3.7 socio economic environmenta123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/47872_fsplt2_022964.pdf3.7.3...

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Chapter 3

369

habitat within the range of HRV should result in sustaining wildlife species numbers at levels important to harvestability and associated community well being. As disclosed in Forested Vegetation Diversity (section 3.2), Terrestrial Wildlife (section 3.3) and this section, promoting vegetative diversity and associated habitat conditions to within HRV over time would more fully address tribal rights and interests associated with native species and their habitats compared to the current 2003 Forest Plan. This in turn would improve the likelihood of sustaining harvestability levels of culturally significant species important to a tribe’s overall community well-being. In addition, current Forest Plan direction discussed above and specific exemptions to new Forest Plan direction proposed under this amendment (FEIS Appendix 2) would help ensure that reasonable access to social and/or traditional habitats continue to be provided.

3.7 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

3.7.1 Introduction Social and economic analyses are conducted by the Forest Service to determine what effects the agency has on local communities and the people using natural resources. Forest Service social and economic evaluations are guided by FSM 1970 and FSH 1909.17 (chapters 20 and 30), which provide flexibility in the methodologies and approaches undertaken in social and economic analyses.

In the 2003 Forest Plan revision process, counties and communities were focal areas of analysis for social and economic purposes, although international, national, regional, and state perspectives were also assessed. For this Forest Plan amendment process, international, national, regional, and state perspectives will not be discussed because the potential effects of the alternatives at these scales would be immeasurable. For the international, national, regional, and state perspectives, this analysis is tiered to that analysis disclosed in the Southwest Idaho Ecogroup Land and Resource Management Plans Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2003b, pp. 3-890 to 3-902).

The social and economic analyses for this Forest Plan amendment process will focus on selected counties and communities in western Idaho and eastern Oregon. Attitudes, beliefs, and values related to natural resources will be discussed for these counties and communities. In addition, counties will be examined in terms of population, percentage of Federal land, and direct payments from Federal land managers. Communities will be analyzed in terms of jobs and income, with income divided according to its source (i.e., inside or outside the community). 3.7.1.1 Changes between DEIS and FEIS

Minor changes to the Socio-Economic Environment section were made between DEIS and FEIS. These changes include: slight changes to community jobs and income anticipated under Alternative B as a result of the revisions to ASQ and effective TSPQ under this alternative; minor changes to the projected 25 percent fund payments to counties under all alternatives, to reflect a slight change in the formula for calculating these payments; and minor editing to improve readability.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

370

3.7.2 Effects Measures Effect: The WCS for forested environments on the Boise National Forest may have social and economic effects on local counties and communities, particularly counties and communities that rely on National Forest timber to support timber mills and logging-related activities.

Measure: Indicators for this effect include jobs and income for affected communities.

3.7.3 Current Conditions 3.7.3.1 Methods

Materials used to develop the existing social and economic conditions were derived from a variety of sources, all of which are available in the planning record:

For attitudes, beliefs, and values in the assessment area, information was gleaned from recent Idaho public opinion polls related to natural resources and from Idaho and Oregon newspaper articles.

Idaho county population figures were obtained from “2001 County Economic Forecast: Historic and Forecast County Populations 1999–2025,” prepared for Idaho Power Company by John S. Church at Idaho Economics (Idaho Economics 2001). Oregon county population figures were obtained from Outdoor Recreation in Oregon: The Changing Face of the Future, the State of Oregon’s 2008–2012 statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation plan published by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (State of Oregon 2008).

County landownership figures for Idaho were obtained from the Idaho Department of Commerce (Idaho Department of Commerce 2009a). For Union County, Oregon, the total number of acres in the county, and the percentage in National Forest, BLM, and private ownership, was obtained from Union County: Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Union County 2005). For Grant County, Oregon, the total number of acres in the county, and the acres in National Forest, BLM, and private ownership, was obtained from Grant County: Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Grant County 2005).

Payments to counties in lieu of taxes were obtained from the National Business Center, U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI BLM 2009). Information about the SRS and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 and associated county payments was obtained from the Forest Service’s “Secure Rural Schools” and “Payments to States” websites (USDA Forest Service 2009a, b, c). County payments under the 25 percent fund for FY 1995 and FY 2000 were obtained from the 2003 FEIS (Forest Service 2003b) and/or the “Payments to States from National Forest Receipts: Fiscal Year 1995” (USDA Forest Service 1995).

Idaho community populations for 1990 were obtained from community profiles developed by the Idaho Department of Commerce (Idaho Department of Commerce 2008b). For subsequent years, Idaho community populations were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau 2008a). Oregon community population figures were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau 2008b).

Community jobs and income were estimated by Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI), Moscow, Idaho (EMSI 2010). The basic method for estimating ZIP code–level employment and earnings by industry is spatial disaggregation of county-level estimates and projections. This disaggregation is done primarily using the U.S. Census Bureau’s ZIP Code Business Patterns (ZBP), which report the number of establishments by industry and the


371

range of employees for each ZIP code. ZBP does not, however, report self-employment numbers, nor does it include government employment. In these cases, data from either the U.S. Census Bureau or other government sources were used.

Secondary data sources sometimes do not accurately represent industry employment and earnings at the community level because additional layers of assumption and estimation beyond basic county data are required. As such, data must be verified, particularly in rural areas where residents are generally better judges of the accuracy of the community-level data. For this analysis, secondary data were verified by two methods. The first involved estimating employment based on the average number of jobs necessary to produce a known volume of logs (i.e., jobs-to-harvest ratios). The second method involved field research, through which data were reviewed by key people—such as employers or mill workers—who have local knowledge of the area and can agree or suggest changes to the data. County clerks provided final data verification.

3.7.3.2 Counties

Introduction: The socio-economic affected environment for the Forest Plan amendment process includes eight counties within, adjacent to, or near the Forest and ten selected communities within these counties (as described below). The relationship between the counties and the Forest Service is an important one, in part because of economic benefits that counties receive directly from Federal land managers. The eight counties are Adams, Boise, Elmore, Gem, Idaho, and Valley Counties in Idaho and Grant and Union Counties in Oregon. They were selected because they contain NFS land and/or have major social and/or economic ties to the Forest, and they have relatively small populations Although Ada and Canyon Counties encompass the capital city of Boise and the burgeoning Treasure Valley corridor and have important social and recreational ties to the Forest, these counties were not included in the socio-economic affected environment for the Forest Plan amendment process. The scale and scope of the proposed amendment would have few, if any, measurable effects on recreational use or the diverse Treasure Valley economy in these counties.

Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values Related to Natural Resources: The discussion of attitudes, beliefs, and values related to natural resources in the 2003 Forest Plan was based in part on Idaho public opinion polls related to natural resources, as well as interviews with county commissioners and mayors in the late 1990s (USDA Forest Service 2003a, pp. III-900 to III-902 and III-906 through III-910). It is likely that many of the local officials’ perspectives remain current and valid, including concerns with social and economic changes and their “ripple” effects; a sense of pride in counties, communities, and their surroundings; and a desire to retain viable communities for the future.

At the same time, several recent changes potentially affecting attitudes, beliefs, and values have occurred, including changes in the following areas:

Wood Products and Timberlands—Substantial transition in the wood products industry has occurred in this decade. In 2001, Boise Cascade sawmills in Valley County (Cascade, Idaho) and Gem County (Emmett, Idaho) closed. These sawmills were the largest employers in their communities. A Boise sawmill operated by Croman Corporation also closed about the same time. With these closures, the processing of some National Forest timber shifted to sawmills in Elgin, La Grande, and John Day, Oregon. The Evergreen Forest Products sawmill in Adams County remains the largest mill plant in the area. In 2005, Boise Cascade sold its


372

timberlands in southwest Idaho to private parties interested in land conservation, development, and consolidation; after various transactions, these lands are now owned by Potlatch Corporation. Also in 2005, Bennett Forest Industries opened a sawmill in Grangeville, Idaho, replacing a mill approximately 90 miles to the east in Elk City, Idaho.

Recreational and Residential Development—Numerous communities within and around the Forest, particularly those with relatively easy access to the capital city of Boise, grew as commuters and retirees sought a more rural lifestyle in the wildland-urban interface, (i.e., where homes and other developments meet or intermingle with forests or rangeland). In 2003, Tamarack Resort—a four-season, luxury resort—opened in Valley County with buyers committing more than $500 million for condos, houses, and building sites. However, in February 2008, the majority owners of Tamarack Resort filed for bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Boise.

In addition, until very recently, there have been substantial annual increases in the registration of motorized vehicles in Idaho. These annual increases are due to increasing registration compliance (which does not affect use on National Forest lands) as well as increasing user participation (which has the potential to affect use on National Forest, as well as BLM, State and other public land). However, OHV registrations have slowed since 2007, and snowmobile registration peaked in 2006. By contrast, the percentage of Idaho adults participating in snowshoeing increased from 12.9 percent in 2002 to 16.5 percent in 2004 (IDPR 2010).

Idaho Roadless Rule—In October 2006, then Idaho Governor James Risch petitioned the U.S. secretary of agriculture to promulgate regulations, in cooperation with the state, for managing IRAs within Idaho under the 2005 roadless rule (Risch 2006). In October 2008, following environmental analysis and public involvement, the secretary of agriculture promulgated a final Idaho Roadless Rule. The rule establishes five land classifications that assign various permissions and prohibitions regarding road building, timber cutting, and discretionary mineral activities. The final rule also allows the Forest Service to reduce the risk of wildland fires to at-risk communities and municipal water supply systems (USDA Forest Service 2008c).

Wildfires—In 2007, Idaho National Forests experienced record wildfire seasons, in part due to extreme temperatures and persistent drought. On the Forest, more than 243,000 acres were affected by fire. Some of the fires combined with those on neighboring forests to create a 700,000-acres fire complex. During much of July, August, and September, thousands of acres of public lands were closed to public access.

