatcher 57,291 25.8 12.7 26.4 43283 Garfield–Tracy–Whitewater 47,662 15.4 10.0 45.0 29284 Garibaldi 28,829 10.2 41.4 34.4 20

285 Gaston 55,356 15.7 16.3 27.0 34

286 Gates 33,212 31.4 34.6 28.3 33

287 Gearhart 45,176 28.4 24.9 32.1 33

288 George–Bissell 50,165 –7.0 24.3 25.3 39

289 Gervais 42,121 53.0 20.9 42.1 32

290 Glenwood–Sunset Beach–Westlake 49,852 42.3 22.0 26.7 40

291 Government Camp–Timberline Lodge 54,626 73.2 28.1 15.8 35292 Grand Ronde Agency–Midway 37,493 35.6 27.2 33.7 34293 Greenville–Narrows–Santiam Terrace 35,506 8.0 26.7 37.3 29294 Hammond–Warrenton (part) 34,994 14.0 36.2 33.4 26

295 Hazel Green–Labish Village 44,223 48.9 14.7 38.9 39296 Highland–Upper Highland–Viola 52,416 13.1 11.8 36.7 36

297 Hillsview 71,838 14.5 11.2 21.0 4

298 Holbrook–(Sauvie Island) 59,342 44.8 16.1 23.8 38

299 Hoodview–Mulloy 80,677 43.1 18.0 7.5 34

300 Hubbard 43,445 21.7 23.9 33.3 36301 Idanha 32,469 29.7 33.0 38.6 23

302 Idanha (part)–Gates (part) 36,189 –6.7 31.1 42.0 25303 Independence–Monmouth 34,246 32.0 36.9 32.1 26

304 Inglis–Quincy 43,388 17.4 22.5 34.7 30

305 Jefferson 42,572 24.2 28.7 30.5 34

306 Jewell–Elsie–Hamlet 38,104 28.9 31.9 40.5 22

307 Kerry–Marshland 36,602 –10.1 37.1 23.6 34

308 Kings Valley–Blodgett–Harris 48,370 59.7 21.5 33.3 3
80

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued) Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median house- munity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

309 Knappa–Knappa Junction–(Karlson Island) 44,189 0.2 26.7 25.9 40310 Kokel Corner 42,688 5.4 26.0 35.8 2

311 LaComb–Marion Forks (part) 46,619 21.8 29.6 28.0 33312 Ladd Hill 81,901 9.0 15.1 9.7 34313 Lafayette 45,806 36.5 23.3 32.9 34

314 Latourell–Warrendale–Bonneville 53,039 16.8 14.9 31.7 39

315 Laurel 79,079 44.5 11.2 19.8 36

316 Lebanon (city)–South Lebanon CDP 33,507 19.1 38.3 31.5 25317 Lincoln City 28,589 10.4 45.7 28.9 22

318 Lincoln Beach CDP 34,567 14.9 35.3 36.0 23319 Locoda–Woodson–(Wallace Island) 60,073 32.7 22.1 20.0 48320 Lone Elder–Macksburg–Dryland 52,191 8.2 12.8 33.1 4321 Lunnville–Cove Orchard–Dellwood–Wapato 58,603 34.9 21.1 19.3 40322 Lyons 41,900 27.8 30.2 27.4 38

323 Manning–Scofield–Tophill 52,677 15.8 23.6 26.2 39

324 Manzanita–Nehalem (part) 33,163 17.3 29.7 41.1 2

325 Marion 49,938 27.8 25.5 27.4 35

326 Marquam–Wilhoit 48,630 33.6 20.3 30.9 40

327 McMinnville 39,344 20.8 28.6 37.5 2328 McMinnville (part)–Orchard View 54,243 4.6 15.6 28.0 4

329 Meacham Corner 71,311 10.4 22.0 17.5 54

330 Midway–Scholls 67,472 30.2 12.4 22.6 3

331 Miles Crossing 40,860 12.8 27.2 37.9 30

332 Mill City 33,310 12.1 35.6 39.2 22333 Mill City (part)–Mehama 35,894 0 32.5 30.4 36

334 Millersburg 48,190 13.6 19.9 30.1 42

335 Molalla 42,836 48.8 26.2 32.5 34336 Monroe 39,782 26.4 28.1 31.6 35337 Mount Angel 35,830 19.1 37.0 31.7 26

338 Mount Hood Village CDP 51,639 44.0 19.0 29.2 36

339 Mountaindale 63,346 28.4 15.0 22.2 40

340 Mulino 55,983 24.2 16.7 24.6 39

341 Necanicum 42,623 16.4 24.1 32.9 3

342 Nehalem (part)–Salmonberry 33,174 24.9 39.6 32.9 15

343 Neskowin 40,712 38.1 29.4 34.5 32
81

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued)

Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median housemunity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

344 Netarts–(Netarts Bay) 35,930 17.1 30.8 39.4 23

345 Newberg 45,797 29.6 24.2 30.7 39

346 Newport 34,382 8.7 36.5 33.7 2

347 North Albany CDP 63,472 19.7 10.6 19.8 48

348 North Plains 62,036 49.7 17.4 23.9 3

349 Oak Grove–Bethel–Bethel Heights 68,728 34.6 12.2 25.4 45

350 Oceanside–Cape Meares–Bayocean 37,125 11.5 30.7 34.5 3

351 Old Colton–Elwood 58,417 41.1 12.8 26.6 48352 Olney 45,518 4.1 20.0 35.0 30

353 Orleans 35,260 –28.4 31.9 33.2 25354 Otter Rock–Beverly Beach 39,133 41.5 26.2 40.6 2

355 Pacific City–Woods 36,263 36.1 30.8 34.5 29

356 Palestine 71,336 20.4 8.2 24.3 3

357 Paradise Park 53,232 24.7 15.4 29.6 4

358 Parker–Buena Vista–Hopville–Modeville 50,111 39.0 21.4 28.5 39

359 Philomath 42,291 36.0 23.7 40.9 28360 Pirtle–Riverside 45,483 10.4 22.4 36.2 22

361 Pleasant Valley–Blaine 35,188 12.9 28.6 44.3 2

362 Pleasantdale 39,369 17.1 35.3 26.6 25363 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Burlington–Folkenberg 70,511 31.9 22.0 20.0 26

364 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Corbett–Springdale 65,372 31.0 17.9 16.4 4

365 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Orient–Pleasant Home 58,526 15.2 12.9 25.6 46

