ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CASCADE RESERVOIR

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CENTRAL SNAKE PROJECTS OFFICE

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation

Pacific Northwest Region

Boise, Idaho

January 1991
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CASCADE RESERVOIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

CENTRAL SNAKE PROJECTS OFFICE

JANUARY 1991

PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

BOISE, IDAHO

ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Grangeville

Location of

Affected

Area

Hells Canyon

National

Recreation Area

Riggins

National Forest

Idaho

IDAHO

Lost Valley

Reservoir

LEMHI

Mann Creek

Reservoir^ •rane Creek

AVeiser I

^WASHING

J PAYETTE

Ontario

1-84

New

Meadows

[Council1

ADAMS'

Paddock Valle'

Reservoir !

TON ।

JVJGEM

Black Canyon

Reservoir Horseshoe1-J

Bind

BOISE Stanley

Sawtooth Nationa

l Recreation Area

CLUSTER

CANYON

Caldwell

Boise

/ / Boise

^^National

Forest

Arrowrock Reservoir f

\ "~5Un Vs

/BLAINE I

Ketchum

Lake<

Lowell

Nampa Lucky relk

Reservoir

Anderson Ranch

Reservoir

ADA CAMAS

1-84

Mountain

Home ELMORE

^ . ? ^ q?

Map 1-1

Vicinity Map

0 10 20 40

Scale in miles
Table of Contents

Chapter

VICINITY MAP (MAP 1-1)

1. PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Need for Action

1.2 Location and General Description of Affected Area

1.3 Purpose of Environmental Assessment

1.4 Other Related Actions or Activities

2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

2.1 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

2.2 Alternative A

2.3 Alternative C

2.4 Alternative D (No Action)

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Geology and Soils

3.2 Hydrology and Hater Quality

3.3 Biological Resources

3.4 Cultural Resources

3.5 Recreation

3.6 Visual Quality

3.7 Air Quality

3.8 Noise

3.9 Land Use

3.10 Socioeconomic Impacts

3.11 Public Services and Utilities

3.12 Traffic and Circulation

A. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1 List of Contacts

4.2 Bibliography

4.3 Mailing List

APPENDICES

A. Fundamental Concepts Of Environmental Noise

B. Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Methodology

C. Management Objectives of Alternatives A, B and C

Page

FRONTISPIECE

1-1

1-2

1-3

1-3

2-3

2-7

2-9

2-10

3-1

3-5

3-13

3-24

3-29

3-34

3-37

3-39

3-47

3-52

3-55

3-58

4-1

4-3

4-8

A-1

B-1

C-1

i
Page

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Located at End of Document:

2.1 Alternative B: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

2.2 Alternative A: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

2.3 Alternative C: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

2.4 Alternative D: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

Tables Located in Text:

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives 2-2

3.1 Cascade Reservoir Watershed and Reclamation

Land Uses and Areas 3-7

3.2 Cascade Reservoir Water Quality Concerns

and Beneficial Uses Affected 3-8

3.3 Estimate of Reelamation Area Phosphorus

Contributions to Cascade Reservoir 3-9

3.4 Estimated Reservoir Phosphorus Loading for

Alternatives Without Mitigation (kg peryear) 3-10

3.5 Estimated Reservoir Cumulative Phosphorus

Loading With Mitigation (kg per year) 3-10

3.6 Existing Recreation Facilities 3-31

3.7 Existing Traffic Noise in the Reservoir

Area 3-40

3.8 Projected Traffic Noise in the Reservoir Area 3-44

3.9 Existing Land Use 3-49

3.10 1990 Existing Levels of Service in the

Reservoir 3-61

LIST OF FIGURES

(All Figures located at end of document)

2.1 Land Use Alternative B

2.2 Land Use Alternative A

2.3 Land Use Alternative C

2.4 Land Use Alternative D

3.1 Physical Resources

3.2 Vegetation/Fish and Wildlife

3.3 Existing Recreation Sites

3.4 Reiationship Between Sound Level and Response of

Eleven Species of Birds

3.5 Land Use

ii
1. Purpose and Need

1.1 NEED FOR ACTION

Construction of Cascade Reservoir was completed in 1948 by the Bureau of

Reclamation (Reclamation) for use as an irrigation and Federal hydroelectric

facility. The reservoir was filled to capacity for the first time in 1957.

Since that time, the reservoir has become increasingly important for recreation

use, serving west central and southern Idaho as well as out-of-state visitors.

It also provides valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Approximately 255,000

people visited the reservoir in 1988 for swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, and fishing. Demand for recreation access and facilities will continue to

increase as reflected by steadily increasing visitation and participation

figures. Recreation needs may become even more acute with increased income,

more leisure time, easier mobility, increased urbanization, and more active

"baby boomers" seeking greater health in the outdoors. Increased use has placed

increased demands on the limited facilities surrounding the reservoir and has

caused environmental damage. The abundance of high quality recreation

resources, the primary attribute that attracts visitors, has also provided a

setting that is highly suitable for summer homes and other residences on the 

private lands surrounding the reservoir. Ongoing development activities of the 

approximately 66 individual subdivisions situated around the reservoir have

decreased the amount of natural habitat. This loss of habitat has placed

additional importance on maintaining certain areas of federally-owned land at

the reservoir for wildlife resources.

A management plan is needed for the orderly and coordinated development and

management of lands and facilities under Reclamation jurisdiction at Cascade

Reservoir. The plan would be used as the basis for directing activities on the

reservoir in a way that maximizes overall public and resource benefits and

would provide guidance for managing the area over the next 10 years.

The Resource Management Plan will be reviewed, reevaluated, and revised to

reflect changing conditions and management objectives on an as-needed basis.

