6/3/2015

Resource Management Plans for western Oregon Handouts for Socioeconomics Workshops June 2015

Thursday, May 14, 2015

About the Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon Introduction: The Resource Management Planning revisions (RMP) in western Oregon will provide direction for the management of approximately 2.5 million acres of BLM-administered lands, for the purposes of producing a sustained yield of timber, contributing to the recovery of threatened and endangered species, providing clean water, restoring fire adapted ecosystems, providing for recreation opportunities, and coordinating the management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe. These lands play an important role to the social, economic, and ecological well-being of western Oregon, as well as to the greater American public. The planning area consists of the Coos Bay District, Eugene District, Medford District, Roseburg District, Salem District, and the Klamath Falls Field Office of the Lakeview District. This planning effort has included a broad spectrum of stakeholders interested in developing a positive, long-term vision for the management of BLM-administered lands in western Oregon. Products from this collaborative effort may also be used to inform this BLM planning process. In 2011, the BLM completed a Resource Management Plan Evaluation and found a need for changes to the timber and wildlife programs and minor changes to most other programs. For example:

• There is new information and changed circumstances relevant to management objectives and direction for northern spotted owls and land use allocations. The new Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl was completed in 2011 and includes recovery actions not addressed in the 1995 Resource Management Plans.

• There are new listings, recovery plans (or draft recovery plans), and designations of critical habitat for other fish, plant, and terrestrial species.

• There has been a substantial long-term departure from the timber management outcomes predicted under the 1995 Resource Management Plans.

The 1995 Resource Management Plans have become less and less useful as a guide for management actions due to many new BLM policies, laws, and other new information for most programs including invasive species management, biomass, energy and minerals, recreation, and off-highway vehicle management. This planning effort seeks to address the shortcomings found in the evaluation. Key Points:

• The 2.5 million acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in western Oregon lands play an important role in the region’s social, ecological, and economic well-being. As stewards of these lands, the BLM has a responsibility to ensure that our

1

management is effectively meeting our legal mandates and the needs of the communities in western Oregon.

• Protecting endangered species by providing large blocks of older forest habitat, providing clean water, and enhancing fire resiliency across the landscape are necessary for the BLM to be able to deliver a predictable and sustainable supply of timber. The BLM is committed to these environmental protections, as well as providing predictability and sustainability to communities in western Oregon.

• This Draft Resource Management Plan explains why we are proposing a plan revision,

presents a full spectrum of different management alternatives, and analyzes the environmental effects of the alternatives. Based on this analysis and comments that the BLM receives on the Draft plan, the agency will prepare a Proposed Resource Management Plan with the assistance of cooperating agencies.

• Following publication, members of the public will have 90 days to provide written comments.

The BLM encourages all interested members of the public to submit comments and participate in the upcoming open houses and workshops.

• The Purposes of the plan revision are to:

o Provide a sustained yield of timber; o Contribute to the conservation and recovery of threatened and endangered species,

including: maintaining a network of large blocks of forest to be managed for late-successional forests, and maintaining older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests;

o Provide clean water in watersheds; o Restore fire-adapted ecosystems; o Provide recreation opportunities; and o Coordinate management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille

Tribe.

• There are five alternatives (and two sub-alternatives) that contain varying strategies for forest reserves, timber harvest, riparian management, and recreation. The alternatives span the full spectrum of management approaches to meet the purpose and need.

• BLM conducted early engagement in Endangered Species Act consultation and is closely

coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The Resource Management Plans (RMP) for Western Oregon will determine how the BLM-administered lands in western Oregon will be managed to further the recovery of threatened and endangered species, to provide for clean water, to restore fire-adapted ecosystems, to produce a sustained yield of timber products, to coordinate management of lands surrounding the Coquille Forest with the Coquille Tribe, and to provide for recreation opportunities.

For more information, please visit the BLM’s Resource Management Plans of western Oregon website at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/rmpswesternoregon/index.php.

2

Plan Alternatives

3

Summary

xxiv | P a g e

The No Action alternative in this Draft RMP/EIS is implementation of the 1995 RMPs as written (in contrast to the BLM’s current implementation practices under the 1995 RMPs). Implementation of the timber management program has departed substantially from the outcomes predicted in the 1995 RMPs, and continuing to harvest timber at the declared annual productive capacity level for multiple decades into the future would not be possible using the current practices. All action alternatives include the following land use allocations: Congressionally Reserved, District-Designated Reserves, Late-Successional Reserve, Riparian Reserve, Harvest Land Base, and Eastside Management Area (Figure 1). The location and acreage of these allocations, with the exception of Congressionally Reserved, vary by alternative. Within each action alternative, the Harvest Land Base, Late-Successional Reserve, and Riparian Reserve have specific, mapped sub-allocations with differing management direction. Alternative A has a Late-Successional Reserve larger than the No Action alternative. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity Timber Area. The High Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with no retention (clear cuts). Alternative B has a Late-Successional Reserve similar in size to Alternative A, though of a different spatial design. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Low Intensity Timber Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The portion of the Harvest Land Base in Uneven-Aged Timber Area is the largest of all action alternatives. The Low Intensity Timber Area and Moderate Intensity Timber Area include regeneration harvest with varying levels of retention. Sub-alternative B is identical to Alternative B, except that it includes protection of habitat within the home ranges of all northern spotted owl known and historic sites. Alternative C has the largest Harvest Land Base of any of the alternatives. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area and the High Intensity Timber Area. The High Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with no retention (clear cuts). Alternative C has the smallest acreage in the Riparian Reserve of all of the alternatives. Sub-alternative C is identical to Alternative C, except that the Late-Successional Reserve includes all stands 80 years old and older. Alternative D has the smallest Late-Successional Reserve of any of the alternatives. The Harvest Land Base is comprised of the Uneven-Aged Timber Area, Owl Habitat Timber Area, and Moderate Intensity Timber Area. The Owl Habitat Timber Area includes timber harvest applied in a manner that would maintain northern spotted owl habitat. The Moderate Intensity Timber Area includes regeneration harvest with retention. Alternative D has the largest acreage in the Riparian Reserve of all of the action alternatives.

4

5

6

Socioeconomics Framework

7

8

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

476 | P a g e

Table 3-144. Planning area population, 1990 to 2012.

Geography Population Population Change, 1990-2012

Population Change, 2000-2012

1990 2000 2010 2012 Number % Number %Oregon 2,842,321 3,421,399 3,831,074 3,836,628 994,307 35% 415,229 12%Planning Area 2,535,122 3,033,622 3,387,980 3,393,160 858,038 34% 359,538 12%

Benton County 70,811 78,153 85,579 85,501 14,690 21% 7,348 9%Clackamas County 278,850 338,391 375,992 377,206 98,356 35% 38,815 11%Clatsop County 33,301 35,630 37,039 37,068 3,767 11% 1,438 4%Columbia County 37,557 43,560 49,351 49,317 11,760 31% 5,757 13%Coos County 60,273 62,779 63,043 62,937 2,664 4% 158 0.3%Curry County 19,327 21,137 22,364 22,344 3,017 16% 1,207 6%Douglas County 94,649 100,399 107,667 107,391 12,742 13% 6,992 7%Jackson County 146,389 181,269 203,206 203,613 57,224 39% 22,344 12%Josephine County 62,649 75,726 82,713 82,636 19,987 32% 6,910 9%Klamath County 57,702 63,775 66,380 66,350 8,648 15% 2,575 4%Lane County 282,912 322,959 351,715 351,794 68,882 24% 28,835 9%Lincoln County 38,889 44,479 46,034 45,992 7,103 18% 1,513 3%Linn County 91,227 103,069 116,672 116,871 25,644 28% 13,802 13%Marion County 228,483 284,834 315,335 315,391 86,908 38% 30,557 11%Multnomah County 583,887 660,486 735,334 737,110 153,223 26% 76,624 12%Polk County 49,541 62,380 75,403 75,448 25,907 52% 13,068 21%Tillamook County 21,570 24,262 25,250 25,254 3,684 17% 992 4%Washington County 311,554 445,342 529,710 531,818 220,264 71% 86,476 19%Yamhill County 65,551 84,992 99,193 99,119 33,568 51% 14,127 17%

