Cultural Resources
Comment: Cultural Resources: The Bull Springs Creek Pictograph (Loring & Loring site #76) while relatively insignificant, should be located to determine if the exchange has any impact. (169-1, 293-1)
- Response: Cultural Resource Inventories were conducted between 1996 and 1997 for the proposed land exchange. Including past inventories conducted prior to this proposed action that meet adequacy standards, 92% percent of all National Forest System lands have been subjected to intensive field inventories. Prior to this proposed action, no previous inventories had been conducted on National Forest System lands in the Bull Creek area, south of Tumalo Reservoir. Based on the required background research and literature reviews conducted prior to field inventories we had knowledge of the Bull Spring Creek Pictograph, but not it's precise location, other than that given in Loring and Loring (1996 , p. 96). Field inventories conducted in 1996 and 1997 on National Forest System lands in the locations cited by the Lorings, ("...up a dry draw above and west of Bull Spring..." [ibid]) in the NW1/2 of Section 18, T.17 South, Range 11 East, failed to locate the pictograph or boulder referenced in Lorings' description. It is possible that said boulder lies on lands to remain in Crown Pacific, Ltd.'s ownership and thus were not inventoried.
Comment: Why is there a lack of concern on historical or archaeological sites? The DEIS states that "The exchange of land to Crown Pacific could result in an irreversible commitment of cultural resources", including 15 prehistoric sites and 26 historical sites. Turning these valuable sites and resources over to a private party is not in the public's best interest. (350-4, 388-5, 2001-10)
- Response: Under NEPA and NHPA, the Forest Service must consider project effects to cultural resource sites located on National Forest System lands subject to land exchange under the proposed action. Chapter 3 of the FEIS describes impacts of the proposed action alternative to cultural resources. The Forest Service conducted cultural resource inventories in 1996 and 1997 and has inventoried 92% of the federal lands. Twenty-Six (26) cultural resource sites were located, inventoried and subjected to detailed data recordation. The DEIS finds that there will be No Adverse Effects to historic and prehistoric archaeological sites as the result of the proposed action due to the implementation of a Treatment Plan. This Treatment Plan requires certain levels of mitigation to be performed on 4 sites (3 historic logging camps/mill-sites and 1 prehistoric lithic scatter) in the Bull Spring area. Mitigation will involved data recording, data recovery through scientific archaeological excavation, historic research and interpretation. Deed Reservations will be held by the United States of American until such mitigation is performed and is acceptable to the Forest Service and Oregon State Historic Preservation Office.
Comment: Have you considered the historical value of Dorrance Meadow homestead? (1009-1)
- Response: The archaeological remains of homesteading activity in the Dorrance Meadow area were field inventoried and recorded (see above). All of the historic archaeological sites and features in that area (61100415, 416, 417 and 418) were deemed not eligible to the National Register of Historic Places due to lack of site integrity and inability to address National Register Criteria.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Fire
Fire Protection Most fire protection comments centered around residents of Ponderosa Pines subdivision losing an emergency escape route if Crown Pacific becomes the adjacent land owner. Comments express concern with lose of access to other ways out of Ponderosa Pines in case of another forest fire or other emergencies.
- Response: Crown Pacific has proposed an interface area plan for the Ponderosa Pines and Jack Pines subdivision areas. Such a plan would include providing means for retaining access during emergencies. There will be no change to wildfire response on any of the areas involved in the exchange, interface lands will receive the same fire response from either Oregon Dept. of Forestry (ODF), Walker Range or the USFS. Due to mutual aid agreements and a common dispatching center for ODF and the USFS and utilizing common response cards (response cards identify the type and kind of personnel and equipment to send to a fire), fires that start on the interface receive the same pre-planned fire fighting response regardless of jurisdiction.
Comment: In terms of fire management, with the exception of the Winema and Fremont forests, the exchange does not offer improvement. Public land still will border private land, including Crown Pacific land. Presumably Crown Pacific believes in fire suppression for its tree farm. (379-7)
- Response: Both Crown and the Forest Service treat fuels. Crown does so through harvest entries the USFS treats fuel through both harvest entry and natural fuel treatment, in either case the interface area is a priority with both. Privately held lands may receive treatments more quickly because of more focus management considerations, as well as fewer budget constraints. Past Crown practices and state resource law indicate residues will be cleaned up. Crown Pacific personnel routinely work with neighboring property owners to minimize the impacts of management practices. Examples include their recent discussions with the Ponderosa pines Property Owners Association and their offer to meet with property owners at Jack Pine Village. (located in the FEIS Appendix E). Both Crown Pacific and the Forest Service take strong suppression actions when called for. With the land exchange implemented, this will be simplified because there will be fewer urban interface lands, and fewer inholdings.
Comment: If owned by a private company, reaction to fires may not be as immediate as it would while owned by the Forest Service. (27-2, 53-5, 73-1, 78-4, 163-3, 284-6, 298-5, 390-2, 430-4, 1005-2, 1020-3, 1041-3, 1050-3, 2001-4)
Comment: Fire prevention and suppression is a primary concern and this land exchange will simplify fire fighting efforts. (286-2)
Comment: As to fire danger, we believe it will be diminished, not increased. (3119-2)
- Response: Crown Pacific lands are protected by either Walker Range or Oregon Dept. of Forestry with mutual aid agreements in place with BLM and the USFS. Response to wildfire ignitions will be the same regardless of jurisdiction as we use the same detection system, have common dispatching organizations, and draw on the same fire fighting assets.
Misc. Comment: The fire danger and potential ecological and environmental damage. (94-1)
Comment: Fire hazard will increase. (283-2)
Comment: Crown Pacific will bring some very positive management to the lands we would acquire from the USFS. Crown is quite proactive in reducing hazardous fuel loadings through the removal of dead and dying trees. (305-1)
Comment: Please disclose the willingness of Crown Pacific to commit to working with the subdivision landowners to reduce the fuel hazard (slash and small tree ladder fuel), reduce small tree diameter density, reduce slash from commercial and precommercial activities and maintain lands adjacent to homeowners to reduce the risk of wildfire. (370-7)
Comment: Page 102 : Why is there no discussion as to how Crown Pacific will manage with sensitivity to adjacent landowners? If Crown has the intent to work with adjacent landowners, then a process needs to be disclosed in the FEIS. If Crown does not wish to do this on a formal basis, then state that in the FEIS. (370-2, 370-10)
Comment: Much of the land going from the Forest Service to Crown contains heavy fuel buildup and is a fire danger not only to Forest Service lands but to neighboring Crown lands and other private ownerships. Considering current Government policies these lands can be more easily managed and fuel loading reduced under private management. (82-4)
- Response: The EIS discusses wildfire, concluding that with either the Proposed Action or the No Action alternative, wildfire suppression and prevention activities would continue on both ownerships. Potential ecological and environmental effects are discussed, by resource area, throughout the EIS. The Final EIS contains additional disclosure of environmental consequences in regards to old growth, LOS, bald eagle habitat, mule deer migration corridors, sensitive plants, and visual resources.
