U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management FINAL Salem District Office 1717 Fabry Road SE Salem, Oregon 97306 September 1994 U.S. DEPR1MENT CF ThE INIEPIOR flPO O L GDDr Salem District Proposed Resource Management Plan! Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume Ill Appendices As the Nations principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources protecting our fish and wildlife preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places and providing forthe enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interest of all our people The Departmentalso has a major responsibility forAmerican Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration. BLMIORIWAIES-94/32+1 792 Table of Contents - Volume Ill - Appendices Table of Contents Volume III Append ices Chapter 5 II Comment Letters from Federal, State, and Local Governments Il-i JJ Individuals and Organizations Who Responded to the Draft Resource Management Plan JJ-1 Western Oregon Resource Management Plans Common Comment Synthesis/Partial Responses JJ -7 Salem District Responses/Comments JJ-67 Table of Contents - Volume I!! - Appendices II Comment Letters from Federal, State, and Local Governments Appendix II Comment Letters from Federal, State, and Local Governments Table of Contents Liz Vanleeuwen, Ben Stout, and Marlin Aerni 1 Linn County Board of Commissioners 1 Salem District Advisory Council 2 City of Salem, Public Works 6 Association of 0 & C Counties 6 Tiflamook Board of Commissioners 11 Linn County Board of Commissioners 12 Benton County Board of Commissioners 12 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 13 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 16 City of Drain, Oregon 25 Oregon State Senator Gene Timms 25 U. S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 26 U. S. Forest Service, Siuslaw National Forest 28 U. S. Forest Service, Waldport Ranger District 29 U. S. Bureau of Mines 29 Oregon State Representative Delna Jones 29 Office of the Governor, State of Oregon 30 Comment Letters from Federal, State, and Local Governments 273 POSSIBLE QUESTIONS FOR MR. BIBLES system really is? The RMP uses very high future stumpaqe values DECEMBER 16, 1992 to show that the cost is minimal. They assune that stunpage values will more than double in the near future; OSU planners for the McDonald Forest aye using much more modest increases, in From what we have seen of kjilderness Society and State thy way of 1% per year. Forestry comments on the BLM Resource Management Plans (RMP) there seems to be one area where comments are lacking: the The answer to thin question will be that we eye ig::oring all economic side. the othe: values, none of which are amenable to quantification in market terms of dollars ar:d cents. So they may, for example, From my perspective the coat side of the planned activity is that n:avinn the spotted owl and the murrelet produces a value in not addressed. There are two aspects of this: biological and excess of all forenone tinber values. Sc. our real question is Financial. whether a majority of our society really knows and understands what the costs are of saving species that are listed as The biological perspective is this. The most valuable threatenend my endangered, In every county and municipality the species in our west side forests is Douglas-fir. It is bent runt of foregoing timber harvest and forest growth will be darted in open ground and grows best without shade. enormous, and costs will continue to increase with time. Isn't Clearcutting and planting genetically improved stock is good thy SLM bound to let each citizen know the cost side of their biology. The RMP assumes that somehow it aill be possible to put vies ye wy-lIan the side which protects certain wildlife? Make the 12-18 green trees to be left per acre in clumps so that the rip mistake, the RNIP i000sem Costs an every citizen of Oregon no Douglas-fir can be free to grow. The possibility for this seems matter where they live. The difference in cost between the old quite remote. As a consequence there will be shade. at least for plum and the preferred alternative should be clear!>' mhown on - a part of each day, cast over the area from the green trees. both a per capita and a total basis. In partially shaded areas there are other species in the Finally. is the process of letting the public know the costs west side forests that are better adapted to these conditions. 00l'yplan, two additional aspects of cost need to he addressed. They are species like the true firs and western hemlock.These are trees with slower growth rates and the wood produced is of Tha ftate argues cogently that BLP will need greatly lowe: value. So, the effect of the planned management activity lr!