myrtle creek, douglas county, oregon -...

1Forest Community ResearchNorthwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment

Myrtle Creek, Douglas County, OregonConducted by William Kay

NEAI Projects*Year Applicant Project Funding Source1 Amount1994 City of Myrtle

CreekSecondary Wood Product Complex Feasibility Study

USFS-RCA $18,000

1994 South Umpqua Valley Secondary Wood Products Shared Facility

USFS-RCA $477,000

1995 Alternative Wastewater Disposal System/Municipal Recreation Facility

USFS-RCA $493,650

1995 Tri-City Water District

Water System Improvements: Phase I USDA-RUS $1,113,400

1996 Water System Improvements: Phase II USDA-RUS $2,712,8001997 Water System Improvements: Phase III USDA-RUS $750,0001994 Umpqua Regional

Council of Governments

Douglas County Technical Assistance EDA $133,000Improvement Plan Model USFS-RCA

1995 Project Development - Technical Assistance EDA $133,0001995 County TA to Timber-Dependent

Communities$15,000

1997 Capacity Building for Rural Communities-NEAI Project Coordination

$22,230

1997 Establish GIS to market industrial development and tourism opportunities

USDA-RD $349,000

19981999

Rural Information Technology Infrastructure and Capacity Building

USFS-RCA $40,000$41,000

1998 Douglas County Sustainability Forum USFS-RCA $40,0001994 Douglas County Alcoholism treatment facility relocation HUD $10,000

1998 Douglas County Museum Strategic Plan USFS-RCA $21,6001999 City of Roseburg Roseburg Area Image Study EDA $90,0001995 OEDD Income Survey USFS-RCA $4,000

1. Key to federal funding sources: USFS-RCAP, United States Forest Service Rural Community Assistance Program; USDA-RUS, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development-Rural Utility Service; EDA, Economic Development Administration; USDA-RD, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development; HUD, United States Housing and Urban Development; USDA-RD RBS, United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Business-Cooperative Services; BLM, Bureau of Land Management; USFS, United States Forest Service; USFWS, United States Fish and Wildlife Service; DOL, Department of Labor; and OEDD, Oregon Economic Development Department.

* Project funding reflects initial loan and grant totals. Final funding amounts may be different.

Forest Community Research 2

Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment

Myrtle Creek, Oregon

Year Applicant Project Funding Source Amount

Business ad Industry Investments

1994 Coos Curry Douglas Business Development Corporation

Intermediary Relending Program

USDA-RD RBS $2,000,000

Ecosystem Investments

1994 BLM & USFS Jobs-in-the-Woods contracts BLM & USFS $1,756,083

1995 USFS Jobs-in-the-Woods contracts USFS $1,617,698

1995 BLM Jobs-in-the-Woods contracts BLM $808,416

1995 Umpqua Community Development Corporation

Ecosystem Restoration Pilot Project USFS $30,000

1995 Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

Cavitt Creek Instream Enhancement USFWS $30,000

1995 Umpqua Basin Tributaries USFWS $60,000

1995 Brush Creek Instream Enhancement USFWS $30,000

1996 French Creek USFWS $61,576

1996 Paradise Creek USFWS $60,000

1996 Days Creek/Fate Creek USFWS $35,000

Workers and Family Investments

1993-96 Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc.

Dislocated Worker Training, Timber 6* DOL $423,000

1994-96 Dislocated Worker Training, Timber 9 DOL $373,000





1999-01 Dislocated Worker Training, Timber 14 DOL $750,000* An undisclosed amount of funds were de-obligated.

Background Context

LocationMyrtle Creek is located in southwest Oregon

along Interstate 5, 20 miles south of Roseburg, the Douglas County seat. Midway between Eugene and the Oregon-California border, the City of Myr-tle Creek lies at the confluence of Myrtle Creek and the South Umpqua River, at the entrance to a mountainous and heavily forested region known as the Hundred Valleys of the Umpqua. Sixty square-miles in area, with a population exceeding 13,000, the region encompasses the incorporated communi-ties of Myrtle Creek, Canyonville, and Riddle, and unincorporated communities including Days Creek

and Tiller. Myrtle Creek, inclusive of Tri-City, is the largest and most heavily populated area, with a popu-lation of roughly 7,000.

Early SettlementArcheological evidence suggests that Native

Americans have lived in what is now Douglas Coun-ty for over 7,000 years (Douglas County History and Natural Science Museum). Several Native American groups populated Douglas County, with the Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe of Indians oc-cupying the south Umpqua Valley. The first white explorers “discovered” the Umpqua Valley in the early

3Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment Forest Community Research


1820s. The 1830s and 1840s brought fur traders and the first of successive waves of immigrants to the Ore-gon Territory. In 1843, the Applegate party blazed the “South Road” through the Umpqua Valley to provide a safer route for settlers. The trail, later named the Applegate Trail, became the established wagon road through Oregon to California. When gold was found in California in 1848, many settlers in Oregon head-ed south to California on the Applegate trail. Aided by the increase in traffic and the passage of the Oregon Donation Act in 1850, rapid development of the area ensued. Myrtle Creek was established in 1851; sever-al other Douglas County towns were founded during this period as well, including Deer Creek (Roseburg), Riddle, and Canyonville.

In 1853, in an effort to maintain peaceful rela-tions, the Cow Creek Band signed a treaty with the United States government, ceding its lands to the United States for cash and goods. White settlement and gold mining activities pushed the Cow Creek Band out of their traditional areas and into surround-ing areas, including the Rogue Valley, to the south. A series of skirmishes resulted, culminating in the Rogue River Indian Wars that concluded in 1856. Most Native Americans who were not exterminated were relocated 150 miles northwest, to the Grande Ronde Reservation, and treaty rights were terminat-ed. Subsequently, in 1982, formal relations between the United States government and the Cow Creek Band were restored.

Early industries in Myrtle Creek included agri-culture, mining, forestry, and transport services. The area grew steadily; miners, lumbermen, and farmers settled the area surrounding Myrtle Creek (Beck-ham, 1986). The Oregon and California Railroad’s extension through Myrtle Creek in 1882 further stimulated development, including logging, milling, and agricultural activities. In 1900, three years before the town incorporated, Myrtle Creek’s population was 827. While agricultural products were the main resource in early years, the woods products industry developed, particularly after World War II, and had a significant long-term influence on the area. The de-velopment of a nearby nickel mine and smelter in 1948 also had a dramatic effect on Myrtle Creek’s growth, as miners and executives settled in or around

Myrtle Creek, solidifying its role as a commercial center in southern Douglas County.

Natural ResourcesDouglas County encompasses the entire area

of the Umpqua River watershed. Eighty-eight per-cent of the county’s 3,239,040 acres are designated forestlands, with roughly 400,000 acres in farm or ranchland. Approximately 53.5 percent of the coun-ty’s land is federally owned, managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.

The Umpqua National Forest, administered by the Forest Service, constitutes one million acres of Douglas County, from the crest of Cascade Moun-tain Range to the foothills; its border is 20 miles east of Myrtle Creek. Characterized as a conifer forest predominated by Douglas fir, the Umpqua Nation-al Forest has been one of the 10 largest producers of federal timber in the nation, and a top timber-pro-ducing county in Oregon. Besides timber production, the Umpqua National Forest includes designated wil-derness areas, a range of recreational opportunities, and several hydroelectric projects.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Roseburg Unit manages a checkerboard of lands extending from the Umpqua National Forest west into the Coastal Range. The BLM manages 424,000 acres, 367,500 of which are commercial forestland; and 400,000 acres are classified as Oregon and Cali-fornia (O&C) lands.

O&C lands are a special category of federal lands resulting from a series of court cases and fed-eral acts. At the turn of the century, Southern Pacific Transportation Company’s land grant holdings were questioned for not holding up to the conditions of the 1869 grant. In 1908 the U.S. Attorney General filed suit for the forfeiture of the grant. The Supreme Court settled the suit in 1915, leading to the Cham-berlain-Ferris Act in 1916. The Chamberlain-Ferris Act returned 2.5 million acres to the public domain; acreage removed from county tax roles. To offset the loss of income to the county, the O&C Act of 1937 was passed, stipulating that counties would receive 75 percent of the gross revenues from O&C land timber and mineral sales. Subsequently, counties agreed to reinvest 25 percent for forest management. Fifty per-




cent of the timber receipts from the O&C lands are earmarked for the 18 counties with O&C lands with-in their boundaries. Douglas County’s share of those receipts is 13.7 percent.

Douglas County forestlands have played a key role in the regions development. As the result of series of changes in the administration of federal lands be-tween 1927 and 1948, the construction of roads and other infrastructure on federal lands from 1933 to 1943, and the post-World War II housing boom, the timber industry, fueled by federal supplies, grew rap-idly beginning in 1945. Several small mills sprang up in the south Umpqua Valley, built on the assurance of

continued supplies of timber from federal lands. One of the only remaining mills is Herbert Lumber Com-pany, located in Riddle. The south Umpqua Valley timber industry also included many logging contrac-tors. At least two contractors remain in Myrtle Creek; the area’s largest contractor, Huffman-Wright, located in Canyonville, also remains in business.

Figure 1 shows harvest levels on federal and in-dustrial lands in Douglas County, in 1970, 1980 and through the 1990s. The chart indicates that timber harvests on industrial forestland have constituted a considerable portion of the annual harvest in Doug-las County.

Figure 1: Timber Harvests in 1970, 1980, 1990-2000 (Thousands of Board Feet)

Source: Oregon Department of Forestry, 2002.

Besides timber management, harvesting, and processing activities supported by its forestlands, Douglas County receives payments from the federal government based on harvesting activities and acreage in federal ownership. First, Douglas County receives a percentage of the gross revenues from timber and mineral sales on O&C land. O&C funds are placed in the county’s general fund and support a variety of programs and services. Additionally, Douglas County receives a 25 percent share of national forest receipts

through the state from the Forest Service for the non-O&C lands that it manages within the county. Unlike the O&C funds, which are discretionary, the 25 percent payments are reserved for funding schools and roads. Finally, the county also receives payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) for all tax-exempt federal lands within its boundaries. Payments in lieu of taxes are established on a per acre basis, and thus the amounts turned over to the county are independent of the re-ceipts obtained for the use of those lands. Like the



O&C payments, payments in lieu of taxes are discre-tionary funds. The amount a county receives as part of the 25 percent payment is deducted from the pay-ments in lieu of taxes, so that the county doesn’t get paid twice for the same land base.