- Impacts to adjacent land owners are discussed in the FEIS, Chapter 3, Economics/Social section. Near the subdivisions of Jack Pine Village and Ponderosa Pines, Crown Pacific has initiated written agreements to designate "Community Interface Management Areas." These agreements would mean that Crown Pacific would manage a 1/4-mile interface area to develop a "fire resistant" boundary, to reserve a large tree component, and to maintain adequate road systems. Crown Pacific has also suggested a "no fence" policy within the interface area. A copy of the proposal is found in the FEIS Appendix E. Crown Pacific has indicated a willingness to consider similar agreements with other adjacent landowners who have demonstrated concerns about the effect of the proposed land exchange on their personal amenities.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Forest Health
Comment: You have not analyzed forest health as part of your assessment. I have observed very bad Dwarf Mistletoe infection of Ponderosa Pine in the Bull Creek area. I am convinced that the problem is exacerbated by the current fragmented ownership. The two owners/mangers (Crown and USFS) take different approaches to treating the problem and while each works within their own lands, they are incompatible along shared boundaries. (169-4)
Comment: One might suggest that a "patchwork" system of ecosystem management (comprised of public and private parcels) actually benefits the overall health of the said system more than privately held parcels gain from management strategies employed on the public land. (3136-7)
- Response: Forest health is not directly affected by change in land ownership and detailed information of insect and disease occurrences have not been analyzed. The purpose of the exchange is to consolidate land ownership and enhance future resource conservation and management. This is describe in the FEIS, Chapter 1. As discussed, the divergent objectives between industrial forest lands and national forest system lands make landscape-level ecosystem management more difficult, and generally not beneficial. Blocking up lands will provide for efficient and effective conservation and management of natural resources.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
History of the Exchange
Comment: If the Forest Service caused or allowed these fragmentations to occur in the first place then they owe it to the public to remove the contested parcels in the LaPine and Tumalo Creek Canyon from the land swap. The Forest Service should not compound its past blunders by swapping these prime, highly used recreation lands to Crown. (391-4)
Comment: Why not negotiate with both sides to simply eliminate the Bull Flat portion of the exchange? Who initially approached whom on this exchange? What were their motives? (3136-1)
- Response: About a third of the Deschutes National Forest has been acquired by the national forest system through land exchanges. Chapter 1 of the FEIS describes the background for this land exchange. Chapter 2 describes alternatives considered but eliminated because they would not sufficiently meet the purpose of the exchange. Eliminating the Bull Flat portion of the exchange was considered as part of one of the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed analysis.
- The existence of private lands within NFS boundaries and intermingling of ownerships with larger private timber lands predates the creation of the Forest. Many of the private timber lands within and adjacent to NFS lands, are a vestige of the lands granted by the US government (Railroad Land Grants) in the 19th Century to the major railway industrialists. These granted lands (usually alternating sections along the railroad right-of-way) were then sold to timber interests (e.g. Brooks-Scanlon and Shevlin-Hixon in Bend) and others to help defray the costs of railroad construction. The current National Forest System land ownership pattern in Central Oregon is the result proclamations by Congress (e.g. the creation of the Cascade Forest Reserve in 1893) and acquisition through various past land exchanges.
- The USDA Forest Service and Crown Pacific, Ltd.'s predecessor, Brooks-Scanlon Corp., began discussions regarding potential land exchanges, including lands in the Bull Spring and Tumalo Creek areas in the early 1970's. Several land exchanges were concluded with Brooks-Scanlon in the 1970's to early 1980's. Once Crown Pacific became owners of Diamond International's holdings in the late 1980's, including the former Brooks-Scanlon lands, they again initiated discussions with the Deschutes National Forest regarding the Bull Spring and Tumalo Creek areas. Several parcels included in the Proposed Action were identified in the Forest Plan as available for disposal under land adjustments as the result of these earlier discussions (see FEIS Chapter 1). After Crown Pacific acquired additional private timber lands in the early 1990's (e.g. Gilchrist's), the scope of the potential exchange expanded to include the Fremont and Winema National Forests. Crown Pacific and the Forest Service continued discussions and explored options and finally negotiated an Agreement to Initiate the land exchange in 1995.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Lands
Deed Restrictions Comment: I am requesting that a legal "Agreement" be made with Crown Pacific to have a public access "Corridor" starting at the proposed "new" Crown Pacific land (west end of Pierce Drive) and ending at the pre-owned location of the Deschutes National Forest, northwest of LaPine. (Section 31) Leaving a "corridor" will guarantee access to the trails of the Deschutes National Forest from LaPine, should the land be sold off later to a developer by Crown Pacific. (259-2)
Comment: All lands received by Crown Pacific should be restricted by deed as follows: Land to be reserved in perpetuity for Forest use only, (2) No development of any type except as required for forestry operation, (3) no fences to be built on property except as needed, (4) Public to retain same access and use of property as if it was still in the public domain. (167-3, 259-2, 392-1)
Comment: Will superior seed trees be marked and saved for future interest? (285-2)
- Response: Near the subdivisions of Jack Pine Village and Ponderosa Pines, Crown Pacific has initiated written agreements to designate "Community Interface Management Areas." These agreements would mean that Crown Pacific would manage a 1/4-mile interface area to develop a "fire resistant" boundary, to reserve a large tree component, and to maintain adequate road systems. Crown Pacific has also suggested a "no fence" policy within the interface area. A copy of the proposal is found in the FEIS Appendix E. Crown Pacific has indicated a willingness to consider similar agreements with other adjacent landowners who have demonstrated concerns about the effect of the proposed land exchange on their personal amenities.
- Also, the FEIS Chapter 3 Recreation section discusses how it is expected that road and trail access to these lands would not change substantially.
- The Forest Service will include deed reservations for certain genetic trees. As part of the deed reservation, the Forest Service will be allowed to collect seeds. Crown Pacific will not be allowed to harvest these trees for a certain period of time.
Comment: My desire is that the Forest Service reserve for the public and private landowners (specifically) the right to use Road #9768 to the BPA powerline road and then also the BPA powerline road. (2006-2)
Response: To provide access to national forest system lands, the Forest Service has included deed reservations for the two roads mentioned. Also, the Forest Service is required by law to provide landlocked inholdings with access. In order to provide legal access, the location must be approved and an easement granted.
Policy Comments in this group raised concerns about the land exchange policy and procedures.
Comment: Why not just sell the land to Crown Pacific and put logging and development restrictions on the sale so that nothing can be done that would not have been done if the land had remained under federal control? (111-4)
Comment: Who gives the Forest Service the power to trade our forests? The government, us being part of it, has no right to sell federal lands to a private corporation. (100-2, 144-2, 391-3)
Comment: I don't feel that the taxpayers should shoulder any of the cost that would result in a direct negative impact on property value and be "fenced in" on top of it. (148-2)
Comment: ..the Forest Service is in partnership with Crown Pacific. This is a conflict of interest. The Forest Service is a public agency.. Crown Pacific, on the other hand, is a private, for profit corporation.. this partnership is called a "limited partnership." In legal terms this means that it is limited to the aforementioned partners:.. By what authority does the Forest Service enter into partnership with a private timber company? (244-1, 246-1)
Comment: It appears that this exchange is simply a means to move federally protected timber into the hands of private owners thereby changing the regulatory status to State controls. Is this the future of our National Forest? (249-1)
Comment: I understand the intent behind the land swap, and fundamentally it makes sense to me. However, the fact that new lands are being added to the swap mere days before the comment period is to end, I must vehemently oppose this swap. (269-3)
Comment: This should have to go to a vote for each county involved. (042-2)
Comment: There are other ways to implement ecosystem-based management, such as allowing private owners to assist the Forest Department in clearing and cleaning of property. (1043-4)
Comment: The US Forest Service no longer has the money to maintain all these small, isolated parcels of land. (3119-3)
Comment: Does the property which would go to Crown Pacific near the Sister Ranger District office fall under the guise of consolidating ownership or is it just a bone tossed to Crown Pacific? (3125-3)
Comment: Can't they see that if they don't stop, someday it'll all be gone. (3129-1)
Comment: Includes inappropriate Islands for transfer to third parties (572-6)
- Response: The Forest Service does not have the authority to sell public lands. Congress, through various laws, has authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands when the public interests will be benefitted. Provisions in laws passed by Congress, specifically The General Exchange Act of 1922, The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 , and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988, amongst others, provide the authority for land exchanges. Land exchanges are not sales of federal lands; they are a trade of public and private lands of equal values. The parcels included in the land exchange have not changed since before the DEIS was made available in Sept. 1997.