There is little, if any, quantifiable evidence that these and other changes have caused or contributed to a shift in attitudes, beliefs, and values. However, recent polls and news articles indicate some change in perceptions:

Data from the June 2008 19th Annual Idaho Public Policy Survey conducted by Boise State University show that over 4 years (2005–2008), respondents consistently ranked economy, education, and growth as the top important issues facing Idaho, and that education and growth are becoming more important to Idaho residents. Of those surveyed for the 2008 study, the economy (including jobs and wages) was identified as the single most important issue facing Idaho (Boise State University 2008). By contrast, environment was tied with


373

immigration as the fifth most important issue in 2008, while it ranked fourth in 2007, sixth in 2006, and fourth in 2005 (Boise State University 2005, 2006, 2007).

Comparison of a Moore Information poll commissioned by the Idaho Forest Products Commission in November 2007 with the same poll in 2004 indicates that loss of wildlife habitat remains the leading public concern about wildfires (Moore Information 2004, 2007). However, in 2007 fewer people listed “loss of homes and property,” “damage to watersheds and water quality,” and “loss of forests and wood products” as the leading concern, compared to 2004. But in 2007, more respondents listed “smoke into the atmosphere” as their leading issue.

This same November 2007 poll indicated that what Idahoans favor most about forests are “public access,” “the beauty,” “trees,” and “wildlife.” At the same time, wide support exists for forest management, including salvaging dead and dying trees (including those burned in wildfires), thinning overstocked forests, and harvesting live trees to provide wood products.

Comparing the 2004 and 2007 polls also shows some erosion of public consensus on forest management issues. For example, when respondents were asked, “From what you know or have heard, is lack of proper management in Idaho’s forests increasing the danger of large forest fires, or not?,” the percentage that said “yes” declined from 63 percent in 2004 to 46 percent in 2007. The decline was less pronounced when respondents were asked to choose between thinning and harvesting trees to reduce the risk of wildfire, as opposed to leaving forests alone and letting them burn when fires start (unless homes, buildings, and communities or people were endangered). The support for thinning was 70 percent in 2007 as compared to 79 percent in 2004. The support for letting fires burn in 2007 was 25 percent, versus 15 percent in 2004.

A Moore Information poll regarding National Forest roadless areas commissioned by the Idaho Conservation League in January 2008 showed that a majority of respondents supported the Idaho roadless petition submitted by then Governor Risch (Brunelle 2008). Compare this to the 2001 Annual Idaho Public Policy Survey, which showed that nearly two-thirds of respondents opposed former President Clinton’s roadless initiative (Boise State University 2001). Some believe that the Idaho Roadless Rule, although currently under litigation, has succeeded to date because its architects sought and gained the support of a national panel of environmentalists, off-road recreationists, local officials, and the timber industry (Barker 2009).

A June 2009 article in the Oregonian (Portland, Oregon) describes the efforts of the Malheur Lumber Company’s sawmill in John Day, Oregon, to remain operating. The article notes agreement that a litigious “tug of war” over public forests (exhibited through lawsuits and federal logging prohibitions) has created an unintended consequence; namely, overgrown, insect-infested forests that are especially susceptible to wildfire. The article also describes collaboration between conservationists and timber companies to create a “more sustainable model” for public forests that would maintain forests and help support local economies (Hsuan 2009).

Population: Table 3-83 lists historic population estimates (2000 and 2005) for the eight counties, along with population projections for the years 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2025. For comparison, the state populations of Idaho and Oregon are also presented. Boise and Valley Counties show the


374

largest percentages of projected population increases, with double-digit increases anticipated for the 2000–2010 and 2010–2020 periods. Table 3-83. Historic and Projected Populations of Counties within Affected Environment

County 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

2000– 2010

Projected Change

(%)

2010–2020

Projected Change

(%) Adams (ID) 3,761 3,838 3,934 4,014 4,154 4,340 4 5

Boise (ID) 5,431 6,228 6,994 7,841 8,833 9,784 22 21

Elmore (ID) 25,755 26,933 28,211 29,450 30,681 31,904 9 8

Gem (ID) 15,326 16,127 16,987 17,824 18,659 19,492 10 9

Idaho (ID) 14,961 15,344 15,788 16,208 16,619 17,020 5 5

Valley (ID) 7,794 8,785 9,827 10,877 11,952 13,052 21 18

Grant (OR) 7,950 7,685 7,486 7,374 7,263 N/Aa –6 –3

Union (OR) 24,550 24,950 25,378 25,908 26,426 N/Aa 3 4

State Idaho 1,273,855 1,386,149 1,497,548 1,631,844 1,722,954 1,839,166 15 13 Oregon 3,436,750 3,631,440 3,826,130 4,020,820 4,215,510 N/A* 10 9 a Not available from source document.

Percentage of Federal Land: Table 3-84 shows the percentage of Federal land within each of the eight counties, with the respective state totals listed for comparison. Most of the counties, except for Gem County in Idaho and Union County in Oregon, have a larger percentage of Federal land than the state as a whole.


375

Table 3-84. Acres and Percent of Landownership by County

County Unit of Measure

Federal Ownership Other Land Ownership Total National

Forest BLM Other Federal State Privatea City &

County Adams (ID)

Acres 511,034 54,032 0 37,529 268,573 7,763 878,931 Percent 65% 4% 31% <1%

Boise (ID)

Acres 867,368 30,697 2,475 88,771 227,322 967 1,217,600 Percent 74% 8% 18% <1%

Elmore (ID)

Acres 791,105 529,233 6,703 120,355 522,354 42 1,969,792 Percent 67% 6% 26% <1%

Gem (ID)

Acres 60,968 71,884 2,157 20,325 202,825 1,905 360,064 Percent 37% 6% 56% 1%

Idaho (ID)

Acres 4,430,154 91,808 1,423 75,648 826,261 5,234 5,430,528 Percent 83% <1% 15% <1%

Valley (ID)

Acres 2,030,789 3,133 29,242 67,545 221,151 2,188 2,354,048 Percent 88% 2% 9% <1%

Grant (OR)

Acres 1,578,714 171,481 6,688 29,076 1,111,279 14,869 2,912,107 Percent 61% 1% 38% <1%

Union (OR)b

Acres 613,022 13,043 N/A N/A 678,237 N/A 1,304,302 Percent 48% N/A 52% N/A

State Idaho Acres 20,458,276 11,836,481 1,117,520 2,693,260 16,735,756 487,049 53,328,342 Percent 63% 5% 32% <1% Oregonb Acres 15,360,320 15,360,320 N/A N/A 27,034,163 N/A 57,754,803 Percent 50% N/A 44% N/A Note: Totals may not add completely due to rounding. Note: N/A = Not available. a Private land includes public road, highway rights-of-way, and tribal land. b Acreages for Union County and Oregon as a whole derived by multiplying percentages in National Forest, BLM, and private land by the total number of acres in the county and/or state. Percentages in each ownership by county and state, and total number of acres in county, obtained from the Union County: Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Union County 2005). Total number of acres in state obtained by converting number of square miles in Oregon (96,002, per Oregon Blue Book [http://www.bluebook.state.or.us/facts/almanac/almanac05.htm]) to acres.

Direct Payments from Federal Land Managers: The relationship between counties and the Forest Service is an important one because of economic benefits that counties receive directly from Federal land managers. These direct benefits are linked to two specific funds:

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000: The SRS and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law [PL] 106-393) was signed into law on October 30, 2000 (US Congress 2000). This law was enacted to restore stability and predictability to the annual payments made to states and counties containing NFS lands and former Oregon and California Railroad grant lands returned to the BLM. These payments were used by the counties for the benefit of public schools, roads, and other purposes for FY 2001–2006 (October 1–September 30). Under PL 106-393, county payments were calculated as the average of the three highest years’ payments for the state during 1985–1999, with subsequent annual adjustments for inflation at half the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (Brunelle 2009). The Act was extended for FY 2007 by PL 110-28, the Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (US Congress 2007).

In October 2008, the Act was reauthorized for FY 2008–2011 as part of PL 110-343, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, also known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program (US Congress 2008). The new Secure Rural Schools Act has some substantial changes. PL 110-343 establishes a new formula for calculating state payments based on several factors, including Federal land acreage regardless of historical timber production, previous payments,


376

and per capita personal income compared to the national median per capita personal income of all 750 U.S. counties receiving a forest payment. For most states (including Idaho), each year’s payments are calculated based upon a “full funding amount” of $500 million that will ramp down by 10 percent each successive year through FY 2011. For some identified states (including Oregon), each eligible county will received a share of a transition payment that ramps down from FY 2008–2011 in lieu of a share of the state payment. As described in a December 2009 Associated Press story, the new Secure Rural Schools Act formula has resulted in substantial increased funding to states with little to no historic connection to timber, such as Nevada, Utah, and Colorado (Daly and Dininny 2009).

Before PL 106-393 was enacted, the Forest Service—through the Twenty-Five Percent Fund Act of 1908—returned 25 percent of revenues from the sale of forest products and permitted operations to counties that contain NFS land. The amount that a county received from each National Forest’s 25 percent fund was proportional to the percent of the forest located in that county. Since 1957, Idaho law has required that 70 percent of the funds be used for public roads and 30 percent to fund public schools within the county receiving the forest payment. Traditionally, the vast majority of the Forest Service revenue produced by the Forest came from the sale of timber (both green and salvage), with lesser amounts generated by permits for livestock grazing, ski areas, recreation cabins, and other uses. Because of this relationship, a traditional and strong link existed between the revenues generated by the timber receipts associated with the Forest and the amount of revenue provided to southern Idaho counties from the 25 percent fund each year. Thus, in recession years the payments would drop markedly while in years of higher economic growth (when lumber prices would increase), payments would increase. The 25 percent fund payments began to decline markedly when timber harvests were reduced during the 1990s. This decline was noted in the “findings” of the Secure Rural Schools Act that helped generate the purposes of the Act.