Demographics and Economic Conditions Although Myrtle Creek lost nearly nine percent

of its population between 1980 and 1990, it expe-

rienced a 34.3 percent gain in population between 1970 and 2000 as a result of higher than average growth in the 1970s and 1990s. Myrtle Creek is the only community in the south Umpqua Valley to ex-perience net population gains between 1980 and 2000 (see Table 1). In 2000, Myrtle Creek’s popula-tion was 3,670; the total population within its urban growth boundary was 6,938.

Table 1: Population Growth: South Umpqua Valley Incorporated Communities and Douglas County 1970 – 2000Area 1970 1980 1990 2000 ’80 – ‘00 ChangeDouglas County 71,743 93,748 94,649 100,399 7.09%Roseburg -- 16,644 17,069 20,490 23.1%Myrtle Creek 2,733 3,365 3,063 3,670 9.06%Myrtle Creek UGB -- 6,804 6,648 6,938 1.97%Riddle -- 1,265 1,143 1,014 -19.84%Canyonville 940 1,288 1,219 1,250 -2.95%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, 2002.

Table 2: Population Change by Age Group: Myrtle Creek 1990 – 2000

Age Group Change19 and under -52%

20 - 44 -8.4%45 – 54 61.1 %55 – 64 9.15%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000.

Table 3: 1990 Median Household Income: Myrtle Creek, Douglas County, and Oregon

1990 2000Myrtle Creek $21,265 $30,658Myrtle Creek UGB $21,110 $31,982Douglas County $23,693 $33,223Oregon $27,250 $40,196Source: Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000.




Residents characterize Myrtle Creek as a bed-room and retirement community. Demographic data suggest that many younger families and members of the workforce left the area in the 1980s and the trend of retirees moving to the area, which began in the 1970s, continued. Between 1980 and 1990, the South Umpqua Valley lost 16 percent of its popula-tion 17 years of age and younger, 50 percent of its of 21 to 24 year old population, and 10 percent of the 45 to 54 year old population. During the same pe-riod, the 65 to 74 year old population increased 61 percent. In 2000, the median age of Myrtle Creek residents was just over 37, up from 32, in 1990. Table 2 indicates the population change by select age groups, between 1990 and 2000. Many community members observed that working age residents contin-ued to leave and younger retirees began moving into the area through the 1990s. Residents observed that a number of 50 year-olds were moving into the com-munity, many commuting to work in the Roseburg area.

An increasing percent of Myrtle Creek’s popu-lation is impoverished. Between 1969 and 1989, there was a steady increase in the percent of popu-lation in poverty in Douglas County. In 1969, 13.3 percent of the population was in poverty. In 1989, 14.9 percent of the county’s population was living in

poverty. Nearly 22 percent of Myrtle Creek’s popula-tion was living in poverty in 1990. Table 3 shows a comparison of Median Income in Myrtle Creek ver-sus Douglas County and Oregon, Myrtle Creek only slightly lags behind Douglas County figures but is substantially lower than the state average.

The structure of the local and regional job market has changed over the last 30 years. The manu-facturing sector, the largest and highest paying sector in private employment, predominated by timber and wood products, experienced a steady and significant contraction between 1970 and 1990. The manufac-turing sector pays the highest average wage in the south Umpqua Valley at nearly three times the hourly wage of retail and twice the hourly wage in the ser-vices sector. In the 1980s, a downturn in the national economy, housing development in particular, resulted in job losses in the forest products industry. The last mill in Myrtle Creek closed in this period. Because one-third of all employment in Douglas County was in the manufacturing sector, the downturn de-pressed the county’s overall employment. During the same period, there was little growth in employ-ment sectors with wages comparable to those found in manufacturing. The table below shows changes in the employment distribution in Douglas County, the south Umpqua Valley, and Myrtle Creek.

Table 4: Employment by Sector: Private Employment 1970-1990

Douglas County Myrtle CreekSouth Umpqua

Valley Oregon

Sector 1970 1980 1990 1990 1991 1991Ag. serv., forestry, fishing, and other 2.0% 2.3% 3.1% 3.0% 2% 2%Mining 1.0% 1.2% 0.6% 1.8% 3%* 4%*Construction 5.0% 7.0% 4.1% 3.5%Manufacturing 42.0% 31.9% 30.1% 35.0% 48% 17%Transportation and public utilities 5.5% 5.5% 6.1% 6.1% 6% 5%Wholesale trade 2.1% 2.3% 2.6% 1.3% 1% 7%Retail trade 18.7% 20.7% 20.5% 18.3% 16% 19%Finance, insurance, and real estate 6.7% 8.0% 5.4% 0.0% 1% 5%Services 16.9% 21.2% 27.6% 0.5% 12% 23%Business/Repair -- -- -- 3.7% -- --Health -- -- -- 10.4% -- --* Private Employment accounted for 77 percent of all employment in 1970 and 79 percent of all employment in 1990, in Douglas County.** Combines mining and construction.Source: U.S. Census 1990. Community Planning Workshop, 1992.



In 1990, a higher percentage of Myrtle Creek’s population was still employed in the manufactur-ing and mining sectors than other areas of Douglas County; 35 percent of Myrtle Creek’s residents were employed in the manufacturing sector versus the 30 percent average for Douglas County. However, em-ployment in manufacturing area residents declined

37.9 percent, to 19 percent between 1990 and 2000. Several other sectors, including construction, finance, insurance and real estate, and education, health, and social services all experienced high rates of growth but still employs only a small percentage of the popu-lation. Table 5 indicates the largest employers in the South Umpqua Valley, in 2000.

Table 5: Largest Public and Private Employers in the South Umpqua ValleyEmployer—Product/Service Location # of EmployeesSeven Feathers Hotel and Casino Resort Canyonville* 950**Roseburg Forest Products Riddle 750DR Johnson Company Riddle 175Huffman-Wright Canyonville 150C&D Lumber Company Riddle 95Allen & Gibbons Logging Incorporated Canyonville 70Herbert Lumber Company Riddle 50WinCo. 50City of Myrtle Creek Myrtle Creek 32Brownson Logging Company Myrtle Creek 24Umpqua Research Company Myrtle Creek 22* Not all positions are in Canyonville.** New businesses since 1992.

Pre-NEAI ActivitiesOnce heavily dependent on the timber industry

and mining, changes in both industries coupled with demographic shifts are changing the population, char-acter and economy of Myrtle Creek. Myrtle Creek is growing slowly, well below the county and state aver-ages, and the population is increasingly older. Fewer people are employed in the timber industry, and great-er numbers commute to the Roseburg area for work. These social, economic and demographic conditions in Myrtle Creek correlate strongly with larger trends in Douglas County and southwest Oregon communities historically supported by the agriculture, timber and woods products, and mining industries. Due to Myr-tle Creek’s overwhelming reliance on the timber and woods products industry, its economy was particular-ly hard hit by changes in that industry. Responding to the changes, area residents, the City of Myrtle Creek, and several Douglas County and other outside devel-

opment organizations, mounted efforts to improve conditions in Myrtle Creek and the other South Umpqua Valley communities, including Riddle and Canyonville.

The public and private sectors have been active in pursuing development to improve economic and so-cial conditions in Myrtle Creek. The city’s efforts in the late 1980s and 1990s have included rezoning land to facilitate industrial development; spearheading eco-nomic development activities; providing low-income housing; and working to spur housing development. Civic organizations, local businesses, and the city invested time, energy, money, and materials into com-munity development, such as improvements to the city park, hosting festivals, and other types of special events.

The City of Myrtle Creek’s staff of 32 provides the full range of professional services to the community, including public works, planning, and economic de-




velopment. Despite its professional capacity, the City of Myrtle Creek works with or through county and re-gional organizations, including the Coos, Curry, and Douglas Businesses Development Corporation, and Douglas County (inclusive of the Umpqua Regional Council of Government and Douglas County Indus-trial Development Board) on economic and other development activities.

In the late 1980s, the Oregon Economic Develop-ment Department conducted Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analyses in a number of communities, including Myrtle Creek in 1989. According to one local business owner who participated in the SWOT activities, the analysis rec-ommended that the community “get together” and take action to address community development. Pacific Corps, a local utility company, facilitated organizational meetings to help form a group to develop a “consen-sus economic diversification agenda.” In 1990, as an outgrowth of its efforts, the South Umpqua Valley Eco-nomic Development (SUVED) Committee formed to promote economic development in south Douglas County and to encourage cooperation between Myrtle Creek, Tri-City, Riddle, and Canyonville.

In 1991, South Umpqua Valley Economic De-velopment Committee completed a strategic plan. Its three main strategies were to recruit and support new and existing industries, to identify and address community development issues, and endorse im-provements in education. In 1992, the University of Oregon’s Community Planning Workshop complet-ed the South Umpqua Valley Economic Development Market Assessment and Marketing Plan for SUVED. The plan included eight goals, and included action plans for achieving each of the eight goals. Also, be-cause there was no building permits issued in Myrtle Creek for an extended period of time in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Myrtle Creek had the opportunity to complete a master plan. The master plan identified improvements and included a plan for implementing the projects.

By the time the Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative was launched in 1994, Myrtle Creek had a community development plan and projects ready to advance. Myrtle Creek was thus poised to take ad-vantage of additional funds available as a result of the

NEAI. As one former city staff said, “It took many communities seven years to figure change out – some got it right away…[We] got to the feeding trough to get money for projects.”

Key IssuesLocated 20 miles west of Umpqua National For-

est boundary, Myrtle Creek considers itself one of the most timber-dependent areas of the state (Wolf, 1995). As part of its Oregon Community Economic Revitalization Team activities, the Oregon Economic Development Department prepared a Timber-Depen-dent Community Analysis to determine and rank the extent to which communities were affected by chang-es in the timber and woods products industries. The analysis consisted of creating an index based on cri-teria that included economic dependence on wood products, location, and viability. The south Umpqua Valley, including Myrtle Creek, Canyonville, Days Creek, Tiller, and Riddle consistently ranked as a high-ly impacted area, and in 1996 and 1997, ranked as the second most impacted area in Oregon.

UnemploymentMill closures and curtailments in Roseburg and

the South Umpqua Valley, combined with the nickel mine closure—a loss of four 400 high paying jobs—resulted in high unemployment. Myrtle Creek needed employment opportunities that fit the skills and edu-cation of the workforce.

UnderemploymentWages in mining and in the timber and woods

products industries were some of the highest in the re-gion. Subsequently, there has been little job creation in sectors paying comparable wages. In many cases, the skills, education, and training of workers from the manufacturing sector do not transfer readily to other high paying sectors.

Infrastructure NeedsImprovements and upgrades were necessary to

bring Tri-City Water District facilities into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The South Umpqua Valley Industrial Park needed sewer and water to facilitate its development. The City of Myrtle Creek was required



to find alternatives to dumping its effluent into Myrtle Creek during low-flow periods.

