CHAPTER 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED
- ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
- COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
- MAPS
If you want to print this entire chapter click here for a straight text version without hyperlinks.
|
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/deschutes/desnf/manage/nepa/documents/so/crown/chap2.html |
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to describe how the alternatives were generated, reviewed, and either eliminated or further analyzed. Various alternatives proposed by the project participants and generated through the public scoping process are discussed. Also described in the following is the process followed to formulate the alternatives, descriptions of alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, and presentations of the alternatives considered in detail.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
The process used in developing the alternatives began with a review of the purpose of and need for action by the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team. The ID Team also relied on the history of land acquisition and exchanges on the three National Forests, the Preliminary Report (DCA 1996) prepared for the exchange, comments received during the scoping process, and the applicable direction within the three Forest Plans.
The ID Team originally considered several preliminary alternatives. As a result of comments received during the comment period for the Draft EIS, the ID Team considered the concept of two additional alternatives. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed study for the reasons listed below. Alternatives carried forward for detailed study had to meet the purpose of and need for action and also reflect the Agreement to Initiate a land exchange between the Forest Service and Crown Pacific. Consequently, one action alternative was carried forward for detailed analysis.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS
Primarily Deschutes National Forest Exchange
An initial land exchange was proposed which primarily involved the Deschutes National Forest. During the same time period, the Fremont NF was also considering a proposed land exchange with Crown Pacific. In a letter from the Fremont National Forest dated March 1, 1994, it was recommended that the scale of the proposed exchange be expanded to include lands on the Fremont and Winema National Forests. This recommendation added approximately 19,000 acres of National Forest System lands and an equivalent amount of Crown Pacific lands for consideration. An analysis of time and costs to complete such an exchange indicated that there would be substantial long-term savings to both the Forest Service and to Crown Pacific if all of the desired exchanges between these entities were consolidated into one exchange effort. Therefore, the decision was made to eliminate these separate alternatives and have one proposal to include the exchange lands for all three National Forests.
Restrict Exchange to Only Include Noncontroversial Lands
The preliminary analysis indicated that the exchange of certain lands might generate public controversy due to special interests involving certain parcels. This included ecological concerns (e.g., late-seral forests and wildlife habitats), cultural resource concerns (e.g., American Indian and historical issues) and social and economic concerns (e.g., urban/wildland interface and public access). The removal of these controversial parcels from the exchange proposal was considered and would have expedited the exchange process. However, this alternative would not have achieved the desired results of consolidating land ownership. Eliminating all parcels that might generate public controversy would not reduce the intermingled ownership pattern, eliminate isolated tracts and inholdings, or reduce administrative costs. Since this is the purpose of the exchange, this alternative was not considered further.
Forest Service Purchase Crown Pacific Lands
One suggested alternative was for the National Forest System to acquire Crown Pacific lands through direct purchase by the Federal Government. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because it would not meet the need for Crown Pacific to consolidate its ownership and to better mange its timber resources. In addition, it is unlikely that the Forest Service would be able to secure the type of funding needed to acquire Crown Pacific lands.
Maximum Acres for Exchange
This alternative included all lands that were originally studied for potential exchange between the Forest Service and Crown Pacific. During the scoping process, this combination of lands under consideration was referred to as a "pool" of possible lands. This alternative would have included approximately 62,653 acres of Crown Pacific lands in exchange for approximately 55,365 acres of NFS lands. This alternative as a whole was eliminated from detailed study because of conflicts with other resource values (i.e., old-growth forests); conflicts with habitat of species protected under the Endangered Species Act; conflicts with potentially significant cultural sites; and concerns of local residents and county administrators.
For example, approximately 4,124 acres of NFS lands were eliminated because of resource concerns related to late and old structure stands; approximately 5,292 acres of lands were eliminated because of concerns with mule deer winter range; approximately 100 acres of NFS lands were eliminated because of concerns over sensitive plants. In addition, approximately 2,312 acres of NFS lands were eliminated due to cultural resource concerns and other parcels near the Highway 31 corridor were eliminated because of bald eagle concerns. Early in the scoping process for this project, the Lake County Board of Commissioners requested no net loss in the private land base in Lake County. Other individual parcels and groups of parcels, both NFS and Crown Pacific, were dropped from consideration to meet the economic requirements of value comparability for land exchanges. Lands initially considered for exchange but dropped from further consideration include NFS lands in Deschutes and Lake Counties and Crown Pacific lands in Lake and Klamath Counties.
