U.S. Department of the interiorBureau of Land Management Final

Priflevelse District Office September 1985

ProposedTwo Rivers

Resource Management PlanEnvironmental

Impact Statement

Dear Public Land User:

Enclosed for your review and comment is the TVJO Rvers Proposed Resource ManagementPlan (RMPj and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Two Rivers PlanningArea, Prineville District, Oregon. The Bureau of Land Management has prepared thisdocument in partial fulfillment of its responsibilities under the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1978 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1989.

The Proposed RMP and Final EIS is published in an abbreviated format and is designed tobe used in conjunction with the Draft RMFYEIS published in April 1984. Additional copies ofthe Draft RMPEIS are available upon request from Bureau of Land Management. 185 EastFourth Street, Prinevilie, Oregon 97754.

This Proposed RMP and Final EIS contains a summani from the draft, introduction, theproposed plan, text revisions to the Draft RMPIEIS, public comments received on the draft,and the Bureau’s response to these comments. If you wish to comment for the DistrictManager’s consideration in the development of the decision, please submit your commentsby November 15, 1985. Your comments should be seni io:

District ManagerBureau of Land ManaaementPO. Box 550Prineville, Oregon 97754

The plan decisions will be based on the analysis contained in the EIS. any addition& dataavailable, public opinion. managemeni feasibiiity, policy and legal constraints, The approvalof the plan will be documented in a record of decision, which will be completed later andwill be available to the public.

The proposed plan cannot be approved until after the Governor of Oregon has had anopportunity to review rt. Approval of the plan will also be subject to the fina! action on anyprotests thai may be filed. Any person who participated in the planning process and has aninterest which is or may he adversely affected by the approval of this WMP may protest stichapproval. A protest may rake only these issues which were submitted for the record duringthe pianning process and should he filed wiih the Director j202j, Bureau of LandManagement. 1800 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC. 20240 within the officia! protest periodendrng November 15; 1985. Protests must contain the following informahon:

-The name, mailing address, telephone number. and interest of ihe person filing theprotesi.

-A statement of the issue or issues being protested.

-A statement of the part or parts of the plan being protested,

-A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during thepianning process of the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issues werediscussed for the record.

-A concise statement explaining why you feel the decision is wrong.

Sincerely yours,

U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Land Management Final

Proposed Two RiversResource

Management PlanEnvironmental

I

PR tP%s

Table of ContentsPage

Summary.......,............................,................ .~...... 1

Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . a . . . . . , . . 9Introduction-The Planning Area . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Purpsse and Need ..........l ~ .~ ..~................l..,,.... 9Planning Process and Criteria . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . , . . . . ~ e . I I . . . . . 12lsskles . . ..I..,....*,,.....,...........~ ......*...l ..,.....” 12

Chapter 2 Pmpersed Resource Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15IntrQduction................................................. 16Goal and Objectives of the Proposed Plan , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . 16Planned Management Actions Under the PropcPsed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 17-Wildlife and Fish Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . I . a 0 ~ . ~ . . . 17-Livestock Grazing . . , . q . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . s . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 16-Riparian V .......c ~ .< . . . . . . . a . ..* V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-Forestry......................... ....a m r . . . z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . n . . . . 20-Land Tenure and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 21-Recreation . . . ..( *........, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . 22--Special Management Areas . . . . . . . . . . . e G I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Monitoring the Two Rivers Resource Management Plan. I a . . n . . . I I I . 26Ongoing Management Programs . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Requirements for Further Environmental Analysis. . . . , . . . . . . . , , , . . . 26

Chapter 3 Text Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Chapter 4 Consultation and Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Public Involvement. . , . . c . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Agencies and Organizations Contacted or Consulted 0 . ~ L . . . . . . . ~ * 1 . 34List of Agencies Persons and Organizations to Whom Copies of the

RMPlEIS Have Been Sent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 35Comment and Protest Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Comment Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . . . . 36

Maps l-General Location ,,,..~...,............................... 102-Planning Area and Land Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tab& l-Summary of Long Term Environmental Consequences: Comparison ofA l t e r n a t i v e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *............ 5

2-Public Land Acreage, Two Rivers Planning Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Z&Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . =. . . 194-Forestry Practices and Land Use Allocations Under

the Proposed Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205-Mineral Leasing Direction Under the Proposed Plan. . , . . . . . . . . . . 21

SummaryFive multiple use alternatives for the managementof public lands in the Two Rivers Planning Areahave been developed and analyzed in accordancewith the Bureau’s planning regulations issued underauthority of the Federal Land Policy andManagement Act of 1976. The alternatives respondto eight major issues: livestock grazing, riparianmanagement, wildlife habitat, land tenure andaccess, minerals management, forestry, recreationand special management areas identified throughthe planning process. The purpose of the proposedalternatives is to present and evaluate options formanaging, protecting and enhancing publicresources.

Each alternative is a master plan that would providea framework within which future, more site specificdecisions would be made, such as defining theintensity of management of various resources,developing activity plans (e.g., grazing allotmentmanagement plans and transportation plans) orissuing rights of way! leases or permits.

The five alternatives considered are:

Alternative A (Preferred Alternative)

The Preferred Alternative combines themanagement, production, use and protection ofresources on the public lands in the Two RiversPlanning Area. Management would be directedtoward multiple use of natural resources from thepublic lands while protecting or enhancing naturalvalues. This alternative is the Bureau’s favoredmanagement approach.

1. All riparian areas along the Deschutes and JohnDay rivers and their major tributaries would bemanaged to full potential, with a minimum of 60percent of the vegetative potential to be achievedwithin 20 years.

High mid seral to low late seral ecological conditionwould be managed for on upland vegetation exceptwhere wildlife needs would dictate otherwise.

2. Forage requirements according to OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife managementobjectives for deer and elk on public lands wouldbe met. Upland vegetation would be managed toachieve maximum wildlife habitat diversity. Allstreams with fisheries or fisheries potential wouldbe managed to achieve a good to excellent aquatichabitat condition.

3. Forage available for livestock would remain at17,778 AUMs in the short term and would beprojected to increase to 19,920 in the long term.Projects would be implemented as necessary tomaintain current livestock grazing levels and tomeet riparian and upland vegetation managementobjectives.

4. The preferred method of land disposalthroughout the planning area would be throughexchange. A total of 33,600 acres would beconsidered for sale if no apparent exchangeopportunity exists and if no significant resourcevalues are identified. Approximately 1,000 acres ofland would be sold annually.

5. There would be 10,715 acres of commercialfore&and on which the sustained timber harvestlevel would be based. The sustainable harvest leveiwould be approximately 1.41 MMbf annually or 14.1MMbf for a ten year period.

6. Public lands would remain open for explorationand development of mineral resources and relatedrights of way. Restrictive stipulations for oil and gasexploration and development would remain in effecton 132,006 acres of public land, to protect areaswith high visual quality.

7. Approximately 20,000 acres would be limited orclosed to off road vehicle use.

8. Five areas with identified outstanding natural orcultural values would be designated as researchnatural areas, areas of critical environmentalconcern, or outstanding natural areas. Other uniquewildlife or ecological vaiues would be maintained orenhanced.

Alternative B (Emphasize CommodityProduction and Enhancement ofEcQnQmic Benefits).

This alternative emphasizes providing economicbenefits. Multiple use management wouldemphasize the production of goods and services onpublic lands within the Two Rivers Planning Area tomeet local and possibly regional demands.

1. Riparian areas would be managed to achieve agoal of 60 percent of potential production.

2. Forage needs in accordance with the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife managementobjectives for deer and elk would be met.

3. Forage available for livestock would increase to19,189 AUMs in the short term and projected toincrease to 24,217 AUMs in the long term.