AssistanceDouglas County suffered from a tremendous loss

of federal payments. Payments in lieu of taxes, Forest Service payments to the county for roads and schools, and O&C payments steadily declined over the past de-cade, from $74.4 million in 1990 to $42.4 million in 2000 (Douglas County and BLM). The reduced pay-ments limited the county’s ability to subsidize and provide services to communities vis-à-vis the Umpqua Regional Council of Governments and the Douglas County Industrial Development Board, and reduced school district budgets. In response to the losses, the budgets for many non-essential services were cut: the Umpqua Regional Council of Governments and the Douglas County History and Natural History Muse-um were both instructed to become self-sustaining.

Regional InterdependenceMyrtle Creek, Riddle, and Canyonville are

highly interdependent and function, in many re-

spects, as a single unit. A majority of the jobs in the region are located outside of Myrtle Creek. Job loss-es in the 1990s, resulting from changes in the timber industry and the close of the nickel mine, mostly occurred in Riddle and Canyonville. While most jobs are located in Riddle and Canyonville, approx-imately 80 percent of the south Umpqua Valley’s population lives in Myrtle Creek. Canyonville, as a result of its location and the topography, has little room for additional residential development. As the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indian’s eco-nomic development activities,2 including the Seven Feathers Hotel & Casino Resort in Canyonville, most employees are forced to commute from Myr-tle Creek and other areas. Intended or not, NEAI investments in south Umpqua Valley communities have the effect of benefiting other communities in the region. However, due to time constraints, NEAI investments in Riddle, Canyonville, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, and unincorpo-rated areas are not described, nor are the impacts of the investments on Myrtle Creek’s well-being con-sidered.

2. After establishing formal relations with the United States Government in 1982, Sue Crispen Shaffer, the current Tribal Chair, pursued a legal suit to gain compensation for the value of lands taken from them in 1853. In 1984, a settlement was reached and the Cow Creek Band was awarded $1.5 million. The funds were used to establish an endowment and as collateral for purchasing land. Interest income derived from the endowment has been used for economic development, education, housing, and senior services. Beginning with a bingo parlor in 1992, the Cow Creek have parlayed their endowment into an economic engine that employs nearly 1,000 people (Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, 2002).

NEAI Projects and Programs

State Community Economic Revitalization TeamsThe State Community Economic Revitaliza-

tion Team process, a key component to the delivery of NEAI funds to communities, consisted of fed-eral and state, county, and community activities. At the state level, the Oregon Economic and Com-munity Development Department administered the Oregon Community Economic Revitalization Team (SCERT) that included federal, state, county, and community representatives. Committees formed to recommend investments in four areas, Community and Infrastructure, Business and Industry, Ecosystem Investment, and Workers and Families. Communi-

ty and Infrastructure investments were made as an outcome of a broad-based community involvement component commonly referred to as the CERT pro-cess. The process through which community and infrastructure investments were made and the project or programs will be described in this section.

State Level ProcessThe Oregon Economic and Community De-

velopment Department (OECDD) coordinated the SCERT. The SCERT, chaired by Bill Scott of the OECDD, constituted roughly 30 people from federal agencies, tribes and representatives from




communities, including a Douglas County com-missioner and Myrtle Creek’s city administrator. The SCERT visited different areas of the state each month, viewing the impact of changes in the indus-try and efforts communities were making to address these changes. The SCERT developed a streamlined process to disburse funds to address local needs. The process included identifying projects from county prioritization, removing obstacles and barriers to im-plementing projects, and identifying the appropriate agency to advance projects.

Local Level ProcessIn Douglas County, four organizations took re-

sponsibility for coordinating and implementing the delivery of services corresponding with respective SCERT committees: Umpqua Training and Employ-ment was responsible for Workers and Families; Coos, Curry, and Douglas Business Development Corpora-tion was responsible for Business and Industry; and a local committee consisting of representatives from the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Umpqua Basin Fisheries Restoration, Inc. were responsible for prioritizing ecosystem investment needs. Each of the entities received NEAI funds directly from federal agencies or through state agen-cies. Umpqua Regional Council of Government (URCOG) was responsible for Community and In-frastructure investments and the overall coordination of the SCERT process in Douglas County.

The project prioritization process in Doug-las County, coordinated by the Umpqua Regional Council of Governments, consisted of a host of com-munity and county activities that fed into the SCERT to facilitate NEAI investments. URCOG activities varied by year but its overarching responsibilities in-cluded outreach to solicit for proposals, assistance to help develop proposals, and review and prioritiza-tion of proposals. URCOG also represented Douglas County at the SCERT meetings, and participated on SCERT committees. NEAI funds granted through the Economic Development Administration covered a portion of URCOG’s budget for salary and over-head for support and technical services required by project applicants. Funds also allowed URCOG to coordinate prioritization committee activities, and

provide administrative support to implement the NEAI within Douglas County.

At the outset of the NEAI, two Umpqua Re-gional Council of Government staff and a county employee developed Douglas County’s SCERT pro-cess. As part of the process they defined seven “labor market areas” to divide projects into more coherent county sub-regional groupings. The South Umpqua Valley labor market area included Myrtle Creek, Tri-City, Riddle, and Canyonville. In each labor market area an organization was responsible for screening the list of projects by reviewing, prioritizing, and submit-ting Project Notification Forms to the URCOG. The Project Notification Form was a two-page form ap-plicants completed to notify agencies of community needs and projects. URCOG distributed Project No-tification Forms and contacted communities, special districts, tribes and non-profit organizations, encour-aging them to complete the forms.

Between 1994 and 1996, the South Umpqua Valley Economic Development Committee, which was administered by Myrtle Creek’s city adminis-trator, was responsible for the prioritization process in the South Umpqua Valley labor market area. It helped to distribute Project Notification Forms to eli-gible applicants and then collected completed forms. Applicants made presentations to SUVED, which then voted and sent recommendations for priority to URCOG. URCOG compiled the list of projects from the South Umpqua Valley and other labor mar-ket areas, convened a committee of elected officials and staff to prioritize the projects for the county, and made recommendations to the County. County com-missioners then adopted the list and submitted it to the SCERT. Between 1997 and 2000, URCOG con-tinued to prioritize projects, but between 1998 and 2000, they did not convene a committee to complete the prioritization. Only one project in the South Umpqua Valley and none in Myrtle Creek were fund-ed after 1997.

Impressions of the CERTPeople who were interviewed identified a num-

ber of positive and negative aspects of the SCERT process. One aspect was that although the SCERT worked to streamline the process for acquiring fed-



eral funds to meet community needs, in Douglas County the process was complicated and difficult. Basic planning services provided by the Umpqua Re-gional Council of Government were not available as necessary. Consequently, many people questioned the legitimacy of the SCERT process. Participants grew wary of the prioritization process, charging that the Umpqua Regional Council of Governments “did what it wanted to do.” In some cases applicants cir-cumvented the prioritization process and advocates for projects went directly to agency representatives. One person involved in the SCERT process said:

What really happened with the process was that if you go around the process directly to the table you got what you wanted—the SCERT process was most political. [The applicant] missed the deadline and [the project] was not ranked. [They] ‘wined and dined’ the state and federal agencies and the project was funded.

ProjectsThis section describes NEAI funded projects,

awarded as the result of the SCERT process.3 Six grants funded three projects within the Myrtle Creek Urban Growth Boundary. Several regional entities, including the Umpqua Regional Council of Gov-ernments and Douglas County, also received NEAI funds to implement projects. Additionally, one Rose-burg project is included because of the involvement of a regional entity.

State of OregonMyrtle Creek Income Surveys

In 1995, the Oregon Economic Development Department (OEDD) received a $30,000 Forest Ser-vice Rural Community Assistance Program grant to conduct income surveys in seven cities. The surveys were used to help identify communities eligible for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment Community Development Block Grants for public works projects and community facilities. With-

out the income surveys, the cities would have had to wait until the release of 2000 Census results to deter-mine eligibility for Community Development Block Grants. OEDD contracted Portland State University to conduct the surveys. The initial grant was extend-ed with $50,000 to survey additional communities, including Myrtle Creek (inclusive of Tri-City). The Myrtle Creek Income Survey cost $4,000. Although survey results proved Myrtle Creek’s eligibility for Community Development Block Grants, the city did not receive a Community Development Block Grant through the NEAI. Myrtle Creek did receive funds in 1998, as a result of floods in 1997, enabling the city to acquire land in the 100-year flood zone.

Community and Infrastructure InvestmentsUmpqua Regional Council of GovernmentsTechnical Assistance and Capacity-Building

Between 1994 and 1997 the Umpqua Regional Council of Government received technical assistance and capacity-building grants totaling $288,230 from the Economic Development Administration and the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department to administer the SCERT process in Douglas County. The Umpqua Regional Council of Government coordinated the local process comprised of a suite of complementary activities designed to pri-oritize and communicate community infrastructure and other needs to the SCERT to facilitate NEAI investments. Specific tasks included writing grants, providing information about funding, assisting with readiness to proceed, participating in SCERT meet-ings, and coordinating contacts between the SCERT, federal agencies, and project applicants.

Rural Information Technology Demonstration ProjectRural Information Technology Infrastructure and Capacity-Building

Developed by URCOG staff, the Rural In-formation Technology Demonstration Project was conceived of as a way to market industrial lands, residential lands, and recreational opportunities in Douglas County on the internet to promote eco-

3. An undetermined amount of federal funds, possibly NEAI funds, was awarded to Myrtle Creek outside of the SCERT process; these investments are not described. Projects described include those listed in the SCERT database, maintained by the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department.




nomic development. The project was also intended to increase local familiarity with technology, to demonstrate its capabilities, and increase access to in-formation for decision making.

URCOG received a $349,000 Rural Business Enterprise Grant from USDA Rural Development (USDA-RD) in 1997. Rural Business Enterprise Grant funds were used to purchase computer equip-ment, software, data, and to hire staff to develop a website presenting Geographic Information Sys-tem (GIS) generated maps showing industrial and housing development and tourism opportunities in Douglas County. URCOG received FS-RCAP grants in 1998 and 1999 for $40,000 and $41,000 respec-tively, to purchase additional data and to continue developing the project. In 2000, URCOG won two awards for the project, including the Small Town and Rural Planning Award for Excellence from the Amer-ican Planning Association, and the Oregon Planning Institute’s Award for Achievement in Planning.