This alternative as modified during the scoping process became the proposed action.
Tumalo Alternative
This alternative would retain all NFS lands in the Tumalo Reservoir area, with the exception of T17S, R11E, Section 21 and add Crown Pacific lands in the same area. NFS lands to retain include lands in T16S, R11E, Section 31 and T17S, R11E, Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, and 18. Crown Pacific lands to be included lie in T16S, R11E, Section 31, and T17S, R11E, Sections 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 18. The Crown Pacific lands proposed for acquisition include Bull Springs. Other CP lands would be eliminated to balance the values of Federal and non-Federal lands. This alternative would meet the purpose of and need for action, in part, by consolidating land ownership in the Tumalo Reservoir area. It would not meet the overall purpose of and need for action, which is to reduce intermingled ownerships, reduce the number of inholdings, and minimize administrative costs. A review of possible lands to be retained by Crown Pacific indicated unacceptable trade-offs (minimal reductions in joint boundaries, minimal reductions in joint-use road systems, minimal reductions in the number of inholdings, minimal gains in riparian/wetland areas, minimal overall gains in deer winter range) that in and of themselves, would not meet the purpose and need for the exchange. Successful land exchanges are dependent upon the "willing buyer, willing seller" principle. This alternative includes lands not offered for exchange by Crown Pacific. In addition, this alternative would not meet the need for Crown Pacific to consolidate its ownership to better manage its timber resources.
Subdivision Alternative
This alternative would retain NFS lands surrounding and adjacent to the Ponderosa Pines and Jack Pine Village subdivisions. NFS lands to retain include lands in T22S, R10E Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 and 18; T22S, R9E Sections 1, 12, 13, and 14; T23S, R9E Sections 24 and 25; and T23S, R10E Sections 19 and 30. This alternative was not considered in detail because it did not meet the purpose of and need for action, including consolidation of land ownership, applying ecosystem management principles across the landscape, and reducing the urban/wildland interface. Crown Pacific has met with the Ponderosa Pines Property Owners Association and has offered to meet with home owners at Jack Pine Village. Crown Pacific has outlined a proposal for a "Community Management Area" which addresses many of the concerns raised by area residents.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
No Action Alternative
The land exchange between the Forest Service and Crown Pacific would not occur under the No Action Alternative. If this alternative were selected, the current land ownership pattern and resource management practices would continue within the project area. Federal lands would continue to be managed as directed by the appropriate Forest Plans; private lands would continue to be managed under existing Crown Pacific policies and applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
Proposed Action
The Proposed Action is the jointly proposed Forest Service/Crown Pacific Land Exchange Project in Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath, and Lake Counties in east central Oregon (See MAP B and MAP C located at the end of Chapter 2 for a visual display of the Proposed Action). The land exchange involves approximately 32,936 acres of Forest Service land under the jurisdiction of the Deschutes and Fremont National Forests and approximately 38,745 acres of land owned by Crown Pacific. The exchange lands include discontiguous parcels of NFS lands that are surrounded by Crown Pacific land, parcels of Crown Pacific land that are surrounded by NFS lands, and parcels along irregular edges separating the two ownerships. The Winema National Forest, while not offering lands for exchange, would receive lands from Crown Pacific.
The proposed exchange parcels are loosely clustered into three primary groups. The project area extends from north of Sisters, Oregon, southward along the east side of the Cascades to the vicinity of Wing Butte, 11 miles northwest of Silver Lake. The northernmost group is located a short distance northwest of Bend and is located within the drainage of Bull Creek near the Upper Deschutes River. The second group is located southwest of Bend and west of the community of La Pine. The third group extends from Mowich Butte in the southwest, northward through Crescent and Gilchrist, to Wing Butte in the southeast. This cluster includes those parcels that are located within the Fremont National Forest. The exchange parcels lie within the Bend/Fort Rock, Crescent, and Sisters Ranger Districts within the Deschutes National Forest, the Silver Lake Ranger District of the Fremont National Forest, and the Chemult Ranger District of the Winema National Forest. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the changes in land ownership by National Forest and Table 2-2 provides the same information by county. All numbers are approximate acreages and totals may not be exact.