1

4. A total sf 143,KKl acms wcu!d Se considered forsale if no apparent exchange oppcrtunity exists andit 1x2 significant resource values are identified,

5. There would be IO.984 acres of crsmmercialforestland an which the sustained timber harvestlevei wauid be based. The sustainable harvest levelwould be approximately 1.45 MMbf annually cr 14.5MMSf for a ten year period,

6. Public lands wculd remain open for theexpJssatisn and develspment of mineral resourcesand related rtghts of way The area of no surfaceoccupancy restriction wauld be reduced ts 60,@00acres within the one half mile wide State scenicwaterways corridor in the Deschutes and ,8&n Daycanyons,

7. Appraximately lQ$XI0 acres wcuid be Jimited 6rclosed as off read veJ-ricle use,

8. TWCI areas wouid be designated as a researchnatural area and an area sf criticai environmentalconcern. Unique values within other specialmanagement areas wouid be maintained where nosignificant conflicts with commodity productionoccur.

Alternative C. Continue ExistingManagement (No Action)

This alternative allows fur the management and flsivof sutputs from the public lands and resources inthe planning area at their present levels. Theplanning area is presently operating under a 1975Management Framework Han (MFP). Formalmanagement direction is derived from the MFP withon the ground actions folJowing an interdisciptinaryanalysis process.

1. Existing riparian exclcsures would be maintainedon 16 percent of the riparian areas, The remainderwsk~ld continue ta be grazed by livestock.

2. Existing wildlife habitat management plans wouldbe continued, Forage needs fcr deer and elkaccording to Oregon Department of Fish andWildiife management objectives would be met.

3. Forage available for livestock would remain at17,778 AU Ms.

4. Up to 4,QQQ acres wauld be available fsr disposalif no significant resource values are identified.

5. There wauld be 10,833 acres of commercialforestJand csn whic:h a sustained timber hartiest levelwould be based. The sustainable harvest levelwould be apprortimately 1.43 MMbf annually or 14.3MMbf for a ten year perlsd.

2

6, Public lands would remain open for explorationand develspment of miaierai reso~rfres and reMedrights of wag. Existing stipulatJsns for ns surfaceoccupar-~cy on oii and gas exploration anddeiielopment would be maintained can ~32!000 acresto protect areas with J-I~$I visual quality.

7. Approximately 2C@OO acres weuJd be Limited orclosed la off road vehicie use.

8, Efforts tc protect identified speeia.8 managementareas would continue,

This alternative emphasizes prctecticn, maintenanceand enhancement of the natural environment withinthe planning area. The prcduciicn of commoditiestveuld occur where significant csnflicts with theprotection of natural values could be avoided crmitigated.

1. Ripaaian areas totaIling 1,979 acres wnuld beexcluded from grazing, The remaining 210 acres,where fencing to exclude Jivestock is not feasibie,wouid be managed to maintain or achieve 60percent of potentiaJ.

2. h?anagement of wiidlife habitat cn pubJiG: landwould receive special consideration Jn a/l areas.Deer and elk forage requirements in accordancewith Oregon Department sf Fish and LZVdlifemanagement objectives would be met,

3. Forage avails&J@ for livestock would decrease ts12,309 AUMs in the shsbi term and projected to tae13,834 AUMs in the long term.

4, A total of 33,618 acres would be available fordisposal if no apparent exchange opportunity existsand if no significant resource vaJues are identified.

5, There would be -JO1745 acres of commerciaJforestland on which a sustained timber barVest levelwould be based. The sustainable harvest levelwsuld be approximateBy ‘1.42 MMbf annually on 74.2MMbf far a ten year period.

6. Public Jands wculd remain spen for expjcratisnand development of mineral resources and reiatedrights sf way where nc significant confficts etiistwith wild!ife, riparian or recreation values. Existingstipulations for no surface crcupaney dn oil andgas exploration and development wauld beexpanded to include 15QOOO acres.

Table I Summary, Long Term Environmental Consequences: Comparison of AIternEatives

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative EUnit of Existing Alternative A (Commodity (Existing (Natural Values (Natural

Measure Situation (Preferred) Production) Management) w/Commodities) Values)Resource

SoilStreambarik Stability

WaterQuality

VegetationVegetation TypeEcological Condition

-_ +M

+L

tL

+L NC +M tM

EC tL CL

NC CL +L

_-

__000’S of

acres

000’s ofacres

acres

*-__

AUMs

MMbfacres

+L__

+L

CliflFiX 25 24 24 17 24 24107 168 168 101 168 17595 65 64 90 65 5988 58 56 107 58 57

9 9 12 9 9 9

Late SeralMid SeralEarly Seralother

Plant Diwsity

HighLCJwUnknown

Riparian

95 116 115 94 115 116220 199 200 221 200 i 9 9

9 9 9 9 9 9

ClimaxLate Seral

223 1,024 821 368 1,024 1,024196 0 0 140 0 0137 256 332 60 256 256724 0 127 712 0 0

Mid SeralEarly Seral

Threatened, Endangered orSensitive Species

WiicilifeUpland HabitatRipariarl Habi?atFishLivestock GrazingAvailable Forage

NC

-t-M3-HtM

19,920

NC NC

NCNCNC

17,iXi

NC

+M+H+H

13,834

NC

t MtH+H

0

-LtL+L

24,217

____

17,778Forest Products -

Sustainable HarvestLevel

Energy and Miner&No Oii & Gas LeasingNo Surface Occtipanc~~

(Oil and GasjEconomic Condi?ior;s

1.43 1.41 1.45 1.43 1.42

3,000 3,oon 3,000 3,GOO 3,000132,000 132,000 60,000 132,COO 150,000

.2

3,000200,000

Long Term Loss orGain in Va!ue &i&-s __ +129.@00 +386,000

visitor 62,000 tL +Ldays

acres ._ 20,000 10,000

_- CL CL

0

NC

-237,003

41

-1,066,000

+LReRfeation

Vis?nr UeP Loveisb.. ,”

Off Road Ve!-iicleLimitationlClnsur~

Cultural ResourcesProtection of Values

Vistial ResourcesProtection/Enhancementof Visua! Quality

Special Mal?agement AreasPro+-t’rn of Values.,l, I/

20,000

NC

150,OCO

+L

286.000

j. M

=+M

t

__ CL -L

-. __ +L -L

NC

-L

tL

+L

t = beneficial impact- = adverse impactNC = RG char;geL = lowM = moderateH = high

P)=zQ2(D(DQ

tD‘Ir

Introduction-The PlanningAreaThis Resource Management Plan/Environmentalimpact Statement (RMP!EiS) is designed to providea comprehensive framework for managing publiclands in the Two Rivers Planning Area andallocating resources in that area for the next 10 to15 years. The document analyzes impactsassociated with management of 324,705 acres ofpublic iand and 384,074 acres of subsurface mineralestate underlying private land in the Two RiversPlanning Area where the Bureau of LandManagement (BLMJ is the administering agency.The two rivers, for purposes of identification in thisdocument, are the John Day River and theDeschutes River.

The land being considered in the Two RiversRMPiEiS is located in the Central Qregon corridorbetween the Cascade Mountain Range on the west,and Morrow and Grant counties to the east, in anarea north from Crook and Deschutes counties tothe Columbia River as shown on Map 1. The areainciudes public lands scattered across sevencounties as shown in Tabie 2.