- Although broad-scale ecosystem management could be implemented without an exchange, it requires voluntary involvement by land owners. As discussed in the FEIS, (Chapter 1), divergent objectives on adjacent lands makes this voluntary involvement is not assured and so reduces the potential for successfully accomplishing these landscape scale objectives.
- Also, as described in Chapter 1 of the FEIS, the process followed to conduct this land exchange is determined by law, regulation, and policy. Part of the process is open to the public and part is closed as part of the negotiations. As currently designed, the process does not include a public vote.
- Also, regarding the Sisters parcel and the La Pine Park parcel, Crown Pacific has acted as a third party, which is within the common procedures for conducting land exchanges.
Comment: When the people, in this case the residents of Ponderosa Pines, have bought property and settled in a specific spot because of proximity to National Forest lands, the disposition of these lands is quite different from other NFS trades. (1011-1)
- Response: As part of the purpose and need discussed in Chapter 1 of the FEIS, Crown Pacific and the Forest Service have tried to provide mutually beneficial parcels. The lands adjacent to subdivisions have been given specific consideration throughout the analysis. Chapter 3 of the FEIS describes the effects of the exchange on adjoining subdivisions, including Crown Pacific's initiation of an agreement to manage for a "community interface management area" that would take into account this residential areas.
Comment: We believe that it should be a contingency of this proposed exchange that lands conveyed form the public domain be managed through the direction of guidelines that, at minimum, resemble Forest Plans. (3126-5)
- Response: Once lands are conveyed out of public ownership, the management is governed by State and county laws and regulations. Exception are made for specific easements or deed restrictions, which are included to maintain site-specific resource values. However, as restrictions are imposed on lands conveyed out of public ownership, the value of the land decreases proportionally, thus reducing the trading value of the lands to be traded out of the national forest system.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Noxious Weeds
Comment: The DEIS did not address noxious weeds on Crown lands. What are the noxious weed species? Where are they located? How many acres? How will they be eradicated? (233-3, 371-4, 377-5, 379-5, 1068-10, 3201-11) How will road associated noxious weeds be addressed? (2008-17)
- Response: A section on Noxious weeds has been added to the FEIS.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Recreation
Comment: I think that for the representative of the Forest Service who heads the assessment of recreational aspects of the proposed exchange to come out and say that "we've (i.e. the Forest Service) done a poor job to date in assessing recreational needs/values" begs the question, why must this project be rammed through before legitimate concerns are soundly addressed? (258-4)
- Response: During initial scoping for this project recreation was not identified as a key issue for this project. When the Draft EIS was released in November 1997, many comments were received relating to dispersed recreation. These comments focused on areas near Tumalo Reservoir, Ponderosa Pines subdivision, and Jack Pine Village subdivision. At a public meeting in December 1997, the Forest Service announced that a recreation specialist had been added to the Interdisciplinary Team as a result of public concerns. In response to public comment, additional analysis of dispersed recreation use has been completed. Survey information provided by user groups, additional field reconnaissance, and additional public contacts have provided the basis for the additional analysis. The recreation section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS provides a summary of that additional analysis.
BLM lands Comment: We are not property owners but we use the BLM land which is in question. We have friends that own property in the area and we use the BLM land to ride horses and hike. (162-1)
- Response: The lands that are proposed for this exchange do not include Bureau of Land Management lands but only include National Forest System and Crown Pacific lands. Therefore this comment is not relevant to the proposal.
Ponderosa Pines Subdivision There were substantial numbers of comments from the Ponderosa Pines subdivision landowners concerning their fear that Crown Pacific, after gaining ownership of the proposed lands, would limit, restrict or affect their existing use of the lands in question. They were concerned that fences would be built and sited the example of existing Crown Pacific lands that were fenced along Masten Road. They were also concerned that their opportunities for recreational activities such as walking, hiking, horseback riding, bird watching, ATV riding and others would be curtailed, reduced or eliminated by the new ownership of lands by Crown Pacific. Specific comments include the following:
Comment: 259-1: I recently purchased property in the La Pine area. I did this primarily because of the Deschutes National Forest bordering the town and making it easy to ride from my new home in La Pine, to the start of the Forest's trailhead. I understand there will no longer be access for hikers, bikers and trail-riders to enter the Deschutes National Forest (west of Hwy. 97) from the city of La Pine (access off the west end of Pierce Drive. I also understand that it will require trailering horses, bikes, etc., to an entry several miles north of the town of La Pine.
Comment: 46-1: We love going for walks with our 3 small children, drive around and look at deer and wildlife. If it were fenced, our purpose for moving to this area would be defeated; showing our children the freedom of the woods. We do not want a barbed fence across the street where our children always play.
Comment: 48-1: Private lands are not open for hiking, woodcutting, or recreation. Fences restrict any movement including hiking.
Comment: 87-1: The land is enjoyed by a group of people, young and old, who live in the Ponderosa Pines subdivision. The properties bordering the National Forest could very well loose access to this area and the property values will go down.
Comment: 310-2: We snowmobile all winter from here. We can go from here to Bachelor, Waldo Lake, Crescent Lake, Diamond Lake, etc., right from our house. If Crown gets it they will fence it off so that will end all of the good things here for us.
Comment: 1035-5: We would lose all recreational use of the surrounding National Forest. We purchased this property because of the recreational use. Crown Pacific will fence and gate this property to keep people out.
Comment: 1066-3: Once the swap is completed, will we lose our ability to hike, bike, horseback ride, use an ATV or car on most of the back roads close to Ponderosa Pines? (The back road trip from Ponderosa Pines to Wickiup Reservoir comes to mind).
- Response: Crown Pacific has publicly stated that they do not intend to fence their lands. In addition, they recently developed a proposed "Ponderosa Pines Community Management Area" plan (Appendix E). This plan states that CP would not build fences within or adjoining the CP/Ponderosa Pines interface area. This plan also states that Crown Pacific would maintain adequate access to the conveyed lands. Their land management policy is to not restrict recreational use by the public, however they do reserve the right to restrict public uses of their lands if they incur damage to their property or other detrimental uses occur. Their willingness to initiate a proposal with the Ponderosa Pines subdivision owners indicates their concern regarding the use of the lands adjacent to the subdivision and to allow continued recreational use of the land. See Appendix E for a copy of the Crown Pacific land use management policy.
- The fences on Crown Pacific lands along Masten Road are necessary to keep cattle within a grazing allotment that Crown Pacific manages. It is not their intent to establish a grazing allotment adjacent to the Ponderosa Pines subdivision.
- There is no reason to believe that CP will change their management policy concerning use on their lands and access. See CP policy statement in Appendix E. The policy is generally open to day uses that respect the land and owner. CP reserves the right to prohibit or restrict access and use on their lands if the policy is not followed.