Table 2-1 Exchange Lands by National Forest
National Forest County CP acres to NFS NFS acres to CP Net Gain (Loss) of NFS Acres Deschutes
Deschutes
12,054
7,286
4,768
Jefferson
1,440
0
1,440
Klamath
7,826
19,020
(11,194)
Lake
80
0
80
Total
21,400
26,307
(4,906)
Fremont
Klamath
9,525
4,307
5,217
Lake
1,756
2,320
(564)
Total
11,281
6,628
4,653
Winema
Klamath
6,062
0
6,062
Total
6,062
0
6,062
GRAND TOTAL
38,743
32,935
5,809
Table 2-2 Exchange Lands by County
County National Forest CP acres to NFS NFS acres to CP Net Gain (Loss) of NFS Acres Deschutes
Deschutes
12,054
7,286
4,768
Total
12,054
7,286
4,768
Jefferson
Deschutes
1,440
0
1,440
Total
1,440
0
1,440
Klamath
Deschutes
7,826
19,020
(11,194)
Fremont
9,525
4,307
5,217
Winema
6,062
0
6,062
Total
23,413
23,327
86
Lake
Deschutes
80
0
80
Fremont
1,756
2,320
(564)
Total
1,836
2,320
(484)
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
This section presents a comparison of the two alternatives that were considered in detail. First, Table 2-3 presents a summary of the consequences by Key Issue and Other considerations (physical, biological and administrative consequences) of the alternatives.
Table 2-3 Comparison of the Alternatives
No Action
Proposed Action
Key Issues
Consequences
Allocated Old-Growth (acres)
No Change
1152
Late/Old Structure (acres)
No Change
(4028)
Sensitive Plants (% of known population affected)
Peck's Milkvetch (ASPE)
0%
2%
Pumice Grape-Fern (BOPU)
0%
3.6%
Estes' Artemesia
0%
0.007%
Mule Deer Winter Range (acres)
No Change
6307
Other Resource and Administrative Considerations
T. E. S. Faunal and Floral Species
No Effect
No Significant Effects
Cultural Resources
No Effect
No Adverse Effect
Perennial Streams (miles)
No Change
8.9
Intermittent Streams (miles)
No Change
11.5
Wetlands (acres)
No Change
502
# of miles of Joint Use Roads
No Change
(220)
# of miles of joint boundaries
490.6
170.6
NFS Acres
3,828,580
3,834,389
Second, the two alternatives as compared and evaluated in relation to Key Issues and a selection of the Other Issues discussed in Chapter 1. For more detailed description of the affected environment and the environmental consequences of the alternatives, see Chapter 3.
Old-Growth Allocations
Under the No Action alternative, the existing Forest Plan Management Allocations (Deschutes NF, MA-15; Fremont NF, MA-14) would remain unchanged; the Winema NF is only acquiring land under the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, 338 and 231 acres allocated to old-growth management on the Fremont NF and Deschutes NF respectively, would be transferred to Crown Pacific. However the two Forests have identified replacement stands and will allocate 1,721 acres to old-growth management, 1,413 on the Fremont NF and 308 on the Deschutes NF. Thus under No Action there would be no change in acres, while the Proposed Action would actually result in a net increase of 1,152 acres allocated to old-growth management on the two Forests. There are beneficial effects as the result of the Proposed Action in both acres and quality of allocated old-growth management on both the Deschutes and Fremont National Forests. See MAP D located at the end of Chapter 2 for a visual display of the proposed Old-Growth Allocations.
Late and Old Structure (LOS Habitat)
Under the No Action alternative the current amount and distribution of LOS habitat for wildlife species would be maintained. In the short-term, the intermingled ownership of lands containing LOS habitat between the Forest Service and Crown Pacific, provides biological diversity, refugia and population dispersal. In the long-term, as Crown Pacific continues the uneven-aged harvesting of LOS on their lands, there would be a reduction in the quality of LOS habitat on private lands, and the Forest Service would not have the opportunity to perform improvements to LOS habitat on acquired lands.