Lands of Federally-Recognized Tribes Within the Planning AreaConfederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon (Coos County)

4 25 47 24 20 500% -1 -4%

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Community of Oregon (Yamhill County)

57 55 434 473 416 730% 418 760%

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 3,076 3,314 4,012 3,960 884 29% 646 19%

Coquille Tribe of Oregon (Coos County) See note 258 323 297 See note 39 15%

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Reservation (Lincoln and Polk Counties)

5 308 506 476 471 9420% 168 55%

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Indians of Oregon (Douglas County) 58 22 104 21 -37 -64% -1 -5%

Klamath Tribes, Oregon (Klamath County) See note 29 26 17 See note -12 -41%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; 1990 Census of Population and Housing Public Law 94-171 Data Age by Race and Hispanic Origin, (Official), http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/pl94/pl94data.pl (accessed 9-17-2014). U.S. Census Bureau; 2000 Census of Population and Housing Summary File 1. U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2010 Census Restricting Data, Table DP05; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (July 2014). U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables DP03, DP04, DP05, S1901 and S1701; American FactFinder; http://factfinder2.census.gov ; (July 2014). Notes:In 1990, the Coquille Tribe and the Klamath Tribes did not have a legally established land base. The 1990 Census gives data for a Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) that is a much larger area than the 2012 Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Lands with approximately 5,500 American Indian and Alaska Native persons in the Coquille TDSA and approximately 1,850 in the Klamath TDSA. The County totals include the populations of lands of federally-recognized tribes, but the table shows them separately for clarification.

The lands of seven Federally-recognized Indian Tribes range in size from a few dozen acres (i.e., the reservation and off-reservation lands for the Coos/Lower Umpqua/Siuslaw Tribes) to more than 18,000 acres (the Warm Springs reservation is nearly 650,000 acres; of which approximately 18,000 acres are within the planning area).

9

Issue1Howwouldthealternativesaffectthesupply,demand,andvalueofgoodsandservicesderivedfromBLM‐administeredlands?

Theeconomicvaluationmethodsaretailoredtothewaypeopleexperiencethebenefit.

WhilenotallbenefitsprovidedbyBLM‐administeredlandswesternOregoncanbevaluedinmonetaryterms,doingsowhenpossiblecanhelpunderstandthescaleofimportance.Justbecausearesourcecannotbemonetizeddoesnotreflecttheunderlyingmagnitudeofvalue.

10

Revenueandcostsfortimberharvestsvarybyalternativeandovertime.

OverallpatternsfornetpresentvalueofharvestsaregenerallygreatestunderAlternativeCbutdovarybyBLMoffice.

11

OutdoorrecreationdemandinwesternOregonisgenerallydrivenbypopulationlevelsandproximities.

12

Outdoorrecreationdemandisgrowing.

TotalareaofRecreationManagementAreasvariesdramaticallybyAlternative.

13

RecreationManagementAreadevelopmentopportunitiesvarysubstantiallybyoffice,withsouthernofficesholdingthemostopportunities.

NetvaluetorecreationistsprovidedbyBLM‐administeredlandsinwesternOregonishigh.

14

IncreasesinstoredcarbonacrossalternativesareveryvaluablewhenevaluatedunderthefederalInteragencyWorkingGroup’sguidelines.

15

16

Issue 2 How would the alternatives affect economic activity in the planning area derived from BLM-administered lands? The BLM contributes economically to all parts of the planning area, triggered by the production and use of commodities such as timber and other forest products, personal and commercial use of BLM-administered lands, expenditures for personnel, materials, and services, and Federal payments to State and local governments. These contributions trigger effects that find their way into virtually every industry of the local economy.

Two sets of economic models: Economic Areas and individual counties

Economic Areas Counties Coos Bay Coos, Curry Eugene Lane Klamath Falls Klamath Medford Jackson, Josephine Roseburg Douglas Salem-Other Benton, Clatsop, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook Salem-Portland MSA Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, Yamhill Source: DEIS page 527

Note: Much detailed information is in Appendix O.

Data show effects for the year 2018; mid-point of the first decade in the Woodstock timber management model.

To facilitate a comparison between current conditions and 2018 on an equal basis, for the effects analysis the BLM modified the effects of the actual payments to counties in 2012 (as shown in the affected environment section) to reflect the effects of the payments as they would have been under the O&C Act (DEIS page 528)

Cumulative effects of alternatives in relation to the broader economic context in western Oregon. Forecasts by the Oregon Employment Department account for reasonably foreseeable levels of economic growth and enable an analysis that considers the cumulative effects of the draft alternatives in the context of the broader western Oregon economy (DEIS page 553).

17

18

19

til ~ ~

'"1::1 P>

(JQ

('1)

1 at>le .5- 1 1~ • .t'orest products mdustry em ployment by detaUed sector by dtstnct model area, LUlL Uobs).

Detailed Sector North American Industry Classification System Coos (NAICS) Bay

E ugene

Description Code Coos,

Lane Curry

Forestry and Logging 113 965 1,000 Support Activities for

115 625 683 Agriculture and Forestry

Wood Products Manufacturing 321 1,112 3,251 Sawmills and Wood

3211 432 1,120 Preservation Veneer, Plywood, Reconstituted, and Engineered 3212 583 1,510 Wood Products Other Wood Products 3219 97 621

Paper Manufacturing 322 - 403 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard

3221 - 383 Mills Converted Paper Products

3222 Manufacturing - 20

Totals 2,702 5,337 Sources: Oregon Forest Resources Institute 2012. MIG, Inc. 2013 (NAICS 115 only). D = Disclosure restricted because of confidentiality.

District Model Area Name and Counties

K lamath Falls

Medford Roseburg Salem-Other

Benton, Clatsop,

Klamath Jackson,

Douglas Lincoln, Linn, Josephine

Marion, Polk, Tillam ook

361 632 1,021 2,283

255 1,548 334 6,180

1,363 1,863 2,578 2,502

D 100 863 1,105

D 903 1,127 290

D 860 588 1,107

- 25 - 2,385

- - - 1,843

- 25 - 542

1,979 4,068 3,933 5,337

Salem-Portland

MSA Clackamas, Columbia,

Multnomah, Washington,

Yamhill 1,917

4,481

2,869

1,007

54

1,808

1,720

845

875

10,987

Table does not include tmck.ing of logs and llmtber because it is I) not identifiable by NAICS and 2) less than 14 percent of the entire trucking industry (OFRI 2012; IMPLAN 2013).