Future development is a speculative issue that cannot be dealt with in this document, and would have it's own process which would involve public input. The process is however, difficult and costly. The effects section in the FEIS addresses these issues.
Tumalo area Numerous residents of the Tumalo area commented on their concern about transferring land from the NFS to CP. Their belief is that CP would limit their access to recreate on lands. They believe that the Tumalo area offers a unique situation close to a residential area for a variety of recreation activities such as hiking, biking, walking, horseback riding, etc. The comments also revolved around; 1) the immediate effects of potential closures or restrictions and 2) the unknowns about the future management of the area, including the potential for development by CP and the vegetative changes resulting from CP timber management practices. Examples include the following:
Comment: 17-6: ..there seems to be a large public misconception as to whose lands they really recreate on presently. Many letters to the editor have commented on loss of recreational opportunities because they won't be able to play where they're now playing. Little do they realize that several of the places they recreate are really already Crown Pacific lands and they don't even know the difference, because from the public access standpoint, there aren't any differences. In the Bull subwatershed, most of the lands they currently use belong to Crown Pacific, and the few that do not, are only accessed by traversing through Crown Pacific lands to get to the USFS lands.
Comment: 108-2: Tumalo res. lands. I have been using this area since I was a young boy, hiking, camping, Mt. biking and horse back riding.
Comment: 171-1: The Tumalo Reservoir area.. Horseback riding in this area is a very pleasurable experience.. if this "swap" is carried out, that private ownership of the land would deny this group access to this land.
Comment: 237-2: Tumalo Reservoir is one of the few places close by that we can ride our horses without tearing up trails in the forest. Please do not change the status of this land. I would hate to see all those horses on the hiking trails in the mountains.
Comment: 326-1: We oppose the trading of the Tumalo Reservoir and Bull Springs lands to Crown Pacific. Historically the subject property has been used year round for public access to recreational opportunities. The trend for private ownership of land has been to lock it away, thus eliminating public access for recreation.
Comment: 311-1: I am writing this letter in concern for the property exchange of the Tumalo Reservoir area. This area is a close-to-town, easy access recreation area enjoyed by many hikers, bikers, runners, horseback riders.
Comment: 361-2: This area is also used by many people for a wide variety of recreation. Equestrian use, hiking, biking, and cross country skiing being the most common.. .. would seem that a public "recreation zone" in the Tumalo Reservoir area would be of the best interest of many users.
Comment: 364-2: And timber harvesting, Crown Pacific's primary reason for acquiring this property, would reduce much of its recreational potential.
Comment: 238-1: I am concerned that the swap will restrict recreation.
Comment: 330-1: This area is a favorite place for my friends and I to ride our horses. Its serenity and beauty have provided many hours of pleasure for us and our children. The exchange would threaten the long-term availability of the area to the public.
Comment: 426-1: Once the Forest Service gives this Area up to Crown Pacific. It will immediately become off limits.
Comment: 1055-2: Issue of preserving this highly used recreational green space for current and future generations. The use of this land by horseback riders is self-evident.
- Response: Crown Pacific's land management policy (Appendix E) provides for open use of their lands for recreational purposes, yet reserves the right to limit access if damage is incurred to their property from abuse and misuse. Crown Pacific intends to maintain an adequate road system and does not normally block or build fences to limit access. Changes in the recreational experience may change as Crown Pacific harvests the trees in the area, but overall the access to their lands should remain unchanged.
Data was collected concerning the amount and type of recreation use existing currently, adding to the documentation in the FEIS of those effects, and the consideration of a modified decision which would include a change in the configuration of lands exchanged (retaining a strip of USFS land) and/or CP entering a "conservation easement" which would modify timber activities in the area and potentially set aside for recreation uses.
In response to comments regarding the Tumalo Area, the Proposed Action Alternative was modified in the ROD to retain public ownership of a strip of land along the northern part of the island of National Forest System Lands in the Tumalo Reservoir area (Map 3, ROD). Given that this retained parcel mostly abuts other public lands (Bureau of Land Management, Tumalo Water District including Tumalo Reservoir, and the State of Oregon), this changeis not expected to substantiallly change how well this portion of the exchange meets the purpose of consolidating blocks of public lands. Retaining some lands along the northern part of NFS lands in the Tumalo area will allow the public to access the rest of the Deschutes National Forest from the Tumalo area. In addition, the Deschutes National Forest and Crown Pacific have agreed to begin a small separate land exchange for the purposes of acquiring lots 1 and 2, E 1/2 of the NW 1/4, Sec.31, T 16 S, R 11 E, approximately 175 acres, in order to complete a Tumalo access route through NFS lands, in response to comments.
Tumalo Creek Comment: The comments received concerning the Tumalo Creek area were generally positive but also raised some questions about; 1) the lack of discussion in the DEIS about the potential for trespass to occur across private lands by people who would by attempting to access Tumalo Creek, 2) the lack of substantial proof that there would be a trail accessing the Wilderness from Shevlin Park, and 3) the lack of trail use possibilities for horses and dog on the user trail coming from Shevlin Park going up the creek. (342-14, 1069-17, 2008-19, 340-1, 1069-16, 3133-2)
- Response: The trespass issue has been mentioned in the affected environment and effects sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The trail provides an opportunity that would be open to the public and would provide a connecting link between NFS lands near Tumalo Falls and Shevlin Park. The master strategy for the City of Bend and Deschutes County considers providing links from the City to NFS lands and existing trail systems.
The trail along the creek from Shevlin Park received some comment concerning it's future and possible extension tieing into existing trail systems and ultimately the Wilderness area. The future of the trail and its' primary uses, as well as the future of connecting trail systems would be dealt with in a separate environmental assessment. At that time, the impacts would be evaluated and public input received prior to any decisions being made concerning trail construction /reconstruction, location, type of use and access points.
Other comments concerning the Tumalo Creek area referred to the positive effects of obtaining the area into public ownership and the trail possibilities, tieing the Bend urban trail system with surrounding areas. These positive effects have been mentioned in the effects sections.
Rosland Campground The comments received concerning the Rosland Campground parcel were positive in nature and spoke of a win-win situation for the public, private and the City of La Pine. (319-1, 365-1) The following is a specific comment received:
Comment: 82-3: Also the Rosland Campground will be donated to the La Pine Parks and Recreation District so it won't be lost to the Public.
- Response: The Rosland Campground would be conveyed to Crown Pacific and in turn Crown Pacific would donate the site to the La Pine Parks and Recreation Department. It is expected that day use activities would continue as well as camping.
General Recreation The following comments were from people that did not distinguish a particular area that was important to them but were concerned about recreational uses being maintained after the land exchange took place. They were concerned about access. Additional comment also is (3146-1).
Comment: 281-1: Our user group consists of not only ATV's (quads) and motorcycles (dirt bikes), but also sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and dual- sport motorcycles. This issue that is of a great concern to us and should be also of the public land managers is public access on public roads across our National Forests. We would request that this access issue be a common issue to all action alternatives. That all roads and routes that are now open to public travel within the proposed exchange boundaries remain open.Comment: 328-2: ..very concerned about losing valuable forest land around urban areas for hiking, horseback riding, bird-watching, fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities. Swapped lands which now provide public access may be logged and then developed, contributing to urban sprawl and eroding natural green space.
Comment: 335-3: There is a great deal of recreation on this land and it needs to be protected.
Comment: 383-1: More stress on near-by Three Sisters Wilderness area - already over-used. Force more recreation into that area.