366 Pratum–North Howell 49,680 10.7 16.6 34.0 40

367 Prescott–Ranier (part) 40,477 12.5 27.6 36.0 3

368 Rainier (city) 43,007 32.3 25.9 30.7 3

369 Rainier (city) (part)–Alston–Mayger 51,013 33.9 22.2 25.8 4370 Redland–Fishers Mill 58,425 15.0 10.9 28.7 43

371 Rex–(Parrett Mountain) 76,461 23.8 11.6 16.8 39

372 Rockaway Beach 31,537 30.6 37.5 37.7 22

373 Rose Lodge CDP 35,014 25.7 31.0 38.3 26

374 Rural Dell–Yoder–Ninety–One–Needy 54,901 27.3 20.0 27.3 38

375 Salem (part)–Rosedale 46,498 2.1 19.9 32.4 34

376 Salem–Keizer (part)–Eagle Crest Corner–Zena–Lincoln 62,338 12.9 16.8 20.2 44

377 San Marine 31,641 30.9 37.2 37.0 20378 Sandy 47,592 24.3 22.6 30.8 36
82

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued) Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median house- munity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

379 Scappoose–(N. Sauvie Island) 48,940 29.2 19.5 31.5 39

380 Scio 42,637 28.2 19.2 42.4 29

381 Scotts Mills 50,641 42.9 17.1 30.8 42382 Seal Rock–Ona 32,103 8.9 33.3 43.9 18

383 Seaside 33,088 23.1 38.7 31.3 24384 Shaff–West Stayton–North Santiam 49,677 36.6 17.3 35.5 39

385 Shaw–Macleay 67,988 24.0 12.5 27.3 40

386 Shelburn–Kingston 56,724 34.8 14.1 27.0 4

387 Sheridan 36,255 30.2 33.3 34.2 2

388 Sherwood 62,228 79.8 13.0 21.4 45

389 Siletz–Siletz Indian Reservation 39,434 36.0 30.9 31.0 32

390 Silver Falls City–Drake Crossing 49,070 48.7 22.8 26.5 3

391 Silverton 41,403 26.2 26.8 32.9 32

392 Sodaville 43,924 26.4 26.3 32.3 33

393 South Prairie 44,136 35.1 16.5 38.5 34

394 Spatenberg 58,036 32.1 19.9 23.9 43

395 Spicer–Tallman–Irvinville 43,645 20.0 20.2 36.6 3396 St. Helens (city) (part)–McNutty 51,834 27.6 23.8 24.6 3

397 St. Paul 41,688 –1.0 31.0 27.6 29

398 Stafford 105,442 47.7 9.7 11.0 24

399 Stayton 38,533 19.7 33.5 31.6 28

400 Stimson Mill 51,487 15.1 9.1 36.3 40401 Sublimity 48,218 21.1 20.1 30.7 40

402 Sunnycrest 65,376 53.4 7.3 16.8 5403 Sunnyside–Orville 56,693 20.4 14.3 30.1 3

404 Svensen–(Russian Island) 39,665 –6.7 18.6 47.8 2

405 Sweet Home 33,187 40.8 37.9 36.0 22

406 Talbot–Sidney 63,539 69.9 16.7 20.8 34

407 Tangent 46,003 30.0 23.5 31.1 35

408 Tidewater 35,714 31.2 28.3 42.6 25

409 Tierra del Mar 38,078 32.0 28.9 34.7 28

410 Tillamook 30,445 18.3 42.5 33.1 2

411 Tillamook (city) (part)–Jordan Creek 40,584 8.9 15.6 49.4 24412 Toledo 38,839 24.3 32.4 32.6 29413 Trenholm–Waterview–Yankton 51,002 15.5 21.9 26.2 40
83

Table 7—Community income indicators, 2000 (continued)

Change in Household income distri

Com- Median median housemunity household hold income, $25,000– $50

numbera Community name income 1990 to 2000 ≤$24,999 $49,999 $99

Dollars - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - 

414 Turner 60,785 39.1 14.1 26.2 42

415 Union Mills 58,481 30.9 16.2 24.3 43

416 Unionvale–Wheatland 42,680 50.3 28.4 32.2 3417 Valsetz 47,406 20.4 21.3 31.3 3

418 Vernonia 41,244 42.4 25.6 38.1 30419 Waldport 32,146 23.1 37.7 35.2 23

420 Warren 52,202 0.4 22.5 24.6 32421 Warrenton 32,787 7.9 37.0 30.5 28

422 Waterloo 47,961 48.8 22.5 31.4 3

423 Wheeler 25,720 12.0 48.9 34.9 12

424 Whiskey Hill 49,617 –1.8 17.5 33.9 2

425 Willamina (part) 32,343 31.7 35.2 36.4 28

426 Willamina (part)–Buell–Fort Hill 39,019 34.6 26.1 35.6 30

427 Wilsonville 54,955 13.8 18.1 28.5 34

428 Wilsonville (part)–Tonquin 89,019 85.7 14.9 15.4 26

429 Woodburn 34,686 18.0 32.9 37.2 24

430 Woodburn (part)–Saint Louis 42,444 6.5 34.5 27.7 3

431 Wren 75,825 40.8 14.9 18.0 4

432 Yachats 31,657 24.7 37.1 37.1 20

433 Yamhill 49,113 39.5 18.0 32.5 43

aThe location of the communities can be found in the maps in Appendix A. bCDP = census designated place.
84

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 Socioeconomic well-being componentb Community Graduated Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