Planning Area

Totals

8,292

14,106

15,538

D

D

D

4,533

3,071

1,462

42,469

(') ::T D)

'0 -(\) '"'I

w I ~ m QO m (') I en 0 n 0 (\) n 0 :J 0 3 n f/l

20

Ul ~ ~

'"0 Po>

UCi ('P

- -~ --- -. - · - ~- - ~ - -------- ---- --- -- ------- --

Detailed Sector North American Industry Classification System Coos (NAICS) Bay

Coos, Description Code

Curry

Forestry and Logging 113 $64.9 Support Activities for

115 $11.0 Agriculture and Forestry

Wood Products Manufacturing 321 $76.1 Sawmills and Wood

3211 $27.3 Preservation Veneer, Plywood, Reconstituted, and Engineered 3212 $44.6 Wood Products Other Wood Products 3219 $4.2

Paper Manufacturing 322 -Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard

3221 -Mills Converted Paper Products

3222 -Manufacturing

Totals $152 - -- -

C') :::r I»

"C * -(t) ""' w I#-

--------- --- -- - - ---- - -- ------ - ------, - - - - ,----- -~- -- - - - - - J· I District Model Area Name and Counties )>

K lamath Salem-

E ugene Falls

Medford Roseburg Salem-Other Portland MSA Planning

Benton, Clackamas, Area

J ackson, Clatsop, Columbia, Totals

Lane Klamath Josephine

Douglas Lincoln, Lin n, Multnomah, Marion, Polk, Washington,

Tillamook Yamhill

m QO m C')

I (/) 0 ~ 0 (t) 0 0 ::I

$79.8 $33.0 $52.5 $54.2 $2 12.4 $157.6 $654.4 0 3

$18.5 $9.7 $48.0 $10.1 $162.1 $132.6 $392.0 0 t/1

$221 .5 $108.2 $108.2 $169.9 $153.2 $154. 1 $991.1

$82.4 D $6.2 $61.9 $71.8 $52.9 D

$1 18.4 D $77.2 $97.1 $44.2 $18.7 D

$20.7 D $24.8 $10.9 $37.3 $82.5 D $48.5 - $2.2 - $239.4 $136.5 $426.7

$47.4 - - - $197.9 $74.3 $3 19.6

$1.2 - $2.2 - $41.5 $62.2 $107.1

$368 $151 $211 $234 $767 $152 $2,464

21

Ul (.H 0\

'"0 Po>

(lQ

~

Table 3-177. Employment and earnings in timber- and recreation-related industries as a share of total employment and earnings by district model area, 2012.

District Model Area Name and Counties Klamath

Salem-Other Salem-

Coos Bay Eugene Fa Us

Medford Roseburg Portland MSA Planning

Benton, Clackamas, Area Resource-Related Industry Clatsop, Columbia, Totals Coos,

Lane Klamath Jackson,

Douglas Lincoln , Linn, M ultnomah, Curry Josephine

Marion, Polk, Washington, Tillamook Yamhill

.... T irnber-Related1

6.7% 2.9% 6.2% 2.8% 8.5% 3.7% 1.0% 2.2% = (Forest Products) ~ s Recreation-Related3 >. 0 (Arts, entertainment, and

7.9% 9.9% 9.3% 9.6% - 11.0% 9.4% 10.0% 11.1% Q,

e recreation; Accommodations ~ and Food Services)

Timber-Relate<¥ 10.1% 4.8% 12.6% 3.8% 13.1% 5.1% 0.9% 2.5% , (Forest Products) biJ

= Recreation-RelatecP ·-= (Arts, entertainment, and 4.0% 4.2% "" 5.5% 4.4% 4.5% 5.3% 4.0% 4.5% ~

~ recreation; Accommodations and Food Services)

1 Percentages calculated by dividing total employment in Table 3-175 for each geographic area by total employment in Table 3-174 for the same geograph1c area. 2 Percentages calculated by dividing total earnings in Table 3-175 for each geographic area by total eamings in Table 3-174 for the same geographic area. 3 Percentages calculated by dividing recreation-related industry total for each geographic area (selected geographic areas in text, others in project record) by comparable total in Table 3-174 for the same geographic area.

(") ::r Q)

"0 "'" -(t) ""' w I )> m QO m (")

I CJ) 0 (')

0 (t) (')

0 :::1 0 3 (') t/1

22

T bl 3 178 E d a e - mployment an .b . earnrngs contn ut10n o f BLM programs to d. d I tstnct mo e areas, 2012

District Model Area Name and Counties

Coos E ugene

Klamath Medford Roseburg Salem-Other

Salem-Bay Falls Portland MSA

Benton, Clackamas, P rogram Coos, Jackson,

Clatsop, Columbia,

C urry Lane Klamath

Josephine Douglas Lincoln, L inn, M uJtnomab,

Marion, Polk, Washington, Tillamook Yamhill

Recreation 276 527 60 425 507 133 854 - Grazing 55 40 "' - - - - -,.Q Q

Timber 710 480 40 340 488 432 407 ~ ..... Minerals 3 1 2 1: - - - -

~

~ Agency Expenditures 192 259 71 454 176 271 -Q

Payments to States/Counties 70 93 19 236 189 55 36 Q. s

Totals 1,249 1,363 245 1,496 1,362 891 1,297 w Share of Total Employment in Area1 3.1% 0.7% 0.8% 1.0% 2.9% 0.2% 0. 1%

._ Recreation $7.0 $16.2 $1.6 $12.2 $13.6 $3.8 $32.8 Q

Grazing $0.8 $0.6 "' - - - - -=-Q "' Timber $33.3 $23.2 $1.9 $15.8 $23.5 $21.3 $22.8 ·- ""' = ~ ~ =§ Minerals - $0.2 - <$0.1 $0.1 - ---~ Agency Expenditures $13.1 $15.2 $4.2 $27.2 $12.0 $17.4 -"' N gr ....

Payments to States/Counties $3.4 $5.9 $0.9 $10.2 $9.6 $3.3 $2.2 ··- <:> C N

"" Totals $56.8 $45.9 $60.7 $58.9 $9.4 $66.0 $57.8 ~ w Share of Total Earnings in Area2 3.8% 0.3% 0.8% 3.3% 0.8% 1.2% 0.1%

Note: 1 otals may not add due to roundmg. 1 Percentages calculated by dividing total employment in this table for each geographic area by total employment in Table 3-174 for the same geographic area. 2 Percentages calculated by dividing total earnings in this table for each geographic area by total earnings in Table 3-174 for the same geographic area.

(") ::r Q)

"0 -(t) ""' w ~ I )> m QO

Planning Area

Totals

m (")

I CJ) 0 (')

0 (t)

2782 (')

0

95 :::1 0

2,897 3 (')

6 t/1

1423

699

7,904

0.4%

$87.2

$1.4

$141.7

$0.3

$89.1

$35.5

$355.3

0.4%

23

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

542 | P a g e

Table 3-182. Employment and earnings in O&C counties generated by BLM-based Federal payments, 2012 (jobs, millions of 2012$).

County

Secure Rural Schools Program1

Title I and III Title II TotalCounty Government Private Sector Private Sector County-wideJobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings Jobs Earnings

Benton 6 $0.5 3 $0.1 1 $0.1 10 $0.6Clackamas 8 $0.7 5 $0.2 3 $0.1 15 $0.9Columbia 6 $0.5 2 $0.1 2 <$0.1 10 $0.6Coos 31 $1.6 9 $0.3 4 $0.1 44 $2.1Curry 15 $0.9 5 $0.1 3 $0.1 23 $1.1Douglas 133 $7.4 41 $1.4 12 $0.7 185 $9.4Jackson 86 $3.1 30 $1.1 26 $0.8 141 $4.9Josephine 56 $4.0 24 $0.8 11 $0.4 91 $5.2Klamath 11 $0.6 5 $0.2 2 $0.1 17 $0.8Lane 50 $4.4 29 $1.0 14 $0.4 92 $5.8Lincoln 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 - <$0.1 2 $0.1Linn 11 $0.9 4 $0.1 2 $0.1 17 $1.1Marion 4 $0.3 2 $0.1 1 <$0.1 8 $0.5Multnomah 2 $0.1 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 4 $0.2Polk 7 $0.5 2 $0.1 2 $0.1 12 $0.7Tillamook 2 $0.2 1 <$0.1 1 <$0.1 4 $0.2Washington 1 $0.1 1 <$0.1 1 <$0.1 2 $0.1Yamhill 3 $0.2 1 <$0.1 - <$0.1 4 $0.2

Totals 434 $26.1 163 $5.6 85 $3.0 682 $34.81 Based upon Secure Rural Schools program payments received and spent by local governments in calendar year 2012. Note: Clatsop County is not included on the table. Included within the larger economic analysis area, Clatsop County has a small amount of BLM-administered lands, but does not have O&C or CBWR lands. Consequently, BLM-based Federal payments to Clatsop County are very small and generate a positive, but very minor effect on the county economy.