Comment: 2044-1: My family rides the forest many hours and camp on the trails we backpack.
Comment: 280-1: Our property was purchased with the provision of property line access to Forest Service land for recreational purposes; I.e. cross country skiing, biking, etc.
Comment: 358-2: I am concerned about the apparent lack of concern the Forest Service has shown for those who use the forest for hiking, trail riding, and other recreational purposes. The Forest Service has included in the exchange a number of parcels that like near urbanized areas - tracts that are readily accessible to residents of Bend, Sisters, Sunriver and La Pine.
Comment: 308-1: Access for legitimate public recreation should be guaranteed for all lands involved in this exchange, regardless of current ownership.
- Response: Crown Pacific's land management policy (Appendix E) is to provide open use of their lands for recreational purposes. They intend to leave an adequate road system in place for access to their lands, there is no policy that indicates Crown Pacific will block roads or limit access. Crown does reserve the right to restrict access if they incur damage or misuse to their property .
The project received 163 coupon style comments that referred to "Loss of current user - developed recreation trails on USFS land."
- Response: The response to this coupon statement refers to the Tumalo Reservoir and the potential for recreation use to change with the conveyance of USFS land to CP. It does not assume correctly that USFS land is being used predominantly. In fact, some of the commonly used trails and roads are on CP land. It is also not a correct assumption that this use would be lost with the conveyance of the lands to CP. See CP Land Management Policy for details on what would be expected in the future on the lands in question. The conclusion is that not much would change in the use types and levels in the area. The one thing that may change would be the vegetation changes given CP's timber management policies. This would not likely preclude any options but may change the view. Refer to effects of the proposed action section in the FEIS.
Many comments were received regarding the possibility of Crown Pacific restricting access to conveyed lands. People were concerned that areas they had gone to for many years would now be closed and unavailable. They felt they purchased their property in proximity to federal lands because they wanted to enjoy open spaces near their house. People felt that lands in close proximity to subdivisions should be dropped from the land exchange. The following are sample comments:
Comment: 39-2: ..Restricting our hunting privileges and recreational activities.
Comment: 133-4: All outdoorsmen will lose access to some of the best outdoor recreation in our state. We would love hunting, fishing, hiking and bird watching just to name a few.
Comment: 158-3: Lack of access to traditional hunting, hiking, biking, snowmobile areas. Although Crown Pacific states they intend to continue to allow public access, they also reserve the right to close their lands at any time, for any reason.
- Response: Crown Pacific's land management policy allows public use of their lands for recreational and other purposes. They have publicly stated that they do not intent to limit or restrict access. Their lands are currently open to public uses. Crown Pacific does reserve the right to limit access during times of high fire danger or if damage is incurred to their property from the public use. In general, roads that are now used as trails would remain open. Access may be intermittently denied due to logging operations. More logging spurs and skid roads may be developed over time. If any roads are closed or obliterated, vehicle use would be restricted in part but not hiker, horse, bike or other use entering from access points.
A few commentors stated that their feeling was that the exchange would result in no change to the opportunities for recreation on Crown Pacific lands. They stated that recreation and access is already occurring on Crown Pacific lands, including the Tumalo area, and that people may not be aware of when they were on federal lands or on private timber company lands. The following are examples of specific comments:
Comment: 312-2: Crown Pacific currently has a written policy allowing public use of its lands for recreational purposes. This policy will not change as a result of the land exchange.
Comment: 352-2: .. will enhance public use potential and recreation opportunities tremendously. Tumalo Creek, the Little Deschutes River and Sprague River in particular are very desirable for this use, and should be of great value for the public in general.
- Response: These comments reflect the current Crown Pacific policy of allowing access to their lands for the public's use for recreation. It also is apparent that without careful posting on the ground, it is sometimes difficult to tell when you are on private or public lands.
Comment: Oregon Department of Transportation feels the repercussions on the state transportation system have not been adequately addressed. There will be localized impacts at specific intersections that need to be discussed as timberlands change from federal ownership and vice versa. The proposed exchange could impact the destination and route selection for recreational traffic such as hunters, hikers, backpackers and canoeist. The document needs to look at the ramifications to transportation from an operational standpoint. (270-1)
- Response: There may be some change in the amounts of roads which will change ownerships with the exchange. This is likely to be minor with the primary changes being the increase in logging related traffic (short term and intermittent). There may also be some changes in recreation related travel, i.e.. as lands change to public ownership there would likely be more people accessing USFS land which was CP land than vice versa.
- The amount of roads which continue to exist after the exchange may change given the different philosophies by the different owners. In general, Crown uses more roads in their management than USFS. Both management philosophies include closing or obliterating low standard roads which are not needed. Road densities are higher on CP land than on USFS.
- No further analysis was done in the FEIS in response to this comment.
Comment: Our user group consists of not only ATV's (quads) and motorcycles (dirt bikes), but also sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and dual-sport motorcycles. This issue that is of a great concern to us and should be also of the public land managers is public access on public roads across our National Forests. We would request that this access issue be a common issue to all action alternatives. That all roads and routes that are now open to public travel within the proposed exchange boundaries remain open. (281-1)
- Response: The response to this comment is 1) the access issue is in the DEIS and will be in the FEIS as well, and 2) the owner of the land will dictate the road management policy. There is generally more roads on CP land and therefore, more opportunities for motorized recreation. The general trend is to decrease the amount of roads to maintain. Crown Pacific's land management policy allows public reasonable public access of its lands. They only disallow access in exceptional cases where damage may be occurring to lands or during extreme fire danger.
Comment: "We request that Deschutes Nat'l Forest make a permanent Agreement with Crown Pacific to have a public access "corridor" starting at the proposed "newly acquired" Crown Pacific land (Section 8) near the west end of Pierce Drive in La Pine, Oregon and ending at the pre-owned Deschutes Nat'l Forest land, Section #31 or #32, northwest of La Pine". (268-1)
- Response: This type of agreement can be done but it would be accomplished by CP dealing directly with the other landowners and would not be made a part of the proposed land exchange.
Ponderosa Pines/Jack Pine Village Comment : The comments received concerning the Ponderosa Pines and Jack Pine Village dealt primarily with access issues and have been addressed above. The two key comments dealt with 1) the ability of the local owners to access the area directly to recreate on by road and otherwise and 2) the potential for vegetative changes once CP owns the land and the resulting effects on the area as a desirable recreation opportunity and the possibility of future development of the land.
- Response: These concerns were dealt with mostly in the access section. It is likely that CP will manage timber more aggressively than the USFS, changing the character of the vegetation. As described in the FEIS, Crown Pacific has no plan to change access to its lands for recreation purposes. See discussion in the FEIS Chapter 3 and in the Access portion of this response to comments.
Data This group of comments deals with recreation questions and concerns about the NEPA process and the DEIS, especially concerning the recreation analysis or lack of it. They represent the point that the DEIS did not adequately represent existing uses or effects of the proposed action on recreation use. Many comments suggest that the DEIS does not adequately assess the significant recreational use of the Tumalo acreage. The EIS refers to low levels of dispersed recreation which is clearly wrong and suggests that further analysis is required. The following are examples of comments relating to recreational analysis:
Comment: 387-3: The new supplemental EIS should address :The impacts that will be created and caused by the displacement of recreation on Forest Service land that is proposed to be traded away.