Opportunities for public involvement would be provided on significant changes

that affect the resource or public use.
1.2 LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED AREA

Cascade Reservoir is located in Long Valley which is bisected by Crown Point

Ridge. The area is characterized by a broad, flat, glacial valley with a mean

elevation of 4807 feet mean sea level (msl). The West Mountains to the west

rise to 8,322 feet and peaks to the northeast are at 8,600 feet. The reservoir is about 80 miles (130 kilometers) north of Boise via State Highway 55

(Map 1-1). The reservoir is fed by three major tributaries: the North Fork

of the Payette, Gold Fork River, and Lake Fork Creek. The reservoir is about

21 miles long with the width ranging from between 1 to 4 miles. It has 

28,300 acres of water surface and 86 miles of shoreline. The reservoir is

shallow; the average depth is only 26.5 feet. Maximum pool elevation of the 

reservoir is 4828 feet msl and minimum pool elevation is 4787.5 feet.

Sugarloaf Island is the most prominent topographic feature within the reservoir. It rises 40 feet above maximum pool level to an altitude of 4,868 feet.

Reservoir shoreline topography can generally be described as low gradient.

Water storage begins in April and reaches a maximum in June and July followed

by a gradual decrease in water level during the remainder of the summer. A

minimum pool of 75 percent of maximal water surface area is maintained from

October to April. The dam and reservoir are operated under the supervision of

the Project Superintendent in the Central Snake Projects Office, Boise, Idaho.

Most of the shoreline is federally-owned (primarily Reclamation and Forest

Service). Public recreation facilities have been developed around the

reservoir, particularly on the west and southeast side. Approximately

20 privately-owned lots concentrated mainly on the northeast side of the

reservoir have direct access to the water. An additional 3,350 lots are 

situated within one-quarter mile of the reservoir.

Cascade Reservoir supports one of the largest fisheries in Idaho yielding

between 300,000 to 400,000 game fish annually. The fishery creates an

important resting and feeding area for many species of waterfowl, shorebirds,

and mammals.

1-2
1.3 PURPOSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This Environmental Assessment (EA) ensures that the selection of management

options complies with the policies and goals defined in the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA has been prepared to inform decisionmakers and the public of the proposed action and its reasonable alternatives.

It focuses on significant environmental issues. However, because the EA must

be prepared considerably in advance of any development activities considered

in general terms under each of the alternatives, the level of detail and 

analyses is necessarily broad in scope. When specific actions are considered

at a later stage, additional environmental evaluation would incorporate by

reference the general discussions in this EA and concentrate solely on the

issues specific to the site. This approach is known as "tiering." All

necessary clearances and permits would be obtained prior to any construction

activities.

1.4 OTHER RELATED ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

The following is a brief description of related projects which may affect

resources at Cascade Reservoir.

Land and Resource Management Plan for the Boise National Forest

Approximately 1,198 acres of project lands on the reservoir are within the

Boise National Forest and are administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

USFS has recently prepared a Forest Plan for the National Forest which will

provide long-term management direction for these lands (Cascade Municipal

Watershed, West Mountain North, and Poison Creek Management Areas). The lands

provide a wide range of resources and uses, including watershed, water

quality, visual quality, timber, and developed and dispersed recreation.

Management emphasis for these lands is on protecting water quality and 

sensitive scenic qualities; meeting key wildlife (bald eagle, elk, deer, and

osprey) habitat needs; enhancing dispersed and developed recreation opportunities; and integrating the management of timber and range resources. USFS

management direction for these lands was considered during the development of

1-3
Alternative B in order to be consistent in the recommended land uses and

objectives on adjacent Reclamation land.

In preparing the preferred alternative (Alternative B), Reclamation

considered existing USFS recreation facilities in assessing existing capacity

and future needs. In some cases, Alternative B suggests minor modifications

at USFS facilities to help balance recreation opportunities around the

reservoir. The maximum recreation alternative (Alternative C) also explores

creation of new recreation sites on USFS land. Proposals relating to USFS

sites are advisory only.

Valbois Resort Project

In late-1990, the USFS, in cooperation with Reclamation, prepared a Final EIS

in response to a request for a Special Use Permit submitted to the Boise

National Forest and Reclamation for the purpose of a year-round destination

resort on the west shore of Cascade Reservoir. The project (if approved)

would occupy 2,800 acres of National Forest lands, 75 acres of lands administered by Reclamation, and 578 acres of private land. In addition, 615 acres

of private land would be used for agricultural crop reuse of domestic

wastewater.

The project would develop alpine skiing facilities consisting of seven lift

lines with associated ski runs (with a capacity to handle 4,350 skiers at one

time with a maximum of 8,700 skiers), one gondola tram, two mid-slope lodges

and a resort lodge at Poison Lake on National Forest lands. Water-oriented

recreation and other facilities would be constructed at Cascade Reservoir on

lands administered by Reclamation. This development would consist of a hotel

and restaurant, a 250-slip marina, a tennis center, and facilities for

providing fuel and services to public boaters. Development of the private

lands would consist mainly of facilities and infrastructure for 3,000 single

and multifamily dwelling units, restaurants, retail shops, and other

commercial uses. Facilities for swimming, equestrian activities, golf, nordic

skiing and ice skating would also be constructed.

1-4
The Final EIS for the project, in which potential environmental impacts of the 

project are evaluated, is available for review at the Forest Supervisor’s

Office, Boise National Forest. It is also available from the Bureau of

Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Regional and Central Snake Project Offices.