URCOG employees familiar with the project believe that one project goal has been achieved—mar-keting the area to support economic development. One person involved with the project said that he had hoped that completing the project would stim-ulate more interest and drive the demand for the utilization of Geographic Information System in communities, and added that people still do not see the utility of the project or the technology. One area resident who attended meetings and a train-ing session held by the Umpqua Regional Council of Governments, recalled that the connection be-tween the project and community development was not very clear to him or other participants. The City of Myrtle Creek has its own advanced Geographic Information System for planning purposes and did not participate in the Rural Information Technology Demonstration Project to a great extent.

Douglas County Sustainability Plan and ForumURCOG proposed the Sustainability Plan and

Forum as a way to develop community awareness of the importance of growth and economic diver-sification, and raise issues about the limitation and potential negative impacts of unrestrained devel-opment. In 1998, it received a $40,000 FS-RCAP

grant to develop and implement the Douglas Coun-ty Sustainability Plan and Forum project. URCOG advertised and held two forums before aborting the project due to lack of participation. Funds were de-obligated.

Douglas CountyAlcoholism Treatment Facility Relocation

ADAPT is a private non-profit alcohol and drug treatment facility based in Roseburg. It has five fa-cilities, located in Roseburg, Grants Pass, Reedsport, and North Bend. ADAPT provides a range of servic-es for intervening and eliminating drug or alcohol dependency, including drug prevention programs at schools, outpatient treatment, and family ther-apy. Started in 1981 with five employees, ADAPT now has 130 employees, serving 850 to 1,000 peo-ple monthly. Its operations are supported by client fees, contracts, and federal funds passed through state agencies.

In 1994, Douglas County applied for a Commu-nity Development Block Grant through the Oregon Housing and Community Development Depart-ment. The County applied for the funds on behalf of ADAPT, which, as a non-profit, was not an eli-gible applicant. The County subsequently contracted grant administration to the Umpqua Regional Coun-cil of Governments. Douglas County was awarded a $10,000 technical assistance grant for ADAPT to de-velop a site plan and design for the relocation and expansion of its residential facility to prepare a Com-munity Development Block Grant application.

In 1995, as a result of the $10,000 grant, ADAPT applied for and received a $368,000 Community Development Block Grant for the relocation and ex-pansion of its residential treatment facility. ADAPT’s $371,000 match represented a special arrangement between Douglas County, the State of Oregon and ADAPT, whereby the county traded the state for a piece of property and then gave title to ADAPT. The building on the donated property was remodeled, in-creasing Crossroad’s inpatient treatment facility from 20 to 30 beds as well as providing them with land for further expansion. Crossroads is ADAPT’s only residential treatment facility and serves a 12 county area. The facility has been at capacity since it opened.



The expansion allowed ADAPT to include beds for children of female clients so that families do not get broken up while mothers receive alcohol and drug abuse treatments. ADAPT is now seeking funds to further expand its facility.

Douglas County History and Natural History Muse-um Strategic Plan

The Douglas County History and Natural His-tory museum, a department of the county, opened in 1969 at the Douglas County fairground. The mu-seum’s collections include photographs, historical documents, and natural history exhibits. The mu-seum proved popular beyond expectation. In 1979, it added an exhibition annex, and in 1985, expand-ed its storage space. The museum currently employs four and a half full time employees, down two from 1997. A director, whose work is overseen by a Mu-seum Advisory Committee, manages the museum. The Museum Advisory Committee, appointed by the county board of commissioners, includes one com-missioner.

In 1998, URCOG approached the museum of-fering to develop a strategic plan to tie the museum’s

development with tourism in the area. URCOG be-lieved the museum was an essential part of tourism development in Douglas County. URCOG wrote the grant and in 1998 the Douglas County Museum was awarded $21,600 to develop a strategic plan to guide the use, development, and marketing of the museum to make the museum more self-sufficient. FS-RCAP contributed funds for the project, and the state’s Rural Investment Fund, administered through the Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development Corpo-ration, provided matching funds.

The Museum Strategic Plan advisory com-mittee—eight members, including a county com-missioner—held several meetings to complete an analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats and preferred future planning. The mu-seum adopted a new mission statement and com-pleted the strategic plan. The plan consisted of a management plan, marketing plan, program plan, and facility plan. It included goals for each with an-nual measurable objectives for the next 20 years.

The museum adopted dual objectives (1) to di-versify programs and host special events to increase community support, and (2) provide high quality ex-

The Douglas County History and Natural History Museum




hibits and enhance marketing to expand interest and increase visitation. The museum has since begun the aggressive pursuit of self-sufficiency through growth and development, including advertising, marketing, and developing activities. The strategic plan docu-ment is used to support applications for funds.

City of Myrtle CreekAlternative Wastewater Disposal System/Municipal Recreation Facility Technical Assistance

Myrtle Creek’s golf course was part of an effort to increase the area’s amenities to draw in retirees and to spur high-end housing development. The golf course also was conceived of as a way to solve an environ-mental issue relating to effluent disposal. In 1995 the City of Myrtle received a $250,000 FS-RCAP tech-nical assistance grant to design an alternative effluent disposal system and municipal recreation facility. State grant and loan funds and local funds contrib-uted $243,650 toward the $493,650 project, which entailed designing and building a wastewater treat-ment facility.

When the design, engineering, and environmen-tal work was completed, the city formed the Myrtle Creek Building Authority, a stand-alone, non-profit entity, to issue bonds to fund the construction of the golf course. The city purchased land for the course and leased it to the Myrtle Creek Building Authori-ty. Under the lease agreement, Myrtle Creek Building

Authority uses the city’s treated effluent to irrigate the golf course and is responsible for maintaining and operating the system in exchange for running the golf course. Myrtle Creek’s Public Works Director oversees the wastewater treatment. The wastewater treatment facility was online and the golf course first opened in 1997, all 18 holes were completed in 1998.

Since the golf course opened it has received positive press both statewide and nationally, for its affordability and its difficulty. It was ranked by Golf Digest as one of the top 10 best new affordable cours-es in the nation, and ranked the fifth toughest course in Oregon in Golf Magazine. Despite the recogni-tion it has received, the golf course has not brought in as many people as hoped. The feasibility study pro-jected 40,000 rounds of golf annually coming from Interstate 5 and the course is getting about 19,000 rounds of play. Seventy-five percent of the play is local where original studies indicated it would be 35 percent. As a result of lower than anticipated use, the feasibility study suggested greater demand and the golf course struggles to remain solvent. One person familiar with the golf course’s operations is confident the course just needs “time and players,” and that it is a matter of marketing. Because of the financial issues facing the golf course it has not advertised as wide-ly as desired. Recently, the Myrtle Creek Building Authority partnered with Seven Feathers Casino in Canyonville and other golf courses in southern Or-

As a way to promote local start-up industries, a five-unit shared manufacturing facility was developed.



egon to increase its visibility. Although the benefits of the course have not been as great as expected, it has brought people to Myrtle Creek, increasing traffic at local businesses.

Secondary Wood Products Complex Feasibility Study &South Umpqua Valley Secondary Wood Products Shared Facility

In 1994, the City of Myrtle Creek received an $18,000 Forest Service Rural Community Assis-tance Program grant to complete its Secondary Wood Products Complex Feasibility Study. The South Umpqua Valley Economic Development Committee developed the concept of the shared manufacturing facility as a way to promote local start-up industries. The shared manufacturing facility was intended to provide shared access to equipment and tools that were cost prohibitive for struggling entrepreneurs. Shortly after the grant was awarded the University of Oregon’s Community Planning Workshop complet-ed the feasibility study. Myrtle Creek then received a $250,000 FS-RCAP grant in August 1994, for site acquisition, renovation, and start-up costs to devel-op the shared manufacturing facility. Myrtle Creek secured $180,826, of which 60 percent was in the form of a grant and 40 percent as a loan, from Or-egon Special Public Works Funds, available through Oregon Economic Development Department. Funds were used for job creation and to install a lift station to connect the facility to city water and sewer. Myrtle Creek provided an in-kind match valued at $32,000, which included buildings donated to the city in ex-change for the provision of sewer services to the site.

The South Umpqua Valley Economic Devel-opment Committee developed the concept of the shared manufacturing facility as a way to promote local start-up industries. The shared manufactur-ing facility was intended to provide shared access to equipment and tools that were cost prohibitive for struggling entrepreneurs. The City of Myrtle Creek developed and submitted the project proposal for funding to the FS-RCAP and was the grant recipi-ent. The Shared Manufacturing Facility Commission was established by the city to oversee the develop-ment and management of the facility. The Umpqua Community Development Corporation, located in

Roseburg, managed the property. It marketed the fa-cility and provided business development assistance to tenant facility businesses through its micro-enter-prise development program (MEDAL).

The facility has five 1,400-ft units. Currently three businesses use the facility. A software firm that started in the person’s home just outside of town now has 15 employees, all from Myrtle Creek. The soft-ware firm initially rented one space for storage and now uses two units as the site for the entire business. A unit is rented by Frito-Lay, which uses it for storage for distribution in the south county area. The second and third units are rented by a cabinetmaker, owner of “Cutting Edge Woodworks.” Cutting Edge Wood-works employs two people.

Originally available only for businesses focused on secondary wood products, the city was forced to open the facility to other types of businesses to meet its debt obligations. And despite the fact that it is fully occupied, many people were disappointed with the facility because it “never went in the direction that was envisioned.” A couple of people cited lack of marketing, insufficient assistance to fledgling busi-nesses, poor location, lack of a talented workforce, and the low quality of the facility as reasons for its “failure.”

Tri-City Water DistrictThe Tri-City Water District formed in 1968 to

provide water and sewer services to an unincorpo-rated area south of Myrtle Creek. The district, four and a half miles long, and wholly within the Myrtle Creek Urban Growth Boundary, provides approxi-mately 1,650 sewer and water connections. In 1994, the system served 1,398 residential and 99 non-resi-dential users. The district is managed and operated by a professional staff under the guidance of a five-member board of directors, elected by members of the district. The Tri-City Water District and the City of Myrtle Creek share a sewer treatment facility.

Water System ImprovementsFor three years, between 1995 and 1997, the

Tri-City Water District made a series of investments in its drinking water treatment facility and distribu-tion system. The projects included mandatory and




optional upgrades designed to bring the system into compliance with state and federal regulations, im-prove the functionality of the system, and bring it up to accepted standards.

The water district was required to make up-grades to increase water contract time with chlorine, to comply with Oregon Health Division4 regulations resulting from amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1987. To meet the standards, good flocculation – mixing river water with chemicals – was necessary, which required a larger basin, new filters, and new intake pumps and valves to increase its intake capac-ity. Optional upgrades included removing dead-end

lines and looping the system to equalize pressure to improve fire protection and increase its water stor-age capacity to accommodate a two-day supply of water. At the County’s request and expense, Tri-City installed 12-inch lines instead of 10-inch lines and extended water and sewer to industrial lands on the west side of Interstate 5.