Under PL 106-393, counties had the option of continuing to receive payments under the Twenty-five Percent Fund Act or electing to receive their share of the average of the three highest 25 percent payments made to the state from FY 1986 through FY 1989 (the “full payment amount”). Given the declining amounts of timber available for logging and diminished revenues, all eight counties within the socio-economic affected environment elected to receive “the full payment amount” under PL 106-393.146

Table 3-85 shows each county’s 25 percent fund payments for FY 1995 and FY 2000, its share of the full payment for FY 2005 under PL 106-393, and the county’s share of the full payment (or transition payment) for FY 2008 under PL 110-343. All Idaho counties except Valley County witnessed a substantial increase in the payment for FY 2008, a payment that will decrease by roughly 10 percent each year in the three subsequent years.

The payment remained stable from 2001–2007 notwithstanding the changes in lumber prices and timber harvests.

146 The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act required that a county choosing to receive its share of the full payment amount must spend between 80 and 85 percent of the funds in the same way as the 25 percent funds (i.e., in Idaho, 70 percent for public roads and 30 percent for schools). The remainder of the money must be either allocated to “Title II” projects (Special Projects on Federal Lands); “Title III” projects (County Projects); or returned to the U.S. Treasury.


377

Table 3-85. Payments to Counties Related to Forest Receipts

County National Forest(s) Within County FY 1995 FY 2000 County Share

in FY 2005 (PL 106-393)

County Share in FY 2008

(PL 110-343) Adams (ID) Payette $554,642 $121,844 $789,872 $1,040,846 Boise (ID) Boise $773,627 $415,685 $1,450,703 $1,972,075 Elmore (ID) Boise, Sawtooth $589,038 $338,426 $1,095,818 $1,788,878 Gem (ID) Boise $32,311 $29,219 $101,518 $176,422 Idaho (ID) Payette, Clearwater, Bitterroot,

Wallowa-Whitman, Salmon, Nez Perce

$815,647 N/A $5,208,590 $11,830,375

Valley (ID) Boise, Payette, Salmon $1,772,259 N/A $3,180,475 $2,426,453 Grant (OR) Malheur, Ochoco, Wallowa-

Whitman, Umatilla N/A N/A $10,226,031 $9,295,462

Union (OR) Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla N/A N/A $1,049,440 $953,950

Note: N/A = not available.

Payments in Lieu of Taxes: Counties also receive payments from the Federal government based on the Payments of Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act of 1976 (US Congress 1976). PILT is a Federal revenue-sharing program designed to compensate local governments for the presence of tax-exempt Federal lands within their jurisdiction. PILT payments are not linked to revenues generated by the sale of National Forest products or permitted activities.

The PILT Act authorizes payments under one of two alternatives. Payments are based on the acres of qualifying Federally managed acres (“entitlement acres”) within the county, subject to a payment ceiling based on county population, or a higher payment per-acres minus other federal payments received by the county government in the previous year The amount paid to the county is the higher of the two calculations. Historically, PILT payments are appropriated each year by Congress, and actual payments may be less than those calculated. An enhanced PILT payment was authorized as part of PL 110-343, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

Table 3-86 shows recent PILT payments for the eight counties within the socio-economic assessment area. Table 3-86. Payments in Lieu of Taxes

County FY 1995 ($)

FY 2000 ($)

FY 2005 ($)

FY 2008 ($)

Adams (ID) 55,039 75,572 107,276 173,361 Boise (ID) 89,767 131,080 224,625 283,015 Elmore (ID) 595,145 68,614 1,330,049 2,021,236 Gem (ID) 13,547 96,685 143,699 244,896 Idaho (ID) 452,987 476,658 859,218 1,446,247 Valley (ID) 206,315 215,892 405,118 655,284 Grant (OR) N/A 185,980 346,722 348,926 Union (OR) N/A 388,683 415,504 701,059

Note: N/A = not available


378

3.7.3.3 Communities

The socio-economic affected environment for the Forest Plan amendment process also includes communities within, adjacent to, or near the Forest. These 10 communities were selected for analysis and display in the EIS because their economic relationship with the Forest (specifically the timber supply from the Forest) could potentially be affected by the proposed amendment.147

Table 3-87. Community Populations: 1990–2008

The communities include New Meadows, Idaho City, Emmett, Mountain Home, Grangeville, Cascade, and McCall–Donnelly in Idaho and Elgin, John Day–Prairie City, and La Grande in Oregon. Table 3-87 shows recent population changes in these communities.

County Community 1990 2000 2005 2008 Adams (ID) New Meadows 534 528 482 491 Boise (ID) Idaho City 322 462 468 476 Elmore (ID) Mountain Home 7,913 11,526 11,765 12,382 Gem (ID) Emmett 4,601 5,683 6,088 6,357 Idaho (ID) Grangeville 3,226 3,213 3,058 3,110 Valley (ID) Cascade 877 1,010 980 991

McCall–Donnellya 2,140 2,231 2,501 2,735 Grant (OR) John Day–Prairie Cityb N/A 2,884 2,524 2,411 Union (OR) Elgin N/A 1,654 1,632 1,652

La Grande N/A 12,551 12,444 12,682 a 1990: McCall (2,005), Donnelly (135). 2000: McCall (2,092), Donnelly (139). 2005: McCall (2,356), Donnelly (145). 2008: McCall (2,593), Donnelly (142). b 2000: John Day (1,810), Prairie City (1,074). 2005: John Day (1,584), Prairie City (940). 2008: John Day (1,512), Prairie City (899).

3.7.3.3.1 Community Economic Profiles

While economic data are most readily available at the county level, reporting economic impacts only at this level is unadvisable for two notable reasons: (1) a county analysis devotes considerable analytic resources to impacts where they may be of little public concern (e.g., larger urban areas where the potential job and income effects of National Forest management are relatively small) and (2) more importantly, county-level data can easily mask potentially acute impacts in smaller rural communities, where public concerns are high, by reporting these against a broad county and multicounty backdrop.

For the purposes of economic impact analyses, regional scientists and economic geographers prescribe a community region model, sometimes called a “city region model.” The community region model recognizes that economic activity tends to be spatially organized in the fashion of a trade hierarchy. An economically dominant center (the downtown or otherwise most commercially built-up area) hosts the bulk of the region’s goods- and service-producing activity. A surrounding area of isolated homesteads, neighborhoods, and suburbs relies on the goods and

147 Economic profiles of several other communities were also developed. Although lack of space prevented them from being included in this discussion, the economic profiles for these communities are included in the planning record. These communities include Riggins, Warren, Yellow Pine, Big Creek, Crouch–Garden Valley, Lowman, Horseshoe Bend, Weiser, Cambridge–Midvale, and Council (all in Idaho).


379

services of the center, and the center relies in varying degrees on the surrounding area for its workforce. The operative principle is that the region as a whole (the larger community region) exhibits a measure of economic cohesion and functions as a distinct and semi-independent economy.

In general, postal ZIP-code areas are used as the building blocks for defining community regions. These areas usually make good economic sense and are useful in the collection of economic data.

Elements of an Economic Profile

An economic profile is intended to provide a descriptive portrayal of economic activity in the community. As shown in the following tables, each community profile is actually composed of two separate tables: a “jobs and labor income” account and a “community income” account:

Jobs and Labor Income

“Jobs” simply means the total number of full- or part-time jobs over the course of a year, by place of work.148

Labor income, also called earnings, refers to the employee income associated with the reported job and is defined as the sum of wages, salaries, and proprietors’ income, as well as “other labor income.” In general, “other labor income” refers to expenses borne by the employer that would otherwise be paid by the employee (e.g., employer contributions to employee pensions and insurance funds, such as health and dental insurance, and employer contributions to employees’ Social Security and Medicare accounts). The notion of proprietors’ income as labor income (i.e., its inclusion as part of earnings) is a matter of convention. In fact, a portion of proprietors’ income might be better classified as non-labor property income. Barbers who own their own shops, for example, derive part of their income from labor and part from the ownership of property (i.e., compensation for funds invested [return on capital] and compensation to cover depreciation and wear and tear [return of capital]).

The data in the job and labor income accounts generally reflect a two-digit level of detail associated with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). For convenience, some sectors—such as Manufacturing and Trade—reflect further aggregation (i.e., collections of constituent two-digit sectors). By contrast, sectors pertaining to wood products (e.g., Logging and Sawmills) reflect a full six-digit level of detail, given the potential effects of the EIS alternatives on the supply of timber and wood products. Data within the tables reflect the economies as of fall 2009.

By providing a view of the economy on a place-of-work basis, the community job and labor income accounts indicate the performance of the economy without regard for where the workers come from or where the earnings go. In contrast, the residents’ income account shifts focus from industry and labor to income of community residents; it provides the residents’ income account that completes the community economic profile.

148 Reporting jobs by place of work is the standard reporting approach of the U.S. Department of Commerce (e.g., their widely used REIS data); the U.S. Census Bureau (e.g., their County and ZIP Code Business Patterns series); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (e.g., their occupation and jobs forecasts). The U.S. Census Bureau does track jobs by place of residence in its Decennial Census, and individual state job services report jobs sometimes by place of work and other times by place of residence. Full-time equivalent jobs, as opposed to the usual full- and part-time headcount, are rarely done, and if so, are based on estimates derived from headcount data. Headcount data are the standard in regional analysis.


380

Residents’ Income Account

In general, residents’ income comes from three functional sources: (1) the sale of labor, giving rise to “earnings” or “labor income;” (2) ownership of capital and/or land, giving rise to “profits,” “royalties,” and/or “rent;” and (3) transfer payments, such as unemployment income, welfare, veterans’ benefits, etc. It is generally safe, particularly in the case of smaller communities, to assume that all transfer income originates from outside the community.

Besides the three functional sources, residents’ income can additionally be broken down by geographic location: income generated within the community (“inside income”) and income originating outside the community (“outside income”).

Inside Income: The inside income portion of the residents’ income account starts off with earnings generated in the community economies. In the tables below, this figure will match the total of all earnings indicated in the job and earnings accounts for that community. This number reports earnings by place of work and serves as a bridge between the two otherwise separate accounts.