Table 2. Public Land Acreage, Two RiversPlanning Area

Public Land Private SurfaceAdministered Federal Subsurface Total Acreage

county by BLM’ Mineral Estate of county

Crook (Big 4.431 1,203 1.908,003Summit Prairiei

Gilham 52,313 53,825 1,3’2,000

Hood River 360 96 343,000

Jefferson 45,844 79,570 1,149,000

S!ierman 54,576 24,357 534,coo

Wasco 71,429 103,901 1,531,000

Wheeler 95,157 121,124 1,092,OOr4

Total Acreage 324,705 384,074 7.869.000

:Acreages of public land in the pianning area were audited afterthe Proposed Land Use Alternative brochure was published.Acreage figures reflect changes that include listing landswithdrawn for power sites along the Deschutes and John Dayrivers: land acquired and ultimately disposed i;! throughexchanges; acreages within the Crooked River NationaiGrasslands that were not withdrawn by the US. Forest Service;and land disposed of through public sale.

The planning area is bounded by four nationalforests-Mt. Hood, Deschutes, Qchoco andUmatiiia-and the John Day Fossil Beds NationalMonument, which is administered by the NationalPark Service. Also located adjacent to the planningarea is the reservation of the Confederated Tribes ofWarm Springs.

Big Summit Prairie is a blend of public and privatelands, an island that includes approximately 4,400acres of BLM land surrounded by the QchocoNational Forest in Crook County. Transfer of thePrairie to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Servicehas been considered for several years. The recentlyannounced BLMiUSFS interchange wouldaccomplish this transfer, The Prairie is included,and will be analyzed as a part of the Two RiversRMPIEIS since it was still BLM responsibility at thetime this document was being prepared. Map 2shows the boundary and public lands within theTwo Rivers Planning Area.

The Bureau of Land Management administers thepublic lands in the planning area from the DistrictOffice in Prineville, Oregon. The intermingling ofpublic land with other Federal lands administeredby other agencies has led to cooperativemanagement on some of the lands.

Purpose and NeedThe resource management plan, by its very nature,suggests guidelines for the management of publiclands in the Two Rivers Planning Area. it alsoprovides a platform for management of ailresources and uses within the principles of multipleuse and sustained resource yield.

The preferred alternative identified in this documentwas selected on the basis of input from publicmeetings and comments made throughcorrespondence, contacts with local governments,suggestions from user groups, and staff discussionas explained in Chapter 4. The plan was developedunder the requirements of the Federal Land Policyand Management Act (FLPMAJ and involvedinterdisciplinary planning processes applicable tomultiple use and sustained resource yield.

This RMPIEIS is written in compliance with theNational Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),the Council on Environmental Quality regulationsand in specific response to litigation in the NaturalResources Defense Council et ai. versus Rogers C.B. Morton et al. 1973 (U.S. District Court for theDistriot of Columbia, ref. Case No. 1983-73). Thatsuit alleged that the Bureau of Land Management’sprogrammatic grazing EiS did not comply with theNational Environmental Policy Act. As a result of thesettlement of this suit, BLM agreed to prepare site

u. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

LIII: ELM Land (Public Land) Bureau of Land Managementlzll

PRlPiEVlLLE DISTRICT‘Y ‘.’,...‘l. U. S. Forest Service 1985

lIlrrliiI;iiii Areas Considered for Wilderness“:x: Designation in Seperate Studies

- Two Rivers Planning Area Boundary

MAP 2Planning Area

andLand Status I7

14

Chapter 2Proposed Resource

Management Plan

IOld windmill in Ferry Canyon

Planned ManagementActions Under theProposed PlanThis section describes the planned actions anddetermines priorities for implementing those actions.The management actions would be used to resolvethe pianning issues identified,

The priorities were established based on publicinput, administration policy, and Department of theInterior and BLM directives These priorities may berevised as policy and directives change.

The highest priority for each resGurce ismaintaining its base. This includes funding normaioperating costs, completing administrative duties,and processing public inquiries. Priorities areplaced in one Gf three categrsries- high, mediumor IGW based an cGmparative ranking of themanagement actions,

The listed support actions are foreseeabie at thistime. The need for additional support actions suchas engineering and other studies? or specific projectplans may be identified as a result of furtherplanning. Ail such actions will be designed toachieve the Gbjectives Gf the RME Additionalenvironmental analyses will be conducted whereappropriate to supplement the analysis in the DraftRI\I%PIEIS.

Livestock use on approximately 16.000 acres ofdeer and elk winter range and 7,580 acres of curlewnesting habitat wii! be managed to be compatiblewith, or improve, wildlife habitat values. Uplandvegeta?ion wili be managed through grazingmanagement and range/wildlife habitat developmentto provide maximum wildlife habitat diversity(eesiogieal condition of high mid seral to low lateseral stage) and to provide sufficient forage to meetthe big game management objectives of the OregonDepartment of Fish and Wildlife,

Fish habitat deveiopments on approximately 87miles of tributary streams include: log and rockplacements; gabian developments; tree and shrubplantings: and riparian habitat improvement used toachieve a good to excellent aquatic habitatcondition. The fish habitat developments will beconcentrated on the tributary streams of theDeschutes and John Day rivers, They will notinclude direct instream improvements in the mainriver channel.

implementationSufficient forage and cover will be provided forwildlife on important habitat to maintain existing

population levels or meet management objectivelevels as established by the Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife, Specific forage and coverrequirements will be incorporated into allotmentmanagement plans in areas of primary wildlife use.

Range developments will be designed to achieveboth wildlife and range objectives. Existing fencesmay be modified, and new fences will be built toallow wildlife passage. Where nattiral springs exist,development will provide a more dependable watersource for wildlife and livestock. Water troughs willaccommodate use by wildlife and livestock. Thespring area and the overflow wiil be fenced toprevent trampling,

Vegetative maniptilation projects will be designed tominimize wildlife habitat impact and to improvehabitat when possible, The Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife will have an opportunity to reviewall projects involving vegetation manipulation,

Habitat management plans will be written forselected areas of wildlife habitat, e.g., bighornsheep, bald eagles, resident and anadromous fish.The plans will include detailed information onspecies emphasis, management objectives,constraints, planned actions, coordination with otherprograms and agencies, environmental analyses,implementation schedule and cost analyses andevaluation procedures. Priorities will be determinedby need (shortage of habitat, conflict with otheruses, potentiai or Gppsrtunity for improvement! etc.).

Crucial habitats will be monitored fGr forageproduction, habitat condition changes, and overalleffectiveness of improvements, Monitoring studieswill include browse, photo trend, eagle inventory%and remote sensing. Wildlife habitat monitoring willenable the Bureau to make decisions on forageallocation and seasonal use restrictionsmade after monitoring described in grazingmanagement.

Streams wil! be monitored to ensure maintenance ofwater quality and riparian conditions and toevaluate the effectiveness of stream improvementpractices. This monitoring includes riparianinventory and phsto trend, water quality inventsry,biotic condition index, fish census and remotesensing of riparian habitat. The priority in whichthese streams will be monitored for improvement isbased upon characteristics of the fisheries, intensityof management! and available funding.

Continued seasonal restrictions would be applied tomitigate impacts of human activities on importantseasanal wildlife habitat. Some important types ofhabitat include deer winter range, raptor nestinghabitat, and curlew nesting habitat.

17

The priority for implementation will be as follows:

High---Monitor, maintain or improve habitat forthreatened or endanyered species, eg., baldeagles.

Monitor, maintain or improve aquatic habitat onthsse streams kivin3 good potential for fishmanagement. Priorities will be based upon criteriaset forth irr the Draft RhnPfEIS. Monitor, maintain orimprove riparian habitat as identified in the DraftRhlPI’ElS. Monitor, maintain or improve bighornsheep range.

Medium-Pdunitor, maintain or improve winter rangefor deer and elk. Place pritxities for specifictreatment in thase areas having the greatest

problems, the best potential or both, Moniior~maintain or improve aquatic habitat streams havingnanlntensive management values.