Comment: 388-6: Why do you consider our recreational use of the forest incidental around Ponderosa Pines? Where did you get the statistics to support the statement 'occasional incidental use of the forest' surrounding Ponderosa Pines.(389-6)
Comment: 1064-1: Very little weight appears to have been given to the recreational values of the land near Tumalo Reservoir, an area that is popular now for hiking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, camping and boating, and will see increasing demand in the future. These values should be recognized and safeguarded.
- Response: Between the draft and final EIS, a concerted effort was made to collect as much use data and to understand the public input more accurately. The data collected and methods used are not scientifically exact, but this is the best data available and represents the use within an acceptable range. This has allowed the documentation of effects (Chapter 3 of FEIS) to be expanded to reflect the potential changes anticipated. It has been acknowledged, in Response to Comments 10-2, 12-2, 12-3, 18-1, 77-1, 105-1 and 258-4, that there was a need for additional data and analysis of the dispersed recreation issue. This issue is discussed in the FEIS.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Riparian
Comment: Page 55 Riparian/Wetlands: There is an inadequate treatment of this section since in dry climates these are among the most critical of habitats. This topic deserves more discussion especially in light of importance of parcels coming to public ownership. (1069-14)
- Response: On page 77 of the DEIS, there is additional discussion on the effects of the exchange on riparian areas and wetlands. Page 55 of the DEIS discusses the wildlife that is associated with riparian and wetland habitats and the effects that may occur with the proposed land exchange. There have not been significant changes in the discussions between draft and final EIS.
Dorrance Meadows Comment: My other concern is the Dorrance Meadow located in this area. There is a very delicate ecosystem in that area and some interesting plants. It seems a shame to me to trade this historical section of land. If the water table were to raise in the meadow there may be a resurgence of many rare plant species. (318-2)
- Response: Changes in the quality of surface and groundwater within the project area are not expected to result from the Proposed Action. The Forest Service and Crown Pacific would still meet federal and state water quality requirements after the land exchange and adherence to the requirements of the Oregon State Forest Practices Act would result in similar results in permanent streams and state designated wetlands. There is less conservative protection for non-fish bearing streams, intermittent streams, and wetland/riparian areas that are not considered significant by the State.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Sensitive Plants
Comment: Please also consider the effects of logging and mining and the associated increase in traffic on soils and particularly on native plants. I have witnessed the loss of Jepson's monkeyflower on timber land in an area that has been heavily quarried. (379-6)
- Response: It is anticipated that there will be no adverse effects to Jepson's monkeyflower (Mimulus jepsonii) due to the exchange. No federal lands with known populations of the monkeyflower will be exchanged to Crown Pacific. Two parcels of Crown Pacific land, one with potential and one with occupied habitat will be exchanged to the Forest Service. It is anticipated that logging on Crown Pacific land will have similar effects as logging activities on federal lands. Private land logging is managed under the Oregon State Forest Practices Act which has provisions for minimizing soil disturbances and impacts to native plant communities.
Comment: The DEIS failed to address the impact on the many plant species that are dependent on LOS forests. (1068-4)
- Response: There is a discussion of the effects of the land exchange on sensitive plants in the Key Issues Section in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. There is also discussion of late and old structured stands in the same section of the FEIS. Table 3-LOS-1 displays the acreage of late and old structured stands that are affected by the land exchange. There is also discussion of the effects of the land exchange to management indicator species associated with lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine and mixed conifer late and old structured (LOS) stands. These species were selected because they were thought to be representative of all species requiring old growth components. It would be an exhaustive analysis if the effects to all potential species requiring old growth components were analyzed, and not necessary for the Responsible Official the make an informed decision.
Comment: Overall a well written section accurately describing effects in a proper context. I do believe additional discussion is needed on what is effect of lands being acquired by National Forest to described populations. (1069-11)
- Response: Lands being acquired from Crown Pacific will be evaluated prior to any ground disturbing activities will take place and will be disclosed in an appropriate environmental analysis. Any impacts to sensitive plant populations will be addressed at that time.
Comment: Timing of the DEIS did not allow for an opportunity to field check the presence/absence of TES plants within the public parcels to be exchanged. (2009-5)
Comment: The exchange is in violation of the 1990 Deschutes Forest Plan which calls for surveys and consultations for sensitive plant species. These surveys were not done. There is also a total lack of mitigation proposals for impacts on these species. Mitigation measures should be included. (2010-3)
- Response: A field reconnaissance was conducted in 1995 by Resource Management International Inc. for sensitive plant habitat within the proposed exchange boundary. Records in the Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base and Forest Service Survey records as well as Forest Service GIS Sensitive Plant habitat layers were consulted to determine historical occurrences of sensitive species within the proposed land exchange. The historical information was updated in 1997 at the conclusion of the field season by query of Forest Service District Botanists. Additional sightings of sensitive plants found in 1996 and 1997 were entered into this analysis. Additional survey of approximately 3000 acres of Crown Pacific land in high probability habitat for Astragalus peckii was surveyed in 1997.
Comment: We feel that rare plant sites that will be transferred to Crown should have a conservation easement to afford ongoing protection. (2010-1, 107- 2)
- Response: A protective clause is being placed in the deed for T24S R10E S20 to protect a portion of the Astragalus peckii and Botrychium pumicola populations found on the BPA powerline right of way. Conservation easements for other areas could be considered but it is the Forest Service position that title to these easements should be negotiated between Crown Pacific and an appropriate third party and that title to the easement should be held by a third party other than the Forest Service. A biological evaluation discussing potential impacts to these species was completed. As disclosed in the BE and in the Final EIS, the proposed action may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing.
Comment: We are also concerned that there are no Species Conservation Plans in place for the two most impacted plants: the pumice grape-fern and Peck's milkvetch. Protection plans should be in place before sites are traded. (2010- 2)
- Response: Under the affected environment discussion of the Final EIS it is pointed out that a full conservation strategy is under development for the pumice grape-fern. This strategy is expected to be implemented in 1998 and will include a challenge cost share study of the disturbance ecology of Botrychium pumicola to be conducted by Oregon State University. A conservation strategy for Astragalus peckii has not been developed since Botanists managing this species have not to date seen sufficient threats to justify the development of such a strategy. This decision may need to be re-visited as new information is developed. The Deschutes Forest Plan calls for management plans to be in effect for individual species by September 1999. It was thus anticipated during the planning process that some projects would go forth during the interim period without the benefit of full conservation strategies (Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan, Appe impacts on these species. Mitigation measures should be included. (372-5, 2016-2)
- Response: Field reconnaissance was conducted by RMI Inc. in 1995 on lands proposed for exchange. In addition past surveys for projects provided data on the presence and distribution of sensitive plants within the exchange as well as on lands outside the exchange. This past survey information has provided the best available information on which to perform an analysis. Threats to Botrychium pumicola are not well understood. For this reason a disturbance ecology study is being made a part of the conservation strategy to be developed and implemented in 1998. It is inappropriate to define mitigation any farther than those already defined in the draft conservation strategy for Botrychium pumicola without additional knowledge. Mitigation for Astragalus peckii is not needed based on the expected management of occupied habitat.
Comment: The Crescent Creek population of the Milkvetch is biologically significant and should not be in the trade. (2009-3)
- Response: Several comments have been made about the biological significance of the Crescent Creek population of Astragalu peckii . To date no definitive information in the form of articles published in referenced scientific journals, results of genetic studies, or opinions of taxonomic experts in the genus Astragalus have been presented which would be definitive in establishing the biological significance of this sub-population. At present, the Region Six sensitive species list includes Astragalu peckii only to the species level. Also see revised biological evaluation and FEIS discussion of the biological significance of this subpopulation.