Next, the portion claimed by in-commuters is subtracted from earnings by place of work. These monies are part of residents’ income in the communities where these in-commuters reside. Earnings generated in the community economy less earnings claimed by in-commuters equal the net inside earnings of community residents (i.e., the labor income both generated and received by community residents).

The inside income account then incorporates non-labor income. The first entry here is the property income parallel to earnings by place of work—namely, the total of property income generated in industries located in the community. These will most notably include the profits of community businesses and the income of community rental property. Next, similar to in-commuter claim deductions on earnings, claims on property income by nonresident owners are deducted. Property income generated in the community economy less claims by absentee owners equals the net inside property income of community residents (i.e., property income both generated and received by community residents). The sum of inside labor plus inside property income equals the total of residents’ inside income.

Outside Income: Residents obtain money from outside sources through property ownership (including stocks, bonds, and mutual funds); from transfer payments (e.g., unemployment benefits, veterans’ benefits); and from labor income earned in other communities (i.e., out-commuters’ earnings). The sum of these three income types equals residents’ total outside income. Residents’ total income is now simply obtained as the sum of inside plus outside income.

Economic Profiles for the Affected Environment

In general, the following tables (Tables 3-88 through 3-97) show a range of community economies. McCall–Donnelly (Table 3-94) has employment in sectors reflecting its dependence on visitors and tourism. Four sectors are particularly oriented to visitors: Wholesale and Retail Trade (NAICS 42, 44–45); Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation (NAICS 71); and Accommodation and Food Services (NAICS 72). These visitor-serving sectors account for roughly one-third of all jobs.


381

A relatively diversified collection of industries are evident in other community economies, including John Day–Prairie City (Table 3-95) and Grangeville (Table 3-92), although in Grangeville, government accounts for nearly 20 percent of all jobs. Mountain Home (Table 3-90) is the largest of the community economies, and while it exhibits a relatively diverse mix of industries, government (mainly the Mountain Home Air Force Base) accounts for more than 46 percent of all jobs.

Because the year 2009 is the reference year for this study, the community profiles reflect the deep economic recession and its effect on the housing sector and all its suppliers. In southwest Idaho, the remaining sawmills are still open but working at much reduced capacity.

For the residents’ income account, the distinction between inside and outside income often tells much about the community economy. For example, New Meadows (Table 3-88) has roughly equal portions of inside and outside incomes. The balance indicates that internal industry is important (source of inside income), but so is out-commuting and the mix of retired and leisure sources of outside income.


382

Table 3-88. Economic Profile of New Meadows, Idaho (ZIP Code 83654): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry

Industry Jobs Percent of Total

Jobs (%)

Earnings (Thousand Dollars [$])

Percent of Total Earnings

(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 138 11.6 1,658 6.4 Logging 31 2.6 1,328 5.1 Mining 4 0.3 435 1.7 Utilities 8 0.7 693 2.7 Construction 127 10.7 3,500 13.4 Manufacturing 34 2.9 655 2.5 Sawmills 60 5.1 2,900 11.1 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 3 0.3 351 1.3 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 8 0.7 205 0.8 Retail trade 137 11.5 3,008 11.5 Transportation and warehousing 13 1.1 207 0.8 Information 3 0.3 97 0.4 Finance and insurance 7 0.6 99 0.4 Real estate and rental and leasing 92 7.7 695 2.7 Professional and technical services 48 4.0 1,125 4.3 Management of companies and enterprises 0 0.0 0 0.0 Administrative and waste services 57 4.8 401 1.5 Educational services 3 0.3 43 0.2 Health care and social assistance 29 2.4 530 2.0 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 50 4.2 936 3.6 Accommodation and food services 104 8.8 984 3.8 Other services, except public administration 35 2.9 147 0.6 Federal government 48 4.0 2,356 9.0 State government 40 3.4 1,038 4.0 City and county government 111 9.3 2,719 10.4 Total 1,188 26,109

Community Income Account Amount (Thousand Dollars [$])

Inside income Earnings 26,109 In-commuter earnings (14,275) Property income 9,873 Claims of absentee owners (333) Residents’ total inside income 21,374 Outside income Outside property income 3,765 Transfer payments 8,983 Out-commuters’ income 12,647 Residents’ total outside income 25,396 Total residents’ income 46,770 Note: Above values may not total exactly, due to rounding errors.


383

Table 3-89. Economic Profile of Idaho City, Idaho (ZIP Code 83631): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 40 4.1 1,302 6.6 Logging 0 0.0 0 0.0 Mining 22 2.3 740 3.7 Utilities 0 0.0 0 0.0 Construction 56 5.7 1,310 6.6 Manufacturing 16 1.6 198 1.0 Sawmills 2 0.2 52 0.3 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 28 2.9 922 4.6 Retail trade 71 7.3 568 2.9 Transportation and warehousing 37 3.8 661 3.3 Information 12 1.2 375 1.9 Finance and insurance 19 2.0 227 1.1 Real estate and rental and leasing 8 0.8 104 0.5 Professional and technical services 62 6.4 2,039 10.3 Management of companies and enterprises 8 0.8 226 1.1 Administrative and waste services 30 3.1 285 1.4 Educational services 5 0.5 35 0.2 Health care and social assistance 52 5.3 644 3.2 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 160 16.4 2,494 12.6 Accommodation and food services 58 6.0 620 3.1 Other services, except public administration 52 5.3 221 1.1 Federal government 54 5.5 2,220 11.2 State government 11 1.1 357 1.8 City and county government 172 17.7 4,239 21.4 Total 974 19,838


Inside income Earnings 19,838 In-commuter earnings (17,871) Property income 6,132 Claims of absentee owners (1,965) Residents’ total inside income 6,134 Outside income Outside property income 2,780 Transfer payments 6,725 Out-commuters’ income 20,801 Residents’ total outside income 30,306 Total residents’ income 36,440 Note: Above values may not total exactly, due to rounding errors.


384

Table 3-90. Economic Profile of Mountain Home, Idaho (ZIP Codes 83647, 83648): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 797 6.1 20,530 5.1 Logging 6 0.0 179 0.0 Mining 22 0.2 527 0.1 Utilities 18 0.1 809 0.2 Construction 687 5.3 18,478 4.6 Manufacturing 228 1.8 4,744 1.2 Sawmills <1 0.0 9 0.0 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 91 0.7 2,256 0.6 Retail trade 1,277 9.8 22,116 5.5 Transportation and warehousing 264 2.0 7,088 1.8 Information 67 0.5 1,285 0.3 Finance and insurance 258 2.0 11,624 2.9 Real estate and rental and leasing 499 3.8 4,103 1.0 Professional and technical services 223 1.7 6,177 1.5 Management of companies and enterprises 0 0.0 0 0.0 Administrative and waste services 503 3.9 12,221 3.0 Educational services 140 1.1 4,891 1.2 Health care and social assistance 555 4.3 12,827 3.2 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 88 0.7 563 0.1 Accommodation and food services 788 6.1 9,444 2.4 Other services, except public administration 434 3.3 5,750 1.4 Federal government 4,543 35.0 212,728 53.1 State government 63 0.5 2,132 0.5 City and county government 1,427 11.0 40,302 10.1 Total 12,977 400,781


Inside income Earnings 400,781 In-commuter earnings (98,524) Property income 174,139 Claims of absentee owners (3,497) Residents’ total inside income 472,900 Outside income Outside property income 0 Transfer payments 102,706 Out-commuters’ income 573,711 Residents’ total outside income 676,417 Total residents’ income 1,149,317 Note: Above values may not total exactly, due to rounding errors.


385

Table 3-91. Economic profile of Emmett, Idaho (ZIP Codes 83617, 83636, 83657, 83670): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 933 15.3 17,389 13.4 Logging 38 0.6 1,586 1.2 Mining 24 0.4 825 0.6 Utilities 2 0.0 66 0.1 Construction 699 11.5 16,138 12.4 Manufacturing 187 3.1 3,948 3.0 Sawmills 0 0.0 0 0.0 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 170 2.8 5,385 4.2 Retail trade 637 10.4 9,868 7.6 Transportation and warehousing 242 4.0 6,989 5.4 Information 66 1.1 2,238 1.7 Finance and insurance 179 2.9 5,817 4.5 Real estate and rental and leasing 275 4.5 2,625 2.0 Professional and technical services 195 3.2 4,938 3.8 Management of companies and enterprises 12 0.2 383 0.3 Administrative and waste services 165 2.7 1,705 1.3 Educational services 39 0.6 145 0.1 Health care and social assistance 759 12.4 18,394 14.2 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 65 1.1 498 0.4 Accommodation and food services 212 3.5 2,204 1.7 Other services, except public administration 323 5.3 3,257 2.5 Federal government 125 2.0 4,786 3.7 State government 25 0.4 920 0.7 City and county government 729 12.0 19,544 15.1 Total 6,098 129,645




386

Table 3-92. Economic Profile of Grangeville, Idaho (ZIP Code 83530): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 449 10.7 6,201 6.6 Logging 30 0.7 1,239 1.3 Mining 22 0.5 383 0.4 Utilities 22 0.5 1,219 1.3 Construction 319 7.6 6,295 6.7 Manufacturing 78 1.9 2,644 2.8 Sawmills 122 2.9 5,334 5.7 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 106 2.5 3,096 3.3 Retail trade 472 11.2 9,949 10.6 Transportation and warehousing 200 4.8 5,410 5.8 Information 91 2.2 1,181 1.3 Finance and insurance 111 2.6 4,088 4.4 Real estate and rental and leasing 294 7.0 3,574 3.8 Professional and technical services 141 3.4 4,480 4.8 Management of companies and enterprises 0 0.0 0 0.0 Administrative and waste services 127 3.0 1,047 1.1 Educational services 41 1.0 605 0.6 Health care and social assistance 306 7.3 6,604 7.0 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 56 1.3 568 0.6 Accommodation and food services 243 5.8 2,600 2.8 Other services, except public administration 194 4.6 2,267 2.4 Federal government 164 3.9 7,965 8.5 State government 111 2.6 4,187 4.5 City and county government 504 12.0 13,004 13.8 Total 4,203 93,939