Issues or areas of concern raised by the public and review agencies include

the impact of the project on water quality of the reservoir, traffic,

socioeconomic factors (tax revenue, job income, increased public services),

wildlife and fisheries (including threatened and endangered species), soil

erosion and future timber harvest, recreation capacity of the reservoir,

visual quality, cultural resources, wetlands, and public safety (avalanche,

fire, flood, and seismic hazards).

While the Valbois project only directly involves 75 acres of Reclamation land,

the effects of the project in relation to Alternative B are more extensive.

If the Valbois project is approved, the West Mountain South (R-30) marina and

recreation facilities planned for south of Poison Creek (R-32) would not be

included in Alternative B.

Cumulative impacts to recreation, biological resources, socioeconomics and

traffic would be more significant than the individual impacts of either

project. The incremental effect of Valbois would be to cause the carrying

capacity in the north end of the reservoir to be reached more rapidly than

with just Alternative B. Displacement of the Poison Creek eagle pair by the

Valbois development would exacerbate the survival status of the eagle at the

reservoir and would essentially increase the significance of other impacts to

the eagle throughout the reservoir. With the Valbois development, visitation

rates may be higher than the projected 1.4 percent tied to population growth.

This would result in a need for additional management employees on Reclamation

lands. Also as a result of increased visitation due to Valbois, traffic and

circulation impacts would be greater.

The phasing of facility construction and monitoring studies contained within

Alternative B are intended to further evaluate impacts prior to implementation

of elements that may have a greater cumulative effect due to Valbois.

1-5
Cascade Reservoir Bald Eagle Management Plan

Five pairs of bald eagles have been documented as nesting around Cascade

Reservoir, and two more pairs are located within 6 miles of the reservoir

along the North Fork of the Payette River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) (1990), USFS, and Reclamation cooperatively prepared a Bald

Eagle Management Plan as recommended in the endangered species consultation on

the Valbois project. It will provide management guidance and resource

recommendations for the protection of eagle nesting territories and foraging

areas. The plan provides resource coordination and planning on key subjects,

including recreation use, timber and livestock management, areas for bald

eagle intensive management, and pesticide use. It also recommends annual

interagency evaluation of wildlife management. Recommendations from the Bald

Eagle Management Plan are included in Alternative B.

Cascade Reservoir Watershed Project

In response to growing concerns about the water quality of the reservoir, the 

Idaho Division of Environmental Quality and Valley Soil Conservation District

are conducting the Cascade Watershed Project. The project will determine

major contributors to water quality problems, evaluate the economic

feasibility and effectiveness of resource management alternatives, and

implement a detailed reservoir management plan to achieve water quality and

soil conservation goals. Water quality strategies developed by the project

would be included where possible during the implementation of the selected

alternative.

Cascade Reservoir Sewer Study

The Cascade Reservoir Sewer Study was initiated by the Idaho Division of

Environmental Quality in response to the additional impact of the Valbois

Resort on water quality. The study will examine current waste disposal

practices (particularly septic tank systems); consider proposed development

and anticipated growth; propose sewage collection and treatment alternatives;

1-6
and recommend measures for nine district areas of the reservoir. Recommendations would be included where possible during implementation of the selected

alternative.

1-7
2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

This section describes the features of Alternative B, other reasonable

alternatives to the proposed action, and the NEPA-required "no action"

alternative. Environmental impacts of each alternative are evaluated in

Chapter 3.

The alternatives were developed directly from public and agency responses to a

wide range of possible land use plans and management strategies for the

reservoir (figures 2-1 through 2-4 and tables 2-1 through 2-4). The objectives

that guided the development of Alternatives A, B, and C are discussed in

Appendix C.

The planning process resulted in the following alternatives:

Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): Based on a consensus approach,

emphasizes both recreation development and wildlife management/open space

conservation.

Alternative A: Favors wildlife management/open space conservation over

recreation development. Not selected as Alternative B due to inadequate

response to growing recreational needs.

Alternative C: Favors recreation development over wildlife management/

open space conservation. Not selected as Alternative B due to

overemphasis on recreation development, often at the expense of natural

resource conservation needs.

Alternative D (No Action): Responds to future needs and actions without

implementation of a Resource Management Plan (RMP); essentially continues

ad hoc management.

2-1
Table 2-5

Comparison of Alternatives

(See Also Figures 2-1 Through 2-4

and Tables 2-1 Through 2-4)

Alternatives

Pre ferred (B) A C D

Recreation

Boat Launch Lanes 28 24 31 22

Short Term Boat Slips

in Recreation Areas 170 130 175 45

Seasonal Marina Slips 400 250 400 0

Individual Picnic Sites 198 193 238 118

Tent Campsites 78 57 118 25

RV Campsites 625 580 830 454

Group Campsites 14 12 16 12

Fish Cleaning Stations 15 11 18 2

RV Dump Stations 9 7 11 4

Winterized Restroom (No. of Sites) 12 10 13 5

Sinks and/or Showers (No. of Sites) 8 6 9 4

Electrical Hook-ups (No. of Sites) 3 1 6 2

Handicap Access (No. of Sites) 19 14 20 12

Marinas 2 1 21 0

Visitor’s Center 1 1 1 0

Wildlife Observation Platform 1 0 0 0

Nine Holes of Golf 1 1 2 1

Number of Recreation Sites:

- Reclamation (including leases) 25 21 30 17

- USFS (including leases) * 6 6 10 6

- Total 31 27 40 23

Number of Acres (Reclamation lands) 741 608 967 388

Wildlife Management

Number of Areas 6 6 6

7**

Number of Acres 4,171 4,425 3,696 3,993 **

Rural Residential

Miles of Shoreline 9 9 9 —-

Number of Acres 146 146 146 —-

Conservation and Open Space

Number of Acres 1,271 1,150 1,520 —-

General Open Space and Low

Density Recreation -- —- —- 1,948

Total Reclamation Acres 6,329 6,329 6,329 6,329

* Analysis herein focuses on lands owned and managed by Reclamation. It should

be noted that USFS manages an additional 1,198 acres along the reservoir

shore containing six existing recreation sites for Alternative C; four

additional recreation sites were conceptually explored on USFS lands to

investigate a "maximum recreation" scenario.