Comment: Conclusions of no significant impact of the proposed action on Astragalus peckii and Botrychium pumicola are supported solely by an inappropriate and erroneous use of statistics. (2009-1, 2008-13, 2024-3)
- Response: The conclusion in the biological evaluation for Astragalus peckii and Botrychium pumicola is not "no significant impact" it is "May impact individuals." Also no formal statistical analysis was conducted. The analysis is based on surveyed counts and estimates of individuals with a judgement based hypothesis that if less than five percent of the known population is impacted there will not be a loss of viability or trend toward federal listing based on that fact alone. The estimated known population from surveys which count or estimate individuals provides a minimum base population estimate. The minimum base population is what this analysis is based upon. In the DEIS some language was used which was confusing on the use of statistics. Based on comments indicating such confusion the BE and FEIS sections were modified to clarify this matter.
Comment: There are factual inconsistencies between the biological evaluation and DEIS concerning effects of Crown Pacific management strategies upon Astragalus peckii. (2009-2, 2008-13)
- Response: The BE and DEIS have been reviewed. No inconsistencies are evident.
Comment: There is insufficient discussion and weighting of the biogeographic significance of the Astragalus population on Crescent Creek. (2009-3)
- Response: Increased discussion of the biogeographic significance has been placed in the biological evaluation section addressing Astragalus peckii .
Comment: No TES plant surveys were conducted on the parcel of land with potential for Penstemon peckii. This is a violation of the Forest Plan. (2009- 4, 2024-2)
- Response: The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan at section TE-3 page 60 states that when suitable habitats or reported locations are suspected to occur in the area of influence of the project, a field reconnaissance will be performed to more precisely verify the presence, abundance, and distribution of the sensitive species. The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan was implemented in 1990. Subsequently a Conservation Strategy for Penstemon peckii was implemented in 1992. The strategy thus became the guiding document for this particular species under the LRMP. Sufficient populations of Penstemon peckii are in protected status under the Conservation Strategy to provide continued viability of this species. The strategy also specifies that additional survey will be conducted in high probability habitat in under-represented watersheds. Prefield review and familiarity with the parcel in question, by the Sisters R.D. botanist revealed this parcel to be low/moderate habitat. Since sufficient plants are protected under the Conservation Strategy in known occupied habitat and the habitat in the Sisters parcel is not high probability habitat additional survey was not necessary or required under the Conservation Strategy to reach a conclusion.
Comment: A conclusion of no impact to PEPE (Penstemon peckii) is erroneously claimed to be in accord with the Species Management Plan. FS is in violation of who knows how many regulations by not conducting surveys at the appropriate time. (2008-13)
- Response: The Conservation Strategy for Penstemon peckii has been reviewed. The proposed action is consistent with the conservation strategy. Specific information alleging erroneous claims has not been provided. See also discussion under previous comment.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Sisters Parcel
There were many people concerned about the 16.2 acres adjacent to the Best Western Ponderosa Pine Lodge just outside of Sisters. People did not feel that the inclusion of this parcel met the purpose and need stated in the DEIS. There has been widespread speculation that the tract would in turn be sold and used for expansion of the neighboring motel.
- Response: The 16.2 acres adjacent to the Best Western Ponderosa Pine Lodge outside of Sisters has been dropped from the land exchange and will remain in federal ownership at this time. This has been disclosed in the Record of Decision for the FEIS.
Appraisal Comment: If this is indeed surplus and "hard to manage" property [Sisters parcel] it should be appraised and offered for sale to the private sector by auction with the appraised value as the minimum acceptable bid. (16-2)
- Response: The Sisters parcel has been dropped from the land exchange and this decision has been documented within the Record of Decision for the FEIS. However, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Section 203, allows the sale of tracts under the following stipulations: (a) Tract of public land may be sold under this Act where the Secretary determines that the sale of such tract meets the following criteria: (3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development..., (f) Sales of public lands under this section shall be conducted under competitive bidding procedures to be established by the Secretary...
Benefit A number of business owners, the mayor of Sisters and other concerned citizens wrote in support of the inclusion of the parcel adjacent to the Best Western in Sisters. They stated that if Crown Pacific, after acquiring ownership, would sell the property, they felt the subsequent potential addition of local conference facilities and extra motel rooms will be an important inducement for greater economic diversity and opportunity in our community.
- Response: The Record of Decision eliminates the Sisters parcel from the exchange. This parcel is currently zoned as urban reserves under the City of Sisters Master Plan. In a recent City planning effort, the City's new Draft Master Plan indicates that this parcel would be zoned commercial. Due to this difference in zoning it would be in the best interest of the public to defer exchange of this parcel until re-zoning has occurred. Refer to the Record of Decision.
Interagency Fire Comment: The land in Sisters proposed for exchange is a valuable site for future development as an interagency compound for Forest Service, BLM, and State Forestry. Why trade/sell it? (2015-1, 290-1)
- Response: The Record of Decision eliminates the Sisters parcel from the exchange. The discussions to institute an Interagency compound is still in preliminary stages, no sites have been selected at this time. The land exchange would not preclude the development and construction of an Interagency compound.
Purpose Comments suggested that the 16.2 acre parcel does not meet the purpose and objective of this exchange. No management efficiency is to be gained. It does not meet the objective of consolidating small parcels to form large blocks--it actually reduces the size of a large FS parcel. These comments recommended dropping this parcel. (1-4, 13-8, 16-1, 328-4, 355-2, 1068-2) Additional comments noted that there is an indication that the 16.2 acre Sisters parcel was not appraised at its highest and best use--highway commercial.
- Response: The Record of Decision eliminates the Sisters parcel from the exchange. This parcel is currently zoned as urban reserves under the City of Sisters Master Plan. In a recent City planning effort, the City's new Draft Master Plan indicates that this parcel would be zoned commercial. Due to this difference in zoning it would be in the best interest of the public to defer exchange of this parcel until re-zoning has occurred. Refer to the Record of Decision.
Comment: The logic of consolidating land is diminished by the FS exchanging the small isolated parcels near Sisters and section 16 in T37S, R15E. In both these areas the surrounding lands belongs to the FS. How does this help to consolidate lands? (380-8)
- Response: The Sisters parcel has been eliminated from the proposed land exchange and is documented in the Record of Decision.
- The parcel referred to in Township 37 S, Range 15 E is actually a State owned section (Section 16). This is indicated by the dark blue shading on the large map included with the Draft EIS. It is not included in the exchange. However, the parcel immediately to it's north (in Section 9) is included. It may be that parcel to which your question refers. This is a 480 acre parcel which, in the Proposed Action, the National Forests would obtain from Crown Pacific. It is adjacent to the South Fork of the Sprague River, which is under study for designation as a Wild and Scenic River. By acquiring this parcel, a further consolidation of NFS lands within the corridor of that river would be achieved, providing an opportunity to increase protection of fish and wildlife habitat and aesthetic values. In that sense it meets the intent of the 1988 Act. er stands, especially adjacent (within 1/2 mile) of subdivisions? Existing lands owned by Crown adjacent to the Hackett subdivision are currently densely stocked with pole sized lodgepole pine. Growth rates of these trees are becoming stagnated. Is Crown going to commit to managing these younger stands? (370-6)
- Response: Crown Pacific will continue to aggressively pre-commercially and commercially thin younger stands, in keeping with its uneven-aged management philosophy, for the multiple purposes of enhancing tree vigor and growth, reducing fire hazard, and, when available, producing some merchantable forest products.