24

til

"" -l

'"1::1 P>

(JQ

(1)

Table 3-184. E d . h b Employment (Jobs) E arnings (Millions of 2012 Constane $)

Program/Industry 2012 2018 2012 2018 Cur rent- No Current- No Modified Action

AJt. A AJt.B AJt.C AJt. D Modified Action

AJt.A AJt.B AJt.C AJt. D

BLMProgram Recreation 2,782 2,969 2,969 2,969 2,969 2,969 $87.2 $93.0 $93.0 $93.0 $93.0 $93.0

Grazing 95 95 95 95 95 - $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 $1.4 -Timber 2,897 4,868 3,158 4,086 6,358 2,454 $141.7 $235.1 $154.8 $199.3 $309.7 $121.0

Minerals 6 6 6 6 6 6 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3 $0.3

Agency Expenditures 1,423 1,855 1,458 1,679 2,259 1,283 $89.2 $115.5 $90.3 $104.2 $141.0 $79.2

Federal Payments to Counties2 198 505 305 395 732 203 $10.5 $26.7 $16.2 $20.9 $38.8 $10.7

Totals 7,403 10,298 7,992 9,230 12,419 6,915 $330.1 $471.8 $355.9 $419.0 $584.1 $304.2

T imber-Related Industries Forestry, Logging, and

795 1,165 783 995 1,559 609 $46.2 $67.8 $45.6 $57.9 $90.7 $35.4 Support Activities Wood Products

518 985 560 755 1,226 418 $28.7 $54.6 $31.0 $41.8 $67.9 $23.1 Manufacturing Paper Manufacturing 41 70 66 77 120 56 $3.8 $6.4 $6.0 $7.1 $11.0 $5.2

Totals 1,354 2,221 1,409 1,827 2,905 1,083 $78.7 $128.9 $82.6 $106.8 $169.6 $63.7

Recreation-Related Industr ies Arts, Entertainment, and

495 61 1 537 579 676 506 $13.9 $18.9 $15.4 $17.5 $22.1 $14.0 Recreation Services Accommodation and Food

1,150 1,263 1,229 1,247 1,299 1,212 $25.9 $28.3 $27.7 $28.0 $29.0 $27.4 Services

Totals 1,645 1,874 1,766 1,826 1,975 1,718 $39.9 $47.2 $43.1 $45.5 $51.1 $41.4 Eamings in 2018 are expressed in 2012$ with unchanging or constant purchasmg powe1.

2 Federal payments include only those that would be paid under the O&C formula. Current has been modified as ifO&C payments had been made in lieu ofSRS payments. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

(') ::T D)

'0 -(\) '"'I

w I ~ m QO m (') I en 0 n 0 (\) n 0 :J 0 3 n f/l

25

T bl 3 185 BLM b d a e - - ase emp oyment an d b d. . d I b eammgs >Y IStnct mo e area >Y a temative. Employment (Jobs) Earnings {Millions of 2012 Constant 1 $)

District Model Area 2012 2018 2012 Current- No

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. c Alt.D Current-

Modified2 Action Modified2

Coos Bay 1,198 1,232 906 931 1,600 625 $54.4

Eugene 1,297 2,237 1,835 2,202 3,352 1,541 $56.6

Klamath Falls 231 289 219 270 299 190 $8.7

Medford 1,326 2,675 1,688 2,110 2,318 1,461 $58.6

Roseburg 1,225 1,709 1,081 1,292 1,933 977 $51.8

Salem-Other 851 881 925 1,041 1,362 829 $43.5

Salem-Portland MSA 1,275 1,276 1,337 1,384 1,555 1,292 $56.5

Planning Area Totals 7,403 10,298 7,992 9,230 12,419 6,915 $330.1 I Eammgs 111 20 18 are expressed m 2012$ w1th unchangmg or constant purchasmg power. 2 Current has been modified as if O&C payments had been made in lieu of SRS payments. PIL T payments are excluded. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

2018 No

Alt. A Alt.B Alt.C Action

$55.6 $39.1 $40.5 $74.4

$104.0 $83.3 $101.8 $160.6

$11.4 $8.0 $10.5 $1 1.9

$123. 1 $75.5 $95.8 $105.5

$76.1 $43.4 $54.6 $87.8 $45.8 $47.5 $54.1 $72.2

$55.8 $59.1 $61.8 $71.7

$471.8 $355.9 $419.0 $584.1

C') :::r I»

"C -(t) ""' w I#-I )> m QO m C')

I (/) 0 (")

0 (t) (")

0 ::I 0

Alt.D 3 (")

$24.8 t/1

$68.2 $8.5

$66.0

$38.0

$42.1

$56.6

$304.2

26

C') :::r I»

"C -(t) ""' w I#-I )> m QO m C')

I (/) 0

a e - urrent an T bl 3 187 C d pro]ecte d (")

employment >Y 1stnct mo e area )y a tematiVe average annua b d . . d 1 b ( o s, percent . I . b ) 0 Area Total Employment BLM-based Total Employment BLM-based Share of Area Total (t)

(")

(Avera~?;e Annual Jobs) (Avera~?;e Annual Jobs) Employment (Percent) 0 ::I

District Model Area 2012 2018 2018 2018

Current Projected1 No Alt. A Alt. B Alt. c Alt. D No Alt. A Alt. B Alt.C Alt. D

Action Incremental Chanf!e{rom No Action Action

0 3 (") t/1

Coos Bay 40,276 33,235 1,232 -326 -301 368 -607 3.7% 2.8% 2.8% 4.8% 1.9%

Eugene 186,049 203,072 2,237 -402 -35 1 '115 -696 1.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.6% 0.8%

Klamath Falls 31,881 33,997 289 -70 -19 10 -99 0.9% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 0.6%

Medford 145,525 156,964 2,675 -987 -565 -357 -1,214 1.7% l.l% 1.3% 1.5% 0.9%

Roseburg 46,527 50,422 1,709 -628 -417 224 -732 3.4% 2.2% 2.6% 3.8% 2.0%

Salem-Other 359,408 388,098 881 44 160 481 -52 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2%

Salem-Portland MSA 1,147,490 1,258,230 1,276 61 108 279 16 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Planning Area Totals 1,957,157 2,124,018 10,298 -2,306 -1,068 2,121 -3,383 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.3% I " BLM esttmates based on total employment ptOJectlons by Oregon Employment Depattment (Knunenauer and I umer20 14). Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

27

Issue3.WhatwouldbetheeffectofalternativesonpaymentsdistributedtocountiesfromactivitiesonBLM‐administeredlands?

FederalpaymentstowesternOregoncountiesaregenerallydecliningundertheSecureRuralSchoolsprogram.

Insomecounties,SRSpaymentsarealargeshareoftotalcountybudget.

28

TheCongressionalmanagementofcountypaymentsisinflux,anddifficulttopredict.IftheSRSprogramdiscontinues,andpaymentsrevertedtocalculationsbasedontimberrevenue,AlternativeCwouldgeneratethemostcountypayments.

29

Issue 4. How would the alternatives contribute to economic stability in the planning area? Analyzed growth rates for resource-related industries nationally (not locally) to understand their inherent volatility Table 3-193. Example calculation. 1.33 divided by 1.82 equals 0.73. (i.e., Coos Bay had a lower growth rate compared to the U.S. as a whole. Timber-related industries include Forest and Wood Products (logging and primary wood manufacturing) and Paper Manufacturing (pulp, paperboard, and related paper or container industries). Recreation-related industries include Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Services (excluding museums, zoos, historical sites, and nature parks) and Accommodations; and Eating & Drinking Places. Earnings growth that exceeds employment growth suggests increases in employee productivity over the long term.