The United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (USDA-RUS) financed Tri-City Water District system upgrades through a series of grants and loans (see table 6). Funds to complete work to comply with regulations were provided with a higher ratio of grant to loan dollars (41 percent

4. The Oregon Health Division is one of several Oregon state agencies responsible for ensuring the State’s compliance with Environmental Protection Agency regulations.5. The project was broken into phases due to USDA-RUS grant and loan limits, and to increase bids. 6. This project is included because a regional entity, the Douglas County Industrial Development Board, played an active role in this project.

Year Amount Terms Upgrades1995 -1997 $2,680,300 30 years at

4.78%Water intake treatment plant, storage reservoirs, distribution lines

1995- 1997 $1,895,900 Water System Grant

Table 6: USDA-RUS Funding for Tri-City Water District Facility Improvements5

grant: 59 percent loan), compared to the normal grant to loan ratio of 25:75. To comply with feder-al regulations and fulfill debt service obligations, the district raised its fees from $8 to $17 a month. The $9 increase pays toward the loan and a fraction is put into an account for maintenance costs and improve-ments to the system.

HGE, an engineering firm from Coos Bay that has worked with the district for more than 30 years, did the engineering for the project.

City of RoseburgRoseburg Area Image Study6

In 1999, the Roseburg Area Chamber of Com-merce received funds to complete the Roseburg Area

Image Study. As a result of its prioritization in the SCERT process the chamber received $25,000 from the Economic Development Administration. Oregon Economic and Community Development Depart-ment also contributed $15,000 through the Regional Investment Fund administered by the Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development Corporation. The study was a joint undertaking of the Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce, the City of Roseburg, and the Douglas County Industrial Development Board. Each group appointed three representatives to the Joint Marketing Study Committee and contributed $25,000 toward the cost of the project.

According to the Project Notification Form, the study’s goal was to develop strategies for local busi-



nesses to improve the economic health of the area. The Roseburg/Douglas County Image Assessment & Strategic Plan was completed in March 2000. The study included an image assessment, an in-dustrial site and infrastructure assessment, and an economic development component. While much of the information in the study was culled from existing documents many people were already familiar with, it included new information about the area’s image gathered through stakeholder interviews, a survey of area businesses, and a “business outlook forum.” The study identified the importance of expanding a num-ber of existing businesses by a few employees, as well as the importance of cooperation between partner or-ganizations.

From the outset, committee members were com-mitted to acting on the results of the study. When the study was first completed it did not include an implementation plan and the partners requested its addition to the study. The partners have since implemented several recommendations from the study. Importantly, the study resulted in a more formal partnership, the Umpqua Economic Devel-opment Partnership, consisting of the Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Director, the Roseburg City Manager and the Douglas County Industrial Devel-opment Board Chair. A fourth member, the Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development Corporation has also joined the partnership. The group hired an Economic Development Director to coordinate and spearhead its activities.

Business and Industry: Loan ProgramsNEAI investments in business and industrial

development were made through a suite of loan pro-grams funded by the Small Business Administration and USDA Rural Development Rural Business-Co-operative Services (RD-RBS). Grants and loans were made directly or through intermediaries in Douglas County.

USDA Rural Development Rural Business-Cooperative Services

RD-RBS provides assistance to businesses through a variety of programs, including its In-termediary Relending Program. The Intermediary

Relending Program finances business facilities and community development projects in rural areas. Loans are made to intermediaries, who establish re-volving loan funds for the establishment of new businesses, the expansion of existing businesses, cre-ation of employment opportunities, maintenance of existing jobs, or community development projects.

Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development Corpora-tion Loan Programs

Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development Corporation (CCD) provides financial assistance to businesses in Coos, Curry, and Douglas Coun-ties. CCD, a designated Economic Development District and Certified Development Company, ad-ministers an Economic Development Administration funded Revolving Loan Fund, a revolving loan pro-gram funded by Rural Development-Rural Business Services’ Intermediary Relending Program, and the Small Business Administration 504 Loan program. One Myrtle Creek area business received an Interme-diary Relending Program loan.

Intermediary Relending ProgramCoos, Curry, Douglas Business Development

Corporation (CCD) established its Economic De-velopment Administration funded Revolving Loan Fund in 1979. In 1994, CCD approached RD-RBS with a list of potential borrowers and it received $2 million to establish an Intermediary Relending Pro-gram in Coos, Curry and Douglas counties. The Intermediary Relending Program requires and uti-lizes the same infrastructure as the Revolving Loan Fund and it is run similarly but funds are regulated by a different set of rules. Loan funds can be used for land or building acquisition, construction, equip-ment, and working capital. Loans of up to $250,000 are available, not exceeding 75 percent of the project cost and for every $20,000 one job is to be created. Collections from loans are used to repay the RD-RBS loan; if collections are not sufficient, the intermedi-ary is responsible for repaying RD-RBS.

Due to the area’s economic situation it took lon-ger to loan out the fund than planned. CCD made $2 million in loans to 18 businesses in Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties, averaging $111,111, report-




edly creating or saving 161 jobs. The Myrtle Creek business that received the loan changed from a hard-ware store to a storage unit rental business. The loan did not create or save 12 jobs as intended but the bor-rower continues to make payments on the $130,000 loan.

Ecosystem Investments: Jobs-in-the-WoodsThe Jobs-in-the-Woods (JITW) program con-

sists of a suite of programs administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). During the NEAI, JITW was comprised of grant programs through USFWS and BIA focused on watershed restoration on private and tribal lands; watershed restoration work on BLM and Forest Service admin-istered lands; and a demonstration program to restore watershed health and create economic opportunities for displaced workers. Table 7, above, summarizes JITW contracts and grants in Douglas County be-tween 1994 and 1996.

The Ecosystem Investment Team, a SCERT subcommittee, convened annually between 1994

and 1996 to discuss JITW fund allocations. The committee consisted of approximately 15 peo-ple, including representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Forest Service, the Or-egon Economic and Community Development Department, and several communities. For water-shed restoration on public land, the Forest Service and BLM identified projects on lands under their jurisdictions and decided which would receive JITW funding. The agencies then implemented and monitored the projects. For projects on private lands, the committee received proposals from NEAI counties. Prioritization was based on the following criteria: prevents/reduces non-point source pollu-tion, utilizes dislocated workers, benefits threatened and endangered species, and increases local buy-in on environmental issues.

Watershed Restoration on Federal LandThe Forest Service and Bureau of Land Man-

agement Jobs-in-the-Woods component included service contracts and the Ecosystem Pilot Demon-stration Program.

Table 7: Jobs-in-the-Woods Contracts and Grants 1994 - 1996Year Amount Agency Project/Program

1994 $423,290Umpqua Training and Employment Dislocated Worker Training*

1995 $373,626Umpqua Training and Employment Dislocated Worker Retraining, Timber 10*

1994 $1,756,083** BLM and USFS Jobs in the Woods Contracts1995 $2,426,114** BLM and USFS Jobs in the Woods Contracts1995 $30,000 Umpqua CDC Ecosystem Restoration Demonstration Pilot1995 $30,000 ODFW*** Cavitt Creek Instream Enhancement 1995 $60,000 ODFW*** Umpqua Basin Tributaries1995 $30,000 ODFW*** Brush Creek Instream Enhancement1996 $61,576 ODFW*** French Creek1996 $60,000 ODFW*** Paradise Creek1996 $35,000 ODFW*** Days Creek/Fate Creek

* Only a portion of these funds was used for the Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration Project. ** 1996 – 2000 records are unavailable or unreliable.*** Funds received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.



Service ContractsForest Service and BLM both received Jobs-in-

the-Woods funds for watershed restoration work on lands under their jurisdiction. In 1994, these agencies awarded $1,756,083 in JITW contracts. In 1995, the Forest Service and BLM awarded $2,426,114 in con-tracts, nearly half of which went to Roseburg area contractors for 16 projects, including the $470,000 in Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration Project contracts.

Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration ProjectIn 1994, the Umpqua Basin Jobs-in-the-

Woods Steering Committee formed to develop and implement the Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration Project. The committee included members from Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc., Doug-las County, two local contractors, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, Umpqua Community College, and Umpqua Community De-velopment Corporation. The pilot was designed to employ displaced timber workers to conduct resto-ration, enhancement, and survey work. JITW funds allocated to the Forest Service and BLM were used to develop and administer the workforce demonstra-tion program and for contracts. In addition, Umpqua Training and Employment received Department of Labor Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) funds, partially consisting of Secretary’s Reserve Funds, for the training component.

The Umpqua Basin JITW Steering Commit-tee developed the pilot and each participating entity had responsibilities for facets of its implementation. The Forest Service and BLM provided projects and contracts. Umpqua Training and Employment and Umpqua Community College provided recruitment and training services for dislocated workers. The Umpqua Community Development Corporation re-ceived $30,000 from the Forest Service to coordinate the ecosystem pilot demonstration project. Coor-dination entailed working with the partners to put together a package “creating whatever vehicle they could” to get dislocated timber workers employed.

The Forest Service and BLM selected projects for the pilot demonstration based on the availability of projects and whether they fit the needs of the pilot. Due to federal competitive bid laws the Forest Service

and BLM could not include restrictive stipulations in Request-for-Proposals, so a flow through entity was necessary. The Umpqua Community Development Corporation (UCDC) served as the intermediary for BLM and Forest Service contracts. UCDC would then put out its own Request-for-Proposals for bid, and could stipulate who could be hired, as well as pa-rameters regarding how many hours they could work and how much income they could make. When the contracts were put out to bid, the contractor who had originally helped develop the model contract, bid for and subsequently received the contract.

An important component to the JITW Ecosys-tem Demonstration Pilot Project was the dislocated worker-retraining program. The retraining program’s goal was the development of a workforce of highly skilled restoration workers. Umpqua Training and Employment, a local organization serving dislocat-ed workers, recruited workers for the project. The watershed restoration skills’ training was one train-ing program option among many available through Umpqua Training and Employment. The recruits received technical skills and forestry training at Umpqua Community College. Tioga Resources, Inc., the contractor awarded the JITW contracts, hired re-cruits through Umpqua Training and Employment. Per contract requirements, workers received “new forest management” training on site from Tioga Re-sources, Inc. After the completion of the pilot two dislocated workers remained employed with Tioga Resources, Inc.; the rest moved on to other work. The following describes the experiences of one train-ing program participant:

Mr. X is a 41-year-old who has lived for most of his life in Southern Oregon. He grew up in Medford and moved to Myrtle Creek in 1980. Mr. X moved away from Myrtle Creek, spending time in Cottage Grove and in the military, before returning to Myrtle Creek in 1989. From 1989 until 1994 he worked for Triple O Logging, a small logging company based in Myrtle Creek.

