Lower Deschutes River management plan and environmental impact statement : supplement to the draft

44 Pages·1992·8.3 MB·English

by  Oregon. State Parks and Recreation Dept

.
BLM LIBRARY
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Prineville District
Supplement to the Draft
Lower Deschutes River Management Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared by:
Prineville District Office
June 1992
7,
District Manager, Prineville District
GV
191. 42
.07
L694
1991
sup
Asthe Nation'sprincipalconservationagency,the DepartmentoftheInteriorhasresponsibilityformostofournationallyownedpubliclandsand
natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the
environmentalandcultural valuesofournational parksand historicalplaces, andproviding fortheenjoymentoflifethroughoutdoorrecreation.
The Departmentassessesourenergyandmineral resourcesandworkstoassurethattheirdevelopmentisin thebestinterestofallourpeople.
The Departmentalso hasamajorresponsibilityforAmerican Indian reservation communitiesandforpeoplewho livein IslandTerritoriesunder
U.S.administration.
BLM-OR-ES-92-23-1792
§80 H^^M-
TAKE"
United States Department of the Interior PRIDEIN
America1
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
PrinevilleDistrictOffice
P.O.Box550 (185E. 4thStreet) INREPLYREFERTO:
Prineville,Oregon97754
June 7, 1992
Dear Friend of the Deschutes River:
The purpose of this document is to supplement the Draft Lower Deschutes River Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which was released for public review in June 1991. Various
alternative solutions to the issues (problems and opportunities) identified through the planning process
were analyzed to determine the impacts to the river environment and local and regional economies. Many
issues and alternatives (including a preferred alternative) were included in the Draft Plan/EIS.
Recently a new issue surfaced that was not considered in the Draft plan. At the Deschutes River Executive
Review Board meeting held on February 5 and 6, 1992 in Portland, the Board decided on a motorboat ban
upstream from Sherars Falls three years after completion of the management plan. As part of this decision,
the Board directed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to pursue acquisition of legal public access during
the fall, winter and early spring months to public lands upstream from the Deschutes Club locked gate. The
gate is located seven miles upriver from Maupin. In order to meet requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the BLM has developed the attached supplement to the Draft plan/EIS,
which analyzes the consequences of alternative access options.
This supplement describes the issue, identifies various alternatives to resolve the issue and analyzes the
environmental and economic impacts associated with each alternative.
We ask that you consider each of the identified alternatives that have been developed and the analysis of
impacts of those alternatives. We are interested in hearing from you if you feel the preferred alternative
is, or is not, the best way to resolve a particular issue. If you feel the preferred alternative should be
changed, please tell us specifically how you would change it and why. If you feel that the analysis of
impacts is incomplete or inaccurate, we would also appreciate your comments.
You can share your ideas and opinions with us in two ways: 1) write to us at the address on this page; 2)
attend one of the public hearings. The public comment period will end August 7, 1992. Public hearings
will be held in Portland on July 13 in the Second Floor Auditorium of the Portland Building located at
1120 SW Fifth Avenue at 7:00 p.m. and in Madras on July 14 at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds in the
Macci Conroy Building at 7:00 p.m.
When all public comments on the supplement are received, analyzed and a proposed decision selected, the
document will be incorporated into the Final Lower Deschutes River Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement which will be completed by October 1, 1992. It will also be included in the separate BLM Record
of Decision for the plan.
Written comments should be mailed by August 7, 1992 to:
District Manager
Bureau of Land Management
PO Box 550
Prineville, OR 97754
Thank you for your interest and participation in this planning effort. CV"\ ^0<j n/|/
<?
Sincer
James L. Hancock
District Manager

1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract Hi
Executive Summary iv
Summary of Impacts Table v
Chapter Introduction
I 1
Location
1
Purpose and Need 3
Alternatives Considered 3
Relationships
5
Chapter II Affected Environment 6
Soi 1 s and Vegetation 6
Cultural Resources 6
Prehi story 6
Hi story 7
Recreation 7
Recreation Resources 7
Recreation Facilities 7
Camping 8
Publ ic Access 8
Boati ng 16
Fishing 17
Visitation Estimates 17
Place of Origin 17
Economics 17
Population 18
Employment 18
Income 19
Chapter III Environmental Consequences 20
Introduction 20
Impacts to Soi 1 s and Vegetation 22
Impacts to Cultural Resources 22
Impacts to Visual Quality 22
Impacts to Recreation 23
Impacts to Access 25
Impacts to Economi c Val ues 26
Chapter IV Consultation, Coordination and Distribution 29
Chapter V List of Preparers, References and Glossary 30
List of Maps, Tables and Illustrations
-Summary of Impacts Table
-Map 1, Plan Supplement Land Ownership
-Table 1, Approximate Riverbank Ownership
-Photos 1 and 2, Railroad Bed Right-of-Hay
-Photos 3, 4 and 5, River Flats
-Photos 6 and 7, Deschutes Club locked gate
-Photo 8, Use Limitation Signs
-Photo 9, Deschutes Gatekeeper's house
-Photos 10 and 11, Tunnel Number 1
-Photo 12, Two Springs Ranch
-Table 2, Average Daily Traffic, Maupin-Deschutes Club locked gate
-Table 3, Population Estimates
-Table 4, Average Annual Resident Labor Force