Coos Bay District: 1 Ada–Siltcoos–Canary 77.5 15.5 0.87 29.4 3.3 21.7 

2 Agness–Illahe–Marial 53.3 11.2 .90 19.8 3.6 22.8 

3 Allegany–Dellwood–Fairview 52.2 –7.9 .91 10.5 3.4 34.5 

4 Ash 54.3 –4.5 .91 8.1 3.5 18.7 

5 Bandon 70.9 –4.6 .86 17.8 3.3 13.5 

6 Bandon (part)–Twomile–Fourmile 67.4 –1.9 .91 18.6 3.7 22.3 

7 Barview CDPc–Crown Point 50.9 2.5 .87 9.4 3.5 18.6 

8 Brookings 76.7 –1.1 .93 16.2 3.4 13.6 

9 Bullards–Randolph 68.6 3.9 .84 23.9 2.7 16.5 

10 Cheney–Bridge–Remote 45.9 23.2 .83 14.5 3.9 24.9 

11 Coos Bay (city)–Bunker Hill CDP 61.9 –6.0 .92 14.3 3.8 15.3 

12 Coos Head Naval Facility–Charleston 44.8 –23.7 .82 17.9 4.5 27.7 

13 Cooston 65.2 –4.0 .88 25.2 3.4 26.2 

14 Coquille 67.1 5.5 .92 13.3 3.2 22.9 

15 Coquille (part)–Leneve–Coaledo 66.1 .8 .93 10.0 3.8 21.0 

16 Cordes–Hauser–(Saunders Lake) 60.1 –1.1 .96 10.2 3.7 25.9 

17 Dunes City 71.1 –3.4 .88 29.8 3.7 22.2 

18 Elkton 59.8 –1.8 .92 11.1 2.9 34.1 

19 Gardiner–Kroll–Sulphur Springs 50.4 15.6 .86 11.1 3.8 31.4 

20 Glasgow 69.6 –5.6 .85 22.1 4.2 15.1 

21 Glenada–Westlake 57.4 .2 .91 11.3 3.6 24.5 

22 Gold Beach 74.3 –2.6 .91 21.1 3.7 13.2 

23 Harbor CDP 65.6 –15.1 .92 9.8 4.0 12.7 

24 Lakeside 65.5 4.6 .97 8.1 3.5 27.6 

25 Lakeside (part)–Templeton 62.4 –9.0 .94 10.9 3.0 31.8 

26 Libby–Southport 70.3 .2 .92 13.6 3.2 21.1 

27 McCormac 76.1 6.0 .90 16.2 3.1 21.9 

28 Myrtle Point 63.3 3.2 .90 11.4 3.2 19.5 

29 Myrtle Point (part)–Arago 45.5 2.9 .90 9.7 3.8 25.8 

30 Myrtle Point (part)–Estabrook–Warner 56.6 .3 .91 4.5 3.4 20.3 

31 Myrtle Point (part)–Norway–Sitkum– 60.8 8.7 .84 20.7 4.1 25.4 

 McKinley

32 North Bend 70.6 –5.1 .90 18.1 3.6 15.6 

33 O’Brien 53.1 17.9 .93 7.9 3.9 24.3 

34 Ophir 81.6 21.3 .90 23.8 3.2 16.0 

Appendix C: Socioeconomic Well-Being Index
85

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued)

Socioeconomic well-being componentb

Community Graduated

Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household

Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average

munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

35 Overland–Delmar–Green Acres 60.2 –9.4 .82 17.4 3.8 26.0 

36 Pistol River–Carpenterville 76.6 –7.5 .94 18.4 3.4 14.9 

37 Port Orford 63.5 –4.1 .92 20.1 4.1 15.7 

38 Powers 42.7 –11.3 .82 10.9 3.7 28.5 

39 Prosper–Parkersburg–Winterville 68.3 –5.9 .88 20.4 3.7 20.0 

40 Reedsport 58.0 –6.4 .90 15.6 4.0 18.3 

41 Reedsport (part)–Winchester Bay 54.8 –7.8 .94 11.7 4.0 17.2 

42 Riverton 43.6 17.8 .90 9.9 4.6 20.8 

43 Scottsburg 50.5 1.9 .86 11.1 3.8 31.4 

44 Shorewood 82.7 8.5 .96 20.7 3.1 24.0 

45 Sixes–Denmark–Langlois 53.7 10.9 .91 19.7 3.6 22.7 

46 Sumner 62.2 .0 .90 18.6 3.8 30.5 

47 Wedderburn–Nesika Beach 81.6 11.2 .90 23.8 3.2 16.0 

Eugene District:

48 Alvadore 72.1 2.2 .90 12.8 3.2 21.6 

49 Bear Creek–Cheshire–Franklin–Goldson 82.7 –2.2 .95 21.6 2.8 26.2 

50 Blue River–Finn Rock–Nimrod 52.5 –13.8 .91 18.7 3.6 34.0 

51 Cartney–Miller–Rowland 79.2 8.2 .94 12.7 3.2 17.9 

52 Cascadia–Santiam Junction–Marion 62.8 6.1 .88 5.1 3.0 28.3 

 Forks (part)

53 Cloverdale 84.9 10.2 .94 27.2 3.0 24.5 

54 Coburg 88.4 15.3 .94 27.3 3.1 20.1 

55 Cottage Grove 63.3 –2.8 .92 11.4 3.4 23.9 

56 Crawfordsville– Union Point 66.3 –10.7 .90 16.8 3.6 29.7 

57 Creswell 69.0 6.6 .93 19.8 3.5 24.3 

58 Crow 77.8 –1.9 .84 20.5 2.4 31.2 

59 Deadwood–Triangle Lake–Blachly 62.8 3.3 .92 19.4 3.0 33.2 

60 Dexter 52.5 –5.9 .83 9.5 4.1 24.5 

61 Dorena–Culp Creek–Disston 64.0 5.8 .92 15.2 3.0 40.6 

62 Eugene (part)–(Bailey Hill)–(Spencer Creek) 83.9 2.0 .91 29.0 3.4 18.8 

63 Fall Creek–Unity 75.8 7.3 .94 24.2 3.3 31.3 

64 Firo–Swisshome–(Deadwood Creek West) 52.4 –3.4 .94 6.1 3.9 33.3 

65 Florence 68.8 –2.3 .89 16.2 3.3 14.4 

66 Gap 63.0 –2.8 .89 10.5 3.2 30.4 

67 Goshen 74.4 7.8 .92 15.9 3.4 19.8 

68 Halsey 72.7 –2.8 .93 16.3 3.3 22.1 

69 Harrisburg 70.4 6.7 .89 9.1 2.8 22.7 

70 Holley–Calapooia–Dollar 60.4 –8.1 .92 10.2 3.2 29.7 
86

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued) Socioeconomic well-being componentb Community Graduated Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