**Represents areas shown on previous planning studies. In the absence of an

adopted RMP, formal WMA designation would not occur (see figure 2-4).

2-2
The alternatives are compared in table 2-5 and are further described on the

following pages. Because Alternative B is the Preferred Alternative, it is

discussed first.

2.1 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

Attempts to balance recreation development, management of areas for

wildlife, and conservation of open space lands.

Recreation

Alternative B attempts to optimize the desired public recreational uses of

reservoir lands and waters while protecting natural resources. Existing

recreation sites would be expanded or improved, and new sites would be

developed to meet current and most future demand (see figure 2-1). It proposes

recreation developments at nine new sites and increases at eight existing sites

as well as establishment of six wildlife management areas (WMA’s) with adjacent

conservation/open space (C/OS) to provide buffer zones. Approximately

741 acres around the reservation would be developed for recreation. The most

intensive recreation development would be concentrated in the southeast area of

the reservoir since this area: (1) is most accessible from Highway 55 and the 

city of Cascade; (2) presents little or no conflict with important wildlife

habitat; 3) is distant from the area of the reservoir dominated by residential

shoreline development; and 4) can accommodate a greater amount of boat activity

(as opposed to the northern area). Alternative B would accommodate different

user groups; both day and overnight use; varied levels of development; land and

water activities; year-round use; and various kinds of access (by foot,

vehicle, boat, aircraft). Vehicular access to the shoreline would be

controlled to prevent further vegetation loss and shoreline erosion.

Three areas along the southeast shoreline of the reservoir would receive high

priority for recreational expansion under Alternative B. The first, Van Wyck

Park, is located between the Cascade Golf Course and the dam (R7 and R8) where

proposed facilities include a protected 250-slip marina, fuel, fishing and

2-3
boating supplies, equipment rental and storage, visitors center, expanded boat

launch and parking, improved beach and picnic areas, large RV campground, and

paved trail. The second area extends from the golf course south, where the

existing Cabarton sites would be improved and reorganized and the undeveloped

portion of the shoreline would be developed for both individual and group

recreational vehicle (RV) camping. Around Crown Point (R9 and R1O), the third

area of high priority, a mile or more of shoreline would be developed for a

variety of recreation uses with different environmental settings and levels of

accessibility. Both RV and tent camping would be provided.

On the west side of the reservoir south of Poison Creek (R32), a hiking trail

and a mix of day and overnight tent camping facilities would be provided. An

overflow area for RV camping would be designated between Rock Creek and Poison

Creek where such activity currently exists. Just north of Poison Creek (at

West Mountain South - R30), a marina of up to 150 slips is proposed. However,

if the planned Valbois resort is developed, this marina would not be

constructed since the Valbois project includes its own marina. Also, the other

facilities proposed at site R32 would have to be relocated to other sites at

the reservoir or would not be constructed.

Three extensive shoreline trails are proposed. The highest priority and

longest trail (6.5 miles) would connect Cabarton 3 at the southeast end of the

reservoir with the recreation area north of Crown Point. It would be paved and

wide enough to comfortably receive pedestrians and bicyclists traveling in two

directions. Second in importance and length (5 miles) would be a trail

extending between Tamarack Falls and Medicare Point along the northwest

shoreline. This trail would be accessible to the physically challenged. The

shortest (2.5 miles) and third priority trail would follow the shoreline of

Sugarloaf Peninsula. This unpaved trail would provide access to a wildlife

observation platform and to recreation sites proposed in the area.

Other significant recreational features of Alternative B include: day use

accommodations for currently undesignated use on the north side of Sugarloaf

Point (R12), including wildlife interpretation and observation; reopening the

old State airstrip (R14) for low intensity fly-in and boat-in picnicking and

2-4
camping (following a 3-year bald eagle and waterfowl monitoring study to

determine possible conflicts); day use facilities and a boat launch at Boulder

Creek (R16); boat-in camping and day use at Government Point (R21) (also with

a 3-year bald eagle monitoring study prior to development of overnight

facilities); and assumed development of the YMCA leased site (R22).

Wildlife Management

Six WMA’s would be included in Alternative B. These are:

- WMA 1 (Hot Springs Creek, including Sugarloaf Island)

- WMA 2 (Gold Fork)

- WMA 3 (Lake Fork)

- WMA 4 (North Fork Payette)

- WMA 5 (Duck Creek)

- WMA 6 (Willow Creek)

The WMA’s would include the major wetland, waterfowl, and shorebird habitat

areas around the reservoir as well as habitat for osprey and bald eagles. The 

total area for the WMA’s would be 4,171 acres. Specific habitat conservation

and enhancement programs and activities would be developed in consultation with

FWS and/or Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) for each WMA proposed.

Pedestrian access would be permitted but not encouraged in all WMA’s. Camping

would be prohibited year round. The discharge of firearms would be prohibited

from March 1 through the start of hunting season, as established by IDFG each

year. With the possible exception of selected interpretive hiking trails, no

roads or trails would be developed, and motorized access would not be

permitted. There would be nonmotorized zones established in three of the

WMA’s—Gold Fork, Lake Fork, and North Fork Payette. There would be no-wake

zones extending into the reservoir in Willow, Hot Springs, and Duck Creek

WMA’s. In addition, a no-wake boating restriction is proposed from May 1 to

July 15 each year in the Boulder Creek arm of the reservoir. The above

restrictions are designed to protect nesting waterfowl and bald eagle foraging

and nesting areas. No-wake zones also minimize shoreline erosion and decrease

2-5
hazards resulting from high speed boating. These areas would be marked by

signed buoys.