-:-vamyd budgets to carry out this new management, that it will in to produce less volume and the volume produced is of lower be rr!urh sore costly in terms of manpower to effect. Are you value. The State's comment on the proposed silvicultural y.ri mood that with thy Er:.:dget deficit reductions which we hear management in that it is an untried procedure and strictly are to he put in place that you can succeed in: getting the experimental. rrecx'cvary inCreases ir: the BPS budget? This cor:cern leadm to these questions: How large is the Tie effect of reduced tinier harvest must result in one of margir: of error in the growth predictions that you have for this t:.:c adjuot:::ents in the way we meet our building material needs. new type of silviculture? In your growth calculations have you Eithyy we irrport timber fro:r other countries or use substitute factored in the slower growth rate of the shade tolerant species natyricic In the first case we export our environmental that will likely make up future forests?Is your calculations of g:rot'lems overseas to meet society's needs. In the second same a income to counties have you factored in the lower value of the shift to other materialo--steel concrete, aluminum--all of which timber to be produced? vonfnreoil fuels that result in significantly higher environ- nryntal impacts than well tended Forests and the products The economic concern is two pronged. The first is mentioned therefrom. just above--lower growth rates and lower valued wood. The second is the value of the green trees that are left. Somewhere between Lie urge that the final MMP-EIS address these questions in $10,000 and $45,000 per acre will be represented in the left fort hr a qht man ner green trees in the form of stumpage value foregone.The trees are to be left and not harvested. This in effect makes each acre worth that such. In the preliminary spreadsheet I show what amount of future harvest will have to be on an acre just to carry different levels of Investments at a very modest lntsrest rate; higher rates would only make the figures higher. The questions that come out of this: Have you shown clearly /1, ., to all concerned what the actual cost of this new management '7'z-/ (cis3) zmlu-9q7Z '7 - DEC-21-1992 13:16 FREELj99 COi4TY TO 13755622 P.X2 DEC-21-1992 13'!E P1 LII'ei caviTy TO 13759922 P.51 UNN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3 ' OAflIT Joee Bureau of Laud Management -2- December 21, 1992 PA cfiQ Maw IALFI C. WYAIT The Board very much appredates the efforts of BLM personnel in providing lwosein FAX: $-lUl information and ssistarxre to Lien CoOnty. We urge yoc to consider our views and look forward taco outcome that will provide stablittyand the best. posaibic quality ollife for Lion County residents. December 21. 1992 Sincerely, Lll'lN £01 ." csARD0F COMMISSIONEilS Bureau of Land Managcnicnt Saloon Diatsict Ofilce 1717 Fabsy Road SE Salent, OR 97306 Dear Sits: RI S :.,.",:,, 'asionec The Lion County Board of Comxrevaonca appiedate thc opportunity to respond to DvidmidCcemiaenoner the Salem Diatnet Draft Resource Mansement Plan sad B omental fmp.ct Statement. The Board conaideta the cetationolip betwesa our agendeato be. poabive end cooatnictive paitnerthip. We parilatiarlyapprecistethe working relationshlpdlrectedtoward community revitalization and otstd.00r recres.tion development in esetein Lion County. The planning jason that impacts the residents of thin County the moat senously is the major reduction in Allowable Sale Quantity (MO) to about 57% of the no change sltemadve. This reduction will result in aigniScant reductions In loSIng and mill jobs as wall as reduce the aetsicu provided by the Cetinty. Ultimate&y,the tax base will decline and public inreice demandwfljincrease that to the seduction in fknillywage jobs In lion County. We believe that there ate good reasons to increase the MO above th*t projected in your Preferred Alternative (PA). Rather than elaborate in this letter, please refer to the response received ixn the Aseociatica of 0 & C Counties for comments reflecting those of the Lion County Board of Consuionera. The recreation development in the Outrtzvffle Creek and Green Peter Reservoic areas is very much soppoited. The future dsvelopmet of the BLM peninsula acscent to the reservoir Ia believed to bc a very important enhancement to the pczenrial recreation experience in this area. The development of a hiking trail o,er the h1lfrom Crabsree Like to Quartzville Creek likely would be a project that the Board would wholeheartedly aipport.