71 Horton 70.0 6.5 .86 24.5 3.2 31.7 

72 Jasper–Trent 72.6 11.7 .95 20.4 3.8 20.8 

73 Junction City 76.1 3.8 .91 14.2 3.3 19.9 

74 Lancaster 81.3 15.0 .91 20.7 3.1 19.8 

75 Leaburg–Deerhorn 75.1 –6.5 .91 20.8 3.3 31.9 

76 London–(Black Butte) 66.7 9.8 .87 12.6 3.0 29.1 

77 Lorane 67.0 –0.9 .85 32.2 3.6 28.4 

78 Lowell 71.6 16.2 .92 15.9 2.7 26.5 

79 Lowell (part)–Minnow–Crale–Winberry 66.7 –5.4 .87 22.4 3.4 30.7 

80 Mabel–Wendling 71.9 6.7 .91 15.0 3.0 31.5 

81 Mapleton–Tiernan–Nekoma 66.8 3.5 .87 15.6 2.9 29.6 

82 Marcola 77.1 13.9 .92 18.6 2.8 26.4 

83 Maywood 81.1 10.2 .93 25.9 2.9 22.9 

84 Mohawk 81.4 4.6 .90 27.2 2.9 23.0 

85 Oakridge 56.1 –3.6 .88 9.6 3.4 26.0 

86 Pleasant Hill 80.5 6.9 .94 20.4 3.4 20.4 

87 Pryor–Kitson Hot Springs–Frazier 64.9 –5.3 .93 12.2 3.4 31.8 

88 Rainbow–McKenzie Bridge–Belknap 71.0 13.0 .78 28.0 2.9 25.4 

 Springs–Foley Springs

89 Richardson–Alma–Wolf Creek 58.4 –9.8 .81 23.2 3.4 32.5 

90 Sailor–Elrus–Long Tom–Vaughn 72.5 .9 .87 21.5 2.5 34.6 

91 Searose Beach–Minerva 67.3 –8.1 .81 18.2 3.1 19.0 

92 Veneta 65.0 2.0 .93 14.9 2.8 29.1 

93 Veneta (part)–Elmira 76.6 3.2 .93 20.3 2.9 25.5 

94 Vida 77.2 –2.2 .93 22.6 2.7 39.4 

95 Walker–Saginaw–Royal 77.3 21.0 .93 15.0 2.9 25.5 

96 Walterville 80.8 16.9 .94 23.4 3.0 26.3 

97 Walton–Noti–Penn 63.8 –4.4 .91 18.7 2.8 32.4 

98 Westfir 72.4 5.7 .92 15.5 3.0 32.4 

Lakeview District:

99 Algoma–Shady Pine 57.1 –8.7 .86 21.4 3.8 16.2 

100 Beatty–Sprague River 30.8 20.1 .91 8.3 3.9 39.1 101 Bonanza (east)–Bly–Langell Valley 56.2 8.8 .85 12.8 3.3 21.4 102 Bonanza (west)–Hildebrand–Yonna 47.7 –10.6 .88 17.0 3.7 28.3 

103 Chemult–Beaver Marsh–Diamond Lake 60.5 1.2 .83 21.8 3.6 11.0 

 Junction

104 Chiloquin 55.2 .0 .93 10.8 3.2 20.1 

105 Falcon Heights 79.1 2.4 .93 13.4 2.7 18.2 
87

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued)

Socioeconomic well-being componentb

Community Graduated

Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household

Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average

munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

106 Fort Klamath–Sand Creek–Yamsay 44.7 –9.4 .91 8.9 3.9 36.1 

107 Keno–Worden 70.7 1.2 .91 14.4 3.4 22.5 

108 Klamath Falls–Altamont CDP 65.9 –2.6 .92 16.5 3.6 15.1 

109 Klamath Falls–Altamont (part)–Pine 78.8 –5.7 .92 30.4 3.2 20.3 

 Grove–Olene

110 Malin 56.6 –0.6 .89 13.3 3.4 20.7 111 Merrill 67.1 –1.7 .95 17.6 3.7 19.9 112 Midland 79.1 14.0 .93 13.4 2.7 18.2 

113 Rocky Point–Lake of the Woods 41.3 –12.7 .86 14.1 4.2 20.8 

Medford District:114 Applegate 64.6 –10.6 .89 19.4 4.0 26.1 

115 Ashland 63.5 –14.9 .81 48.4 4.4 16.2 

116 Azalea–Galesville–Fortune Branch 71.6 31.6 .86 12.7 3.2 18.2 

117 Bridgeview–Holland 55.3 18.8 .92 16.5 3.7 30.1 

118 Buncom 76.4 8.3 .88 33.5 3.8 19.9 

119 Butte Falls 62.4 1.5 .96 9.5 3.2 32.7 

120 Cave Junction 48.3 –1.1 .92 7.9 3.9 22.1 

121 Cave Junction (part)–Dryden 51.3 –3.2 .90 14.3 3.6 29.8 

122 Central Point (city) 79.3 1.1 .91 13.4 2.9 16.4 

123 Colestin 82.4 –11.2 .87 43.1 3.5 16.4 

124 Eagle Point 69.7 1.8 .92 11.7 3.0 22.1 125 Foots Creek 66.5 –2.6 .94 22.4 4.0 29.5 

126 Galice–Rand 64.2 .3 .94 15.6 3.4 22.7 

127 Glendale (city)–Fernvale 57.4 1.3 .84 5.9 3.6 18.9 128 Gold Hill 71.0 –0.9 .92 17.0 3.4 23.8 

129 Grants Pass (city)–Harbeck–Fruitdale CDP– 65.9 .4 .92 14.0 3.6 17.4 

 Redwood CDP

130 Jacksonville 78.7 2.4 .91 27.3 3.5 18.2 

131 Jerome Prairie 60.2 –2.6 .90 14.4 3.4 23.6 

132 Lakecreek–Brownsboro 62.6 2.5 .96 9.7 3.2 32.5 

133 Lincoln–Climax–Steinman 73.2 –6.9 .87 37.4 3.7 23.3 

134 Medford 69.3 –3.5 .91 19.6 3.7 16.1 

135 Medford (part)–White City CDP (part) 56.9 13.7 .92 11.1 3.6 23.6 

136 Merlin 69.7 5.0 .91 14.6 3.2 20.1 

137 Murphy 60.2 –5.7 .92 15.7 4.1 21.3 

138 New Hope 67.1 6.4 .90 11.7 3.6 21.2 139 Phoenix 73.1 –3.0 .91 25.3 3.8 16.2 

140 Pleasant Valley–Three Pines–Hugo 61.5 –4.3 .91 15.4 4.0 20.2 
88

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued) Socioeconomic well-being componentb Community Graduated Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

141 Prospect–Cascade Gorge–McLeod 58.5 –7.2 .93 12.1 3.3 36.7 

142 Provolt 60.6 7.9 .91 20.0 3.8 32.4 

143 Quines Creek 45.8 9.0 .91 11.2 3.5 34.2 

144 Rogue River 66.4 –3.4 .93 16.9 3.8 22.2 

145 Ruch–McKee Bridge–(Applegate Lake) 68.2 6.2 .87 29.8 3.3 30.0 

146 Selma 58.9 25.1 .93 14.8 3.5 26.4 

147 Shady Cove 70.6 8.5 .94 11.7 3.4 25.9 148 Shady Cove (part)–Rogue Elk 60.0 –2.8 .89 14.5 3.6 29.4 

149 Spikenard–Trail 69.5 21.9 .91 22.2 3.0 37.2 

150 Starvation Heights 65.8 –7.8 .93 8.3 3.0 27.7 

151 Sunny Valley–Placer–Golden–Speaker 43.5 –8.2 .90 12.2 4.2 22.9 

152 Table Rock–Beagle 66.1 –6.0 .92 11.0 3.0 26.6 

153 Takilma 39.3 –5.6 .81 11.5 5.0 18.3 154 Talent 72.2 5.2 .91 24.2 3.5 18.0 

155 Tolo 73.2 –0.1 .90 13.1 3.1 19.3 

156 Voorhies 89.8 1.8 .93 30.0 2.6 18.8 

157 White City CDP 57.9 –0.1 .92 6.0 3.0 22.5 

158 Wilderville–Wonder 57.8 6.7 .92 13.8 3.8 24.4 

159 Williams 62.6 –3.6 .93 19.9 4.0 26.0 

160 Wimer–Bybee Springs 61.7 –2.1 .92 13.3 3.9 32.1 

161 Winona 70.2 3.8 .91 16.2 3.1 20.5 162 Wolf Creek–Leland 39.7 –20.6 .88 11.7 4.2 23.2 

Roseburg District:163 Camas Valley–Reston–Olalla–Tenmile 66.2 17.1 .91 10.0 3.0 28.4 