387

Table 3-93. Economic Profile of Cascade, Idaho (ZIP Code 83611): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 54 3.5 1,271 3.0 Logging 2 0.1 75 0.2 Mining 3 0.2 99 0.2 Utilities 1 0.1 48 0.1 Construction 172 11.2 5,722 13.7 Manufacturing 27 1.8 660 1.6 Sawmills 0 0.0 0 0.0 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 9 0.6 296 0.7 Retail trade 193 12.6 5,689 13.6 Transportation and warehousing 19 1.2 562 1.3 Information 6 0.4 247 0.6 Finance and insurance 37 2.4 1,095 2.6 Real estate and rental and leasing 118 7.7 1,279 3.1 Professional and technical services 66 4.3 3,046 7.3 Management of companies and enterprises 6 0.4 300 0.7 Administrative and waste services 47 3.1 642 1.5 Educational services <1 0.0 2 0.0 Health care and social assistance 23 1.5 362 0.9 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 22 1.4 284 0.7 Accommodation and food services 239 15.6 4,549 10.9 Other services, except public administration 66 4.3 594 1.4 Federal government 72 4.7 3,533 8.5 State government 44 2.9 1,328 3.2 City and county government 304 19.9 10,019 24.0 Total 1,531 41,701


Inside income Earnings 41,701 In-commuter earnings (27,906) Property income 12,373 Claims of absentee owners (551) Residents’ total inside income 25,617 Outside income Outside property income 7,294 Transfer payments 10,009 Out-commuters’ income 16,119 Residents’ total outside income 33,422 Total residents’ income 59,038 Note: Above values may not total exactly, due to rounding errors.


388

Table 3-94. Economic Profile of McCall–Donnelly, Idaho (ZIP Codes 83615, 83638, 83635): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 180 3.1 3,838 2.7 Logging 18 0.3 663 0.5 Mining 17 0.3 575 0.4 Utilities 5 0.1 254 0.2 Construction 820 14.3 22,518 15.7 Manufacturing 83 1.4 2,018 1.4 Sawmills 0 0.0 0 0.0 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 38 0.7 1,280 0.9 Retail trade 615 10.7 14,485 10.1 Transportation and warehousing 101 1.8 2,454 1.7 Information 60 1.0 2,564 1.8 Finance and insurance 185 3.2 6,605 4.6 Real estate and rental and leasing 643 11.2 7,249 5.1 Professional and technical services 226 3.9 9,637 6.7 Management of companies and enterprises 17 0.3 910 0.6 Administrative and waste services 226 3.9 3,043 2.1 Educational services 35 0.6 1,157 0.8 Health care and social assistance 278 4.9 8,040 5.6 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 374 6.5 11,094 7.8 Accommodation and food services 681 11.9 10,831 7.6 Other services, except public administration 306 5.3 4,265 3.0 Federal government 177 3.1 8,588 6.0 State government 60 1.0 1,787 1.2 City and county government 585 10.2 19,275 13.5 Total 5,731 143,126




389

Table 3-95. Economic Profile of John Day–Prairie City, Oregon (ZIP Codes 97845, 97869): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 527 19.6 9,615 15.8 Logging 52 1.9 1,811 3.0 Mining 7 0.3 182 0.3 Utilities 20 0.7 1,881 3.1 Construction 146 5.4 3,918 6.4 Manufacturing 75 2.8 1,348 2.2 Sawmills 70 2.6 1,756 2.9 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 36 1.3 649 1.1 Retail trade 313 11.6 5,445 9.0 Transportation and warehousing 76 2.8 1,900 3.1 Information 26 1.0 382 0.6 Finance and insurance 85 3.2 1,904 3.1 Real estate and rental and leasing 71 2.6 1,123 1.8 Professional and technical services 55 2.0 900 1.5 Management of companies and enterprises 0 0.0 0 0.0 Administrative and waste services 88 3.3 1,409 2.3 Educational services 9 0.3 71 0.1 Health care and social assistance 149 5.5 3,156 5.2 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 36 1.3 215 0.4 Accommodation and food services 214 8.0 2,222 3.7 Other services, except public administration 97 3.6 1,229 2.0 Federal government 122 4.5 6,009 9.9 State government 56 2.1 2,290 3.8 City and county government 359 13.4 11,358 18.7 Total 2,688 60,774


Inside income Earnings 60,774 In-commuter earnings (38,340) Property income 25,807 Claims of absentee owners (1,141) Residents’ total inside income 47,100 Outside income Outside property income 63 Transfer payments 23,797 Out-commuters’ income 18,069 Residents’ total outside income 41,929 Total residents’ income 89,029 Note: Above values may not total exactly, due to rounding errors.


390

Table 3-96. Economic Profile of Elgin, Oregon (ZIP Code 97827): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 59 6.0 1,045 3.6 Logging 7 0.7 304 1.1 Mining 1 0.1 70 0.2 Utilities 0 0.0 0 0.0 Construction 65 6.6 2,773 9.6 Manufacturing 24 2.4 623 2.2 Sawmills 134 13.6 4,593 15.9 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 221 22.5 7,168 24.9 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Wholesale trade 4 0.4 99 0.3 Retail trade 36 3.7 653 2.3 Transportation and warehousing 27 2.7 1,470 5.1 Information 5 0.5 185 0.6 Finance and insurance 27 2.7 734 2.5 Real estate and rental and leasing 41 4.2 537 1.9 Professional and technical services 12 1.2 147 0.5 Management of companies and enterprises 3 0.3 78 0.3 Administrative and waste services 10 1.0 80 0.3 Educational services 3 0.3 33 0.1 Health care and social assistance 8 0.8 128 0.4 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 8 0.8 41 0.1 Accommodation and food services 26 2.6 341 1.2 Other services, except public administration 40 4.1 243 0.8 Federal government 32 3.3 1,573 5.5 State government 96 9.8 2,846 9.9 City and county government 96 9.8 3,058 10.6 Total 983 28,821




391

Table 3-97. Economic Profile of La Grande, Oregon (ZIP Code 97850): 2009 Jobs and Labor Income by Industry


Jobs (%)



(%) Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting 1,018 8.2 19,226 5.9 Logging 73 0.6 3,192 1.0 Mining 18 0.1 897 0.3 Utilities 27 0.2 1,869 0.6 Construction 626 5.1 18,055 5.5 Manufacturing 724 5.9 22,961 7.0 Sawmills 30 0.2 1,093 0.3 Softwood veneer and plywood manufacturing 0 0.0 0 0.0 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 103 0.8 3,690 1.1 Wholesale trade 237 1.9 8,035 2.5 Retail trade 1,635 13.2 34,537 10.6 Transportation and warehousing 521 4.2 22,770 7.0 Information 188 1.5 5,641 1.7 Finance and insurance 355 2.9 9,760 3.0 Real estate and rental and leasing 318 2.6 4,348 1.3 Professional and technical services 393 3.2 11,939 3.7 Management of companies and enterprises 42 0.3 1,006 0.3 Administrative and waste services 370 3.0 4,609 1.4 Educational services 79 0.6 591 0.2 Health care and social assistance 1,496 12.1 51,520 15.8 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 178 1.4 1,546 0.5 Accommodation and food services 807 6.5 10,002 3.1 Other services, except public administration 600 4.9 7,988 2.5 Federal government 192 1.6 8,536 2.6 State government 1,035 8.4 30,593 9.4 City and county government 1,294 10.5 41,454 12.7 Total 12,359 325,856


Inside income Earnings 325,856 In-commuter earnings (102,085) Property income 103,738 Claims of absentee owners (7,885) Residents’ total inside income 319,624 Outside income Outside property income 0 Transfer payments 104,536 Out-commuters’ income 119,424 Residents’ total outside income 223,960 Total residents’ income 543,584 Note: Above values may not total exactly, due to rounding errors.

3.7.4 Environmental Consequences The direct and indirect effects of the three alternatives considered in detail are described in terms of jobs and income associated with Forest sawtimber outputs149

149 These figures are those for all community jobs associated with Forest sawtimber, including those in retail, lodging, etc., as well as those in logging and wood processing.

for affected communities for the


392

years 2014 and 2019. The year 2019 reflects the potential extent of the planning period covered under the 2003 Forest Plan (15 years). These represent five- and 10-year projections, respectively, from the “current condition” discussed above, which reflect community economies at the end of 2009. As shown below, the direct effects of the alternatives would result in slight changes to jobs. However, the more dramatic and substantial effects would be the cumulative effects under any of the three alternatives, given foreseeable future changes anticipated by the year 2014 that are outside the influence and/or authority of the Forest. Cumulative effects are described in terms of jobs and income for affected communities for the years 2014 and 2019. 3.7.4.1 Methods and Assumptions

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effect of the alternatives considered in detail on community jobs and income were estimated by EMSI. The “Economic Impact of Wildlife Conservation Strategy Management Alternatives, Boise National Forest” report, included in the planning record, describes the methods used to estimate these effects, including job to MMBF ratios, use of mill-specific data, and proportioning log exports between Idaho and Oregon (EMSI 2010). Job and income numbers include both those directly related to Forest outputs, and those indirectly related (e.g., retail trade generated by sawmill workers or loggers).

Assumptions used in this analysis include the following:

There would be no other changes in community economies or associated economic sectors beyond the anticipated effects of the three alternatives considered in detail, and the foreseeable future changes described under Cumulative Effects. In reality, there could be changes in these economies; however, the type and extent of these changes are unknown at this point. In addition, the assumption of “no other changes” is consistent with the purpose of the effects analysis; namely, to hold variables constant to help determine the effect of a change in timber volume that might result under each alternative.