The Proposed Action would result in 3,793 acres of ponderosa pine LOS habitat and 676 acres of lodgepole pine being transferred to Crown Pacific. There would be a net gain of 441 acres of mixed conifer LOS habitat on NFS lands under the Proposed Action. For additional clarification, the amount of ponderosa pine LOS habitat on the Deschutes NF affected under the Proposed Action (3,281 acres) is approximately 2% of the Forest's total ponderosa pine LOS habitat (160,967 acres). Habitat varies by species, thus the Proposed Action has differential affects on wildlife species. For example, while there would be net losses in habitat acres for black-backed woodpecker (-4678), there are gains for the three-toed woodpecker (+1032) and northern spotted owl (+2825). Thus while there are localized effects, the Proposed Action would not result in significant effects to LOS on NFS lands in the project area. See MAP D located at the end of Chapter 2 for a visual display of mapped late and old structure stands (LOS) and their associated vegetation types.
Map E (located at the end of Chapter 3) depicts the early, mid, late and old structural stands for the Deschutes National Forest only. Data from the Winema and Fremont National Forest or Crown Pacific lands is not available in the geographic information system (GIS). This allows the comparison of parcels to be exchanged with the structural stages and shows that the majority of lands proposed to be conveyed are in the early structural stage (mostly plantations or previously harvested areas).
Mule Deer Winter Range
Under the No Action Alternative there would be no change in the amount and distribution of mule deer winter range habitat on the three Forests. This alternative would retain high quality winter range habitat for the Tumalo herd, but it foregoes the opportunity to consolidate ownership and increase acres of habitat on NFS lands across the project area.
As the result of the Proposed Action, there would be a net increase of 6,307 acres of mule deer winter range. The Tumalo herd would receive 3,616 acres of additional habitat on NFS lands, the Metolius herd would receive an additional 2,081 acres and 610 acres would accrue to the Fort Rock herd. Thus under the No Action alternative the opportunity to increase mule deer habitat on the three Forests would be foreclosed.
Sensitive Plants
Under the No Action alternative there would be no change in habitat acres or population numbers for the three sensitive plant species of concern, Peck's milkvetch (Astragalus peckii), Pumice grape-fern (Botrychium pumicola) and Estes' Artemesia (Artemisia ludovicianna ssp estesii).
The impacts and findings of the Biological Evaluations to these sensitive plants as the result of the Proposed Action would range from no significant effects, to no significant effects but may affect individuals (Peck's milkvetch and pumice grape-fern).
Approximately 2% of the known population of Peck's milkvetch with the project area would be affected by the Proposed Action. Of this amount, 75% would be maintained under federal control under protective clause with the Bonneville Power Administration. There is no evidence that plant populations on Crown Pacific lands are adversely affected by their management activities, as the openings in the forest canopy created by uneven-aged timber harvest appear to benefit Peck's milkvetch.
Approximately 3.6% of the known population of the pumice grape-fern will be affected by the Proposed Action. The global population of the rare and localized pumice grape-fern is thought to contain approximately 14,700 fronds. Population estimates of this species are problematic, as the fronds do not necessarily emerge annually and do so only seasonally when certain conditions are present.
There is no known occupied habitat for Peck's penstemon or Jepson's monkeyflower on NFS lands proposed for transfer under the Proposed Action. However two parcels of Crown Pacific lands proposed for transfer to the Forest Service contain occupied and potential habitat for Jepson's monkeyflower.
Approximately 700 stems or 0.0007% of the known population of Estes' artemesia on NFS lands would be affected by transfer under the Proposed Action. The parcel containing this small population is currently a Forest Service campground, and under the Proposed Action will be transferred to La Pine Parks and Recreation District by Crown Pacific. Once acquired, the area will be managed as a park and similar management will continue under Park District management as under the Forest Service. Thus, there are no significant effects to sensitive plant species under the Proposed Action.
Other Issues
Treaty Rights
Under the No Action alternative the current land ownership pattern would remain unchanged, as would the treaty rights of the Klamath Tribes and the treaty and ceded land rights of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation (CTWSR). The Proposed Action would result in no change to treaty rights and ceded land rights, however there would be a net gain of 8,816 acres with the ceded lands of the CTWSR.