164 Canyonville 61.7 3.8 .87 11.0 3.2 19.1 

165 Cleveland–Elgarose–Callahan 78.6 6.7 .92 9.8 2.4 23.0 

166 Days Creek 66.0 15.0 .93 9.1 3.0 26.0 

167 Dillard–Carnes 69.4 –1.5 .88 13.1 3.1 15.0 

168 Dixonville 86.1 12.2 .96 12.2 2.4 20.5 

169 Dole 50.4 –0.8 .83 4.7 3.3 25.3 

170 Drain 60.1 –0.5 .89 9.4 3.3 25.9 

171 Drain (part)–Skelley 66.9 4.8 .91 18.5 3.1 27.7 

172 Glide–Idlewild 77.3 5.6 .91 18.5 3.2 21.1 

173 Green CDP 72.6 1.8 .89 10.1 2.9 17.9 

174 Hawthorne–Nonpareil 58.9 5.6 .90 7.5 3.5 27.0 

175 Kellogg–Tyee 67.1 –5.1 .91 18.6 3.1 27.7 

176 Lookinglass 84.5 7.5 .94 19.5 2.9 18.3 

177 Melrose 72.5 4.7 .87 20.2 3.1 19.6 
89

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued)

Socioeconomic well-being componentb

Community Graduated

Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household

Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average

munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

178 Milo–Tiller–Drew 55.1 2.2 .85 16.2 3.5 25.7 

179 Myrtle Creek 64.3 8.7 .95 13.0 3.5 24.1 

180 Oaks–Glengary–Round Prairie 68.6 –4.5 .86 5.1 2.7 19.3 

181 Peel–Steamboat 64.7 13.6 .91 25.6 3.0 21.9 182 Rice Hill–Isadore 67.8 17.3 .91 16.0 3.3 29.4 

183 Riddle 52.2 –11.1 .88 6.0 3.7 19.7 

184 Roseburg–Roseburg North CDP 69.7 –3.4 .92 15.2 3.6 16.2 

185 Roseburg (part)–Riversdale 73.9 –0.6 .89 24.3 3.8 16.8 

186 Safley–Anlauf–Curtin–Comstock 55.0 –8.6 .92 12.9 3.5 29.7 

187 Stephens–Akin 83.7 23.7 .88 25.1 3.1 19.9 

188 Surprise Valley 59.3 1.0 .87 9.0 3.4 21.1 

189 Sutherlin–Oakland 64.8 –0.7 .90 10.3 3.2 21.6 

190 Tokatee Falls–Clearwater–Diamond Lake 61.3 –15.7 .89 26.7 3.0 22.0 

191 Tri City CDP 61.2 6.4 .91 6.2 3.4 19.8 

192 Umpqua–Millwood–Green Peak 75.0 8.8 .91 5.6 2.3 33.6 

193 Wilbur–Redbell 77.8 2.4 .84 30.2 3.4 18.8 

194 Winston 62.4 8.7 .88 8.2 3.3 16.0 

195 Yoncalla 54.6 –6.2 .86 5.4 3.3 26.3 

196 Yoncalla (part)–Elkhead 66.7 15.5 .88 9.2 2.9 25.5 

Salem District:197 Adair Village 91.9 10.9 .85 51.9 2.8 20.7 198 Albany 69.0 –0.5 .91 15.2 3.4 18.1 

199 Alder Creek–Cherryville 60.5 –14.0 .95 19.8 3.6 38.0 200 Alsea 78.2 10.2 .90 27.4 2.7 30.8 

201 Amity 70.4 4.0 .94 9.6 2.7 28.6 

202 Anderson 78.2 1.9 .92 19.6 2.9 30.2 

203 Astoria 65.1 –6.0 .92 21.0 3.6 15.0 

204 Aumsville 67.1 –1.7 .93 9.6 2.8 27.2 

205 Aurora 76.3 –2.7 .94 17.8 3.0 25.8 

206 Ballston–McCoy–Walkers Corner 80.3 11.0 .94 17.5 3.2 22.1 

207 Banks 85.1 19.5 .91 23.1 2.5 27.1 

208 Barlow 77.6 3.9 .94 12.7 2.9 25.0 

209 Bay City (city)–Idaville 75.9 –0.6 .96 12.8 3.4 17.7 210 Beaver–Hemlock–Sand Lake 67.7 5.4 .90 15.5 4.0 22.5 

211 Beaver Homes–Goble 65.0 –1.7 .91 6.5 2.5 41.0 212 Bellevue 85.8 2.0 .93 29.7 2.9 28.2 213 Berlin–(McDowell Creek) 70.5 –2.4 .92 13.2 2.8 25.4 

214 Boring 74.3 –2.1 .94 16.3 2.9 33.0 
90

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued) Socioeconomic well-being componentb Community Graduated Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