Timber harvesting and firewood cutting would also be restricted according to

silvicultural management practices in forested WMA’s. Livestock grazing would

be removed from agricultural easement lands within 7 years from adoption of the

draft RMP proposed in this alternative. The use of pesticides and herbicides

harmful to wildlife would not be allowed. Where feasible and necessary, WMA’s

would be fenced and signed. In various WMA’s, habitat improvement measures

such as goose nesting islands, duck nesting ponds, and artificial perch trees

for eagles would be implemented. Programs for riparian/wetland habitat

restoration, erosion control, and revegetation of overused areas would be

implemented to protect vegetation, wildlife, soils, and other reservoir

resources. All areas would be more intensively managed than in the past.

Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)

One thousand two hundred seventy one acres designated as C/OS would be managed

to preserve large areas of undeveloped open space to contribute to the

natural/rural character of the reservoir. In some cases, C/OS lands would

provide buffers between public recreation areas, rural residential areas,

and/or WMA’s. Programs for riparian/wetland habitat restoration, erosion

control, and revegetation of overused areas would be implemented to protect

vegetation, wildlife, soils, and other reservoir resources.

C/OS lands would allow dispersed recreational day use. Public use of C/OS

lands would be limited to passive, low intensity activities such as hiking,

dispersed picnicking, swimming, fishing, and nature study. No overnight uses

would be permitted. Vehicular access would be restricted to specific,

designated roadways or trails leading to staging areas or passive use areas.

No uncontrolled vehicular use would be permitted (with the exception of

snowmobiles in the winter season), and no individual boat launch facilities

would be allowed except those which are currently under the boat dock permit

system. Reclamation, in cooperation with Valley County Waterways, would site

public community docks in some of the C/OS areas. Enforcement of management

2-6
policies in C/OS lands, as in other areas around the reservoir, would stress

public information (e.g., map notations, signs, etc.), and use of fencing or

other barriers to access.

To minimize shoreline erosion from wave action in the Willow Creek arms, boat

speeds would continue to be restricted and strictly enforced during the high

water period (May 1 through July 15).

Two areas designated C/OS in Alternative B would be specifically managed with

priority given to wildlife values. These are (1) the north shore of Gold Fork

and (2) the upper reaches of Boulder Creek.

Rural Residential

Rural Residential (RR) areas occur exclusively in the northeast part of the

reservoir and would apply to Reclamation lands which are generally less than

100 feet in width between the reservoir high water line and adjacent,

subdivided private land. Reclamation would initiate a permit system on these

lands to control land uses and thereby resolve trespass and encroachment

problems. Permits would contain design guidelines, maintenance requirements,

and standards; emergency public access provisions; language specifying

permitted and unpermitted uses; who may use the docks during the day and for

overnight moorage; how disputes are to be resolved; and so forth. Each

shoreline lot owner would be allowed an individual or a "community" (shared by

several owners) boat dock under permit. Adjacent lot owners would be encouraged to share boat docks. Permitted uses would be required to conform to

visual and water quality guidelines and safety standards. Lot owners who do

not obtain permits would be required to remove their existing encroachments.

2-7
2.2 Alternative A

Emphasizes wildlife management areas and open space/conservation lands

over recreation development

Recreation

Alternative A (figure 2-2) would provide the least amount of recreation

development of the action alternatives (608 acres). Proposed improvements to

existing recreation areas would be similar to those of Alternative B. Five new

recreation areas (versus nine for Alternative B) would be developed for

recreation use. These include the shoreline south of the dam (R8), the area

north of Crown Point (R1O), the Boulder Creek site (R16), Government Point

(R21), and the area south of Poison Creek (R32). Proposed facilities at the

new recreation areas would be similar to those of Alternative B, except no

provisions would be made for RV camping south of the dam (R8) or for boat

launching north of Crown Point (R1O).

A RV campground would be developed at Sugarloaf (R11); however, recreation

development would not occur along the shoreline south of the golf course (R4)

or on the north side of Sugarloaf Peninsula (R12). The YMCA’s option to

develop its leased site (R22) would be terminated and the land retained as open

space (C/OS). The old State airstrip (R14) would not be reopened for fly-in

recreation use, and the land involved would be included in the Sugarloaf WMA.

Finally, no additional marina (except for the Valbois marina, if approved)

would be constructed at the north end of the reservoir.

Wildlife Management

Alternative A would include the same designated WMA’s as planned for

Alternative B. However, WMA 1 (Hot Springs Creek) would be extended to include

the North Side of Sugarloaf (R12) and the old State airstrip (R14).

Reclamation lands, including and surrounding potential recreation site R15,

would be included in WMA 2 (as opposed to C/OS as planned for Alternative B).

A total of 4,425 acres would be included in the WMA’s. Alternative A would

2-8
also include an additional no wake-zone west of the nonmotorized area of WMA 2

(Gold Fork) between the old highway and the old railroad grade. A no-wake zone

(500 feet) would be included along the southwest shore to protect bald eagle

habitat.

Conservation/Open Space

Under this alternative, the shoreline south of the golf course (R4) would be

managed as C/OS instead of having recreational facilities as in Alternative B.

In addition, the YMCA Site (R22) would not be developed and would be retained

for open space. A total of 1,150 acres would be managed as C/OS.

Rural Residential

Same as Alternative B.