When Mr. X was laid-off from Triple O Logging he learned about programs for dislocated workers at Umpqua Training and Employment. At Umpqua Training and Employment he took tests to deter-mine his educational needs and then took classes at




Umpqua Community College in botany, surveying, and contract bidding procedures. At the same time Mr. X was taking classes, Tioga Resources, Inc., hired him to work on Forest Service and BLM-JITW con-tracts. Work included owl surveys, stream crossing surveys, trimming trees, scotch broom removal, and stream restoration.

Mr. X worked for Tioga Resources, Inc., for the duration of the pilot project and then stayed on as an employee with Tioga Resources, Inc., for several more contracts. He eventually left Tioga Resources, Inc., and took a job pulling greenchain for C & D in Riddle, just south of Myrtle Creek, so that he could work locally and receive insurance benefits for his family. He said, “Jobs-in-the-Woods work was real good. I loved being outdoors. But being away from my kids and not having insurance were problematic. It was a perfect job but family comes first.” After four years with C & D, Mr. X took a job as an appren-tice millwright at Roseburg Forest Products, where he works today.

Most of the partners involved in planning and implementing the pilot demonstration project con-sider the project a success but they were not inclined to continue developing the program. One steering committee member said,

There was a push to try something so we did it and it was successful. We tried it, implemented it, and came to a conclusion. It was a clean ending…What they learned, what they already knew, was you

have to look at who is paying and if the money is through Congress it will get done. The committee believed that markets work well and if there is a de-mand there will be a supply for workers.

Barriers to the JITW PilotPeople identified a number of issues that con-

tributed to the project’s discontinuation in 1995.Supply of Contracts/Demand for Retrained Workers

Very early in the project the partners realized that there were not going to be jobs for the retrained workforce. The contractor who was awarded the con-tracts said,

The program was to try to push people into an industry where there was not enough to feed the existing workforce. The interest-ing thing was that I was displacing workers within my own company and, although my company was functioning, it was suffering too.

Due to the scarcity of contracts, retrained work-ers who remained employed after the pilot were required to travel great distances to work on con-tracts.

Quality of WorkersOne major goal of the pilot project was to re-

train dislocated workers to create a highly skilled workforce. Unfortunately there were difficulties in attracting quality individuals to the retraining pro-gram. Of the initial six people that participated in the program, two completed the projects; none remain in the same line of work. Several people remarked the downturn in the industry had already taken place when the program began in 1994, and only the strag-glers were left behind. One person said,

When the whole economic depression hit, people on the ball got it together pretty quickly. When the JITW program came along it was the stragglers who were left, people who had a hard time with life in many ways, people burdened with child sup-port, jail time, etc.

Year Award

Grant Amount

Project Name

1995 $30,000Cavitt Creek Instream Enhancement

1995 $60,000 Umpqua Basin Tributaries

1995 $30,000Brush Creek Instream Enhancement

1996 $61,576 French Creek1996 $60,000 Paradise Creek1996 $35,000 Days Creek/Fate Creek

Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Table 8: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-JITW Grants to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife



Training GoalsThe training dislocated workers received did

not support some program goals. Perhaps due to a disproportionate focus on getting people “to work in the woods” the push was to get the contract out and training was limited to providing skills training to support on-the-ground work. Training included little in the way of entrepreneurial skills training, in-cluding how to work with BLM, how to write and submit bids, how to deal with contracts, etc. One of the steering committee partners reflected “there was no real entrepreneurial skill development; no one paid attention to it. They just tried to get them into the woods. The projects all ended well but there was no follow-up work. When the money was gone the workers were gone.” One retrained worker made sim-ilar comments, “the goal was for us to do our own contracts for BLM but they did not provide much in the way of guidance and direction. I really liked the work and was learning stuff.” He added, “We lived from payday to payday [it would take] several years of work to save money if there were no other major ex-penses to become contractors.” Given that one of the goals of the program was to develop ecosystem resto-ration contractors this was a critical oversight.

Watershed Restoration on Private Lands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW funds were

used for projects on private, tribal lands, and feder-al and state lands. Although no grants were awarded for projects in Myrtle Creek, all of the projects con-tributed to the overall health and productivity of the Umpqua Watershed, of which Myrtle Creek is a part.

In Douglas County, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) worked with private landowners to develop projects and submit Project Notification Forms. The county’s Ecosystem Invest-ment committee then prioritized the projects and submitted them to SCERT. For the first two years of the NEAI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW grants were administered through the SCERT pro-cess, vis-à-vis the Oregon Economic Development Department. This turned out to be problematic for

ODFW, the primary recipient of U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service JITW grants in Douglas County, because it created onerous reporting requirements. Grants were then administered directly by ODFW. Howev-er, difficulties arose because its administration costs on the grants exceeded the 10 percent federal limit. The state filed for a waiver on the limit, but in the meantime, USFWS identified the Umpqua Basin Watershed Council as a suitable flow-through orga-nization. Funds are now awarded to the watershed council and a greater percentage of the grant funds go to on-the-ground work. Projects in Douglas Coun-ty are also prioritized by the watershed council, of which ODFW is an integral member. The relation-ship between the watershed council, ODFW, and USFWS has grown less formal over the years. Since 1997, USFWS solicits proposals directly from the watershed council rather than through the SCERT process.

Douglas County ProjectsOregon Department of Fish and Wildlife ad-

ministers programs concerning management and conservation of fish resources including the regula-tion of seasons, methods, and limits for recreational and commercial take. As well, ODFW works to en-hance fish resources through habitat restoration and enhancement, hatcheries, wildlife areas, fishing access sites, and research stations. ODFW works across ju-risdictional boundaries, focusing its efforts heavily on private lands.

In the early 1990s, ODFW was struggling with Endangered Species Act listings in the Umpqua Basin. As a result of the listing of Umpqua Cutthroat Trout and Coastal Coho Salmon, it was required to identify core and source areas for listed species. To identify core and source areas, ODFW developed a basin management framework that entailed grading habitat types with a matrix using data from extensive physical habitat surveys. Projects were then priori-tized based on criteria, including benefits to more than one species, uniqueness of habitat, and, im-portantly, ease of implementation. Emphasizing the

7. Beginning in 1999, ODFW initiated the use of the Bradbury Process, a process that brings together the local watershed council, agencies, and consultants, to examine the basin’s 31 fifth field watersheds and classifies them into three groups based on recovery potential.




importance and impact of “ease of implementation,” one ODFW employee said, “In the end a lot of this had to do with landowners. The first few years the ef-forts looked like a scattergram that related strongly to landowner willingness to do something. Things have been narrowed down now.”7

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service awarded six grants, totaling $306,000, in Douglas County be-tween 1994 and 2000.

Project design and engineering was completed by ODFW and contractors were hired to complete the work to design specifications. JITW criteria re-quired ODFW to follow standard federal contracting requirements, including sending the Request-for-Proposal out to woman and minority owned small businesses, and to receive at least three bids.

None of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW funded projects (or project components) utilized dislocated workers or included training components for contractors or their workers. Four hundred twenty-one workers days were required to complete the projects and the average wages ranged between $17.50 and $25.00 an hour. No contractors from Myrtle Creek received JITW contracts.

The paragraphs below describe one U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW grant funded project im-plemented in the South Umpqua Valley.

Days Creek RanchDays Creek Ranch is a 306-acre property lo-

cated 10 miles from the Canyonville Interstate 5 interchange. A couple from Southern California purchased the property 10 years ago. The property includes pasture and timberlands; BLM land is ad-jacent to the north with private timberlands to the northeast, east, and west. Timberlands on the prop-erty are predominately Douglas fir but also include Sugar Pine, Oak, and Madrone. Days Creek and Fate Creek course through the ranch; Fate Creek runs year round.

Both adult members of the household are self-employed and work on the ranch. They have a child and are active in the community.

The couple’s goal is to improve the whole land; grow a diversified forest with multiple species and manage pastures by not overgrazing. They raise or-

ganic goats, sheep, and steer. The work they do on their property stems from the philosophy that “water is something we just borrow for a while and would like to pass it on as best we can.” To achieve this goal they developed a five-year management plan, acquired funding from various agencies, and implemented a series of projects. Some of the proj-ects include removing a dam that provides irrigation water for the pastures, developing an alternative means of diverting flow so that the upper dam on BLM could be removed, putting wood structures in the Fate Creek, building cattle crossings, and erecting over 12,000 linear feet of electronic fence to keep cat-tle out of the creeks.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW grants funded dam removal, cattle crossings, and in-stream structures. Projects on Fate Creek, which included the removal of the dam, were complete when ODFW approached the landowners, with funds in hand, to do work on Days Creek. Days Creek enhancements entailed putting logs in the creek and constructing a cattle crossing. Although many of the in-stream structures washed out or log-jammed in floods in 1997, there are now pools year round plus some ac-cumulation of gravel.

The bulk of the projects are complete and the landowners are now managing the ranch to see how the restoration and enhancement work effects the land, water, and fish. The landowners see the work as a win-win situation, “the work that they have done is beneficial to the creek and to us. It gives us control on where we put the cattle, helping us manage where the cattle go.” They also said the grants made the projects affordable “without the ODFW funds we would not have been able to do the work for a long time.”

JITW Grant BenefitsU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW grants en-

hanced Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s ability to implement habitat restoration and enhance-ment projects. The grants represented a vital increase in funds available to ODFW. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW grant program initiated a relationship between ODFW’s Roseburg office and USFWS. This relationship not only increased the ease of acquiring funds but it gave ODFW flexibility in implementing



its projects and provided the opportunity to experi-ment and develop restoration techniques. Specifically, this flexibility meant that when they were not meet-ing with success in a certain project they could move on and invest the funds in projects elsewhere. As well, it allowed them to utilize funds remaining at the end of a project to complete additional work to meet grant objectives. The projects all increased pop-ulations of threatened and endangered species, as well as improved the quality of the water in the Umpqua Watershed.

Workers and Families: Timber GrantsFrom the Job Training Partnership Act’s (JTPA)

passage in 1983 until the Workforce Investment Act was passed in 2000, Umpqua Training and Employ-ment (UT&E) administered job-training programs in Douglas County, as required by JTPA. During NEAI it received additional Title III Secretary’s Re-serve Funds—Timber Grants—through the U.S. Department of Labor to support its expanded range of activities, including its participation in the Ecosys-tem Pilot Demonstration Project.

