Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 alternatives balance the goal of maintaining and/or improving soil quality following project implementation and soil restoration activities (Soils Report, page 42). The proposed actions are also expected to comply with recommended guidelines that ensure adequate retention of coarse woody debris and surface organic matter following post harvest activities (Soils Report, page 42). Under all alternatives, the combined effects of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable management activities would be within allowable limits set by Regional direction and LRMP standards and guidelines for protecting and maintaining soil productivity within each of the proposed activity areas (Soils Report, page 42). Economic and Social Analysis Economic and Social Analysis Introduction The importance of recovering economic value and maintaining a ponderosa pine and lodgepole forest are one of the primary purposes of the Opine Vegetation Management Project. The economic gain from harvesting does not cover all the costs associated with the fuels treatment and non commercial thinning a ponderosa pine/lodgepole pine forest on the 54,623 acres. There is a long timeline need to implement the project, in relationship to the high fuel loading and high risk from a wildfire. There is also concern from high risk associated with insect and disease related to the high tree stand densities within the project area. There would be a positive cash flow from the commercial treatments under both action alternatives, which would help to reduce the cost of proposed fuels and non commercial treatments proposed under both action alternatives. Overall, there would be a negative economic value, when considering all of the fuels and non commercial treatments proposed with either of the action alternatives. Economic impact analysis of the activities proposed in the Opine Vegetation Management Project focuses on the makeup of the communities of Central Oregon, a comparison of recent local work and unemployment data to the state of Oregon as a whole, and a discussion of economic trends by industry. Social factors important to Central Oregon, and specifically to land and forest management as a source of local income include: the region’s rural setting and its history of a large wood products industry, farming, and ranching; the manner in which the local population utilizes resources for recreation; the collection of wood for fuel, fish and game for sport; and the effect of an increasing population on the region’s job market and economy. Economic and Social Analysis Existing Condition Demographics Five Central and South Central Oregon counties; Jefferson, Crook, Klamath, Lake and Deschutes Counties, are considered in this analysis. The Opine Vegetation Management Project area is located within Deschutes County. The total population for the five county area during the 2000 Census totaled 224,735. Populations and change for the region and by each individual county are displayed in the following Table 3-31. 3-114
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 Table 3-31 Central Oregon Population Growth Population Change 1990 2000 Actual Percent Central and South Central Oregon Jefferson County Klamath County Deschutes County Crook County Lake Co. 167,623 224,735 57,112 34.1 13,676 19,009 5,333 38.9 57,702 63,755 6,053 10.5 74,958 115,367 40,409 53.9 14,111 19,182 5,071 35.9 7,176 7,422 245 3.4 The major population centers within the area are: Klamath Falls (19,462), Prineville (7,356), Bend (52,029), Redmond (13,481), Madras (5,078), and La Pine (5,799). Future population projections mimic that of the past decade. Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties are expected to continue with aggressive growth. As with the nation and Oregon as a whole, the population in the Central Oregon area is becoming both older and more diverse; but there are major differences within the area. For instance, the major cities, Bend, Redmond, Prineville, Madras, had lower medium ages than Oregon, in fact Prineville’s, Madras’s, and Redmond’s medium age has actually decreased since 1990. Whereas more rural counties like northern Klamath County and unincorporated areas such as La Pine, are much older than the National or Oregon average and tend to be more retiree-heavy. Although racial diversity is increasing, with the Hispanic population increasing the fastest, Central Oregon, except for Jefferson County, is less racially diverse than Oregon as a whole. According to the 2000 census, Lake is 91 percent white with the Hispanic population increasing 50 percent, Crook is 93 percent white with the Hispanic population increasing 179 percent since the 1990 census, Deschutes is 95 percent white with the Hispanic population increasing 182 percent, Jefferson is 69 percent white with the Hispanic population increasing 133 percent. Klamath is 87 percent white with the Hispanic population increasing 66 percent. Oregon as a whole is 87 percent white with a Hispanic population increase of 144 percent. The education attainment level, except for Deschutes County, within Central Oregon, is also lower than Oregon’s as a whole. The percentage of population having graduated from high school is 47 percent in Crook, 56 percent in Deschutes, 44 percent in Jefferson and 49 percent in Klamath and Lake Counties. For Oregon as a whole it is 53 percent. 3-115
Page 1 and 2:
United States Department of Agricul
Page 3:
Abstract: The Opine Planning Area i
Page 6 and 7:
PROJECT LOCATION CHAPTER 1 Figure 1
Page 8 and 9:
PURPOSE AND NEED CHAPTER 1 commerci
Page 10 and 11:
PLANNING DIRECTION - MANAGEMENT ALL
Page 12 and 13:
PLANNING DIRECTION - MANAGEMENT ALL
Page 14 and 15:
OTHER PLANNING DIRECTION & STRATEGI
Page 16 and 17:
OTHER PLANNING DIRECTION & STRATEGI
Page 18 and 19:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 The Opine
Page 20 and 21:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 overstock
Page 22 and 23:
ANALYSIS ISSUES CHAPTER 1 Soils The
Page 24 and 25:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS CHAPTER 2
Page 26 and 27:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - ALTERNATI
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS - ALTERNAT
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER
Page 64 and 65:
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER
Page 66 and 67:
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES CHAPTER 2
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
ISSUE 3 - WILDFIRE RISK - DIRECT &
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 162 and 163: OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
AGENCIES AND PUBLICS CONSULTED CHAP
show all

Environmental Assessment

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?