215 Boyer–Grand Ronde–Gold Creek 72.7 18.4 .93 8.1 3.0 26.1 

216 Brewster–Griggs 66.8 –1.8 .88 9.4 3.0 28.4 

217 Briedwell–Winch 82.0 14.0 .91 11.7 2.4 27.3 

218 Broadacres 68.8 9.4 .92 6.5 3.0 21.0 

219 Brooks–Waconda–Lakebrook 90.3 13.2 .95 25.7 2.7 23.1 

220 Brownsmead–Westport–(Tenasilahe 60.2 4.0 .83 5.9 3.4 19.7 

 Island & Others) 221 Brownsville 71.4 3.2 .90 17.4 2.8 27.5 

222 Bull Run–Marmot 70.0 –0.6 .90 27.2 3.2 36.7 

223 Canby 77.1 –0.3 .94 16.9 3.1 25.7 

224 Canby (part)–O’Neil Corners 80.4 7.3 .91 22.1 2.9 27.2 225 Cannon Beach 67.8 –18.2 .81 37.7 3.8 15.6 

226 Carlton 79.7 10.6 .92 15.2 2.6 28.0 227 Carlton (part)–Yamhill (part) 64.3 –6.3 .91 9.5 2.6 31.4 

228 Carus 82.0 3.1 .92 18.9 2.5 28.9 

229 Carver 81.3 –1.3 .91 28.2 2.9 24.7 230 Cedardale–Dickey Prairie–Fernwood 64.3 7.6 .88 11.2 3.0 35.5 

231 Cedarhurst Park–Logan 68.5 –5.2 .87 21.5 2.9 41.5 

232 Central Point 79.0 –3.5 .93 21.3 2.6 29.3 

233 Champoeg–Fairfield 76.9 40.8 .86 20.9 3.2 18.8 

234 Chehalem–Middleton 95.9 18.0 .94 34.9 2.4 28.0 235 Cherry Grove–(South Henry Hagg Lake) 77.6 29.1 .93 16.7 2.4 32.5 

236 Christie–Greenville–Starkey Corner 78.5 11.5 .91 22.3 2.8 23.8 237 Clatskanie 64.5 .5 .87 12.3 3.3 22.4 

238 Clatskanie (part)–Swedetown–Apiary 57.2 –8.3 .80 11.6 3.5 26.0 

239 Cloverdale–Hebo–Dolph–Winema Beach 73.0 1.9 .91 19.7 3.2 27.5 

240 Cochran–Glenwood–Timber 57.1 –4.4 .84 22.8 3.1 35.6 241 Colton–Clarkes–Timber Grove 67.6 .1 .95 17.1 2.9 35.5 

242 Columbia City–St. Helens 67.2 .8 .91 12.6 3.1 27.4 243 Cornelius–Forest Grove 66.7 –1.5 .90 16.7 3.1 26.0 

244 Corvallis 67.5 –6.9 .81 52.8 4.2 16.4 

245 Corvallis (part)–Lewisburg 86.2 –3.4 .80 59.7 3.2 18.1 

246 Cottrell–Kelso 79.2 3.9 .96 15.1 2.8 28.6 

247 Crabtree 71.1 6.1 .89 15.9 3.3 23.7 

248 Currinsville 59.0 5.0 .90 6.4 3.2 31.7 

249 Dallas 63.5 –0.2 .89 14.7 3.5 22.9 

250 Dallas (part)–Ellendale 81.2 2.1 .91 22.7 2.9 25.6 

251 Dallas (part)–Rickreal–Orrs Corner 78.9 –2.5 .93 15.6 2.9 23.8 
91

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued)

Socioeconomic well-being componentb

Community Graduated

Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household

Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average

munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

252 Damascus–Wetzels Corner–Wilson Corner 88.3 3.7 .93 27.3 2.4 28.1 

253 Dawson–Glenbrook–Alpine–Bellfountain 62.8 –11.8 .82 17.3 3.1 31.3 

254 Dayton 68.1 –5.0 .91 13.3 2.8 28.7 

255 Deer Island–Reuben 59.2 .4 .93 6.9 2.6 42.6 

256 Delena–Downing 56.7 –8.7 .89 9.3 3.1 34.0 

257 Depoe Bay 72.4 –2.2 .88 23.3 3.4 17.9 

258 Detroit 55.4 –11.0 .89 13.4 3.2 28.4 

259 Dewey–(Chehalem Mountain) 72.1 –5.2 .84 29.3 2.9 29.9 

260 Dodge–Springwater 58.8 –4.0 .88 13.3 3.1 38.0 

261 Donald (city) 80.3 4.6 .93 11.7 2.5 28.9 

262 Douglass Ridge 79.0 7.0 .95 16.1 2.5 38.2 

263 Dundee 78.8 4.1 .89 30.9 3.0 28.0 

264 Eagle Creek–Barton 70.7 3.4 .95 13.1 2.7 34.6 

265 Elk City–Burnt Woods–Harlan–Siletz 59.5 –1.5 .90 19.6 3.3 33.7 

 Indian Reservation (part)

266 Eola Crest–Hopewell–Yampo 78.3 1.0 .93 19.5 2.9 32.1 267 Estacada 60.0 1.3 .92 12.8 3.5 31.1 

268 Fairdale–Pike 74.1 3.7 .88 22.3 3.0 33.0 

269 Fairview 86.3 17.6 .94 18.9 3.1 17.6 

270 Falls City 63.3 15.2 .93 15.1 2.9 35.4 

271 Faraday 51.6 –13.4 .87 10.1 3.0 39.4 272 Fargo–Butteville–Curtis 78.5 –2.6 .84 23.1 2.9 22.0 

273 Farmington–Hazeldale–Jacktown 82.8 10.7 .91 28.3 3.2 23.3 

274 Fawn–Jordan–Fox Valley 64.2 16.2 .88 15.0 3.4 29.3 275 Fern Corner–Bridgeport–Airlie 80.6 6.4 .88 27.5 2.4 32.8 

276 Fern Hill 77.6 5.4 .91 11.7 2.9 24.8 

277 Fern Road 88.1 6.8 .88 44.1 3.1 23.8 278 Firwood–Dover 57.7 –19.2 .93 18.4 3.1 43.4 

279 Fishers Corner–Beaver Creek–Echo Dell 84.2 3.1 .92 20.5 2.4 29.3 

280 Fruitland–Geer 90.6 7.1 .94 29.1 2.5 21.8 

281 Fruitvale 76.1 6.8 .93 26.1 3.8 16.8 282 Gales Creek–Kansas City–Thatcher 78.1 8.8 .94 16.2 2.6 34.0 

283 Garfield–Tracy–Whitewater 50.3 –13.5 .87 15.9 2.8 34.7 

284 Garibaldi 72.4 3.7 .94 11.9 3.4 16.6 

285 Gaston 78.7 4.4 .95 24.7 3.2 27.6 

286 Gates 65.5 24.6 .91 15.9 3.4 29.6 

287 Gearhart 83.5 1.0 .90 27.8 3.2 14.4 

288 George–Bissell 58.0 –12.2 .92 18.5 3.0 43.6 

289 Gervais 64.5 12.2 .92 5.9 2.5 27.6 
92

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued) Socioeconomic well-being componentb Community Graduated Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