2.3 Alternative C

Emphasizes recreation development over wildlife management areas and

open space/conservation lands

Recreation

In addition to those recreation sites that would be developed under

Alternative B, Alternative C (see figure 2-3) would include development of the

following sites: R5 (expansion of the golf course above Lakeshore Drive; R13

(boat-in day and overnight use at Sugarloaf Island); R15 (tent and RV camping

and boat launch facilities on the west side of Gold Fork); R18 (group camping); R22 (day and overnight use on the north side of Tamarack Falls Road); and

R34, R36, R37, and R38 (camping facilities in the Boise National Forest).

Also, the YMCA Site (R22) would be developed for general public use rather than

for organizational use. Facility enhancement at existing recreation sites

would be similar to that proposed under Alternative B. There would be

967 acres developed for recreation.

2-9
Wildlife Management

WMA’s would be very similar to those proposed for Alternative B but Hot Springs

(WMA 1) would be smaller. The total WMA acreage would be 3,696 acres.

Conservation/Open Space

There would be more C/OS than with Alternative B (1,520 acres versus

1,271 acres). A portion of the Hot Springs WMA 1, as described in Alternative B, would instead be classified C/OS in Alternative C. In addition,

Alternative C would include recreational development at Sugarloaf Island (R13).

C/OS buffers would separate recreation sites R15 and R18 from surrounding

residential development but would be smaller in area than that for

Alternative B.

Rural Residential

Same as Alternative B.

2.4 Alternative D (No Action)

Responds to future needs and problems without implementation of a RMP

Under this alternative (figure 2-4), none of the resource management plans

proposed in the other alternatives would be implemented. Present activities

and management of the reservoir for power, irrigation, recreation, and fish and

wildlife needs would continue as in the past.

Recreation

Existing recreation sites on about 388 acres would continue to operate and be

maintained at the current level. Expansion of existing or development of new

recreation sites would occur on a case-by-case basis. Recreation improvements

that have been considered and presumably would be constructed within the next

2-10
5 to 10 years include R29 (Buttercup parking and restroom), R16 (the Boulder

Creek boat launch and day use facilities), and R9 (the RV campground expansion

at Crown Point).

Wildlife Management

Wildlife habitat would be managed at current levels to maintain at least

minimum viable population levels. Limited improvements to fish and wildlife

habitat would be made as appropriate based on pressing needs. The current

amount and condition of habitat for the osprey and the bald eagle would be

maintained. Permanent agricultural easements would be continued, but

prohibiting livestock and vehicle access to the reservoir shoreline would

continue to be stressed because of existing management objectives for reservoir

water quality improvement.

Conservation/Open Space

Undesignated open space lands surrounding the reservoir would be managed to

allow passive, low intensity recreational day use. Reclamation would continue

to maintain these lands in their present undeveloped condition. Shoreline

erosion would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Rural Residential

Reclamation would continue to retain full ownership/control of the shoreline in

Rural Residential areas. Trespass and encroachments by adjacent private owners

would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As under current conditions,

permits would be issued individually for retaining walls. Efforts would

continue to be directed towards preventing future encroachments. Individual

boat dock permits would expire December 31, 1993. These docks would be removed

and a community dock system initiated.

2-11
3. The Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section describes the physical environment of the project area to be

affected, and evaluates the impacts of each alternative. Emphasis is placed on

those environmental resources that may be significantly affected by the

alternatives. Where the alternatives have the same impact on the same

resource/feature, the analysis is given for only the preferred alternative

(Alternative B) to eliminate redundancy. Mitigation measures discussed are to

be implemented prior to any development activities. Inclusion of the

management objectives, as discussed in Appendix C, into Alternatives A, B, and

C have already reduced many impacts. Unless otherwise noted, mitigation

measures would reduce potential impacts of Alternative B to less than

significant levels.

Given the nature of proposed development under all the alternatives, the

following area resources or features would not be significantly affected:

climate; topography; mineral resources; energy requirements; and hazardous or

toxic wastes.

3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.1.1 Affected Environment

The project area lies entirely within the Idaho Batholith which is a body of

congealed molten rock (igneous) covering almost 20,000 square miles in northern

and central Idaho. This geologic formation was created when granitic molten

rock intruded into fractures, faults, and layers of sedimentary belt rocks

between 40 and 100 million years ago. This intrusion changed the sedimentary

rock, leaving mineral deposits.

Basalt, a crystalline rock of volcanic origin, overlies eroded border rocks of

the Idaho Batholith along the entire western boundary of Valley County. Rocks

from these formations consist of different types of granite and mica which are

typically highly weathered and decomposed.

3-1
The parent materials for reservoir shoreline area soils are generally granitic

rock with local areas of sandy alluvium and areas of glacial outwash, composed

of uncemented beds of sand and gravel. The outwash areas are generally found

on the reservoir’s east shoreline, north of Sugarloaf Island while the alluvium

overlying the granitic rock is south of Sugarloaf. The reservoir’s west

shoreline also consists of alluvium and glacial outwash.

These geologic materials typically produce coarse-textured soils. The Soil

Conservation Service’s general soils map shows five map units abutting the

reservoir’s shoreline. The map units indicate diverse soil conditions: slopes

vary from flat to steep, soils depths vary from moderate to very deep, drainage

is poor to excessive. These soils have been categorized according to their

suitability for recreation development in figure 3-1. In general, soil suitability for recreation is greatest in the reservoir arms and the southeast end

of the reservoir and poor to moderate elsewhere. Soil suitability reflects

flooding, wetness, slope and surface conditions and, to a lesser degree, the

ability of the soil to absorb septic tank effluent.

