Environmental Assessment

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 • zone averages were used for brush disposal, road maintenance, and temporary road development Alternativ e Table 3-33. Expected Logging Costs of Alternatives 2 and 3 Acres Total Volume (ccf) Stump- Truck (ccf) Brush Disp. (ccf) 3-120 Road Maint. (ccf) Temp. Road (ccf) Haul (ccf) Total Cost/ccf 2 4,313 11,568 $84.53 $8.38 $5.43 $0.37 $21.47 $120.18 3 3,855 11,001 $84.53 $8.38 $5.43 $0.37 $21.47 $120.18 Table 3-34Alternative Financial Efficiency Alternative Estimated Volume CCF Present Net Benefits (PNB) Present Net Costs (PNC) Present Net Value (PNV)) Benefit/cost Ratio (B/C) Alternative 1 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative 2 11,568 $130,912 $831,890 -$700,978 0.13 Alternative 3 11,001 $124,595 $725,379 -$600,784 0.13 The negative PNV for alternatives 2 and 3 reflect planning and survey costs associated with the preparation of a roads analysis and EA. The following table identifies the related projects and costs used for Alternatives 2 and 3. Table 3-35 Related Projects and Costs Activity Alternative2 Alternative 3 Unit of measurement Noxious weed Monitoring $2,500 $2,500 Project Subsoil $8,700 $7,200 acre Close Roads $5,000 $21,000 miles Snags $21,550 $19,250 Project Planting $5,000 $5,000 Project Gate $500 $500 (1) Fencing $16,000 $16,000 miles Precommercial Thinning $489,400 $547,300 acre Post Old Growth $1,000 $1,000 Project Boundary Machine Pile $190,750 $12,625 acre Hand Pile 0 $42,625 acre Guzzler Installation $10,000 $10,000 (1) Water Set Fence $1,000 $1,000 (1) Fence Removal $2,000 $2,000 miles Total Cost $753,400 $688,000 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1 - No Action Selection of this alternative would result in no active management of the resources. There would be no net sale value, and no additional jobs would be created or maintained. There would be no benefits to the
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 3 local economy. This alternative may have negative impacts to the local economy because timber-related jobs would not be maintained. Although Alternative 1 would generate no current revenues to return to the Treasury of the United States of America there is a cost resulting from the expenditure of planning monies. Since there are no revenues predicted it is not possible to calculate a benefit/cost ratio. Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2 and 3 The harvest units under Alternative 2 and 3 have measurable economic potential in terms of the volume of raw materials that could be harvested. When the harvest related revenues and costs alone (including planning) are analyzed the PNV is a negative $700,978 (Alternative 2) and negative $600,784 (Alternative 3) with a benefit/cost ratio of $0.13 for both alternatives. An estimated 58 timber and timber-related jobs would be created or maintained. Indirect benefits from employment would contribute to the local economy. The number of jobs maintained or created was calculated by using figures for the Deschutes National Forest from Appendix B-5 of the FY 1997 Timber Sale Program Annual Report. Excluding firewood from the volume harvested on the Deschutes National Forest in Fiscal Year 1997, an estimated 9.6 jobs per million board feet were maintained or created. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of all alternatives with regard to economic efficiency in the foreseeable future are based on costs and revenues. The cumulative effects on forest resources are discussed in other reports of this EA. All resources have a value, though many are difficult to identify in dollar terms. In all alternatives the possibility of wildfire is high because of the location, weather and vegetation. What varies between alternatives in regards to fire is the fuels and future stand structure following implementation of the EA. The level of fuels remaining will contribute directly to the investment needed when fires return to the project area. The fuels accumulating in the next three decades may need treatments to protect the developing young ponderosa pine forest. These treatments may include prescribed fire or mechanical mowing of the shrub layer. In Alternative 1 no treatment would occur. Future fires within the perimeter of the Opine Vegetation Management area would have the potential to be more difficult to control due to the high fuel loading. This potential could require more resources to control fire, create increased dangers to wild land fire fighters and increase costs to contain a fire. Future expenses to thin stands under Alternative 1 would be needed. Alternative 2 and 3 includes commercial and non-commercial tree harvest and fuels reduction that reduces future fuel loads. Resources required to control or manage fires could be substantially less than Alternatives 1. These alternatives have the best opportunity to accelerate the establishment and development of a large diameter ponderosa pine stand and provides the best assurance that the stand can develop past the age when small diameter trees are susceptible to ground fire mortality. Alternatives 2 and 3 provides the most current and future opportunities for employment in the woods industry. Over the last 10 years, an annual average of approximately 68.2 MMBF of timber has been sold from the Deschutes National Forest. In the near future, the amount of timber offered for sale is expected to be near this annual average. The Deschutes National Forest is expected to continue offering timber for sale and is expected to continue making contributions to the local economy as a result of timber harvest activities. If Alternative 1 was chosen, the project area would not contribute any additional benefits to the local economy as a result of timber harvest. In this scenario, the projected amount of volume from Alternative 3-121
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:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTA
Page 162 and 163: OTHER EFFECTS - CUMULATIVELY SIGNIF
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?