Cultural Resources
The selection of the No Action alternative would result in no change to known historic and archaeological sites located on NFS lands, of which there are 26, with 12 eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The Proposed Action would result in a finding of No Adverse Effect, based on required mitigation. Five sites would require mitigation and historic preservation treatments as the result of this alternative. The mitigation would be carried out under Deed Reservations, with full title being transferred to Crown Pacific on those parcels containing these sites only upon completion of the required treatments.
Payments to Counties
Under the No Action alternative the number of NFS acres in each of the four counties, Deschutes, Jefferson, Klamath and Lake, would remain unchanged. The Proposed Action would result in a net increase of NFS lands, of 5,810 acres. All the counties, except Lake, gain NFS lands under this alternative; Lake County would loose 484 acres of NFS lands. This would result in a loss of only $629.00 in Forest Service payment to counties under the 25% fund. Crown Pacific would continue to pay ad valorem taxes and in addition harvest taxes based on the amount of timber harvest in that county.
Survey and Maintenance Costs
Under the No Action alternative due to the nature of intermingled ownership between NFS and Crown Pacific lands there are over 470 miles of exterior and interior boundaries between the two ownerships. The cost of maintaining these NFS exterior and interior boundaries would be approximately $150,000 over the next ten years. When looking at the next one hundred years this cost would be $1.5 million. The consolidation of NFS ownership under the Proposed Action would result in the reduction of 320 miles of exterior and interior boundaries and the Forest Service would realize a savings of $100,000 over the next ten years, or $1.0 million over the next 100 years based on 1997 dollars. The new costs associated with posting new boundaries would be less than $15,000. Thus there are beneficial effects to survey and maintenance costs through their substantial reduction in both the short and long-term.
Access
Access was analyzed in two broad categories, general public road access to and through NFS lands and access specific to dispersed recreation areas. There would be no changes to existing road locations, management and ownership as the result of the No Action alternative. The amount of joint-use roads, administered by the Forest Service and Crown Pacific would remain the same, as would the number of total road miles in the project area (approximately 790). The Proposed Action would result in the elimination 220 miles of joint use roads, while the remainder would be managed as single-owner roads, or as joint-use roads depending on whose lands the roads were located.
Another point of analysis, are road densities; the Forests have a management goal of reducing road densities on NFS lands to no more than 2.5 miles of road per square mile. The reduction of road densities is for the purpose of enhancing or maintaining wildlife habitat, reducing erosion and protecting watersheds. Road densities in the project area range from a high of 7.2 miles/sq. mile in the Dorrance subwatershed, to a low of 1.0 in the Forks subwatershed, with an average across the project area of 4.1 miles/sq. mile. The No Action alternative would not result in any changes to the road density. The Forests would continue to seek opportunities to reduce road densities throughout the project area. The Proposed Action will result in a slight increase in average road densities on NFS lands. The average increase of 0.1 to 0.2 miles/sq. mile does not significantly change the amount of miles to be reduced on NFS lands (or the cost of doing so) over the long run to meet the goal of 2.5 miles/sq. mile. In addition, the Forest Service is in the midst of developing a new National policy on Forest roads, that will address such issues as road access, maintenance and road densities.
Access to disperse recreation areas is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3 under Recreation. The No Action alternative would not result in any changes to existing public access to dispersed recreation areas in the project area. Some areas, such as Tumalo Creek, would remain relatively inaccessible and opportunities to provide road and recreation trail access would be foreclosed. The Proposed Action would not likely result in any changes to roaded access in the project area either. As discussed above some roads would revert to single-owner management, but no roads would be closed as the result of this alternative. Areas, such as Tumalo Reservoir, would continue to have recreational access provided by Deschutes County roads such as Sisemore and Tumalo Reservoir Road.
Wildlife
Wildlife species were analyzed by habitat type, such as LOS (see above, under Key Issues), riparian/wetlands, rock outcrop, cliff and talus, habitat generalists and big game habitats. Effects as the result of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives are discussed in detail by habitat type in Chapter 3.
Under the No Action alternative there would be no change in the management of these habitat types on NFS lands. In some cases, such riparian/wetlands, opportunities to increase acres of that habitat would be foreclosed under this alternative (see Riparian and Wetlands below).