As disclosed in the “Timberland Resources” (section 3.5) of this FEIS, the potential ASQ (i.e., the “ceiling” for the amount of wood products that could be generated from suitable timberlands) and TSPQ were generated for each alternative. As stated in the “Timberland Resources” (section 3.5), TSPQ includes the wood product volume expected to be removed from both lands designated as suitable for timber production (ASQ) as well as those lands designated as unsuitable for timber production. For purposes of this economic analysis, TSPQ will be used because it helps indicate the overall economic benefits anticipated at the community level from the total amount of wood products generated from NFS lands. However, as disclosed under the effects discussion, the proportion of ASQ as a percentage of TSPQ affects the likely types of associated jobs.

Other resources discussed in this FEIS describe effects that would be anticipated if the Forest Service is able to treat the acres proposed under Forest Plan objectives VEOB01, FMOB04, FMOB08, and TROB01, which call for prioritizing and achieving specific amounts of treatment (acres). While the Forest Service believes it is capable of achieving this level of treatment, the capability depends on resource and funding availability, as well as factors outside its control such as economic and market conditions (e.g., wood product values) and mill capacity. While other resource areas disclosed potential effects based on achieving the above-listed Forest Plan objectives, the Forest believes it is more appropriate in this section to disclose the economic effects based on the amount of wood the Forest has actually produced since the Forest Plan was implemented in 2003, as real-world environmental and


393

socio-economic effects result from the amount of wood products actually sold and harvested. Therefore, for the economic analysis in this FEIS, the modeled TSPQ has been reduced to levels more consistent with what the Forest has been able to sell in light of current budget, resources, the wood product market and values, and social constraints. This quantity is referred to as the “effective TSPQ.” How the “effective TSPQ” was generated for each alternative is discussed below.

As described below and in section 3.5 “Timberland Resources,” the ASQ, TSPQ and effective TSPQ for all alternatives considered in detail were revised between DEIS and FEIS. However, community jobs and income were revised only for Alternative B, as the changes in ASQ, TSPQ and effective TSPQ were considered substantial only for Alternative B. Although the changes in ASQ, TSPQ and effective TSPQ for Alternatives A and C are measurable, the FEIS analysis assumed these changes would result in only slight changes in jobs and income. Consequently, the jobs and income figures associated with these two alternatives were not recalculated for the FEIS, and they remain the same as those disclosed in the DEIS.

3.7.4.2 Environmental Consequences Common to All Alternatives Considered in Detail

Attitudes, beliefs, and values related to natural resources would not be anticipated to measurable change under any of the three alternatives, because of the relatively focused scope of the proposed Forest Plan amendment and the subjective, intangible nature of these variables. However, given Alternative B or C’s emphasis on sustainable resource conditions, either of these alternatives would likely benefit those who favor a “more sustainable model” for public forests that would maintain forests and help support local economies.

Because of the relatively focused scope of the proposed Forest Plan amendment, no substantive changes to county or community population, or percentage of federal land, would be anticipated under any alternative. Although the enhanced PILT payments are anticipated to expire at the end of FY 2012, these payments would not be affected by this proposed Forest Plan amendment, because the payments are based on a relative constant (i.e., the percentage of federal land in each county, which is not anticipated to measurably change). As discussed below under Cumulative Effects, potential changes to county payments under the Secure Rural Schools Act and/or 25 Percent Fund, would be anticipated under all alternatives, due to circumstances outside the scope of this proposed amendment. 3.7.4.3 Environmental Consequences Specific to Alternative A (No Action)

In the “Timberland Resources” (section 3.5), the modeled decadal ASQ ceiling for Alternative A was estimated at 451 MMBF (average of 45.1 MMBF annually). The modeled decadal potential TSPQ was estimated at 582 MMBF (average of 58.2 MMBF annually). The annual “effective TSPQ” for Alternative A used in the economic analysis is 20.5 MMBF, which is the 5-year average TSPQ, as generated from the Forest’s cut/sold reports for FYs 2004 through 2008. This total volume sold indicates the actual economic benefits realized at the community level during this time period. Analysis supporting this calculation is contained within the project record.

Because Alternative A would continue current management, there would be no direct or indirect change in the number or type of community jobs or level of income as a result of Forest management in either 2014 or 2019.


394

Under Alternative A, the effective TSPQ would not be expected to measurably change in the near future, given the economic and social constraints that currently prevent the Forest from increasing its wood product outputs. These constraints include budget and resource availability to plan, design, and implement vegetation management projects; low market values for wood products; the current economic downturn; and social and legal acceptance of current management strategies under the current Forest Plan.

The “effective TSPQ” would continue to be mostly generated from lands designated as suitable for timber production (“Timberland Resources,” section 3.5) that currently have the road network in place to support economically viable timber sales. These areas typically fall within allocation MPCs 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, and 6.1. In addition, MPC 5.2 desired conditions and related Forest Plan management requirements would continue to allow for a greater amount of regeneration harvests and final overstory removals, which generate relatively high volumes, compared to Alternatives B or C under which MPC 5.2 would be eliminated. As a result, fewer acres would have to be treated to achieve the same volume of wood products.

In addition, the greater amount of regeneration harvests and overstory removals in Alternative A, combined with intermediate harvests, would result in a broader mix of small to large log products, compared to treatment mixes under Alternatives B or C. This broader mix of products would continue to provide potential benefits to a variety of mills in southwest Idaho and Oregon. This broader mix likely would also result in higher wood product values, and would likely result in more standard timber sale contracts (reflected in jobs and income in the sawmill- and logging-related sectors), than stewardship contracts (reflected in jobs and income related to the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sectors). 3.7.4.4 Environmental Consequences Specific to Alternative B (Proposed Action)

In the “Timberland Resources” (section 3.5), the modeled decadal ASQ ceiling for Alternative B was estimated at 282 MMBF (average of 28.2 MMBF annually). The modeled decadal potential TSPQ was estimated at 397 MMBF (average of 39.7 MMBF annually). The annual “effective TSPQ” for Alternative B used in the economic analysis is 29.0 MMBF. Alternative B’s annual effective TSPQ was generated by calculating the estimated portion of the ASQ ceiling and potential TSPQ that would come from lands where wood products have been consistently removed since the 2003 Forest Plan was implemented (i.e., for this alternative, areas that typically overlap MPCs 4.2, 5.1, or 6.1). It was assumed that TSPQ generated from other MPC allocations (about 10 MMBF) would generally be incidental and not be fully realized in light of current constraints.

Alternative B could result in a marked increase in effective TSPQ over Alternative A (8.5 MMBF [29 percent]). This increase might be realized if the Forest Plan amendment implemented under Alternative B, which emphasizes restoration of vegetation diversity to support wildlife habitat and other resource needs, helps resolve social and philosophical issues regarding forest management, thereby reducing political constraints on timber management. Should this increase be realized, an increase in jobs and income would be anticipated in the year 2014. The largest change would be in Elgin (increase of 10 jobs [1.1 percent]), nearly all of which would occur in the sawmill and wood processing sectors. Grangeville and New Meadows would each gain five jobs. Council and Emmett would both see an increase of three jobs each, and La Grande, two more jobs, while jobs in the remaining communities would experience little or no job increase. No change from these numbers would be anticipated for the year 2019.


395

Similar to Alternative A, wood products generated as part of the “effective TSPQ” would continue to be mostly generated from lands designated as suitable for timber production (“Timberland Resources”, section 3.5) that currently have the road networks in place to support economically viable timber sales. However, as a result of the change in desired conditions when reallocating acres from MPC 5.2 to 5.1 and the addition of Forest Plan standards pertaining to old forest and large tree retention, fewer overstory removals and regeneration harvests would occur under Alternative B compared to Alternative A. Restoration treatments under this alternative would generally result in less wood product volume generated from any one acre, on average, compared to Alternative A. 3.7.4.5 Environmental Consequences Specific to Alternative C

In the “Timberland Resources” section (section 3.5), the modeled decadal ASQ ceiling for Alternative C was estimated at 120 MMBF (average of 12.0 MMBF annually). The modeled decadal potential TSPQ was estimated at 412 MMBF (average of 41.2 MMBF annually). The annual “effective TSPQ” for Alternative C used in the economic analysis is 30.6 MMBF, generated by calculating that estimated portion of the ASQ and potential TSPQ that would come from lands where wood products have been consistently removed since the 2003 Forest Plan was implemented (i.e., for this alternative, areas that typically overlap MPCs 3.2, 4.2, 5.1, or 6.1). As under Alternatives A and B, it was assumed that TSPQ generated from other MPC allocations (about 10 MMBF) would generally be incidental and not be fully realized in light of current constraints.

Thus, Alternative C could result in a substantial increase in effective TSPQ compared to Alternative A, and a slight increase compared to Alternative B. Based on the effective TSPQ estimates, the potential increase would represent an approximate 10.1 MMBF (33 percent) increase over Alternative A, and a 1.6 (5 percent) increase over Alternative B. However, as discussed in the “Timberland Resource” section (section 3.5), that proportion of the effective TSPQ associated with a planned, predictable level of harvest from lands considered suitable for timber production (i.e., the ASQ) would be much lower under Alternative C than Alternatives A or B as a result of moving MPC 5.2 acres to MPC 3.2. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that even though acres have been removed from the suited timber base (i.e., the set of acres determined suitable for timber production), these acres that need mechanical treatments to foster restoration would still result in wood products as a “by-product” of these treatments.