Umpqua Training and Employment, Inc. (UT&E)Umpqua Training and Employment coordi-

nates with a host of local private and public entities to provide assessment, training, and placement ser-vices for dislocated workers. Assessments, which serve as an orientation for clients, were done as group ex-ercises with paper and pencil. An important aspect of the assessment was to define individuals’ literacy levels. Literacy determines the amount of time need-ed to provide training to the individual; training constrained by Unemployment Insurance benefits. Remediation for literacy deficiencies were addressed in-house, at the community college or other local programs with whom UT&E coordinates. Assess-ments also include aptitude, interest, and value tests. Results were used to work with individuals to de-velop training plans. Depending on the needs and interests of individuals, training took place locally, regionally, somewhere else in the state or even out of state. One of the few professional training programs available locally was long-haul truck driving. Training included on-the-job training and long-term training,

up to two years in community college or trade school in addition to a year of remediation for deficiencies. During the early years of the NEAI, the Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration Project provided limited oppor-tunities for watershed restoration worker retraining, which included a combination of classroom and on-the-job training.

Douglas County was considered by many to be “ground zero” during the crisis resulting from chang-es in the woods products industry. Umpqua Training and Employment responded in the early 1990s by developing a team to respond to mill closures. The “rapid response team,” including representatives from the State Employment Department, Umpqua Com-munity College, and UT&E, went to woods products companies to inform employers about their responsi-bilities and employees about services available to them. This process served several purposes, provid-ing an important opportunity to refer employees to services available to them, such as Unemploy-ment Insurance or debt counselors. In some cases, UT&E helped individuals negotiate with banks to reduce mortgage and to negotiate health care expens-es. Outreach activities also provided the opportunity to conduct a needs assessment that informed reports submitted to the state’s Community College and Workforce Development Department Dislocated Worker Branch to determine funding needs.

Umpqua Training and Employment receives its normal allocation of Department of Labor funds through The Oregon Consortium. Allocations are based on established level of need using Oregon State Employment Department figures and UT&E records. NEAI funds, allocated through the Department of Labor to The Oregon Consortium, were available be-ginning in 1993 to address the burgeoning needs of JTPA providers. The state notified UT&E about the Timber Grants that could be used to cover services for workers. UT&E did not immediately apply for the grants but quickly realized the need for additional support. Staff familiar with the grants said,

The definition of ‘dislocated workers’—anyone out of work for 12 weeks—meant that that UT&E was serving a large number of people and by the time timber workers and those people who worked for in-dustries supported by timber walked in the door,




Table 9. Department of Labor NEAI Allocations to The Oregon Consortium and Timber Grants to Umpqua Training & Employment, Inc.

TimberGrant #

Dates Grant Amount # Served UT&E Actual Enter Employment Rate &

EarningsTOC UT&E TOC UT&E

6 10/93-6/96 $1,075,892 $423,000* 322 N/A 73% / $8.27/hour**

9 7/94-6/96 $2,554,360 $373,000 608 N/A 73% / $9.04/hour**

10 6/95-6/97 $4,361,643 $373,000 961 67 N/A / $9.00/hour

11 6/96-6/98 $4,519,149 $587,713 1,020 118 N/A / $10.86/hour

12 6/97-6/99 $3,697,539 $517,828 840 111 85% / $12.94

13 7/98-6/00 $2,528,674 $395,000 632 133 92% / $16.47

14 7/99-12/01 $2,448,832 $750,000 531 N/A / $11.51

Totals $23,381,268 $3,419,541 5,506 429TOC is The Oregon Consortium.* An undisclosed amount of funds were de-obligated** Represents TOC figures. UT&E figures were unavailable.

funds were depleted. Funds for rapid response teams were initially drawn from regular dislocated worker funds too.

Shaded areas in the following table shows the amount of NEAI funds UT&E received, how many additional people they were able to serve, and the outcome of the services. NEAI funds allo-cated through the Department of Labor supported UT&E’s efforts to provide a broader range of services to larger numbers of clients. Timber Grant funds en-abled UT&E to serve more people and to change the way it served people, responding to the challenge of sheer numbers and “processing people more humane-ly.” UT&E’s rapid response team utilized Timber Grant funds and enabled them to go to mills rather

than waiting for people to walk in the door. UT&E held sessions with smaller groups of clients and broke information into smaller bits to avoid overwhelming people with the information. They also helped indi-viduals work with banks to address mortgage issues as well as taught them to negotiate health care ex-penses that were no longer covered by insurance. On occasion UT&E picked up the expense of a new pair of glasses or assisted with dentist fees. As well, Tim-ber Grants supported UT&E’s participation in the Jobs-in-the-Woods Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration Project. UT&E was responsible for finding workers and providing them with support, including tuition to attend Umpqua Community College for technical skills and forestry training.

Socioeconomic Conditions and Effects of NEAI on Community Well-Being

Socioeconomic ConditionDouglas County and Myrtle Creek continued to

grow at moderate rates through the 1990s. As Myrtle Creek has grown, its economic base, the woods prod-ucts industry, has slowly contracted. More jobs were lost than created in the high paying manufacturing sector, while there was steady growth in other lower paying sectors. Job growth in the South Umpqua Val-ley over the past 10 years has included nearly 1,000

jobs created by the Seven Feathers Hotel and Casino Resort in Canyonville. The unemployment rate re-mains higher and per capita income lower in Douglas County than elsewhere in Oregon.

In 1998, there were 41,460 jobs in Douglas County. The Roseburg area is an employment hub for the region, accounting for 78 percent of the em-ployment in the county, up from 71 percent in 1980. Many recent immigrants who live in Myrtle Creek



work in the Roseburg area. Despite unemployment rates 50 percent higher than the state’s average, nine percent in Douglas County versus six percent in Ore-gon in 2002, unemployment has decreased markedly since the 1980s, when it peaked at nearly 18 percent. Unemployment in the 1990s peaked at 11.9 percent in 1992 (Oregon Employment Department). Ac-cording to regional service providers, Myrtle Creek is faring worse than other areas of Douglas County.

Douglas County not only suffers from high un-employment but workers earn relatively low incomes. In 1998, per capita income in Douglas County was $20,543, compared with $25,912 in Oregon. The gap between per capita income in Myrtle Creek and the state increased steadily through the 1990s. Nevertheless, the overall percentage of all people in poverty in Douglas County decreased between 1993 and 1998. The same is true for Myrtle Creek. In

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Douglas County Persons Living Below Poverty

Figure 3: Myrtle Creek Primary School Free Lunch Eligibility

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

1990

Myrtle Creek Elementary School Tri City Elementary School

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%




1990, 21.9 percent of all Myrtle Creek residents were living in poverty, while in 1999, 15.4 percent of the population within the Myrtle Creek Urban Growth Boundary, and 17.3 percent of the population within city’s limits, were living in poverty (Figure 2).

Free lunch eligibility, in the meantime, increased 15 percent on the average, between 1990 and 1998, in the area’s two elementary schools. Figure 3, below, suggests that while unemployment has declined since its peak in 1993, impoverishment has steadily in-creased among younger families, indicating a higher level of underemployment in 1998 compared with in the early 1990s. Myrtle Creek Elementary School enrollment declined 25 percent and Tri-City Elemen-tary School enrollment declined 14 percent between 1990 and 1998.

Community CapacityCommunity capacity is the collective ability

of residents in a community to respond to external and internal stresses, to create and take advantage of opportunities, and to meet local needs. Communi-ty capacity consists of five dimensions: (1) physical capital; (2) financial capital; (3) human capital; (4) cultural capital; and (5) social capital. Because there were several ecosystem investments made as a result of NEAI, effects on natural capital will also be con-sidered. Evaluating the impact of NEAI projects on the capacity of Myrtle Creek requires a closer exami-nation of these various dimensions of capacity.

Physical CapitalPhysical Capital includes community physical

infrastructure (e.g., sewer systems, business parks, capital assets such as equipment, housing stock and schools). NEAI funds contributed to three infrastruc-ture developments and improvements. Myrtle Creek has a golf course as a result of the NEAI. While the golf course has solved the city’s effluent disposal prob-lems, it has not provided the anchor for high-end development as planned. City officials and business owners observed that there was more housing devel-opment in the past five years than in the previous 15 to 20 years but they also said it was unlikely that the trend is a result of the golf course. It is possible that with increased play and broader publicity, the course

will draw in new, high-end homebuyers. Several peo-ple remarked that there were increasing numbers of visitors stopping in at local businesses and one person said that entrepreneurs were moving in, buying prop-erty, and making capital improvements.

There is increased access to manufacturing fa-cilities as a result of NEAI investments. The South Umpqua Valley Shared Manufacturing Facility pro-vides workspace for area cottage industry; the facility is fully occupied, providing 17 jobs. The facility also facilitated infrastructure expansion, opening up other areas of Myrtle Creek for future industrial and resi-dential development. It remains to be seen whether the city, if it does not sell the facility, will be able to keep it occupied. Finally, WinCo sited its distribu-tion center within the Myrtle Creek Urban Growth Boundary, creating 50 jobs. The water system upgrade and expansion funded by Douglas County enabled the Tri-City Water District to provide sewer and water for WinCo. More land and the water and sewer infra-structure is available for future development.

Financial CapitalFinancial capital includes money, credit, and

other financial resources available for local use. The City of Myrtle Creek and the Tri-City Water Dis-trict received nearly $5 million in grants and loans for infrastructure improvements and development. Increased home construction and commercial devel-opment, if they materialize, will generate local jobs, and spur increases in property values, tax revenues, and therefore, financial capital for the city. The Tri-City Water District was obligated to raise its fees because it received federal loans, thus increasing its revenues to meet future maintenance and expansion expenses.

The Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Develop-ment Corporation expanded its ability to provide loans, with the addition of the Intermediary Relend-ing Program, funded by the NEAI. One area business took advantage of the increased access to capital but was unable to capitalize and create jobs.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW grants rep-resent a new and large funding source for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. $276,000 in JITW grants contributed 25 percent of the funds necessary to



complete the 10 to 12 projects implemented annually and helped to leverage other funds. ODFW staff iden-tified several other funding sources frequently used, including fund raising events, landowner’s in-kind donations, foundation matches, Wyden Amendment, private funds from industrial landowners, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 319 funds. Coincident with the launch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service JITW grant program, Oregon Wa-tershed Enhancement Board began dispersing funds for watershed restoration. One ODFW employ-ee said, “this was a good opportunity to get federal funds...The new funding source was big enough that we could start doing major reaches—a different level of project planning available on private land. It was unique.” Furthermore, the investments provided as-sistance to landowners who invested significant time into improving stream and riparian conditions but did not have the money to invest in the important in-stream projects.