In general, the Proposed Action alternative would result in no significant effects to habitat types and the species who occupy them, in the project area, while there would, in some cases, be net decreases of habitat type acres at the local scale (subwatersheds). For example, there will be a net gain of rock outcrop, cliff, and talus habitat in the project area (large scale), yet there will be a decrease of such habitat in the Sellers subwatershed. Similarly, there will be a net gain for habitat generalists, such as the California wolverine, Canada lynx, and bald eagle in the project area, while there will be a decrease of such habitat in the in the Bull, Dorrance, Sellers and Toast subwatersheds. Big game habitat would be increased in the project area as the result of the Proposed Action. The would be a net gain of 1,388 acres of significant elk habitat and 640 acres in the Fall Creek Key Elk Area (a management allocation in the Deschutes NF LRMP), while there would be a decrease in significant elk habitat in the Sellers and Toast subwatersheds.
Riparian and Wetlands
There would be no change to either riparian areas or wetlands under the No Action alternative. Those riparian areas and wetlands owned by Crown Pacific have limited timber production value to them and would be likely sold or traded. Thus the opportunity for the Forest Service to acquire those wetlands or riparian areas owned by Crown Pacific would be foreclosed. Under the Proposed Action the Forest Service would acquire a net increase of both riparian areas and wetlands. Over 20 miles of perennial and intermittent streams and 502 acres of wetlands would be acquired by the Forest Service. This includes the highly valued upper watershed of Tumalo Creek adjacent to Bend, Oregon, a section of the Sprague River, a Wild and Scenic Study River, as well as three meadow complexes and a seasonal lake.
Recreation
Under the No Action alternative there would be no change to the existing dispersed recreation use which occurs on both NFS and Crown Pacific lands in the Tumalo Reservoir area and at other locations adjacent to NFS lands, such as rural subdivisions, like Ponderosa Pines or Jack Pine Village. The Rosland Campground, the only developed recreation site in their entire project area, would continue under Forest Service management. However, the lack of sufficient revenues have prevented the full operation of that facility. In all locales, recreation use would continue to grow with population increases in Deschutes County. Tumalo Creek above Shevlin Park in Bend, would remain in Crown Pacific ownership, foreclosing the opportunity for the public to acquire this desirable parcel with the NFS.
The Proposed Action would result in no change to recreation access in the Tumalo area, but trails located on NFS lands would now be located on lands owned by Crown Pacific. Under Crown Pacific's land use policy, recreation use would continue to be allowed, with the exception that no overnight camping would be allowed. The NFS lands adjacent to subdivisions, such as Ponderosa Pines and Jack Pine Village, would be transferred to Crown Pacific. While Crown Pacific's land use policy would allow continued use of the surrounding areas, aesthetic characteristics of the experience may be effected as uneven-aged timber harvest activities occur adjacent to subdivisions. The Proposed Action would also result in the transfer of Rosland Campground to La Pine Parks and Recreation District, with Crown Pacific acting as intermediary in the transaction via donation to the park district. The campground would continue in operation on a seasonal basis and managed by the park district.
Economic and Social
The economic and social analysis performed for this project area examined a variety of factors, a number of which were of concern to the public (see Chapter 3.). The issue of adjacent property values and the likelihood of development were two of the greatest and related concerns expressed by the public during our scoping and analysis. The No Action alternative would not result in any changes of land ownership or in county zoning. However, lands purchased by Crown Pacific for this exchange and other lands outside of their key timber management units (Bull Spring Tree Farm, and Gilchrist Tree Farm), would be subject to sale and disposal by Crown Pacific. In addition, NFS lands, determined under the existing Forest Plans to be candidates for exchange, would be subject to future land exchange proposals.
The Proposed Action would not result in any changes to county zoning in the project area. The existing and acquired lands owned by Crown Pacific would remain in primary forest zone classification and the company has no stated interest in developing their lands for other than timber production. The degree to which adjacent private property values would be affected is not expected to be significant at this time. Crown Pacific has negotiated 1/4 mile interface areas with the two of the subdivisions affected by the Proposed Action, Ponderosa Pines and Jack Pine Village. Crown Pacific will maintain a fire resistent boundary with those subdivisions, reserve a large tree component for aesthetic purposes, maintain road access and maintain a "no fence" policy.