290 Glenwood–Sunset Beach–Westlake 84.9 9.6 .94 24.9 3.2 19.5 

291 Government Camp–Timberline Lodge 68.6 –16.0 .88 25.7 3.7 30.5 

292 Grand Ronde Agency–Midway 80.9 36.9 .95 13.2 2.7 34.3 

293 Greenville–Narrows–Santiam Terrace 71.9 10.1 .94 7.1 3.2 27.7 

294 Hammond–Warrenton (part) 67.7 –2.7 .87 18.3 3.5 23.7 

295 Hazel Green–Labish Village 75.6 10.9 .93 14.2 2.8 24.3 

296 Highland–Upper Highland–Viola 77.0 6.6 .94 21.0 2.8 36.1 

297 Hillsview 83.3 –4.9 .91 18.9 2.6 25.0 

298 Holbrook–(Sauvie Island) 84.4 5.5 .94 37.1 3.1 28.8 

299 Hoodview–Mulloy 77.6 .8 .76 45.3 2.8 27.8 

300 Hubbard 70.6 –1.9 .92 13.0 2.8 25.0 

301 Idanha 55.3 8.2 .89 13.3 3.2 28.4 

302 Idanha (part)–Gates (part) 72.5 17.3 .90 17.1 2.6 31.1 

303 Independence–Monmouth 57.9 –8.7 .88 26.6 3.7 22.6 

304 Inglis–Quincy 69.9 –1.6 .92 4.1 3.2 23.5 

305 Jefferson 69.6 3.1 .96 12.2 3.0 25.0 

306 Jewell–Elsie–Hamlet 59.1 10.4 .92 10.2 3.0 40.1 

307 Kerry–Marshland 63.6 .3 .92 14.1 3.6 24.1 

308 Kings Valley–Blodgett–Harris 77.3 26.6 .87 32.1 3.3 28.7 

309 Knappa–Knappa Junction–(Karlson Island) 69.6 20.0 .86 10.8 3.0 26.6 

310 Kokel Corner 66.7 –3.3 .93 17.7 3.0 38.2 

311 LaComb–Marion Forks (part) 63.1 10.3 .87 8.6 3.1 27.1 312 Ladd Hill 93.1 –1.1 .88 55.3 2.9 29.0 

313 Lafayette 66.4 3.5 .93 13.9 3.1 29.2 

314 Latourell–Warrendale–Bonneville 84.8 9.9 .95 23.6 2.9 30.8 

315 Laurel 81.5 7.9 .90 32.9 3.0 33.5 

316 Lebanon (city)–South Lebanon CDP 60.9 –0.8 .91 11.2 3.5 23.6 317 Lincoln City 54.8 –15.8 .81 18.0 3.6 18.3 

318 Lincoln Beach CDP 72.0 –5.3 .85 26.3 3.3 17.8 

319 Locoda–Woodson–(Wallace Island) 75.4 3.8 .90 11.1 2.7 24.0 

320 Lone Elder–Macksburg–Dryland 84.6 .6 .96 16.1 2.6 25.3 

321 Lunnville–Cove Orchard–Dellwood–Wapato 77.5 11.9 .91 29.7 3.1 33.4 

322 Lyons 68.3 4.5 .92 7.0 3.0 26.0 

323 Manning–Scofield–Tophill 64.5 2.4 .94 8.9 3.1 38.1 

324 Manzanita–Nehalem (part) 77.7 3.2 .89 31.0 3.3 18.0 

325 Marion 73.6 6.5 .94 14.1 3.1 26.9 

326 Marquam–Wilhoit 68.5 –1.3 .94 15.8 2.9 37.9 

327 McMinnville 73.9 –0.4 .93 21.2 3.1 20.6 

328 McMinnville (part)–Orchard View 85.4 –6.9 .92 28.1 2.6 25.1 
93

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued)

Socioeconomic well-being componentb

Community Graduated

Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household

Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average

munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

329 Meacham Corner 79.1 21.8 .84 32.3 2.7 30.1 

330 Midway–Scholls 86.7 3.1 .93 39.9 3.0 28.7 

331 Miles Crossing 78.8 11.7 .93 13.7 2.8 22.6 

332 Mill City 63.8 4.2 .89 13.6 3.0 31.4 

333 Mill City (part)–Mehama 70.0 3.2 .96 7.4 3.1 33.3 

334 Millersburg 78.2 3.6 .93 18.5 3.1 21.3 

335 Molalla 68.6 4.3 .94 11.6 2.9 32.9 336 Monroe 69.3 –5.7 .91 16.3 3.1 27.4 

337 Mount Angel 60.4 –7.6 .92 14.1 3.6 23.9 

338 Mount Hood Village CDP 73.0 –0.8 .93 27.5 3.1 36.2 

339 Mountaindale 84.6 10.1 .93 24.0 2.7 34.4 

340 Mulino 78.1 –0.9 .94 20.6 3.0 32.6 

341 Necanicum 69.5 –12.1 .83 22.6 3.3 19.6 

342 Nehalem (part)–Salmonberry 57.0 –15.0 .89 18.1 4.5 18.9 343 Neskowin 76.5 25.8 .83 31.3 2.8 24.6 344 Netarts–(Netarts Bay) 76.9 –1.2 .92 19.3 3.2 21.6 

345 Newberg 76.5 .1 .90 21.4 2.9 25.5 

346 Newport 70.8 –7.4 .92 25.5 3.8 15.7 347 North Albany CDP 93.5 .0 .87 38.3 2.4 20.0 

348 North Plains 82.8 13.1 .93 25.3 3.2 25.1 

349 Oak Grove–Bethel–Bethel Heights 92.9 8.8 .89 43.0 2.7 24.1 

350 Oceanside–Cape Meares–Bayocean 68.6 –12.8 .89 21.0 3.2 19.2 

351 Old Colton–Elwood 70.5 10.2 .89 15.6 2.4 38.7 

352 Olney 85.9 9.6 .95 20.8 3.0 22.7 

353 Orleans 74.8 –3.1 .81 27.2 3.5 18.4 

354 Otter Rock–Beverly Beach 82.9 15.1 .92 33.6 3.2 18.2 

355 Pacific City–Woods 76.2 30.4 .92 22.9 3.3 21.9 

356 Palestine 80.5 –3.4 .78 38.1 3.0 20.3 

357 Paradise Park 70.8 13.1 .94 24.3 2.9 33.4 

358 Parker–Buena Vista–Hopville–Modeville 83.6 9.2 .90 33.0 2.9 24.1 

359 Philomath 79.7 5.2 .86 29.0 2.9 18.0 

360 Pirtle–Riverside 68.5 –8.8 .87 8.5 3.0 18.4 

361 Pleasant Valley–Blaine 74.1 18.5 .95 9.0 3.3 25.5 

362 Pleasantdale 64.5 –3.6 .86 20.3 4.0 27.9 

363 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Burlington– 81.9 2.5 .91 37.2 3.7 26.2 

 Folkenberg

364 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Corbett– 76.6 –4.3 .93 25.9 2.8 30.8 

 Springdale
94

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued) Socioeconomic well-being componentb Community Graduated Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