30

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

567 | P a g e

Table 3-193. Growth and volatility of employment and earnings by geographic area and selected resource-related industries over six United States business cycles, 1969-2007.

Geographic Area or Resource-related Industry

Employment (Jobs) Earnings (2012$)

Growth Rate Growth Volatility Growth Rate Growth

Volatility Average Annual

(%)

Indexed to U.S.

Indexed to U.S.

Average Annual

(%)

Indexed to U.S.

Indexed to U.S.

Geographic Area United States 1.82% 1.00 1.00 2.97% 1.00 1.00

BLM District Model Area Coos Bay 1.33% 0.73 2.86 1.55% 0.52 3.72 Eugene 2.42% 1.33 1.61 3.01% 1.01 1.83 Klamath Falls 1.19% 0.66 2.80 1.82% 0.61 2.88 Medford 3.28% 1.80 1.07 3.95% 1.33 1.42 Roseburg 1.81% 1.00 2.16 2.16% 0.73 2.99 Salem-Other 2.43% 1.34 1.18 3.32% 1.12 1.37 Salem-Portland MSA 2.57% 1.41 1.15 3.71% 1.25 1.15

U.S. Industry Timber-Related

Forest and Wood Products Industries 0.42% 0.23 15.50 1.36% 0.46 6.15

Paper Manufacturing -0.91% -0.50 3.77 0.74% 0.25 5.14 Recreation-Related

Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Services 3.85% 2.12 0.85 5.41% 1.82 1.12

Accommodations 2.24% 1.23 1.59 3.50% 1.18 1.56 Eating and Drinking Places 3.64% 2.00 0.83 3.63% 1.22 0.96

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014. Employment includes all wage and salary workers. Earnings includes total payroll compensation for the same workers. Data were available and adjusted for inflation over six U.S. business cycles spanning 38 years. Table 3-193 shows that between 1969 and 2007 (six business cycles), United States employment grew at an average annual rate of 1.8 percent, while earnings grew at 2.97 percent (net of inflation). As a rule, earnings growth that exceeds employment growth suggests increases in employee productivity over the long term. Among BLM district model areas, Salem-Portland MSA, Salem-Other (non-MSA counties), and Eugene had similar growth rates for employment and earnings. All of these areas exceeded the national growth rate by up to 40 percent for employment and up to 25 percent for earnings. For example, Salem-Portland’s average annual employment growth rate was 2.6 percent, 41 percent higher than the average annual rate for the United States of 1.8 percent. However, these areas also exceeded national volatility of employment and earnings growth by 15 to 80 percent, which indicates instability. Growth rates in the southern half of the planning area mostly lagged behind the United States. Klamath Falls had the lowest growth rates of any model area (1.2 percent). In addition, Klamath Falls’ volatility of employment (2.80 percent) and earnings growth (2.88 percent) greatly exceeded those of United States economy. Coos Bay’s volatility was also very high.

31

Issue 5. How would the RMP alternatives affect the capacity and resiliency of different types of communities in the planning area?

A “community of place” is a distinct geographic area within which residents or Tribal members would generally associate themselves with a single location. For purposes of this analysis, this location is an incorporated city or Tribal land.

• Community Capacity: a community’s ability to face changes; respond to external and internal stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, and meet its needs

• Community Resiliency: a community’s ability to adapt to change over time

Figure 3-151 – Corrections to Figure 3-151, DEIS page 584

HighGrants Pass, Sublimity

MediumJunction City, Molalla, St. Helens,

LowCoquille, Florence, Gold Beach, Klamath Falls,

Lincoln City, Winston

Very LowDrain, Rogue River

Not AssignedConfederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated

Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Confederated

Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Coquille Indian Tribe, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians,

Klamath Tribes

32

Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1312 | P a g e

Census Places Random Selection for Community Capacity and Resiliency May 29, 2014 Table O-305. Stratified random sample of communities by population (selected cities highlighted). Coos Bay 47,218 Roseburg 661,130 Salem

Powers 689 Sutherlin 7,810 Hubbard 3,173 Port Orford 1,133 Roseburg 21,181 Mount Angel 3,286 Lakeside 1,699 Salem 661,130 Toledo 3,465 Gold Beach 2,253 Johnson City 566 Harrisburg 3,567 Myrtle Point 2,514 Manzanita 598 Aumsville 3,584 Bandon 3,066 Monroe 617 Lafayette 3,742 Coquille 3,866 Gaston 637 Wood Village 3,878 Brookings 6,336 Yachats 690 Philomath 4,584 North Bend 9,695 Maywood Park 752 Tillamook 4,935 Coos Bay 15,967 Garibaldi 779 Warrenton 4,989

Eugene 39,724 Scio 838 Sheridan 6,127 Coburg 1,035 Adair Village 840 Seaside 6,477 Lowell 1,045 Halsey 904 Scappoose 6,592 Dunes City 1,303 Aurora 918 Stayton 7,644 Oakridge 3,205 Falls City 947 Lincoln City 7,930 Veneta 4,561 Donald 979 Molalla 8,108 Creswell 5,031 Yamhill 1,024 Independence 8,590 Junction City 5,392 Lyons 1,161 Fairview 8,920 Florence 8,466 Tangent 1,164 Sweet Home 8,925 Cottage Grove 9,686 Siletz 1,212 Silverton 9,222

Lakeview 23,223 Bay City 1,286 Astoria 9,477 Chiloquin 734 Rockaway Beach 1,312 Monmouth 9,534 Malin 805 Millersburg 1,329 Sandy 9,570 Merrill 844 Durham 1,351 Newport 9,989 Klamath Falls 20,840 Depoe Bay 1,398 Damascus 10,539

Medford 101,776 Gearhart 1,462 Gladstone 11,497 Gold Hill 1,220 Amity 1,614 Cornelius 11,869 Cave Junction 1,883 Brownsville 1,668 St. Helens 12,883 Rogue River 2,131 Cannon Beach 1,690 Happy Valley 13,903 Jacksonville 2,785 Clatskanie 1,737 Dallas 14,583 Shady Cove 2,904 Banks 1,777 Lebanon 15,518 Phoenix 4,538 Turner 1,854 Canby 15,829 Talent 6,066 Mill 1,855 Troutdale 15,962 Eagle Point 8,469 Rainier 1,895 Sherwood 18,194 Central Point 17,169 Columbia City 1,946 Wilsonville 19,509 Ashland 20,078 North Plains 1,947 Milwaukie 20,291 Grants Pass 34,533 Carlton 2,007 Forest Grove 21,083

Roseburg 49,031 Willamina 2,025 Newberg 22,068 Glendale 874 Waldport 2,033 Woodburn 24,080 Oakland 927 Vernonia 2,151 West Linn 25,109 Yoncalla 1,047 Gervais 2,464 Tualatin 26,054 Drain 1,151 Dayton 2,534 Oregon City 31,859 Riddle 1,185 Sublimity 2,681 McMinnville 32,187 Canyonville 1,884 Estacada 2,695 Keizer 36,478 Myrtle Creek 3,439 Jefferson 3,098 Lake Oswego 36,619 Reedsport 4,154 King City 3,111 Winston 5,379 Dundee 3,162 Grand Total 922,102

33

34

Appendix O – Socioeconomics

1313 | P a g e

Community Capacity/Resiliency Baseline Table O-306. Community capacity/resiliency baseline inputs.