Low-Monitor and maintain aquatic habitat onstreams having little or no fish management vatue.MonitcrrS maintain or improve habitat fsr game andnongame species of high interest in the area.

Livestock GrazingThe availability of forage will remain at 17t778 A%[Msin the short term. Sixty miles sf fence wili beconstructed, approximately 7,800 acres ofsagebrush will be csntrolled through prescribedburning, and 63 springs will be develeped. As aresult of range developments astd improving

ecoiogica! condition, available forage for livestock isprojected to increase to 19,920 AUMs in the longterm as monitoring indicates these increases areappropriate. Livestock use in the Horn Butte (2571)and Hi Meadows (2644) Allotments will be managedto enhance habitat for the long billed curlew.

Changes in periods of use or exclusion throughconstruction of 131 miles of riparianprotectionfexciusion fence, or a combination of bothwill occur where necessary to meet objectives ofthis alternative. Intensive management, which willencourage a change in ecological condition towardclimax, will be implemented on 259,000 acres. Onthe remaining 34,000 acres there will be fessintensive management which will either improve ormaintain existing conditions. Table 3 indicates thenumber of allotments and areas of public land andunder what grazing systems they are now grazedby livestock and how they will be grazed in thefuture. No allotments or entire pastures withinallotments are proposed for exclusion of livestock atthis time.

lmplementatisnImplementing and monitoring the livestock grazingportion of this plan will require several separate

Table 3 Existing and Proposed Grazing Systems

Existing ProposedSituation RMPNo. Allot,/ No. Allot.;

System 1 Acres AcresIn;piCWi!

1 12,'50,178 591?83,6922 22163,243 03 2517Q,271 0

h!aintain1 12115,560 32147,2642 14!17,514 9/5,2503 15!19,460 0

C&&dial1 1213,568 66/28,Q432 57125,076 67128,4673 64127:864 0

Totalt 36169,306 1571259,0192 931105,835 76133,7173 104117!959 0

Totals 233292,736 2331292,736

11 Systems which wiii e~auraye an upward change in ecologicalcondition (early spring. deferred, deferred rotation, winter, rest rotation).2 Systems which will maintain or improve existing ecological conditions(deferred use one of three years),3 Systems which will encourage a downward change /I; ecologicalcondition (spring/summer).

Cattle grazing on public lands

actions that overlap in time, some of which areunderway. These actions include development ofallotment management plans (AMPs) andCooperative Resource Management Plans (CRMPs);monitoring to determine stocking levels and forageuse decisions; and monitoring to determine ifselective management criteria are being fulfilled.

The priority for implementation will be as follows:

High-Implement AMPs/CRMPs based uponselective management. Priorities for AMPiCRMPimplementation are as follows:

0 Complete or revise partially completedAMPsiCRMPs;0 Improve category allotments;0 Maintain category allotments;0 Custodial category allotments.

Medium-Monitor allotments to establish stockingrates where data indicates reduction in forage useor where data is inconclusive or nonexistent.

Low-Issue grazing decisions where no reductionsare required or reductions are negotiated withlessee.

RiparianAll riparian areas along the Deschutes and JohnDay rivers and their major tributaries will bemanaged to reach full potential, with a minimum of60 percent of the vegetative potential to beachieved within 20 years. Livestock grazing will bemanaged to reach the stated riparian objectives.

ImplementationManagement actions within riparian areas willinclude measures to protect or restore natural

19

functions. 8s defined iry Executia~e Orders It988and f1996. Management techniquef will tae used ?Sminimize degradation of stream banks and the lctssof riparian vegetation. Roads and either linearfaeitities will avoid riparian areas where feasibk.FSiparian habitat needs wiG be considered indeiieloping livestock grazing systems,

Leas&Be MineralsLeasable minerais will continue to be madeavailable on most of the land where the surface isalso publicly hawned. Restrictisns or cA-iaflges inlease stipulatisns will apply only to areas notpresently leased or areas pseaently leased whereleases will be renewed. Leases will not be grantedon 12.5 acres of pub%ie lands withiri the GsvernsrTom McCall Preserve; tv\;s parcels of puinlic landtotaling 78 acres within the Coiumbia Cbrge: 258acres of public lands within the propased islandResearch Natural Area: and 2,617 acres of pmMzlands within The Cove Palisades State Park.

expioration and development will be maintained on132,000 acres of public lands in the planningarea--lands identified as nationally significant orvisually sensitive!

Exceptions to the stipulation of no surfaceoccupancy will be evaluated using the followingcriteria:

(I) Evidence of exploration or similar activities wouldnot be visible from the surface of either the JohnDay River or the Deschutes River. Activities withinother areas of the river corridors may be visible, butshould not attract attention, or leave long termvisual impacts,

(2j Ali activities involving exploration would useexisting roads to the fullest extent possible,

(3) Any proposed exploritory drilling pad or roadconstruction for access to a drilling site would belocated to avoid canyon slopes and areas of highvisibility. In these areas roads and dnlling siteswould be fully rehabilitated when operations havebeen completed.

When leases are issued or renewed with the NSO,the criteria for exception will be included in thestipulation.

lmpiementationTable 5 Minerat Leasing Direction Under theProposed Plan

Public Land Opento Developmentwith StandardStipulations 26.9%

Open toDevelopment withRestrictiveStipulations’ 18.6%

Closed to Leasing .4%

Reserved FederalMineral EstateOpen to LeasingWith StandardStipulations

383,000 54.1%

Totals 708,000 100%

The :estrictive no surface occupancy stipulatlcns reads as follows:“Because af the high scenic and recreational values, no surfacecxcupancy is allowed on the part of the iease falling within the Joho DayRiver canyon or the neschutes River canyon, unless wrltten pernmission isgranted by the BLM deputy state director for rninefals with the consent ofthe PnneGlie BLM District Manager:’(RestrictIons or changes in lease stipulations wmld apply cniy to areasnot presently leased o: areas presently leased where leases are renewed,)

Locatable MineralsAreas not specifically withdrawn from mineral entrywill continue to be open under the mining laws tohelp meet the demand for minerals. Mineralexploration and development on public land will beregulated under 43 CFR 3809 to preventunnecessary and undue land degradation. No newmineral withdrawals are proposed in this plan. TheBureau will recommend that the existing protectivewithdrawal at the Macks Canyon ArchaeologicalSite be retained.

Salable MineralsSalable minerals, including common varieties ofsand, gravel, and stone wilt continue to be madeavailable for local governments, The salable mineralprogram involves several quarries where State andCounty road departments obtain rock for roadsurfacing material. New quarry sites may bedeveloped as needed if they are consistent with theprotection of other resource values.

All public lands are open to recreational mineralcollection unless specific minerals are subject toprior rights, such as mining claims.

Reserved Federal Mineral EstateThe reserved Federal mineral estate will continue tobe open for mineral development. Conveyance ofmineral interest owned by the United States, wherethe surface is, or will be, in non Federal ownership,may be enacted after a determination made underSection 209(b) of FLPMA finds:

(1) That there are no known mineral values in theland, or

(2) That the reservation of mineral rights in theUnited States would interfere with or preclude nonmineral development of the land and that suchdevelopment is a more beneficial use of the landthan mineral development.

All land tenure adjustments will consider the effecton the mineral estate. If the lands are not known tohave mineral development potential, the mineralinterest will normally be transferred simultaneouslywith the surface.

Land Tenure and AccessExchange, Transfer or SaleThe preferred method of disposal will be throughexchange to achieve goals of public valueenhancement in all three zones, The transfer ofpublic lands to other public land managementagencies will occur if inore efficient management ofthe land will resuit. Public lands listed in AppendixJ of the Draft RMP/EIS, as revised, will be

21

(2) The use is compatible VMI historical use onadjacent private lands.

