NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN THE FIRST 10 YEARS (1994–2003) Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities Rebecca J. McLain, Lisa Tobe, Susan Charnley, Ellen M. Donoghue, and Cassandra Moseley General Technical Report United States Forest Pacific Northwest PNW-GTR-675 Department of Service Research Station July 2006 Agriculture The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Authors Rebecca J. McLain is a policy analyst, Institute for Culture and Ecology, P.O. Box 6688, Portland, OR 97228-6688; Lisa Tobe is a social science researcher, Women’s Mountain Passages, P.O. Box 798, Quincy, CA 95971; Susan Charnley is an anthropologist and Ellen M. Donoghue is a sociologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208; and Cassandra Moseley is a political scientist, University of Oregon, 130 Hendricks Hall, Eugene, OR 97403-5247. This work was performed under PNW 03-JV-11261975-164. Cover photographs by Frank Vanni. Northwest Forest Plan—The First 10 Years (1994–2003): Socioeconomic Monitoring of Coos Bay District and Three Local Communities Rebecca J. McLain, Lisa Tobe, Susan Charnley, Ellen M. Donoghue, and Cassandra Moseley U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-675 July 2006 Abstract McLain, Rebecca J.; Tobe, Lisa; Charnley, Susan; Donoghue, Ellen M.; Moseley, Cassandra; 2006. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): socio- economic monitoring of Coos Bay District and three local communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-675. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 144 p. This case study examines the socioeconomic changes that took place between 1990 and 2000 in and around lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Coos Bay District in southwestern Oregon for purposes of assessing the effects of the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan) on rural economies and communities in the Coos Bay region. The case study included an analysis of changes in the district’s programs, as well as socio- economic changes that occurred within the communities of Coos Bay, Myrtle Point, and Reedsport. Data were gathered during 2003 and 2004 from multiple sources including U.S. census databases, county and state criminal justice and economic development databases, and BLM annual reports. Interviews with BLM employees and community residents provided additional insights on how the Plan affected local socioeconomic conditions and the district’s interactions with local communities. The study indicates that by the time the record of decision for the Plan was signed, the Coos Bay region’s timber sector had already lost a substantial portion of the wood products processing capacity and employment opportunities. Additionally, the changes in socioeconomic conditions that took place in the mid and late 1990s—an outflow of younger workers, inmigration of older workers and retirees, school closures, increased levels of educational attainment, declines in manufacturing sectors, and expansion of the services sector—are changes that took place during the same period in rural communities across much of the Western United States. It is thus likely that the types of overall socioeconomic changes observed in the Coos Bay region between 1990 and 2004 would have occurred with or without the Plan. Owing to legal challenges, the Coos Bay District was unable to provide a steady and predictable supply of timber from 1994 onward. District foresters shifted their focus toward developing thinning techniques for density management of stands less than 80 years old. Barring legal action, sales from these younger stands will enable the district to provide a predictable supply of smaller diameter timber in future years. In the post-Plan years, the Coos Bay District also significantly expanded its capacity to carry out multiple-use land management. It played a key role in community-based watershed restoration and recreation and tourism development efforts. As a result, the district is now in a much better position to provide the public, including residents of local communities, with a broad array of forest values and opportunities (i.e., improved fish habitat, more recreation sites, more cultural sites, etc.). Key factors in the success of post-Plan community-district partnerships included ongoing and substantial support from upper level leadership, a stable district budget (in marked contrast to the budget declines in neighboring national forests), and a relatively stable staffing level (in contrast to the downsizing that occurred in neighboring national forests). Keywords: Social assessment, economic assessment, regional planning, rural development, Coos Bay. ii Preface In the early 1990s, controversy over harvest of old-growth forests led to sweeping changes in management of federal forests in western Washington, Oregon, and northwest California. These changes were prompted by a series of lawsuits in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that effectively shut down federal timber harvest in the Pacific Northwest. In response, a Presidential summit was held in Portland, Oregon, in 1993. This summit led to issuance by President Clinton of a mandate for federal land management and regulatory agencies to work together to develop a plan to resolve the conflict. The President’s guiding principles followed shortly after the summit in his Forest Plan for a Sustainable Economy and Sustainable Environment,1 now called the Northwest Forest Plan (the Plan). Immediately after the summit, a team of scientists and technical experts were con- vened to conduct an assessment of options.2 This assessment provided the scientific basis for the environmental impact statement and record of decision (ROD)3 to amend Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). The ROD, to be implemented across the 24 million federal acres (9.7 million hectares), put in place a whole new approach to federal land management. Key components of the ROD included a new map of land use allocations—late-successional reserves, matrix, riparian reserves, adaptive management areas, and key watersheds. Plan standards and guidelines provided the specific management direction regarding how these land use allocations were to be managed. In addition, the Plan put in place a variety of strategies and processes to be implemented. These included adaptive management, an aquatic conservation strategy, late-successional reserve and watershed assessments, survey and manage, an interagency organization, social and economic mitigation initiatives, and monitoring. Monitoring provides a means to address the uncertainty of our predictions and compliance with forest management laws and policy. The ROD clearly states that monitoring is essential and required: Monitoring is an essential component of the selected alternative. It ensures that management actions meet the prescribed standards and guidelines and that they comply with applicable laws and policies. Monitoring will provide information to determine if the standards and guidelines are being followed, verify if they are achieving the desired results, and determine if underlying assumptions are sound. 1 Clinton, W.J.; Gore, A., Jr. 1993. The Forest Plan for a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment. In: Tuchmann, E.T.; Connaughton, K.P.; Freedman, L.E.; Moriwaki, C.B. 1996. The Northwest Forest Plan: a report to the President and Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Forestry and Economic Assistance: 231–238. App. A. 2 Forest Ecosystem Management Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior [et al.]. [Irregular pagination]. 3 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