Data Set What Does This Tell Us? Community Base Data Availability County Sub County

Population 2010, 2012 Size, generally = more community capacity Y Y

Population change 2000 to 2010/2012

Growing pop, generally = more capacity Y Y

Employment/Unemployment, 2012

High employment/low unemployment, generally

= more capacity Y Y

Employment volatility (diversity) current at place empt by industry (possibly including change over time)

More employment, employment access = more capacity

More diversity in disconnected industries (not all in one sector)

= more resiliency

Y Y

Household income 2010 or most recent from American Community Survey (number of households) Median household income or share in plus 3 to 5 $ income brackets ($20-34, 35-50 etc.)

Higher incomes, generally = more capacity, more

resiliency. Y Y

Poverty rate Lower poverty = more capacity Y Y Education (% population with High School certificate; with a 4 year degree)

Higher = more capacity, more resiliency. Y Y

Community Health Population with health insurance (available from census)

Healthy Communities have more capacity, more resiliency Y Y

Community wealth: Assessable tax base? (needs to be expressed in relative terms (e.g., per capita))

More wealth = more capacity, more resiliency Y If available

Recreation indicator? Recreation demand/scarcity? (per Rec. Planning Criteria)

Lower scarcity = more capacity

Y - Specifics to be determined If available

Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics Table O-307. Selected socioeconomic characteristics for selected cities in western Oregon. Characteristic Oregon Coquille Drain Florence

# % # % # % # % Population Total Population, 2012 3,836,628 3,874 1,142 8,412 Population, 2000 3,421,399 4,184 1,012 7,263 Population Change 2000-2012 415,229 12% -310 -8% 130 13% 1,149 16%

35

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

575 | P a g e

The BLM contacted each of the selected communities’ governments by phone and letter inviting their participation. Appendix O contains copies of the letters. Of the 13 cities, 11 participated in an interview, 1 provided written responses to questions, and 1 declined to participate. Of the seven Tribes, two participated in an interview. The interviews typically lasted 60 to 90 minutes. Each community government could decide who it wanted to participate. City representatives included city managers/administrators, mayors, county commissioners, and members of advisory boards. Tribal representatives included Tribal chairpersons, executive directors, and other staff. The interview conversations ranged widely but focused on the following questions:

How do you view your community’s “capacity,” that is your community’s ability to face changes, respond to external and internal stresses, create and take advantage of opportunities, and meet its needs?

How do you view your community’s “resiliency,” that is your community’s ability to adapt to change over time?

How do the ways the BLM manages its resources affect your community (its capacity and resiliency)?

Have changes in the BLM’s resource management over time affected your community? In what ways?

Are there changes in the ways that the BLM manages its resources that would increase your community’s capacity and resiliency?

Note that the while many of the interviewees were community leaders, they spoke as individuals from the communities and not as official representatives of the communities. Thus, while the BLM takes their views as representative of the communities, it recognizes that the communities did not formally endorse the opinions expressed and that diversity of opinion in each community is likely.

Final Adjusted Capacity and Resiliency Categories The interviews provided valuable insights into the communities. Following each interview, the BLM summarized the interview and sent it to the interview participants for comment. Appendix O contains all 14 interviews/written responses. Based on what the interviews revealed about the communities and including insights that supplemented or put into perspective the baseline data, the BLM adjusted some of the communities’ final assigned capacity and resiliency categories. This last step was qualitative and was grounded in the interviews as documented.

Tribal Statement The tribes requested the following statement be included, given the data limitations described above, and the difficulty of using these data in an analysis of capacity and resiliency of the tribes in the planning area. The Cooperating Agency Advisory Group’s Tribal Working Group developed the following statement:

There are varying acreages of O& C lands located within the ancestral homelands of the seven western Oregon Tribes. Management of these lands has a direct impact on the cultural interests, traditional lifeways, and economic wellbeing of Tribal members. As defined above, capacity and resiliency from a social sciences perspective is a measure of a community’s or group of people’s ability to respond to certain events such as natural disasters, major economic change, external and internal stresses and to take advantage of opportunities to meet needs.

36

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

584 | P a g e

Table 3-196. Capacity and resiliency data summary. 1 2 3

Capacity andResiliency Category

Percent of MaximumData Score

Category Based onData Score Alone

High >65% Grants PassSublimity

Medium 60 – 64%Gold Beach

MolallaSt. Helens

Low 50 – 59%

CoquilleFlorence

Junction CityKlamath FallsRogue River

Winston

Very Low <50% DrainLincoln City

Note: due to data limitations the table does not include the scores of the tribes (see Analytical Methods).

Figure 3-151 shows the final assignments including adjustments to the scores in Table 3-196 based on the insights from the interviews. The figure includes overlapping categories recognizing that capacity and resiliency are concepts that encompass a wide range of contributory factors on which communities may be variously stronger or weaker.

Figure 3-151. Capacity and resiliency affected environment summary.

Environmental Effects BLM management affects local communities in two primary ways: 1) its effects on local economies, especially jobs and the associated earnings that result in spending in the communities; and, 2) its effects on county payments that affect the services the counties provide in communities, and in some cases, funds that counties pass through to communities.

Employment Under the No Action alternative and under Alternative C, BLM-based employment (i.e., the number of jobs resulting from BLM activities and programs), would increase in every BLM district model area

Not AssignedConfederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated

Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians,Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians, Confederated

Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Coquille Indian Tribe, Cow Creek Band of Umpqua

Tribe of Indians, Klamath Tribes

LOWCoquille, Florence, Junction City,

Klamath Falls, Rogue River, Winston

VERY LOWDrain, Lincoln City

MEDIUMGold Beach, Molalla, St. Helens

HIGHGrants Pass, Sublimity

37

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

586 | P a g e

Table 3-198. Effects of change in BLM-based employment by community.

CommunityCapacity Resiliency Category

District CountyEffect on Community by Alternative

(See Table Note for Explanation)No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Grants Pass High Medford Josephine +++ ++ +++ +++ +Sublimity High Salem Marion + ++ +++Junction City Medium Eugene Lane +++ ++ +++ +++ +Molalla Medium Salem Clackamas + ++St. Helens Medium Salem Columbia + ++ +++Coquille Low Coos Bay Coos -- -- ++ --Florence Low Eugene Lane +++ ++ +++ +++ +Gold Beach Low Coos Bay Curry -- -- ++ --Klamath Falls Low Klamath Falls Klamath ++ + ++ -Lincoln City Low Salem Lincoln + ++ +++Winston Low Roseburg Douglas ++ - +++ -Drain Very Low Roseburg Douglas ++ - +++ -Rogue River Very Low Medford Jackson +++ ++ +++ +++ +Notes: All symbology refers to change in BLM-based employment in relation to “current modified” jobs from Table 3-185. + = minor benefit (6% to 20% increase); ++ = moderate benefit (21% to 50% increase); +++ = strong benefit (>51% increase); - = minor negative impact (6% to 20% decrease); -- = moderate negative impact (21% to 50% decrease); --- = strong negative impact (>51% decrease). Blank cell indicates little or no effect (+5% to -5% change).

Under the No Action alternative, the highest percentage employment increases would be in the Medford, Eugene, and Roseburg districts. This would benefit communities across all capacity and resiliency categories in these districts (such as Grants Pass, Florence, and Winston) but would have little or no effect on communities in other districts, including several communities with low capacity and resiliency such as Coquille and Gold Beach.

Under Alternative C, the highest percentage increases would be in the Medford, Eugene, Roseburg, and Salem-Other districts. These districts all have communities with medium, low, and very low capacity and resiliency. However, as shown in Table 3-198, all communities would see moderate or strong benefits under this alternative.

Alternatives A, B, and D would have mixed effects, increasing or decreasing community capacity and resiliency in different geographies (Table 3-197). Under Alternative A, the Coos Bay and Roseburg Districts and the Klamath Falls Field Office would see job losses. These districts contain communities with low or very low capacity and resiliency including Coquille, Gold Beach, Winston, and Drain. The Eugene and Medford Districts would see the highest job increases under Alternative A, but these districts have more of a mix of higher and lower capacity/resiliency communities compared to the districts that would see job losses.