Agricultural use wili b6c? permitted 012 an estimated450 acres and another 300 acre.5 now undercultivation will be reckkwd. Private appropriation cfwater from the Juhn Day River as it relates toagricultural use on adjacent public lands will becoordinaled through the Oregsn Department of FM7and Wrldlife, the Otegan

An estimated 61,885 acres of public land withinspecial management areas Where off road v&i&use wsuld ;-ICI~ be appropriate and in other areaswhere signifisani damage to soils. vegetation.wildlife. or visual qualities is resuiting from ar’f roadvehicle use will be limited CT ciossd ES fcllsws:

Limited DesignationVehicle travel on public lands in the following areaswill be restricted to existing roads and trails, yearlong. in addition, a seasonal closure witI beimplemented when appropriate to prevent excessivedamage to soil and vegetation. During this periodvehicle travel wili be confined to designated roadsonly.

Chukar hunter ila the Deschutes River Cmyon

1. Deschufes River as shown on Map 11 in theDraft RMPIEIS-2,500 acres.2. Horn Butte Wildlife Area as shown on Map 13 inthe Draft RMPfElS-6,000 acres.3. Macks Canyon Archaeological Site as shown onMap 13 in the Draft RMPIEIS-25 acres,4. Spanish Gulch Mining District as shown on Map13 in the Draft RMPIEIS-335 acres.5. Existing ORV use areas in and adjacent to theJohn Day River Canyon as shown on Map 11 in theDraft RMPIEIS-iO!OOO acres.6. John Day River Canyon from Butte Creek toCottonwood Bridge-35,000 acres.

Vehicle travel in the following areas will berestricted to designated roads and trails on public;land, year long.

1. Primitive and developed recreation sites adjacentto the Deschutes River (including but not limited toSteelhead Falls, Trout Creek, South Junction, andBeavertail)-- acres,2. Spring 5asin near the John Day River as shownon Map 11 in the Draft RMP/ElS--6,000 acres.3. Oregon Trail l-listoric Sites at McDonald andFourmile Canyon as shown on Map 13 in the DraftRMFYEIS--424 acres,

Closed DesignationVehicle travel on public lands in the following areaswiil not be allowed so as to protect unique naturalvalues and riparian habitat as well as preventingexcessive soil and vegetation disturbance.

1. The Governor Tom McCall! Preserve at Rowenaas shown on Map 13 in the Draft RNIP/EIS--12.5acres.2. The botanical/scenic areas within the ColumbiaGorge as shown on Map 13 in the DraftRMPIEIS--76 acres.3. The Island in The Cove Palisades State Park asshown on Map 13 in the Draft RMPIEIS-250 acres.4. Mecca Flat adjacent to the Deschutes River nearWarm Springs--320 acres,5. Public lands in the vicinity of the BLM fieldheadquarters at Maupin-160 acres

ORV use in wilderness study areas is guided by theBureau’s ‘“Interim Management Policy andGuidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review.”Areas designated as wilderness through legisiation,would have ORV use restricted by the specificlegislation and/or Bureau’s “WildernessManagement Policy.‘!

RockhoundingCollectible mineral resources with moderate or highvalue, including plant and invertebrate fossils, willbe available for rockhounding and recognized inland use decisions.

23

Fbckhamds digging in agate beds near Antelope

Abi perblk lands in the planning area will bedesignated under t3e BLM off road vehicleregulations as part af the T&o Rivers ResourceManagement Plan Record of Decision andpubiicatisn sf the designation order in the FederalFkgtster.

The thirteen speciat management areas identifiedcm Table 16 sf the Draft RMPIEiS will be managedas foilows:

The lsIand in The Cove Palisadesstate ParkDesignate and manage 25Cl acres of pubiic land asan Area of Critical Enviro’tmental Concern;Research Natural Area. This includes 88 acres ofUSFS land and will necessitate a cooperativemanagement agreement.

The designation and management of this area willbe designed ts protect and preserve what isc63nsidered ts be the best remaining example of thewestern juniper/big sag~br~sh~b~~sb~~~hwheatgrass ecstyps plant association ig the region.It is aIs@ a raptsr. deer, and waterfosui use area andCCltit~ilX outstanding scenic vistas of Lake BillyChinook and the Cascades,

Deschutes and John Day RiverCanyons (Including the Red VVaH)Continue managing areas of high visual and naturalquality in the canysn areas (approximately 639,088acres) while allowing other compatible uses in thesame area. Continue cosprative role with the StateParks and Recreation Division of the OregonDepartment sf Transportation in managing thepublic lands consistent with the intent of theOregon Scenic VJaterways Act.

John Day River StateRefuge, l-lsrn Butte

Incompatible uses will be excluded from theseareas, They will be managed to meet forage andhabitat needs for big game and non game speciesas recommended by the Oregsn Department ofFish and Wildlife. The Horn Butte Curlew Areawhich totals 8,0hlQ acres will be designated as anArea of Critical Envircrnmeratal Concern, Thedesignation and management of this area will bedesigned ts protect and preserve the importantnesting habitat for the long billed curlew *whichexists as a result of a bluebunch wheatgrass,Sandburg bluegrass, needlegrass, snakewood andgray rabbitbrush habitat type,

s WatershedContinue management agreement with the City ofThe C?ailes. Surface disturbing activities will beexcluded from this 410 acre area if they would haiiean adverse effect on the wat.tershed,

The Governor Tom McCaIli Preserveat Rowena and thebotanicalkxmic areas within theColumbia Gorge.Designate 125 acres within The Governor TomMcCall Preserve as an Area of CriticalEnvironmental Concern; Outstanding Natural Area.The important botanical and scenic qualities of 33additional acres (in two parcelsj outside thisprese~e3 but wdithin the Columbia Gorge, will atsobe preserved with a designation as an Area ofCritical Environmental Concerra; Outstanding NatisralArea. The designation and management of theseareas will be designed to protect and pri;sesve theIdaho f~s~~~~h~~~~~~~~~d and Co’iumbia Gorge fsrestcomplex ecctypes or plant assssiations lti;hich existin the areas. Four rare piants are atso withifi thispres:erve. High iiisual qaaBiti43-s are alss present andcan be seen from both Oregon and Washingtonhighways within the gorge.

24

Historic Spanish Gukh MiningDistrktThe 335 acre Spanish Gulch Mining District will bedesignated as an Area of Critical EnvironmentatConcern to protect and maintain significanthistorical values.

This mining district is an important historic goldmining area dating back to the mid 180Qs.Remnants of early mining activities include an oldstamp mill, mineshafts and several old cabins.

The Oregon Trail Historic Sites atFourmile Canyon and McDonaldand the Macks CanyonArchaeological Site.The unusual qualities of these sites will bemaintained and protected, Intensive managementplans, as well as public information and interpretiveplans will be developed for these areas.

Designation of the five special management areasas areas of critical environmental concern withthree areas being managed as either a researchna?ural area, or an outstanding natural area will becompleted upon filing of the record of decision andpublication of the designation order in the FederalRegister. Additional survey work will be initiated onSutton Mountain and on the Sherars Bridge Roadto determine if the areas meet the criteria for one ofthe above designations. Any areas which arenominated and found to meet the criteria forclassification as an Area of Critical EnvironmentalConcern in the future will receive interim protectivemanagement until formal designation occurs.

The Island in The Cove Palisades State Park

Threatened or EndangeredPlant SpeciesPrior to any !and tenure adjustments or vegetativemanipulation is allowed, the SLM requires a stirtieyof the project site for piants listed or proposed forlisting as threatened or endangered species, or itscritical habitat. Every effort will be made to modify!relocate, or abandon the project to obtain a “noeffect” determination. If the BLM determines that aproject cannot be altered or abandoned,consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicewiil be initiated (50 CFR 402; Endangered SpeciesAct of 1973, as amended).