Comment: Cutting the National Forest perimeter by Ponderosa Pines make trees among our homes more vulnerable to wind. (386-2, 3122-3)
- Response: The degree to which an area is affected by a wind event i dependent on but not limited to several factors; 1) type of harvest activity, 2) extent and duration of storm patterns, and 3) wind patterns of an area. For example, select tree treatments, such as uneven-aged management, sheltered cuts and seed tree cuts, select individual trees for removal. Not all trees are removed through these types of treatments, thus leaving some trees to act as wind buffers. The trees that are left standing may be somewhat vulnerable to windthrow but as they put on new root systems they begin to adjust to the change in the surrounding forests to help them withstand a future wind event. Trees along the edges of selection harvests would be less vulnerable to wind events due to this buffer. There are too many variables to assess what may happen to an individual site (home or property) based on future management practices by Crown Pacific.
Comment: While the estimated board feet of timber to be exchanged in the trade is comparable I would be curious to know how much of what the public would be receiving as opposing to giving is currently merchantable. (258-6)
- Response: For both National Forest and Crown Pacific lands, the cruise contains only merchantable timber.
Comment: Table 3-TM-3: I think the volume should be MMBF not MBF. (169-3, 293-5)
- Response: Actually the table is correct as labeled. It utilizes MBF, or thousand board feet . However, Table 3-TM-3 is potentially confusing when compared to Table 3-TM-5 (which utilizes MMBF, or million board feet). Table 3-TM-3 has been modified and the unit of measure is now MMBF.
Comment: Will the Forest ASQ be revised due to the loss of 42,605 MBF? (343- 10)
- Response: As disclosed in the Timber Resources section of the Final EIS, the ASQ will not be revised. Each of the three Forest Plans established a benchmark (deviation) for concern. The changes in estimated harvest levels are smaller than the inherent inaccuracies in projecting harvest levels.
Comment: I find it remarkable that nowhere in this document is the "lingua franca" of either the logging industry or the Forest Service, i.e., board-feet. Surely Crown Pacific and the Forest Service know these numbers. (380-14, 381- 1)
- Response: The term board feet does appear in both the Draft and Final EISs. Chapter 3 includes a section on Timber Resources. This section discloses that under the proposed action, Crown Pacific would acquire approximately 124 MMBF and the NFS would acquire approximately 118 MMBF.
Comment: Tables 3-TM-5 & 6 calculations are not consistent with Table 3-TM-3, yet according to descriptions of tables they are dealing with volumes. (342-11)
- Response: You are correct. The totals in these tables are not consistent. The volume in Table 3-TM-3 was calculated on a per acre basis. The volume in Tables 3-TM-5 & 6 were calculated on a species basis. The differences in totals can be attributed to rounding errors. As mentioned in the Final EIS, volume figures are approximate.
Comment: Page 81 - The description of suitable and tentatively suitable does not agree with the usage in the last paragraph. What is described as tentatively suitable is mixed with suitable in the last paragraph. (342-9)
- Response: The paragraphs in question have been reviewed for accuracy; no errors were found. Tentatively suitable land is based on the biological capability of the land. Suitable land is based on the management objectives for the land. Suitable land is a sub-set of tentatively suitable land.
Comment: It could severely damage the ecosystem through private company clear- cutting. (33-3)
- Response: Crown Pacific's stated and practiced forestry methods are focused on "tree selection" forestry, not clear-cutting. The potential that this could change in the future could only be considered speculative. The analysis of the Proposed Action is based on the best available information at this time.
Return to Response to Comments Summary
Water Quality
Comment: Are any of the streams listed for not meeting water quality standards? If all streams meet water quality standards, that should be noted as well. (380-10)
- Response: None of the streams in the project are listed as water quality limited under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
Comment: What will be the impact on water quality? Harvesting and road building that would likely occur if the land exchange takes place could potentially degrade existing remnants of high quality aquatic and riparian habitats with resultant degradation of water quality. (107-4, 380-4, 415-1, 1010-2)
- Response: Both the Forest Service and Crown Pacific must meet the requirements of federal and state water quality laws and regulations. Implementation of the State Water Quality Management Plan on NFS lands is described in a 1979 Memorandum of Understanding and a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement between the Forest Service and the DEQ. The Forest Service currently implements Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with various management activities in order to protect water quality. The DEQ has also issued the Oregon Clean Water Strategy in order to prevent and correct non-point source water quality pollution. Changes in the quality of surface and groundwater within the project area are not expected to result from either the no action or the proposed action alternative.
Comment: Where do Tumalo Irrigation District and ODFW stand on the impact on water quality? (3136-3)
- Response: The Tumalo Irrigation District has not submitted any written comments about the proposed land exchange. During the comment period, ODFW submitted comments on the Draft EIS; ODFW did not raise any concerns with water quality.
Water Supply Comment: Another concern of local residents is the purity of our water supply. The lands contained in the land swap are also the same forests that feed our aquifer. This is a private well that provides service to all lots in Ponderosa Pines. We feel that by removing the surrounding forest the quality of our drinking water will be compromised. (24-1, 285-5, 298-9, 385-2, 430-8, 1051-2, 1065-1)
Comment: Water supply - The impact on the flow and purity of water from Bull Spring and in Bull Spring Creek cannot be improved and is highly likely to be harmed if, as forecast, the lands around those water sources are logged. (351- 4)
Comment: How will this effect our waste system? (3122-2)
- Response: Changes in the quality of surface and groundwater within the project area are not expected to result from either the no action or the proposed action alternative. Both the Forest Service and Crown Pacific must meet the requirements of federal and state water quality laws and regulations. Forest Service guidelines and direction from the Oregon State Forest Practices Act require protection of unstable slopes, erodible soils, and riparian zones. Some of the current state and federal protective measures and buffer zone requirements were not in place when previous timber harvest activities occurred in this area. However, application of these measures will result in overall reductions in stream sediments, reduce water temperatures as riparian vegetation matures, and provide for stability of watersheds.
Comment: You state that soil compaction on any site has led to decreased water infiltration. What safeguards will land owners have to protect our wells in Ponderosa Pines. (388-8, 389-8, 2001-14)
- Response: The information you cite is contained in the affected environment discussion in the Soils section. The information provided under the affected environment is simply information on existing conditions. The Forest Service has recognized that soil compaction has led to decreased water filtration on many sites. However, the National Forests in the project area utilize Forest- Wide standards and guidelines for soils as well as the Forest Service Manual 2521 R6 supplement No. 50, June 1987. These provide a basis from which to manage activities affecting forest soils and to measure any changes that may occur as a result.
- Crown Pacific lands are managed under the regulatory authority of the Oregon State Forest Practices Act. The Act requires road location, design, construction, and maintenance to be "adapted to the terrain and soil properties . . . to control . . . exposure of soils" to erosion (629-24-420). It further provides that timber harvesting operations be designed and carried out to protect soil properties and minimize soil deterioration. Operations are to be conducted without "causing deep soil disturbance or accelerated erosion" (629-24-542).
Therefore, while indirect effects to soils could result from changes in land management and methods utilized for timber management, the productivity of soils within the project area is not expected to change substantially, due to the protective soils management practices implemented by both the Forest Service and Crown Pacific.
|
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/deschutes/desnf/manage/nepa/documents/so/crown/apend-g9.html |