Under Alternative B, only the Coos Bay District would lose jobs. This would have negative economic effects on the District’s low capacity/resiliency communities, such as Gold Beach and Coquille. The other districts, especially Eugene and Medford, would see job increases and the communities within these districts, such as Grants Pass and Roque River, would see modest to strong benefits.

38

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

588 | P a g e

Table 3-201. Potential effects of county payments by community.

CommunityCapacity Resiliency Category

County

Share of County

Payments to Each County1

Effects by Alternative(See Table Note for Explanation)

No Action Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Grants Pass High Josephine 12.1% +++ + ++ +++ +Sublimity High Marion 1.5% + +Junction City Medium Lane 15.3% +++ ++ ++ +++ +Molalla Medium Clackamas 5.6% + + + ++St. Helens Medium Columbia 2.1% + + +Coquille Low Coos 5.9% ++ + + ++Florence Low Lane 15.3% +++ ++ ++ +++ +Gold Beach Low Curry 3.7% + + + ++Klamath Falls Low Klamath 2.3% + + ++Lincoln City Low Lincoln 0.4% +Winston Low Douglas 25.1% +++ +++ +++ +++ +Drain Very Low Douglas 25.1% +++ +++ +++ +++ +Rogue River Very Low Jackson 15.7% +++ ++ ++ +++ +1 Under the O&C Act distribution formula. See Table 3-190. + = small benefit ($0.5 million to $2.0 million); ++ = moderate benefit ($2.0 million to $4.0 million); +++ = strong benefit (>$4.0 million). Blank cell indicates little or no effect (<$0.5 million).

Payments to counties would increase under all alternatives, relative to what the payments would have been in 2012 under the O&C Act formula. Driven by timber harvest volumes, payments would be highest under Alternative C, followed by the No Action alternative. See the discussion in Issue 3.

Relative to current population, the formula generally benefits the offices with smaller populations. For example, counties in the Salem District, with approximately 74 percent of the planning area population, receive approximately 20 percent of the payments. This would limit beneficial effects to lower capacity resiliency communities in the Salem District such as Lincoln City. Roseburg, with approximately 3 percent of the planning area population, receives 25 percent. As noted under methods, the BLM assumed continuation of the current distribution formula.

The payments would benefit the offices with low capacity/resiliency communities especially in the Coos Bay, Medford, Roseburg, and Eugene Districts. Examples would include Coquille, Drain, Florence, and Winston. Klamath Falls would see some benefits, but since Klamath County receives only 2 percent of total receipts, the benefits would be small.

Under the alternatives where employment and earnings would fall in some offices, (i.e., Alternatives A, B, and D), the loss of total BLM-based earnings would be greater than the earnings from the county payments. The economic impact of earnings losses to communities with low capacity and resiliency would be substantial.82

82 For example, under Alternative A, Coos Bay would see a net loss in worker earnings of approximately $13.8 million ($54.4 million minus $39.1 million = $15.3 million (Table 3-185), $15.3 million minus $1.5 million =$13.8 million (Appendix O, Table O-6).

39

Issue 6. Would the alternatives result in environmental justice impacts?

Environmental justice refers to the “fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (EPA 2007)

To identify potential environmental justice populations, the BLM collected the most recently available population and income data for populations in the following 284 geographies in the planning area:

• 19 counties • 161 incorporated places (i.e., cities)1 • 97 census-designated places (CDPs)2 • 7 Federally-recognized Tribes with reservation and off-reservation trust land

Regional scale of the planning effort and the geographical breadth of its potential impacts is such that it is not possible to analyze with useful precision how the different RMP alternatives would affect one specific geography below the county level, such as a city or CDP versus another. Instead, the analysis assumed that positive or negative effects to regions and counties will have similar effects on the local geographies within those regions and counties. (DEIS page 590)

The first step in the effects analysis was to identify any negative effects that would result from implementation of the RMPs under each alternative, and then to assess whether they would fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations. Views of what constitutes a negative or positive impact vary depending on different perspectives and values, but this analysis assumed that increases in BLM-based employment, and the increase in earnings that would result, would be positive impacts, and that decreases in employment would be negative. Similarly, this analysis assumed that increases in payments to counties would be a positive impact, and decreases in payments to counties would negative. The effects analysis section addresses these two types of effects on identified environmental justice populations. (DEIS page 590)

1 Three of these 161 places, Bonanza, Butte Falls, and Waterloo are towns not cities, but for simplicity of presentation this analysis counts them as cities. 2 Census Designated Places are settled concentrations of population that identifiable by name but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located. State and local officials and the Census Bureau delineate CDPs cooperatively.

40

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

590 | P a g e

1. Geographies where the minority or Hispanic population exceeds 50 percent of the total population.

2. Geographies where the minority or Hispanic population is “meaningfully greater” than the statewide minority or Hispanic population percentage. This analysis defines meaningfully greater as a minority or Hispanic population percentage that is 25 percent or higher than the statewide percentage.

3. Geographies where the percentage of the population in poverty is meaningfully greater than the statewide percentage. This analysis defines meaningfully greater as a poverty population percentage that is 25 percent or higher than the statewide percentage.

4. Geographies where the percentage of the population with low income is meaningfully greater than the statewide percentage.

Minority populations include individuals that belong to one or more of the following races: African-American, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, other Pacific Islander, Other race, or Multiple Races. For this analysis, the BLM summed the separate minority populations to calculate a total minority population for each geography. Minority individuals also include those identifying as Hispanic or Latino, regardless of race and the BLM conducted a separate Hispanic or Latino population analysis. 86

The population in poverty criterion uses data from the ACS that identifies persons as below poverty level if that individual’s income, or family’s total income, is below a pre-defined threshold (U.S. Census Bureau 2014a).87 This analysis defines low-income as the percentage of the households whose income is 50 percent or less than the state median household income. For criteria 2, 3, and 4 above, this analysis defines “meaningfully greater” as a population percentage that is 25 percent or more higher than the statewide percentage.

The regional scale of this planning effort and the geographical breadth of its potential impacts is such that it is not possible to analyze with useful precision how the different RMP alternatives would affect one specific geography below the county level, such as a city or CDP versus another. Instead, the analysis assumed that positive or negative effects to regions and counties will have similar effects on the local geographies within those regions and counties.

The first step in the effects analysis was to identify any negative effects that would result from implementation of the RMPs under each alternative, and then to assess whether they would fall disproportionately on minority or low-income populations. Views of what constitutes a negative or positive impact vary depending on different perspectives and values, but this analysis assumed that increases in BLM-based employment, and the increase in earnings that would result, would be positive impacts, and that decreases in employment would be negative. Similarly, this analysis assumed that increases in payments to counties would be a positive impact, and decreases in payments to counties would negative. The effects analysis section addresses these two types of effects on identified environmental justice populations.

The alternatives could affect environmental justice populations in other ways. For example, dependence on a resource or use, such as access to recreation or to grazing, that the alternatives would allocate or manage differently could lead to positive or negative impacts. However, such impacts would not likely

86 The U.S. Census Bureau defines race (African-American, Asian, etc.) separately from ethnicity (Hispanic or Non-Hispanic). 87 Each person or family is assigned one out of 48 possible poverty thresholds that vary by size of the family and ages of the members. For example the 2013 threshold for a family of four with two children under 18 was $23,624.

41

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

593 | P a g e

Affected Environment Minority Populations

Table 3-204 summarizes the data for minority populations in the planning area. Map 3-8 shows their locations. Appendix O contains the data for all the minority population geographies in the planning area. Table 3-204. Summary of minority populations meeting environmental justice criteria.