Fire ManagementThe main emphasis of a fire management programin the Two Rivers Planning Area will continue to beprevention and suppression of wildfire to protectpublic values such as timber, vegetation, visualresources and adjacent private property. Prescribedfire wili be used to reach multiple use objectives.When prescribed fire is considered under variousprograms it will be coordinated with the OregonDepartment of Forestry and adjacent landownersand carried out in accordance with approved firemanagement plans and appropriate smokemanagement goals and objectives,

Noxious Weed ControlInfestations of noxious weeds are known to occuron some public lands in the planning area. Themost common noxious weeds are diffuse, spottedand Russian knapweed, yeliow star thistle,dalmation toadflax, and poison hemlock. Controlmethods will be proposed and subjected to sitespecific environmental analyses. Control methodswill not be considered unless the weeds areconfined to public lands or control efforts arecoordinated with owners of adjoining infested, nonpublic lands. Proper grazing management will beemphasized after control to minimize possiblereinfestation.

Withdrawal Review

Review of withdrawals will be completed by 1991.These withdrawals may be continued, modified, orrevoked. Revocation of withdrawals will berecommended by BLM where they are no longerneeded or where they are in conflict with the RMPif the withdrawal review process determines theyare no longer needed. Theur revocation andopening to applicable public laws would beconsistent with the plan. Upon revocation ormodification, part or all of the withdrawn land mayrevert to BLM management. No additional BLMwithdrawals are proposed.

Utility and TransportationCorridorsA61 utility!transportation corridors identified by theWestern Regional Corridor Study of May 1980,prepared by the Ad Hoc Western Utility Group arecurrently occupied and will be designated withoutfurther review. Gorridor widths vary, but are aminimum of 2,000 feet. No additional crossing siteson the BLM managed portions of the Deschuiesand John Day rivers will be permitted. No facilitieswill be allowed parallel to the railroad right of wayin the Deschutes Canyon. Applicants will beencouraged to locate new facilities (includingcommunication sites) adjacent to existing facilitiesto the extent possible.

All rights of way applications will be reviewed usingthe criteria of following existing corridors whereverpractical and avoiding proliferation of separaterights of way. Recommendations made to applicantsand actions approved will be consistent with theobjectives of the RMP All designated areas ofcritical environmental concern and wilderness studyareas will be considered right of way exclusionareas. Public lands will continue to be available forlocal rights of way, including multiple use andsingle use utility/transportation corridors foilowingexisting routes, communication sites, and roads.Issuance of leases and/or patents under theRecreation and Public Purposes Act and otherpermits or leases for development of public landswill also continue, Applications will be reviewed onan individual basis for conformance with the TwoRivers RMP to minimize conflicts with otherresources or users.

Cadastral Survey andEngineering ProgramsCadastral surveys and engineering activities willcontinue to be conducted in support of resourcemanagement programs. The road maintenanceprogram will continue. Existing approved contractswill not be affected by the RMP

Land SalesSales of public land will continue to be conductedunder the authority of Section 203 of the FederalLand Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)which requires that one of the following conditionsexist before land is put up for sale: (1) Such tract,because of its location or other characteristics, isdifficult and uneconomical to manage as part of thepublic lands, and is not suitable for management byanother Federal department or agency; or (2) Suchtract was acquired for a specific purpose and thetract is no longer required for that or any otherFederal purpose; or (3) Disposal of such tract will

27

serve important public objectives, including but notlimited to! eiiparsion of communities and eccnomicdevetapment, which cannot be achieved prudentlyor feasibly 13;~ land other than pubfic Band andwhich oW*&gh other public objectives and values,including, but not limited to, recreation and scenicvalues! L%‘hich would be served by maintaining suchtract in Federal ownership.

Al1 sales of qubiie land ;+4/l be preeeeded by fieldinventories. environmer?tai assessments and publicnotificatisn procedures. Activity plans for land salesare nsi required under BLM policy.

Land ExchExchanges of public land will continue underSection 286 of FLPMA which requires:

l A determinatirsn that the public interest will bew&l seriied by making ar-i exchange:0 Lands to be exchanged are located in the samestate; andl Exchanges must be for equal value 51utdifferences car, be equalized by payment of moneyby either party not to exceed 25 percent of the totalvalue sf the lands transferred out of Federalownership,

Exchariges will be made only when they willenhance public resource vaiues and only when theyimprove land patterns and management capabilitiesof both private and public lands within the planningarea by consolidated ownership and reducing thepotential for conflicting land use.

Visual ResourcesBefore the BLM initiates or permits any majorsurface disturbing activities on public land: ananalysis will be csmpieted to determine adverseeffects on visual qualities. Activities that will resultin significant, long term adverse effects on thevisual resources of the John Day or DeschutesRiver cat~yans in areas normally seen from theserivers will not be permitted.

Activities within other areas of high visual qualitythat may be seen might be permitted if they do notattract attention or leave tong term adverse visualchanges on the land. Activities in other areas maychange the landscape but will be designed tominimize any adcverse effect on visual quality.

Cultural resource clearances vdiil be completed onall projects that Mude s-I;rfaee disiurbanc~e ~~hichrequire BLM approval cx zre initiated by the BLM4.

28

Sites Will be evaluated to determine eiigibiiitg: fornomination to the Matiorsat Regis:er 13: His:oricPlaces. Inventories w!Il be conducted to determinethe amount and extent of the cultural resource inthe planning area,

Areas ur:der wilderness w&w ~;;tl[ conbinus ts bemanaged f~illo~~ing the guidance of the Bureau‘sIr;terim Management Fslicy for Lands UnderWiiderness Review, This policy i,GlP be in &isct untilareas are released from interim management. Areasdesignated wilderness will be managed under theguidelines sf BLM’a Wilderness Management PaliC~.

This environmental impact statement may best bedescribed as a programmatic statement for the TwoRivers Planning Area, Site specific environmentalanalysis and documentation finciuding categoricalexclusion where appropriate) wiil be accomplishedfor each proposed project. lnterdasciplinary impactanalysis will be tiered within the frameivsrk of thisand other applicable environmental impactstatements.

Significant revisions and currections to the DraftTvo Rivers Resource Management Plan andEnvironmental Impact Statement (RkAFV3.2) arepresented in this chapter. Ttle page numbers thatappear in bold print throughtsut this chapter indicatetile page of the Draft R%,4P/ElS 811 which theaddition or correction would appear if the entiredraft vmre being reprinted.

Page v Under Aliernative I3 delete “Multipleuslc from beginning of second sentence.

Page 7 Under state and Local Goverraments.After second sentence insert: Other agreementsbetween ELM and ODFfi which affect themanagemetst sf the public lands include:

All current agreements remain unchanged and willnot be affected by ttlis R~,P,PlEl%.

Page 8 Table 3 under Wildlife GoalI--Discussion-Reword first seratence to read: “‘Allalternatives except Alternative B are consistent withthe objective:

Under Wildlife Goal 3--RewcXd the discusion toread: “Alternatives A, D! and E are consistent withthe objective by improving habitat diversity andincreasing wildlife species diversity. which wouldenhance the quality of public enjoyment of wildlife.Alternative B wolrld not be csnsistent with thisobjecthe Alternative 6 wound maintain the existingsituation.

Page 16 Under Locatable Minerals, After firstsentence add: Apprccjcimately 240 acres of publicland at the Macks Clanpn rccreationfarchaesiogicaisite next to the Deschutes River are currentlywithdrawn from mineral entry.