In general, different communities would be affected under Alternative C. For example, under Alternative C Grangeville would note 31 jobs (0.7 percent) more than Alternative A, and 26 more than Alternative B. A total of 15 of the jobs would be in the sawmill and logging sectors, with an additional 4 jobs in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting. (The remaining 12 jobs are divided between various sectors, with 1 or 2 additional jobs in each.) Council would gain 6 jobs over Alternative A (3 over Alternative B); Elgin, 4 jobs (6 fewer than Alternative B), and Emmett, 5 jobs (2 more than Alternative B). Emmett would gain 5 jobs; Elgin, 4 jobs; and McCall-Donnelly, 2 jobs, all with a <1 percent increase in earnings. Compared with Alternative A, New Meadows and John Day-Prairie City would lose 4 jobs and 3 jobs, respectively, each with a <1 percent decrease in earnings. Little if any change in jobs or income would be experienced in the remaining communities. The shift in jobs within different locations and sectors is due to the anticipated changes in types of products generated by this alternative, as discussed below, as well as the mill capabilities (e.g., process efficiencies of different log sizes


396

and types) in the locations noted above. No change from these numbers would be anticipated for the year 2019.

Unlike Alternatives A or B, wood products generated as part of the “effective TSPQ” would no longer be mostly generated from lands designated as suitable for timber production (“Timberland Resources,” section 3.5). However, they would continue to be removed from areas that currently have the road networks in place to support mechanical treatments. As a result of the change in desired conditions when reallocating acres from MPC 5.2 to 3.2 (which emphasizes retention of large tree structures), and the addition of Forest Plan standards pertaining to old forest and large tree retention, fewer overstory removals and regeneration harvest would be anticipated under Alternative C as compared to Alternatives A. Restoration treatments under this alternative would generally result in less wood product volume generated from any one acre, on average, compared to Alternative A or B.

In addition, due to the reduction in regeneration harvests and overstory removal, combined with other, intermediate harvests, Alternative C would likely have a greater mix of small and medium log products and fewer large log products compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would also likely result in more small and medium logs than Alternative B, due to the reallocation of MPC 5.2 acres to MPC 3.2 (as opposed to reallocation to MPC 5.1 under Alternative B), and consequently, an increase the number of acres treated by “thinning from below” rather than commercial thinning. As a result, a smaller percentage of National Forest sawtimber from southwest Idaho would likely be exported to the Oregon mills under Alternative C, given the lower grade and smaller logs anticipated under this alternative, and the relatively long haul distances. This greater mix of lower grade and smaller products would also be expected to result in a higher percentage of stewardship contracts (supporting jobs and income related to the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sectors) versus standard timber sale contracts (supporting jobs and income related to the sawmill and logging sectors) compared to Alternatives A and B.

3.7.5 Cumulative Effects As noted above, the analysis area for cumulative effects includes the eight counties within, adjacent to, or near the Boise National Forest, as well as 10 selected communities within these counties.150

3.7.5.1 Past Actions

Various recent changes have affected the socio-economic environment, including a reduction in timber harvest on the National Forest, as well as transition in the wood products industry, and recreational and residential development (described above under “Attitudes, Beliefs, and Values Related to Natural Resources”). In addition, the current economic recession has heavily affected the housing sector and its suppliers. The effects of these actions are reflected in the 2009 jobs and income for each community, displayed earlier under “Community Economic Profiles.” 3.7.5.2 Ongoing Actions

Ongoing actions affecting the socio-economic environment include timber harvest on the Boise and Payette National Forests and State of Idaho lands administered by the Idaho Department of

150 Jobs and income for other communities are included in the planning record.


397

Lands (IDL); prescribed fire and other vegetation management activities; and recreational use such as summer and winter motorized use, camping, fishing, and hunting. 3.7.5.3 Foreseeable Future Actions

There are three foreseeable future changes in the wood products industry anticipated to occur in the next 5 years (i.e., 2010–2014) that could affect the socio-economic environment:

Reduction in Idaho Department of Lands Harvest Two IDL offices administer timber sales within the analysis area: the Payette Lakes office is headquartered in McCall, and the Southwest Idaho office is headquartered in Boise. The IDL has recently announced revised timber sale planning that will lower its ASQ for both areas. The Payette Lakes ASQ will drop from 25 to 17 MMBF per year (a 32 percent reduction), while the corresponding drop for Southwest Idaho will be from 11 to 8 MMBF per year (a 27 percent reduction). As IDL typically sells their entire annual ASQ, forest managers assume that the amount of future IDL timber available equals its revised ASQ.

Closure of the Boise Cascade Sawmill at La Grande The Boise Cascade sawmill at La Grande, which had approximately 30 jobs, closed in the middle of 2009. For the purposes of this analysis, this change has been accounted for as a “foreseeable future action” because the closure occurred after the community economic profiles were developed in early 2009.

Resumption of the 25 Percent Fund Payments in Lieu of SRS As described above in “Direct Payments from Federal Land Managers” under Current Conditions, the SRS and Community Self-Determination Act is expected to expire at the end of FY 2011 (September 30, 2011). This law was enacted to restore stability and predictability to the annual payments made to States and counties containing NFS and BLM land for use by the counties for the benefit of public schools, roads, and other purposes, and for projects on NFS lands recommended by a local Resource Advisory Committee. Although many U.S. senators from western states have professed strong support for the program (Daly and Dininny 2009), there are currently no plans in the U.S. Congress to re-extend or otherwise authorize this or similar laws. Consequently, it is anticipated that payments via the “25 Percent Fund Law of 1908” will resume in FY 2012. The 25 percent fund payments to counties, which in southern Idaho depend highly on timber sale revenues, are anticipated to drop significantly from the SRS payments, thereby potentially decreasing the number of jobs and levels of income related to public schools, roads, and other entities. Each county’s anticipated change from SRS in the years FY 2008 (actual payment) and FY 2011 (anticipated final payment), to 25 percent fund payment under each alternative in 2014, is shown in Table 3-85. Under all alternatives, the SRS losses dwarf any revenue gained under the 25 percent fund. However, it should be noted that counties are not obligated to spend all SRS funds in the year appropriated, and that some funds can be “banked” to provide financial support in subsequent years. Consequently, the various years’ differences in a county’s available funds might be less dramatic than the table indicates.


398

Table 3-98. Secure Rural Schools (SRS) Loss and 25 Percent Fund Distribution by Alternative 25 Percent Revenue Gain by Alternative

(2014)

County SRS Payment—FY 2008 (Loss)a

SRS Anticipated Payment—FY 2011

(Loss)a Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Adams, ID (1,040,846) (748,126) 172,489 207,005 184,155 Boise, ID (1,972,075) (1,418,075) 221,322 265,608 236,289 Elmore, ID (1,788,878) (1,284,915) 139,107 166,942 148,514 Gem, ID (176,422) (126,858) 23,577 28,295 25,172 Idaho, ID (11,830,375) (8,489,781) 22,274 26,731 23,781 Valley, ID (2,426,453) (1,744,085) 121,866 146,251 130,108 Grant, ORb (9,295,462) (4,751,494) N/A N/A N/A Union, ORb (953,950) (1,017,203) N/A N/A N/A TOTAL (29,484,461) (19,580,537) 700,635 840,832 748,019 a SRS payments include payments associated with all three titles of SRS, including Title II, which funds projects on NFS lands recommended by a local Resource Advisory Committee. b Effects of the 25 percent fund on Oregon counties would exist due to other National Forests within their boundaries, but they are considered unchanged in all alternatives from Alternative A. As described earlier in this section, the SRS payment is proportional to the percent of the forest located in that county. Since there are no NFS lands administered by the Boise National Forest in these counties, changes in the Forest timber harvest would not affect the SRS or 25 percent fund payments in these counties.

3.7.5.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

Because Alternative A would continue current management, there would be no direct change in the number of community jobs or level of income as a result of Boise National Forest management in either 2014 or 2019. Consequently, there would be no cumulative effects anticipated.

However, changes in jobs and income in the community economies from the current (situation 2009) would be anticipated in 2014 and 2019, as a result of the foreseeable future actions described above. Table 3-99 shows the total jobs and income in each community anticipated in 2014, as compared to 2009. No changes from the 2014 figures would be anticipated in 2019, because, as described above under “Methods and Assumptions,” this analysis accounted only for the changes in the wood products sector. All communities show a loss of jobs and income, with Elgin showing the greatest percentage of job loss (2.2 percent) and earnings loss (2.4 percent). In addition, many of the job losses due to the anticipated change from SRS to 25 percent fund payments might be to county workers, including elementary and secondary school teachers, and road personnel, because by law, most of these funds must be allocated to public schools and roads. A breakdown of each community’s job and income changes under Alternative A is summarized below, with detailed information by industry included in the planning record.


399

Table 3-99. Community Jobs and Income: 2009 and 2014

Community 2009 Jobs

Jobs Change 2014 Jobs

2009 Earnings

(Thousand Dollars)

Earnings Change (Thousand Dollars)

2014 Earnings

(Thousand Dollars) IDLa SRS IDL SRS

New Meadows 1,188 (19) (*)b 1,169 $26,109 ($609) ($3) $25,498 Idaho City 974 0 (11) 963 $19,838 $0 ($254) $19,584 Mountain Home 12,977 (1) (8) 12,968 $400,781 ($19) ($215) $400,548 Emmett 6,098 (6) (1) 6,091 $129,645 ($187) ($24) $129,435 Grangeville 4,203 (20) (54) 4,129 $93,939 ($592) ($1,278) $92,069 Cascade 1,531 (*) (18) 1,513 $41,701 ($9) ($541) $41,151 McCall-Donnelly 5,731 (7) (3) 5,721 $143,126 ($208) ($90) $142,828 John Day-Prairie City 2,688 (3) (11) 2,673 $60,774 ($70) ($319) $60,384 Elgin 983 (22) 0 960 $28,821 ($694) $0 $28,128 La Grande 12,359 (79) (4) 12,276 $325,856 ($2,484) (102) $323,270

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate a loss. Numbers may not total exactly, due to rounding. a IDL job changes include any sawmill closure in that community. b * = between 0.0 and 0.5

3.7.5.5 Cumulative Effects of Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C

Because Alternatives B and C would each result in the same increase in effective TSPQ, Alternatives B and C would both result in a slight cumulative benefit to the socio-economic environment, as compared to Alternative A. Table 3-100 shows the total jobs and income in each community anticipated in 2014 under all action alternatives. No changes from the 2014 figures would be anticipated in 2019, because this analysis accounted only for the above changes in the wood products sector.