Ill
Lower Deschutes River Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
Draft ( ), Supplement (X), Final ( ) EIS
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1. Type of Action: Administrative (X), Legislative ( )
2. Abstract This supplement to the draft lower Deschutes River
:
Management Plan addresses alternatives for access to public lands
upstream from the locked gate on the Deschutes river access road south
of Maupin, Oregon. The preferred alternative proposes easement
acquisition for a limited number of vehicles and people per day during
the recreational off-season (October 15 to May 15). Hiking and mountain
bike use would be allowed while motorboat use would be banned year-round
three years after the plan is finalized. River-related resource values
would be protected while visitor safety and minimum facilities would be
provided.
3. Eight alternatives are analyzed.
Alt. 1. Continue existing management direction (no action)
Alt. 2. Preferred alternative from draft plan (no easement, motorboat
ban)
Alt. 3. No easement with limited motorboat use
Alt. 4. Easement acquisition for nonmotorized use with eventual
motorboat ban
Alt. 5. New preferred-easement acquisition with limited motorized use
with eventual motorboat ban
Alt. 6. Easement acquisition for motorized use with limited motorboat use
Alt. 7. No easement, but new perpendicular access road from Hwy 197 to
river with eventual motorboat ban
Alt. 8. No easement, but new perpendicular access road from Hwy 197 to
rim with access trail to river and eventual motorboat ban
4. The comment period will be for 60 days, ending August 7, 1992.
5. For further information, contact: Jim Kenna, Bureau of Land Management,
Prineville District Office, P0 Box 550, Prineville, Oregon 97754.

iv
Executive Summary
The issue of whether the Bureau of Land Management should obtain access to
public lands upstream from the locked gate south of Maupin is analyzed across
a range of eight alternatives. The alternatives consider a variety of options
including easement acquisition for limited vehicular access,
regulation/elimination of motorboat use, hiking/mountain bike use and
construction of an alternate access road and/or trail. These various actions
impact soil, vegetation, cultural resources, recreation, visual quality,
access and economics of the area. Impacts are summarized below. Analysis
indicates there would be no significant impact to climate, air, water quality
or quantity, floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, threatened, endangered or
sensitive species, fish and wildlife, utilities, agriculture, geology or
energy and mineral resources under any of the alternatives considered in this
document.
— — — —
1 i ,
CD CD
O) CD
C C c
to to TO
0E) T3 J-> J_ ecn _uc xl:_>
lC/Dl rOO XCJ O>J
rO I_ TO •r-
CD i-
o o o
< Z o o o
XI 1- -U o o o
o o
S- S_ o CM •—
z4EClTCOCO-1/DODJ>l X4c033IJ) iX•—OTOcCO!C3iIJ_—DOL- •X4C>JTO1rO-I-D-O—> CoooO ooooion ooo COOo+Mo XxX-<OcqCiI>)U_DjD J-*CClCCaZaJ_DDDDi vsrX2STCoE_1)_OD* T-V01oCocc3u/D))1
O O
O O IT)
XI X) CM oo
JC-D> TcO co r-~ C+M na. xci •o-
CO L*cCECT0lJ|DDOJ0 i•-XX+1E1rC*5—IJ——-DJ iXXoCTlCIC>—!/OD—Dl XXu*OoTOLO!EIJ._O ooooo5M C^oooIoTM—SM« ooo00- Cooo01+M0- X•<-o>!C0cr>3-_:—D0> —XiCT0CS3)_DO1D -aoCClC!Eo/u_DD.l •X-rurE!Tr3u_eeO— r,CEouolTL—/O.lL
IT) LTC0CCElOD0DDJ r•I--r2—C—M- •irXoC1>—D— 4Ecoo-> ooooo ooouo ooooo ooo •X*cour)}~ —sso:_«*I >JCOCTi4CDO_-l •iX*ToCcr-IJO-D .aaroTi(_—oOe..
CoM oo
-d- C+M
+cJ o too Q. -Ci-D> tEo xC;D
CECDD Xc Xo!l_ OS- rO—J >> -~C— XC)D
L1Ta/O1 •413-—> *oEJ ooo ooo CoL
o o 'o>l
o o CD
P0 U*lCCEC0TJ/1JDD0Ol •rr•-XJCErr-——C)-D—J X+lTioOI/J-Ol CM O ITI) J1(0o>-/—)>I X4!coo)J- •PTCCiO—D •X4orcC-)->
zO •4r3J— 4oE-> oz lz_> lz_> lz_> TCOL -c*J •^T(_O> uo
ccn CCODDO •X1c)— +cC1D
CU1Q/—J1 XMaCaCiS1-.I1--jD_D ZlCCCTocE/DDODl J4cfOEo3_C—:> X+TO0IJO0 •s—X-rTocr+f»)---OJ >xTu*LQEouCcc;-O.D.n r_,r——4—o5-c—J:» 1L4CSEoCCCoO-.DD-oD- XCoCC>3DDL
XTC>IO^ JIC>-—DJ •or0c30* xjoTc-:O>
o3 TOOl •*rJ- TUO
i<— zo TOO lz_) !_><_><_>
XI
TO CD CD X)
r•OXcTrO—IOO- .>J-coTiCCfi---OnDJJD rrt4T»_D3—^J_O> elCULO0C=t/.D0D1l oCL .C«<+lCU0of_3/J0—lrl f•c—i4*corC0_-——J-0)> r<sJTUCCCD-—:ODJ »+C-lCC>rC-O/-D-D>l f<Tcc3—O i••1CTUccCTCEri4OdD-—-OOL ••XXJ(rJOTCTCiC-I)-_DOJ—ODJ 4XcTuEoJ0CCLC-O-).DlO r••0TCSucroE>CC^—-0OD-D. 1JcCIC1aEoL4ou--.-DAD>. 1OMK-Cr0Ot40CUD---0-0D>D •1•1uaCCsoE0Trr4/_D0Oi---1L