Page 28 Under Soil after second paragraphinsert the foliswing:

Soil erosion patential isr the public lands within theplanning area area is as follows:

Page 32 Under wildBife-upland HabitatDikW~itjf, after 1st Senter%X? add: Habitats thatcontain a wi& diversiVy of vegetative species andstructure provide for a wider variety of ;4dlifespecies. These diverse habitats and resultingwildiife communities are RLKti UK%%! SWJlk? thEIthose which are monotypic in nature,

Page 33 After Ist paragraph add: Thisgrouping pracess enables the land manager taevahate the response of wildlife to habitat mtlchmore readily than if each species were ccnsideredalone. Thus it is possible te predict the effect ofvarious manipuiations on wiSdlife.

Under Big Game Habitat-Mule Deer and Black-tailed Deer in the ses:wnd sentence add bigsagehush ts t&e list sf cc+/er species.

Page 34 Table IG should be revised asfollows:

Page 35 See Revised Map 5.

Pages 33, 34 and 35 All references toBlacktail deer should be changed to Black-taileddeer.

Page 54 Public land acreage for Horn ButteWild!ife Area shouid be changed from 4300 acresta 6,QQO acres.

Page 136 Delete pat&s located it9 T. 6 S.. 8.13 E., Sections 14: 15 and 22 totaling 380.32 fromthe list of pstentiai land dhposal tracts in Appsndtx

30

The lands identified by Hood River Ckunty arepublic lands k&d as potentialiy suitable fordisposal. Prisr to any final dispssai a&km, theCounty wilt Se notified to deternsitw their interest inacquiring these lands under the Recreation andPublic Purposes Act or throtrgh sale or exchange.

- Rlparian Areas on Public Lalad32

REVISED MAP 5Riparian Areas

andWildlife Habitat

Chapter 4Consultation and

Trout Creek near Ashwood

lntroductisn permits were supported as proposed. Gsneesn wiisThe Two Rivers RMPB3S was prepared by an

expressed about OWV us@ and rockhounding as itcould affect private land.

interdisciplinary team of specialists from thePrineviile BkM District Office, Writing of theRhIP;ElS began it: October 1984; however. a Agencies andprocess that began its: rhi~~k 1984 preceded thewriting phase, The WfvlPiEIS process included Organizations Coresource inventory, public participation, interagency C o n s u l t e dcoordination, and preparation of a managementsituation analysis (ofi file at the Prineville District The RMP,‘EIS team contacted or received inputOfficej. Consultation and coordination with from the following organizations during theagencies, organizations. and individuais occurred development of the RMPEBS:thrcmughrsut the planning process,

Pubk involvement Federal AgenciesU.S.D.E. Bonneville Power Admiwistratiot-iA notice was pubiished in the Federai Register and U,S.D.l. Bureau of Mineslo,~al news media in April 1984 to announce the US Environmental Protecti0hi Agencyformal start of the WMPEIS planning process. At U.S.D,l, Fish and Wildlife Servicethat time a planning brochure was sent to the U.S.D.A. Wrest Servicepub!ic to request ft~rther defirrition of issues within U.S.D.I. National Park Servicethe planning area. An opportunity was provided to USDA. Soil Conservation Servicesubmit cammerits on proposed criteria to be usedin fsrmulating aiternstives. State and Local GoverIn May 1984 a notice sf documer3 availability was Department of Fish and Wildlifepublished in the Federal Register and in the local Department of Forestrymws media for the Two Rivers Resource Department of Land Gor=~servation and DevelopmentManagement l3an Proposed Land Use Alternatives Department of Landsbrochure. An outline of propissed alternatives, major Historic Preservation Qfficerissues and revised planning criteria were included Department of Geslogy and Mineral Industriesin this dscument, Three alternatives portrayed Brogan State Parka and Recreation Division of thevafir~s rescsurce programs showing a range from Department of TransportBationemphasis on production @f commodities to an Department of Water Resourcesemphasis on enhancement of natural vali~s with amiddle ground alternative attempting to provide a Crook County Commissionersbalance between the two. The fourth (no action) Gilliam County Commissionersatternative reflected existing management. The Hood River County Commissisnersproposed alternatives brochure included a map on Jefferson County Commissionersallotment categorization for grazing management Sherman County Commissionersand another map which divided the public lands Wzaco County Commissionersinto three different morIes fsr the purpose of Wheeler County Gommissicneraidenii$ing pubiic land vahes. Neither mapgenerated any comment or pubiis: objections during Organisatithe EIS scoping prccess.

Atlantic Richfield GsmpanyOr! April 12, 1985, a notice of document availability Brooks Resources Corporationwas phlished in the Federa; Register and in Bocz.l Central Oregon Audubon Ghapternews media for the Draft 340 Rivers Resource Central Oregon RXfii:ishersManagement Plat?/Er?virsnrrsental Impact Statem7?ent, Envir’snmental Research CommitteePublic meetings were held in Gondcn on May 21, Meridian Land and 661ineral G~mpany1985 and in Grass Valisy on May 22, 1985 for the Natural Resources Defense Gsuncil, Inc.purpose of receiving oral and written comments, Oregon Council of Rock and Mineral GlubsThe Draft RMPIEIS was i3.Iso dL3cussed with the Oregon Hunters ,AsaociatisnDistrict Advisory Gour~il and Grating Board on Oregon Natural /-ieritagt@ Gtata BaseJune 14 and 20, 1985 respectively. The District Oregon Natural Resources CouncilAdvisory Council and Grazing Board suppcrted Southern California Edison Gcmpenyriparian management as prsprssed and the need for University of QregsniLar3d Air alt!‘ater;‘kn !ndepe:-identmaintaining a balance with livestock grazing was Law student Groupvoiced. Land saiess mineral leasing and agricultural Western Utility Grsup

34

Advisory Council on Historic PreservationU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S.D.A, Forest ServiceU.S.D.A. Soil Conservation ServiceU.S.D.D. Army Corps of EngineersU.S.D.E, Sonneviiie Power AdministrationU.S.D,I. Bureau of Indian AffairsU.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife ServiceU.S. Il. I * Geological surveyU.S.D.I. Nationai Park ServiceU,S,D.l. Bureau of MinesU.S.D.I. Bureau of ReclamationU.S,D.C. National Marine Fisheries Service

state and Local GovernmentCrook County CourtCrook County Planning CommissionCentral Oregon Intergovernmental CouncilEast Central Oregon Association of CountiesGiliiam County CourtGilliam County Planning DepartmentHood River County Planning DepartmentJefferson County CommissionersJefferson County Planning DepartmentOregon State University Extension ServiceDepartment of Environmental QualityDepartment of Fish and WildlifeDepartment of Geslogy and Mineral IndustriesDivision of State LandsDepartment of Land Conservation and DevelopmentDepartment of ForestryParks and Recreation Division of the Department ofTransportationDepartment of AgricultureHistoric Preservation OfficerClearinghouse, Executive Department A-95lntergovernmentai Relations DivisionState LibraryNational Association of Conservation DistrictsSherman County CourtSherman County, Planning DepartmentWarm Springs Tribal CouncilLvasco County Planning DepartmentWheeler County Planning Department