Uncontrolled recreation and vehicular use and grazing in some riparian corridors have eliminated vegetation and caused considerable erosion. Excessive

instream erosion has also been caused by reservoir back-water effects during

high water in the early summer. The Valley Soil Conservation District, through

the Cascade Reservoir Watershed Project (see Section 1, Related Actions), has

identified riparian streams draining into the reservoir (figure 3-1).

Shoreline erosion has become another serious problem for shoreline residents

and other reservoir users. Concerns about private property and potential

building structure and dock loss, public safety, and visual impacts have been

expressed. In general, the shoreline erosion is confined to the reservoir’s

east shore where wind generated wave action has created 5 to 50 foot vertical

cliffs in some areas. Large waves (4 to 6 feet) are common on the reservoir

due to the combination of the prevailing southwest and northwest wind patterns,

the shallow nature of the reservoir, and its north/south orientation. Areas

where shoreline encroachment is of particular concern include the Cabarton 3

facility, Van Wyck Park to the dam, and residential areas starting at Arrowhead

3-2
Point and proceeding north into the Boulder Creek and Lake Fork arms of the

reservoir (figure 3-1).

The evidence of shoreline erosion is most dramatic during the early summer when

reservoir water levels are at a maximum. Summer storms and waves have the

greatest erosive impact on the vertical slopes during this time. As the summer

progresses, water levels drop and exposed beaches tend to diminish the erosive

force of the waves. Other factors which partially contribute to shoreline

erosion include large wakes from boats in confined reservoir areas during high

water and uncontrolled off-road vehicle use.

The extent of vertical and horizontal erosion is highly variable along the east

shore. In general, the erosion is most serious in the alluvium and glacial

outwash soils which extend along the upper two-thirds of the reservoir’s

eastern shoreline. No hard rock underlays these soils, and they are highly

susceptible to continuing wave-caused erosion (an example is the Arrowhead

Point area). In contrast, the southern third of this shoreline is generally

composed of granitic soils underlain by rock which would eventually stop the

erosion process (for example, the Crown Point area).

Residents have indicated that certain shoreline areas have been cut upland from

10 to 60 feet during the past 10 to 20 years. A review of a shoreline survey

conducted by Reclamation in 1974 also revealed that the height of the erosion

point or scarp in several areas has also increased noticeably during the same

time period. Areas where scarp height is great include: Cabarton area; the

area just south of the dam; several areas just north of Crown Point; Sugarloaf

Point; immediately south of Arrowhead Point; and many areas in the Boulder

Creek and Lake Fork arms of the reservoir.

In general, shoreline protection efforts by property owners have been a

piecemeal effort. Although many shoreline erosion control measures have been

attempted, a large percentage of the efforts have not been successful.

3-3
3.1.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Construction activities associated with projects recommended in this alternative may result in short-term land or reservoir shoreline erosion in or near

recreation sites and along riparian areas. Such adverse effects would be

confined to specific sites and would be subject to site-specific environmental

review during the layout and design of individual projects. Long-term

beneficial impacts would result from control programs that would lessen the 

severity of erosion and erosion potential, particularly in areas where cabins

or public recreation sites are currently affected, or in areas where the height

of eroded shoreline banks are great and/or public access is frequent. Actions

included in Alternative B which would reduce erosion potential include:

- directing vehicles onto paved surfaces by providing roads and parking areas

in high-use recreation sites

- managing off-highway vehicles (OHV’s) throughout the reservoir area, thereby

allowing degraded areas to recover and preventing other areas from becoming

degraded

- limiting vehicle use and restricting livestock grazing through fencing of

sensitive areas (WMA’s)

- enforcing no-wake and nonmotorized boating areas, thereby preventing

motorized boat-generated waves from striking the shoreline.

Alternative A

Shoreline erosion potential would be less than in Alternative B due to the more

extensive no-wake zones and the larger total wildlife management area since

there would be restrictions on use imposed in the WMA’s. However, this might

be counterbalanced or exceeded by the increase of erosion potential due to

dispersed recreation use since adequate developed recreational facilities would

be lacking.

3-4
Alternative C

The potential for land and shoreline erosion would be greater than with

Alternative B due to lesser amounts of WMA’s and C/OS.

Alternative D (No Action)

The absence of a resource management plan (RMP), in combination with increased

public access in some areas, minimal oversight control, continuing trespass

cattle grazing, and undesignated and/or unauthorized uses, would cause a

significant increase in erosion around the reservoir. Current land erosion

would continue as would shoreline erosion.

3.1.3 Mitigation Measures

No significant adverse impacts were identified for Alternative B. Therefore,

mitigation measures are unnecessary. No mitigation measures are identified for

the other alternatives.

3.1.4 Residual or Net Impacts

No negative residual impacts would occur with Alternative B. However, a net

positive impact of decreased erosion is likely. The adverse impacts as

described would remain for the other alternatives.

3.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.2.1 Affected Environment

Hydrology

Cascade Reservoir, a 28,300-acre multipurpose reservoir, is an impoundment of

the North Fork of the Payette River. The reservoir is shallow with an average

depth of about 26.5 feet and a flushing rate of about 1.1 times per year.

Flooding potential for the reservoir shoreline areas is controlled by Cascade

3-5
Dam operations which directly regulate reservoir water levels. The dam’s

operation is part of Reclamation’s river and reservoir systems operations. The

system includes the North, Middle, and South Forks of the Payette River and the 

Cascade, Deadwood, and Black Canyon Reservoirs. These reservoirs are operated

as an integrated system to meet irrigation needs. Consideration is also given

to hydropower, recreation, and fish and wildlife needs as much as possible. No

firm operating rules govern; rather the operations reflect continuous

evaluation of individual needs, contractual obligations, and physical and legal

constraints.