Geography Number of Geographies

50 Percent Criterion

Additional Meaningfully Greater Criterion Total, Both Criteria

Counties 0 3 3 Cities 5 29 34 CDPs 2 19 21 Tribes 6 0 6

Totals 13 51 64

Population Population Total Minority Total Minority Total Minority

Counties 1,584,319 343,119 1,584,319 343,119 Cities 28,637 16,718 86,766 21,028 115,403 37,746 CDPs 261 146 15,286 4,457 15,547 4,603 Tribes 5,247 4,647 5,247 4,647

Totals 34,145 21,511 1,686,371 368,604 1,720,516 390,115 Sources: BLM staff compiled from: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. Appendix O contains more detailed source descriptions. Notes: Population numbers for cities and CDPs do not include those cities in Marion, Multnomah, and Washington counties.

42

43

Chapter 3 – AE&EC – Socioeconomics

597 | P a g e

Of the 48 cities and CDPs with meaningfully greater populations, 42 are in the Salem District, mostly along the I-5 corridor between Salem and Portland, and in the Portland metropolitan area itself.

Total, Both Criteria The 64 geographies meet one or both of the criteria. These geographies contain approximately 1.72 million people, or approximately 50 percent of the total population of the planning area (approximately 3.4 million). Of the 1.72 million, approximately 390,000 are minority persons and approximately 199,000 are Hispanic (some of whom could also be non-Hispanic minority persons, such as Black Hispanics). The City of Portland, with a 22 percent minority population, accounts for approximately 586,000 of the 1.72 million, or 34 percent.

Low- Income Populations Table 3-205 presents data for low-income populations in the planning area as of 2012. Map 3-8 shows their locations. Appendix O contains the data for all the low-income population geographies in the planning area. Table 3-205. Summary of low-income populations meeting environmental justice criteria.

Geography Number of Geographies

Poverty Additional Low Income Totals Counties 2 4 6 Cities 45 18 63 CDPs 31 16 47 Tribes 5 1 6

Totals 83 39 122 Population

Counties 33,719 17,249 50,968 Cities 84,977 7,688 92,665 CDPS 15,903 630 16,533 Tribes 1,281 5 1,286

Totals 135,880 25,571 161,451 Sources: BLM staff compiled from: U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009. Appendix O contains more detailed source descriptions. Note: To avoid double counting, the populations for additional low- income geographies exclude the populations counted as poverty.

Poverty Criterion A total of 83 geographies meet the poverty criterion, (i.e., the percentage of residents in poverty is 25 percent or higher than the statewide percentage, which is 15 percent). These geographies comprise 2 counties (Benton and Josephine), 45 cities, 31 CDPs, and 5 of the Tribes. The total population of these 83 geographies is approximately 992,000 (29 percent of the planning area population). The number of people in poverty within the 83 geographies is approximately 136,000. The poverty populations are scattered throughout the planning area, and can be found in every county and BLM district (Map 3-9).

44

45

Chapter 3 - AE&EC – Socioeconomics

600 | P a g e

RMPs and the fire budget can fluctuate widely from year to year depending on the extent and scale of fires.

The BLM estimated the portions of the district offices’ budgets that are attributable to the timber program under current conditions based on 2012 timber harvest volumes and an average timber volume cost of $200 per Mbf, a figure the state office uses for budget estimates. This figure includes all of the work associated with preparing, offering, and administering timber sales. It includes work done by members of a timber sale interdisciplinary team, National Environmental Policy Act compliance work, overhead, etc.

To estimate the potential cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives, the BLM applied the $200 per Mbf figure to the estimated timber harvest under the No Action alternative and the four action alternatives. The BLM estimated budgets based on projected harvests for the average of the first decade. The BLM added this figure to the non-timber portion of the budget, which the BLM assumed would remain unchanged between alternatives, consistent with the analytical assumptions set forth in the Planning Criteria. The total of the timber and non-timber portion of the budget resulted in a total BLM budget by alternative. All dollar figures are expressed in constant 2012 dollars.

Note that as a landscape-level planning effort, none of the alternatives prescribe project-level or site-specific activities on BLM-administered lands. Further, the BLM’s selection of an alternative does not authorize funding to any specific project or activity nor does it directly tie into the agency’s budget as appropriated annually through the Federal budget process. Consequently, the effects analysis does not cover non-timber resources even though these resources do have associated management costs.

Affected Environment The BLM’s budget for the six offices in the planning area totaled approximately $109.2 million in FY 2012, including labor and non-labor costs. The labor costs cover approximately 780 employees across all six offices (Table 3-206). The Medford office, which has the largest number of employees, accounts for approximately 30 percent of the total area-wide budget. Non-labor costs include items such as rent, transportation, and supplies, but the largest single component is contracts to non-BLM entities for a variety of services on BLM-administered lands.

Table 3-206. BLM budget by office, FY 2012.

District/Field Office

Employees(FTE)

ExpendituresTotals

Programmatic Breakdown

Labor Non-Labor Timber Non-Timber

Salem 150 $12,345,619 $9,213,051 $21,558,670 $12,430,000 $9,128,670Eugene 130 $10,445,431 $7,544,410 $17,989,841 $7,215,800 $10,774,041Roseburg 117 $9,414,710 $4,104,349 $13,519,059 $9,047,200 $4,471,859Coos Bay 109 $9,084,127 $7,990,160 $17,074,287 $14,200,200 $2,874,087Medford 231 $17,713,275 $15,503,893 $33,217,168 $4,705,200 $28,511,968Klamath Falls 41 $2,891,236 $2,973,992 $5,865,228 $904,800 $4,960,428

Totals 778 $61,894,398 $47,329,854 $109,224,252 $48,503,200 $60,721,052Totals (%) 57% 43% 44% 56%

Management of the BLM’s timber program in FY 2012 accounted for an estimated $48.5 million, or 44 percent, of the total $109.2 million budget. The remaining 56 percent covered all other programs such as recreation, mining, fisheries, and grazing.

46

Issue 7 What would be the cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives? To estimate the potential cost to the BLM to implement the alternatives, the BLM applied the $200 per Mbf figure (a figure the state office uses for budget estimates) to the estimated timber harvest under the alternatives. The BLM estimated budgets based on projected harvests for the average of the first decade.

47

0\ Q N

'"0 Po>

UCi ('P

District/ Field Office

Coos Bay

Eugene

Klamath Falls

Medford

Roseburg

Salem

Totals

Percent Change

Compared to Current

No Action EmJ>loyees

(FTE) Budget

106 $16,494,964

206 $28,507,288

47 $6,623,809

316 $45,41 7,366

163 $18,922,846

172 $24,665,916

1,009 $140,632,190

29%

Alt. A E mJ>loyees

(FTE) Budget

77 $11,977,873

168 $23,334,122

39 $5,596,973

251 $36,045,992

88 $10, 145,370

163 $23,343,606

785 $110,443,935

1%

C') :::r I»

"C * -(t) ""' w I#-I )> m QO m C')

I /

Alt. B Alt.C Alt.D (/) 0

EmJ>loyees Employees E mployees (FTE) Budget (FTE) Budget (FTE) Budget

~ 0 (t)

79 $ 12,356,741 143 $22,298,462 47 $7,275,301 0 0 ::I

197 $27,307, 141 301 $41 ,748,002 144 $19,966,466 0 3 0

45 $6,375,177 49 $6,902,022 42 $5,988,014 t/1

278 $40,068,934 289 $41 ,636,426 238 $34,283,908

119 $13,827,249 190 $22,037,193 78 $8,989,792

189 $27,117,673 259 $37,097,407 141 $20,226,709

908 $127,052,915 1,231 $171,719,511 690 $96,730,190

16% 57% -11%

48