Interest Groups andOrganizatls1000 Friends of OregonAmerican Fisheries SocietyAmerican Forest InstituteAM(3CO Production CompanyAssociated Oregon IndustriesAssociated Oregon Loggers Inc.Association of Oregon ArchaeologistsAtlantic Richfield CompanyAudubon SocietyBohemia Mine Owners AssociationBrooks Resources CorporationCascade Holistic Economic ConsultantsChevron Resources CompanyColumbia Rivet Intertribal Fish CommissionColumbia Gorge CoalitionConfederated Tribes of Warm SpringsDefenders of WildlifeDesert Trail AssociationEast Cascade Action CommitteeEast Oregon Forest Protective AssociationEastern Oregon Mining AssociationEnvironmental Education Association of OregonFederation of Western Qutdoors ClubsFriends of the EarthGeothermal Resources CouncilIndustrial Forestry Associationlzaak Walton LeagueLeague of Women VotersMazamasNational Mustang AssociationNational Public Lands Task ForceNatural Resources Defense CouncilNational Wildlife FederationNative Plant Society of OregonNature ConservancyNorthwest Environmental Defense CenterNorthwest Federation of Mineralogical SocietiesNorthwest Mineral Prospectors ClubNorthwest Mining AssociationNorthwest Petroleum AssociationNorthwest Pine AssociationNorthwest Power Planning CouncilNorthwest Timber AssociationOregon Cattleman’s AssociationOregon Council of Rock and Mineral ClubsOregon Environmental CouncilOregon Hunter’s AssociationOregon Natural Heritage Data BaseOregon Natural Resources CouncilOregon Sheep GrowersOregon Sportsman and ConservationistsOregon TroutOregon Wilderness CoalitionPacific Gas Transmission CompanyPNW Research Natural Area Forestry Science LabPNW 4 Wheel Drive AssociationPNW Forest and Wange Experiment Station

35

Public Lands CouncilPublic Lands InstituteRocky Mountain Realty, Inc.Sagecountry Alliance for a Good EnvironmentShell western F&P, lno.Sierra ClubSociety for Range ManagementThe Oregon GroupThe Wilderness SocietyThe Wildlife SociefiWaldo Mining District AssociationWestern Councii; Lumber Production and IndustrialWorkersWestern Forest industries AssociationWestern Land ExchangeWestern Oil and Gas AssociationWildlife Management Institute

Approximately 467 additional individuals andorganizations who have expressed an interest inuse and management of public lands in theplanning area were also sent copies of theRMPIEIS. tncluded in this group are all grazinglessees within the planning area, members of theState legislature, U.S. Congressional delegation,and various educational institutions.

Consistency ReviewPrior to approval of the proposed RMP, the StateDirector will submit the plan to the Governor ofOregon and request that he identify any knowninconsistencies with State or local plans, policies orprograms. The Governor will have SO days in whichto identify inconsistencies and providerecommendations in writing to the State Director.The consistency of the plan with the resourc@related plans, programs and policies of otherFederal agencies, State and local government andIndian tribes wi!l be reevaluated in the future aspart of the formal monitoring and periodicevaluations of the plan.

Comment and ProtestProceduresIf you wish to make comments for the DistrictManager’s consideration in the deveiopment of thedecision, ploase submit your comments byNovember 15, 1985 to the District ManagerPrinevilk District Office. The plan decisions will bebased cm the analysis contained in the EIS: andadditional data available, public opinion,management feasibility3 policy and legal constraints.

Any person who participated in the planningprocess and ha.s an interest that is or may beadversely affected by approval of the proposedWMP may file E written protest with the Director of

38

th@ BLM within 30 days of the date the EPApublishes the notice of receipt of the proposedRMP and final EIS in the Federal Register. Protestsshould be sent to the Director, Bureau of LandManagement, 18th and C Streets NW, WashingtonDC. 20240 by November 15: 1985. The protest shallcontain the name, mailing address, telephonenumber? and interest of the person filing the protest;a statement of the issues being protested (raisingonly those issues that were submitted for the wordduring the planning process); a statement of theparts of the plan being protested: copies of alldocuments addressing the issues submitted duringthe planning process by the protesting party: or anindication of the date the issues were discussed fo!the record; and a concise statement explaining whythe decision is believed to be wrong.

The Director shall render a prompt written decisionon the protest setting forth the reasons for thedecision. The decision shall be sent to theprotesting pariy by certified mail and shall be thefinal decision of the Department of the Interior.

Comment AnalysiChanges or additions to the draft arising frompublic comments are included in Chapter 3 of thisProposed WMP and Final EIS. The letters whichwere received have been reproduced in thisproposed RMP and finai EIS. with each substantivecomment identified and numbered. BLM responsesimmediately follow each of the letters.

The agencies, organizations and individuals whocommented on the Draft Two Rivers WMPIE%S areas follows:

1. Don Childs2. U.S.D.A. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range

Experiment Station3. Jim Myron4. Oregon Trout5. Oregon Forestry Department6, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Reclamation7. FL Mariner Orum8. Oregon Natural Heritage Data Base9. William Berray10. Lawrence E. Nielsen11. State Parks and Recreation Division of the

Department of Transportation12. Oregon Natural Resources Council13. Wildlife Management Institute14. John R. Swanson15. ARC0 Exploration Company16. US,D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service17. She/l Western E&P, .lnc.1%. Eastern Oregon Mmrng Association, Inc.19. Portland Chapter of laaak Walton League20. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife21, U,S. Environmental Protection Agency22. Audubon Society of Portland23, Central Oregon Audubon Society24, Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc.

37

L7*

4

,.- .\.;,, 1,:.

(553) 246.7870. P.O. Bar 19540 .Bor!iond, Oregon 97219

39

7

1/

I

/!

I

i/

I

I[

3

!I

II

I

II

I

I

7., r. I

,,. ,. .:

8-2

8-3

” ._---.-- .-~.. ~

9

1 12

12-l

--.- ^.-~ ~-““. --.-.- -I

43

12-

12-

12-

12-6

:a i, Ai Ii.3 ;?..PiYi-___

12-9

f2-

44

~~-.. ~~. -.---_ .“““, -- -.-

.“-“” “..~ ..--. ..I ..-l-“-. --

45

,:. !

-_ “,--..

--

48

2O-

20-8

20-tB

.-_-- ~~-,

51

“̂ ---- ..-- .”

I

I

m-14

/

I20-11

20--l& I

II

I 20-13

“.‘.., .-* L..‘i ; ,,,,. ! ,:.. .,

,I

PhotQ 1 Cmp Creek Exclosure (Crooked River Drainage) 1966

Condition:Stream gradient - less than 55Sediment l oad - hignSo i l s - principally Legler siit loams - very deep fine textured, gravel layerspresentStream flow - intermittentElevation - greater than 4,000 ft.Wetted atea - less than 1C: ft. wideEstirr,ated at 5% of site potential.

‘I’he full potential of the area is:Daiitinant t r e e - Peachleaf willow, lemon w i l l o wUnderstory tree - Coyote wil.l.ow, McKenzie willow, whiplash willowHe rbaceous - Nerjraska sedge, Baltic r:ushr 3 square bullrush, red t o p , Kentuckyb l u e g r a s sWetted Area - More than 100 ft. wide

P h o t o 3 - Btiar Creek - Crooked K,ivtir drainage 1978. 3 years of non use bylivestock.

Present: condition:Stream gradient - less than 5XSediment Load - low to mediumSO.i.LY - principally wiIlowdvLe loam, very deep, we.LL drained, stratifiedalluvium, medium textured, gravel layers common.El.evation - 3500 ft.Estimated at 352 of site potential..

Present vegetation - mixed grass, sedge, rush with timothy, orchard grass andKentucky bluegrass.

The full potential of this area is:Dominant tree - Fatches of water bircn/alderUnderstory - Coyote willow, silverleaf ;Irillow, yellow wi.Ll.ow, McKenzie wi.Llow.Herbaceous - Mixed grass, sedge, rush

55

56

21-1I

21-2

I

-?

nitc, -,.dl:it_-_-ii-_

-i

I

r

. . . .

59

23 I

I

I

I

I

j

!

I

III

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

/II

--.-i

1 24/ ‘ L’ ‘. v ,, .li ,

: .,..-,

61