Table 3-100 indicates a “mixed bag” in terms of cumulative jobs and income changes under Alternatives B or C. The largest changes in jobs would occur in Grangeville, with an increase of 9 jobs under Alternative B and 57 jobs under Alternative C, as compared to Alternative A due to the shifts in product type, size, and quality between alternatives. New Meadows would experience an increase of 10 jobs under Alternative B but a loss of 10 jobs under Alternative C, relative to Alternative A for similar reasons. As compared to Alternative A, Emmett would grow by 6 jobs under Alternative B, and 11 jobs under Alternative C, while Elgin would increase by 19 jobs under Alternative B and 9 jobs under Alternative C. The remaining 6 communities (Idaho City, Mountain Home, Cascade, McCall–Donnelly, John Day–Prairie City, and La Grande) would all exhibit few, if any, changes (i.e., a change of 5 jobs or less under either action alternative). Commensurate changes in income would be noted. Alternative C would be anticipated to result in a shift in type of job, compared to Alternatives A and B, from those associated with standard timber-sale contracts (e.g., logging and trucking) to those associated with service contracts (e.g., thinning and road rehabilitation). (More information on this difference is provided in the “Mix of Timber Sale versus Stewardship Contracts” discussion in the “Timberland Resources,” section 3.5.)

Moreover, although Alternatives B and C would have similar effective TSPQ, Alternative B would likely result in more 25 percent fund revenues than Alternative C, because much of Alternative C’s timber volume would likely be generated through stewardship contracts, in


400

which the timber revenue is not returned to the U.S. Treasury but instead used to offset the cost of associated needed restoration activities such as precommercial thinning.

A breakdown of each community’s job and income changes under Alternatives B and C is summarized below, with detailed information by industry included in the planning record. Table 3-100. Cumulative Community Jobs and Income in 2014: Alternatives A, B, and C

Community

Jobs Earnings (Thousand Dollars [$])

Alt A Total

Alt B (Change

Relative to Alt A) a

Alt C (Change

Relative to Alt A) a

Alt A Total

Alt B (Change

Relative to Alt A)

Alt C (Change

Relative to Alt A)

New Meadows 1,169 +10 −10 25,498 +309 −368

Idaho City 963 +* +* 19,584 +6 +2

Mountain Home 12,968 +1 +1 400,548 +21 +36

Emmett 6,091 +6 +11 129,435 +174 +355

Grangeville 4,129 +9 +57 92,069 +274 +1,700

Cascade 1,513 +* +1 41,151 +14 +19

McCall-Donnelly 5,720 +2 +5 142,828 +76 +154

John Day-Prairie City 2,673 +1 −4 60,384 +30 −95

Elgin 960 +19 +9 28,128 +199 +274

La Grande 12,276 +4 -* 323,270 +122 −6 a * = between 0.0 and 0.5


401

3.8 RESOURCE COMMITMENTS This section contains effects disclosures that are required by Federal law, regulation, or policy and that generally apply to all of the preceding resource area effects sections in this chapter. No changes to this section between DEIS and FEIS were made.

3.8.1 Unavoidable Adverse Effects The Forest Plan and amendments do not produce unavoidable adverse effects because they do not directly implement any management activities that would result in such effects. The amended Forest Plan would, however, establish management emphasis and direction for implementing activities that might occur on NFS lands in the planning period. If and when those activities occur, applying Forest-wide, MPC, and Management Area standards and guidelines (as described in Appendix 1 of this FEIS) would limit the extent and duration of any resulting environmental effects. However, some unavoidable effects will occur. These potential effects are described by resource area earlier in this chapter.

3.8.2 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity Short-term uses are those expected to occur for the remainder of the planning period (approximately 10 years), including commercial timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and prescribed burning. Although these uses are not directly implemented by the Forest Plan, the potential for these uses is described in Forest Plan goals and objectives at the Forest-wide and Management Area levels (Appendix 2).

Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land to provide resource outputs for a period of time beyond the planning period. Minimum management requirements, established by Federal regulation (36 CFR 219.27), provide for maintaining long-term productivity of the land. Minimum management requirements are contained in Forest-wide and Management Area standards and guidelines and would be met under any alternative. The requirements ensure that the long-term productivity of the land is not impaired by short-term uses.

Monitoring and evaluation, as described in Appendix 2 of this FEIS and Chapter IV of the revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2003a), apply to all alternatives. Primarily, monitoring ensures that long-term productivity of the land is maintained or improved. If monitoring and evaluation indicate that Forest Plan standards and guidelines are inadequate to protect long-term productivity of the land, then the Forest Plan will be readjusted (through further amendment or revision) to provide for more protection or fewer impacts.

Although all alternatives are designed to maintain long-term productivity, differences exist in the long-term availability or condition of resources among the alternatives. Differences between alternatives in the long-term expenditures necessary to maintain or achieve desired conditions may also exist. Differences between alternatives are discussed throughout the various sections of this chapter.

3.8.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are defined in the Environmental Policy and Procedures, Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (USDA Forest Service 2008b).


402

Irreversible commitments of resources mean the consumption or destruction of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or the degradation of resources, such as soil productivity, which can be renewed only over long periods of time. Irreversible commitments represent the loss of future options.

Irretrievable commitments of resources result in foregone opportunities; they represent tradeoffs in the use and management of Forest resources. Irretrievable commitments of resources include expenditure of funds, loss of production, or restrictions on resource use. For example, some or all wildlife habitat in a specific area may be irretrievably lost while an area serves as a concentrated winter sports site. The habitat function that is lost is irretrievable for that period of time, but the action is not irreversible. If the use changes, the area may once again provide wildlife habitat.

The decisions made in Forest Plan amendments do not represent actual irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources; Forest Plan amendments identify what kinds and levels of activities are appropriate in different parts of the Forest but do not dictate project decisions (see Chapter 1, Decisions Made in a Forest Plan). The decision to irreversibly or irretrievably commit resources can occur on three different occasions: (1) when the Forest Service makes a project decision, such as approving a new trail or timber sale; (2) when Congress acts on a recommendation to establish a new Wilderness area or include a stream segment in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; or (3) when the Regional Forester designates a Research Natural Area.

3.8.4 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential Energy is consumed in the administration of natural resources from the National Forests. The main activities that consume energy are timber harvest; restoration activities, including mechanical vegetation treatments and prescribed and wildland fire use; recreation use; road construction and reconstruction; range use; and administrative activities of the Forest Service and other regulatory agencies. Energy consumption is expected to vary only slightly by alternative. Alternatives with higher restoration potential are expected to use higher levels of energy; alternatives with lower restoration potential are expected to use slightly lower levels of energy.

Several opportunities exist under all alternatives to provide for energy conservation or conversion from less plentiful to more plentiful fuels. For example, carpooling and combining trips saves fuel and wear and tear on the Forest Service fleet of vehicles. Using teleconferencing and other electronic communication options, rather than scheduling meetings at one location, saves energy spent on travel. Improving energy efficiency of government buildings conserves energy. More energy-efficient equipment for all activities—like vegetation management, road construction and reconstruction, or road maintenance—can be required. More energy-efficient management methods can be explored and implemented as well.

3.8.5 Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland No prime farmland, rangeland, or forestland has been identified in the planning area. Forest Plan amendments would not directly affect such lands because they do not directly implement any management activities that would result in such effects. Regardless of the alternative selected for implementation, NFS lands would be managed with sensitivity to the values of any adjacent private or public lands.


403

3.8.6 Effects on the Human Environment Effects of the proposed Forest Plan amendment on the human environment are documented throughout Chapter 3 of this FEIS. Further documentation can be found in the project record. 3.8.6.1 Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

The alternatives do not differ in their effects on minorities, Native American Indians, or women or in their effects to the civil liberties of any American citizen. The USDA prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. 3.8.6.2 Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation

Executive Order 13443 (72 FR 46537, 2007) directs appropriate Federal agencies to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. All alternatives are designed to restore vegetation diversity to support wildlife habitat and other resource needs.

3.8.7 Threatened and Endangered Species Potential effects to species listed under the ESA can be found in Chapter 3 of this FEIS. A biological assessment documenting effects to listed species will be completed for the alternative selected as the amended Forest Plan. Management direction to protect these species or to provide for their habitats can be found in Forest-wide and Management Area direction (Appendix 2).

3.8.8 Wetlands and Floodplains Numerous wetlands and floodplains occur throughout the planning area. Forest Plans and their amendments do not directly implement any management activities that would result in the loss of wetlands or floodplains. Forest-wide management direction embodied in the 2003 Forest Plan identifies the need to restore degraded wetlands and floodplains and provides a broad spectrum of standards and guidelines designed to protect soil, water, riparian and aquatic resources. The goals and intent of Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) would be met through compliance with this existing direction.

3.8.9 Conflicts with Other Agency or Government Goals or Objectives Contact, review, and public involvement with other Federal and state agencies indicate no major conflicts between this Forest Plan amendment effort and the goals and objectives of other governmental entities. As described earlier in this FEIS, the proposed amendment has been designed to complement and supplement the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Idaho CWCS (IDFG 2005). 3.8.9.1 Consultation with Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249-67252, 2000) requires regular and meaningful consultation between Federal and tribal government officials on Federal policies that have tribal implications.


404

As described in this FEIS, regular consultation with potentially affected tribes has occurred throughout the planning process. The tribal notification and subsequent consultation processes did not identify any adverse effects to tribal interests or rights associated with this project.

3.8.10 Best Available Science The conclusions summarized in this FEIS are based on a review of the project’s record, which considers relevant scientific information and responsible opposing views where raised by internal or external sources, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and/or risk, where pertinent to the decision being made.

3.7 socio economic environmenta123.g.akamai.net/.../11558/www/nepa/47872_fsplt2_022964.pdf3.7.3...

Documents