365 Portland–Vancouver (part)–Orient– 88.5 6.6 .94 22.7 2.5 26.1 

 Pleasant Home 366 Pratum–North Howell 82.0 .9 .92 14.5 2.8 20.4 

367 Prescott–Ranier (part) 67.7 1.8 .90 10.3 2.9 29.3 

368 Rainier (city) 58.9 –6.0 .85 11.5 3.1 25.1 

369 Rainier (city) (part)–Alston–Mayger 64.8 5.1 .89 16.1 3.1 27.9 

370 Redland–Fishers Mill 86.2 4.1 .95 22.0 2.6 30.0 371 Rex–(Parrett Mountain) 85.1 –2.7 .92 32.2 2.9 26.5 372 Rockaway Beach 76.0 –1.3 .94 14.1 3.1 23.1 

373 Rose Lodge CDP 64.7 –10.7 .89 12.7 3.1 27.6 374 Rural Dell–Yoder–Ninety–One–Needy 73.4 –0.6 .93 18.7 3.2 24.7 

375 Salem (part)–Rosedale 79.9 –12.7 .89 33.6 3.3 22.6 

376 Salem–Keizer (part)–Eagle Crest Corner– 87.7 –5.8 .91 35.9 2.8 22.1 

 Zena–Lincoln

377 San Marine 67.6 –15.8 .91 28.9 3.5 26.6 

378 Sandy 74.6 3.3 .95 16.1 3.0 31.6 

379 Scappoose–(N. Sauvie Island) 78.5 6.3 .94 18.0 2.9 26.9 380 Scio 77.9 14.7 .91 16.4 2.8 27.5 381 Scotts Mills 69.5 –0.3 .90 21.5 2.9 32.1 

382 Seal Rock–Ona 73.3 6.7 .91 18.2 3.1 24.0 

383 Seaside 68.2 –8.6 .87 18.7 3.6 16.7 

384 Shaff–West Stayton–North Santiam 76.7 3.7 .97 11.8 2.6 31.5 385 Shaw–Macleay 91.2 4.8 .95 27.9 3.0 21.1 

386 Shelburn–Kingston 86.6 1.6 .95 14.7 2.5 29.2 

387 Sheridan 67.7 2.9 .93 12.5 3.2 25.2 

388 Sherwood 89.9 15.4 .91 35.5 2.6 26.7 389 Siletz–Siletz Indian Reservation 72.0 11.0 .96 11.6 3.1 27.5 

390 Silver Falls City–Drake Crossing 75.6 15.2 .93 23.0 3.3 25.6 

391 Silverton 76.4 .9 .95 22.3 3.2 24.4 

392 Sodaville 70.7 10.4 .88 11.0 3.1 23.9 

393 South Prairie 90.9 18.1 .93 16.7 2.8 18.0 

394 Spatenberg 75.6 1.3 .94 20.3 2.9 35.2 

395 Spicer–Tallman–Irvinville 77.3 18.2 .89 12.5 2.5 17.2 

396 St. Helens (city) (part)–McNutty 63.7 –8.9 .87 19.0 3.3 31.1 

397 St. Paul 64.0 –14.0 .84 12.7 3.5 18.2 398 Stafford 98.3 –1.7 .91 54.8 2.6 22.5 

399 Stayton 64.1 –4.5 .91 14.4 3.5 22.0 

400 Stimson Mill 72.3 –9.3 .82 21.7 2.5 27.4 

401 Sublimity 81.1 7.4 .93 18.2 2.9 23.3 
9

5

Table 8—Community socioeconomic well-being and well-being index components, 2000 (continued)

Socioeconomic well-being componentb

Community Graduated

Community socioeconomic Diversity of with a Household

Com- socioeconomic well-being employment bachelor’s income Average

munity well-being change, 1990 by industry, degree or inequality, commute Unenumbera Community name score, 2000 to 2000 2000 higher, 2000 2000 time, 2000 men

Score Score Score Percent Ratio Minutes P

402 Sunnycrest 86.3 5.4 .89 27.5 2.1 31.9 

403 Sunnyside–Orville 82.2 6.8 .93 33.2 3.2 24.7 

404 Svensen–(Russian Island) 63.6 –0.7 .86 9.8 2.7 34.3 

405 Sweet Home 55.0 3.5 .88 7.9 3.4 28.4 

406 Talbot–Sidney 88.8 11.0 .92 33.3 3.1 21.2 

407 Tangent 78.5 –3.7 .88 23.3 2.9 20.0 

408 Tidewater 70.1 3.0 .87 23.7 2.9 23.5 

409 Tierra del Mar 76.3 4.0 .92 23.1 3.3 22.3 

410 Tillamook 72.7 4.9 .94 13.9 3.4 17.0 

411 Tillamook (city) (part)–Jordan Creek 99.0 20.1 .95 26.6 2.4 21.4 

412 Toledo 71.7 1.1 .95 16.0 3.4 18.5 

413 Trenholm–Waterview–Yankton 66.6 –3.3 .91 12.2 3.1 32.9 

414 Turner 87.5 2.5 .94 28.4 2.7 23.3 

415 Union Mills 77.2 10.9 .92 21.2 2.6 38.7 

416 Unionvale–Wheatland 65.3 –3.0 .91 13.7 3.1 30.7 

417 Valsetz 62.8 –9.8 .92 17.9 3.3 32.5 

418 Vernonia 61.0 7.3 .90 12.9 2.9 42.1 

419 Waldport 66.2 –7.7 .94 19.0 3.3 23.0 

420 Warren 68.5 –11.4 .85 22.8 3.5 30.7 

421 Warrenton 67.5 –1.5 .91 12.1 3.7 19.6 

422 Waterloo 69.0 6.1 .83 16.5 3.1 25.2 

423 Wheeler 72.0 6.0 .87 19.4 3.3 19.1 

424 Whiskey Hill 80.8 –6.0 .89 29.6 3.3 21.0 

425 Willamina (part) 72.2 23.1 .92 8.2 2.9 22.0 

426 Willamina (part)–Buell–Fort Hill 67.1 8.8 .91 6.3 3.0 24.8 

427 Wilsonville 86.7 –0.3 .93 37.9 3.2 23.3 

428 Wilsonville (part)–Tonquin 86.1 4.0 .89 41.2 3.3 19.9 

429 Woodburn 62.6 –4.5 .94 11.4 3.3 25.3 430 Woodburn (part)–Saint Louis 47.7 –23.3 .92 6.7 3.2 26.5 

431 Wren 92.6 –0.9 .87 48.4 2.9 21.0 

432 Yachats 67.5 –4.6 .91 28.9 3.5 26.7 

433 Yamhill 75.1 3.5 .89 10.4 2.6 27.0 

aThe location of the communities can be found in the maps in Appendix A. bSee Table 1 in the text for the definitions of the socioeconomic well–being components.cCDP = census designated place.
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