NEAI funds contributed toward several enti-ties’ efforts to become self-sufficient as County funds dissipated. The Umpqua Regional Council of Gov-ernment received nearly $1,000,000 between 1994 and 2000 to support a range of services. Some mem-bers of the Douglas County development community believe that these funds were critical for its survival. The museum, on the other hand, only received a small amount of money but was able to create a doc-ument that is used to leverage funds and support the aggressive development of its resources.

Human CapitalHuman capital includes the skills, education,

experiences and general abilities and capabilities of residents. Many people reported that Myrtle Creek’s ability to acquire funds and to develop projects was the result of the city having professional staff and competency. Area residents’ skills, education, expe-rience, and general abilities and capabilities did not directly increase as a result of NEAI investments. One resident who participated in the Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration Project learned new skills in

restoration forestry but now works as an apprentice millwright at a mill in Riddle.

Cultural CapitalNEAI projects did little to increase cultural capi-

tal, which includes the myths, beliefs, norms, and life ways that serve to organize groups and facilitate sur-vival in Myrtle Creek.

Social CapitalSocial capital, or the willingness of residents to

work together toward community goals (and not just self-interested goals), has long been a charac-teristic of South Umpqua Valley communities, and Myrtle Creek in particular. The South Umpqua Val-ley Economic Development Committee’s activity in the early 1990s is just one example among many of the abundance of social capital. Residents and people familiar with the community all remark that Myrtle Creek remains a strong, tight-knit community. One person said, “The town rallies behind people and provides lots of support…it is a place that creates its own community. The Elks and Lions are very active; St. Vincent DePaul has a very strong volunteer base. People take the time and effort to improve things.” Myrtle Creek and the water district received NEAI funds but the projects failed to take advantage of the existing social capital, and failed to create new oppor-tunities to increase it.

NEAI investments at the regional level increased social capital, in terms of Myrtle Creek working more closely with other county and regional entities to ad-dress development on a county wide basis. When the South Umpqua Valley Economic Development Committee first got started, Roseburg rarely looked beyond city limits to work with other communities. Many people credit the Douglas County/Roseburg Area Image Study for changing this “indifference.” The study helped Roseburg and regional develop-ment organizations realize the need to think more broadly about development.8 “All of a sudden the leadership in economic development is more open minded,” remarked one longtime businesses owner

8. The South Umpqua Valley’s transition to a bedroom community for the Roseburg area workforce and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians’ recent change in status to a federally recognized tribe and its subsequent economic development activities have had a considerable role in gaining the county’s attention and assistance.




and community activist. The image study also re-sulted in the formation of the Umpqua Economic Development Partnership.

The Umpqua Economic Development Partner-ship is a collaboration among four key Roseburg area and county organizations, including the Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce, the City of Roseburg, Douglas County Industrial Development Board, and the Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development Corporation. It has taken a lead role in developing and marketing the South Umpqua Valley Industrial Park, an effort beyond the means of Myrtle Creek’s public and private sector. The partnership’s direc-tor participates in South Umpqua Valley Economic Development Committee meetings, thereby increas-ing communications between Myrtle Creek and the county’s leading development organizations.

Natural CapitalWater quality and aquatic habitat is improved in

the Umpqua Basin as a result of NEAI investments. According to people familiar with water quality issues, water in Myrtle Creek has improved and the impact of the creek on the river is down. One person noted that salmon are moving further upstream, they have not been seen in some time. Healthier streams and increased aquatic habitat protect the city and water district from fines or costly water treatment facility up-grades and increases the area’s appeal for recreation.

Effects of NEAI on WorkersThe South Umpqua Valley, and Myrtle Creek

in particular, has an unemployment rate over 10 percent. The area has not recovered from changes in the timber and woods products industry. One area resident said that as many as 2,000 people lost their jobs in the 1980s and 1990s, subsequently there has

not been enough businesses or industrial develop-ment.

NEAI investments and other funds created nearly 70 jobs. One business located in the South Umpqua Valley Shared Manufacturing Facility has 17 employees, whose wages range from $6.50 to $21 an hour. WinCo, a worker-owned grocery store chain, sited its distribution center on industrial land along Interstate 5 in May 2000. WinCo employs 50 people; all but two were hired locally. Wages range from $9.50 to $14.75 an hour; the average wage is $11 an hour, with benefits. While the jobs are cer-tainly a positive development, the number created pales in comparison to the number of jobs lost over the past 20 years. One person said, “The impacts of the investments have not been tremendous—people are trying but we haven’t hit anything yet—can’t get the economic engine going.”

The Jobs-in-the-Woods program failed to create new opportunities for area workers and contractors, who largely specialized in logging and therefore did not have the qualifications, did not receive JITW ser-vice contracts in 1994 or 1995.One former logger who participated in the Ecosystem Pilot Demon-stration Program now works in a mill in Riddle, just south of Myrtle Creek.

Umpqua Training and Employment, the entity administering Job Training Partnership Act services in Douglas County was, according to many, “aggressive and effective at assisting displaced workers.” Records indicate they served 429 people between 1993 and 2000. Many workers who received assistance through Umpqua Training and Employment were able to get jobs with wages averaging between $8.27 and $16.47 an hour.9 Researchers were unable to determine the extent to which Umpqua Training and Employment services benefited Myrtle Creek residents.

9. Average wage earned varied by grant cycle.



Conclusions

Myrtle Creek was highly affected by changes in the timber and wood products industry and the shut down of the nickel mining operation in Riddle. Due to a number of changes in the community – a shift from a blue-collar community to a bedroom and retirement community, the fast growth of the Seven Feathers Hotel and Casino Resort, and the expansion of Roseburg Forest Product’s Riddle op-erations – Myrtle Creek continues to grow. Projects funded through the Northwest Economic Adjust-ment Initiative achieved mixed results, providing a range of opportunities for residents affected by changes in the timber and woods products industry. Investments increased the ability of regional service providers, like Umpqua Training and Employment, to be proactive in addressing the needs of area res-

idents. Investments supported the development of facilities designed to support the development of small manufacturing businesses as well as made land available for industrial development. Although both of these efforts were designed to create jobs, few jobs have materialized. Investments in the en-vironment mean healthier streams, benefiting both residents and wildlife. Overall, NEAI investments in Myrtle Creek were implemented and complet-ed as planned and have unrealized potentials, but they have done little to replace timber and woods products industry jobs or seed the transformation of the local economy. Nevertheless, they have provid-ed tangible benefits to many area residents and the physical infrastructure remains in place to facilitate development in the future.

One Great ActorMyrtle Creek had fantastic success in acquiring

federal funds for infrastructure projects at the outset of the NEAI. As a result of private and public sector activities in the early 1990s, Myrtle Creek was poised to take advantage of these funds. Many people credit the former city administrator for his role in acquiring funds for community development. “He was very ag-gressive about projects.” With South Umpqua Valley Economic Development Committee’s development plan in hand to substantiate need, the city pursued funds, as they were available.

While the city’s opportunistic and aggressive attitude toward development was successful for ac-quiring funds and implementing projects, it lacked the capacity to assure project success. Specifically, sev-eral people remarked that the city lacked the capacity to adequately market the shared manufacturing fa-cility and golf course. While appointed community representatives manage the golf course and shared manufacturing facility, neither have successfully mar-shaled the resources necessary to aggressively market them; both require marketing to increase their visibil-ity and use.

Patterns and Themes




References

Dolgonas, David. 1994. Memo to NEAI applicants, local governments and other interested parties. Umpqua Regional Council of Governments, Roseburg, Oregon.

Beckham, Stephen Dow. 1986. Land of the Umpqua: A history of Douglas County, Oregon. Commis-sioners of Douglas County, Oregon.

E.D. Hovee & Company. 2000. Roseburg/Douglas County Image Assessment & Marketing Study. Pre-pared for City of Roseburg, Douglas County Industrial Development Board and Roseburg Area Chamber of Commerce.

Fladager, Eric et al. 2000. Museum 2020 Plan: A 20-Year Strategic Plan for the Douglas County Museum of History and Natural History. Umpqua Regional Council of Governments, Roseburg, Oregon.

Yockim, Ron. 1995. Memo to the Douglas County Commissioners. Umpqua Regional Council of Gov-ernments, Roseburg, Oregon.

1994. Meeting minutes, State and Community Economic Revitalization Team. Umpqua Regional Coun-cil of Governments, Roseburg, Oregon.

1996. Watershed Restoration/Jobs in the Woods Summary Report, Fiscal Year 1995. United States De-partment of Interior and United States Department of Agriculture.

1998. Douglas County Development Factbook. CCD Business Development Corporation. Roseburg, Or-egon.

South Umpqua Valley Regional Profile and Business Directory SUVED Committee, 1994.

Wolf, Joseph, City of Myrtle Creek, 1995. unpublished materials.

SUVED Market Assessment and Marketing Plan, August 1992.



Interviewees

Larry Andrew, Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development CorporationBill Arsenault, United States Fish and Wildlife Jobs in the Woods Grant recipientsMickey Beach, Umpqua Community Development CorporationAllen Beers, Roseburg area business owner, Intermediary Relending Program loan recipientSusan Buell, Vice President, Umpqua Training & Employment Inc.Helga Conrad, Director, Umpqua Economic Development PartnershipSam Dunnavant, Oregon Department Fish & WildlifeMark Eason, Tioga ResourcesRoger Evenson, Umpqua National Forest - Rural Community AssistanceEric Fladager, City of Sutherlin, formerly Umpqua Regional Council of GovernmentsDave Gilbert, Roseburg area business owner, Roseburg Area Chamber of CommerceDavid Harris, Oregon Department Fish & WildlifeJimmy Holsapple, Retrained worker, Ecosystem Pilot Demonstration Project Jean Kurtz, Roseburg Area Chamber of CommerceDavid Loomis, Oregon Department Fish & WildlifeWayne Luzier, Director, Coos, Curry, Douglas Business Development CorporationRuss and Sandy Lyons, United States Fish and Wildlife Jobs in the Woods Grant recipients Stacy McLaughlin, Director, Douglas County History and Natural History MuseumJoyce Morgan, Douglas County CommissionerPreston, O’Hara, Roseburg area business, Intermediary Relending Program loan recipientCharles Perino, Umpqua Regional Council of GovernmentsBruce, Piper, Executive Director, ADAPTLiz, Rizzeeuw, Umpqua Regional Council of GovernmentsBetty Tamm, Executive Director, Umpqua Community Development CorporationRandy Wetmore, Roseburg City Manager

myrtle creek, douglas county, oregon -...

Documents