The system is operated to maintain an average flow of 3,300 to 3,400 cubic feet

per second at the Horseshoe Bend gauging station, below the confluence of the

forks. The Idaho Power Company operates a hydroelectric facility at Cascade

Dam. Natural flows are used during the winter months for power production at

Black Canyon Powerplant. Flood control operations are undertaken during the

annual spring thaw and less frequently during winter rainstorms. Irrigation

filling begins in the fall and peaks in the early part of summer. Irrigation

releases end by November. Water is released downstream to Black Canyon Dam

where it is either diverted or released downstream to a large number of

contractors or passed through generators to produce electricity.

The average annual reservoir drawdown is about 12 feet; water levels reach a

peak in June and continue to lower throughout the summer, exposing large

mudflats. The normal maximum water surface elevation is 4828 feet (msl). At

this level, the reservoir is approximately 21 miles long and its widest point

is 4.25 miles. Although Reclamation has authorization to lower water levels to

a 50,000 acre-foot minimum pool, an administrative decision was made in 1984,

following public input on the Boise Project Power Modification Study, to

maintain a 300,000 acre-foot minimum pool whenever possible. This decision

does not, however, preclude future requests for water by irrigation or power

interests. Such requests would be dealt with on an individual basis and

evaluated under NEPA guidelines.

3-6
Water Quality

To the extent feasible, it is Reclamation’s policy to incorporate into all

agency activities whatever provisions are necessary to reduce the risk of flood

loss, minimize the impact of floods on human health, and protect water quality.

The reservoir’s watershed is about 528 square miles and contains several rivers

and streams. The major tributaries include the North Fork of the Payette, Gold

Fork, and the Lake Fork Rivers and comprise about 84 percent of the water

inflow to Cascade Reservoir. The watershed land uses are shown in table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Cascade Reservoir Watershed and

Reclamation Land Uses and Areas

Approximate

Area (acres)

Land Use

Forest/Open Space

Agriculture

Urban

Recreation

Cascade Reservoir

Watershed

Reclamation

Lands

274,852 4,364 *

60,722 1,600 **

14,674 0

6,769 365 ***

357,017 6,329

* Includes leased wildlife, open space, and dispersed recreation

** Includes 900 acres irrigated pasture and 700 acres nonirrigated pasture

*** Includes leased and Reclamation recreation sites

These land uses affect the water draining through the watershed and into the

reservoir. Poor reservoir water quality is a major public issue and the reason

for the ongoing Cascade Reservoir Watershed Study (see section 1, Related

Actions). Water quality concerns and the beneficial uses they affect are

summarized in table 3.2.

Phosphorus has been determined to be an important factor which stimulates algae

growth in the reservoir. Phosphorus is a mineral element commonly found in

3-7
animal droppings, occurring naturally in soil, wastewater, fertilizers, and is

carried to the reservoir in runoff from the watershed. Table 3.3 provides an

estimate of the amount of phosphorus being washed off from surrounding lands

into the reservoir.

Table 3.2

Cascade Reservoir Water Quality Concerns

and Beneficial Uses Affected

Water Quality Concern

Low dissolved oxygen

Poor water clarity due to

excessive algae blooms

Excessive weed growth

visual impacts

Bacterial contamination

Shoreline erosion

Beneficial Use Affected

Threatens fishery

Visual impacts; depletes

oxygen; offensive odors

Interference with boating;

Potential public health effects

Potential water quality impact; 

visual impact

3.2.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Alternative B would include development of various recreation facilities.

Future construction of proposed projects could result in adverse water quality

impacts related to wastewater produced, land use changes, and onsite

construction activities. Site specific environmental evaluation and clearances

would be obtained prior to construction. The potential for direct and indirect

adverse water quality impacts would increase primarily through three sources:

1. Sanitary wastewater generated within the developments

2. Increased phosphorus in surface water runoff associated with permanent land

use conversions (parking lots, RV sites, and other impervious surfaces)

3-8
Table 3.3

Estimate of Phosphorus Contributions

to Cascade Reservoir

Estimated Phosphorus Loading

(kg per year)

Entire

Watershed1

Reclamation

Land

NONPOINT SOURCES

Forest 10,171 127z

Agriculture 12,207 334

Urban 3,790 0

Recreation 798 533

Subtotal 26,966 514 (1.9%)

Septic Tanks 44 —

POINT SOURCES 5,886 —

Subtotal 32,896 514

Deposition 3,045 —

Total 35,941 514 (1.4%)

1 Based on preliminary findings - Cascade Watershed Study

2 Includes leased wildlife, C/OS

3 Includes leased and Reclamation recreation areas minus open space

3. Runoff from surface disturbances (i.e., construction of roads, utilities,

grading, etc.) which in turn could provide significant amounts of phosphoruscontaining sediments

Table 3.4 summarizes the changes in estimated phosphorus loading to the reservoir due to changes in various land uses as a result of the alternatives.

While increased recreation development would tend to increase the amount of

phosphorus loading, the creation of WMA’s and C/OS would decrease the amount.

However, a significant additional phosphorus load to the reservoir would be

added by the alternatives if not mitigated. Table 3.5 shows the amount of

phosphorus load for Alternative B without and with mitigation.

3-9
Table 3.4

Estimated Reservoir Phosphorus Loading For

Alternatives Without Mitigation

(kg per year)

Alternatives

B A C D

Forest/Open Space

Agriculture

Urban

Recreation

Total Land

115 123 106 127

334 334 334 334

0 0 0 0

103 71 139 53

552 528 579 514

Table 3.5

Estimated Reservoir Cumulative Phosphorus Loading

Alternative B

(kg per year)

Without Mitigation 552

With Mitigation 339

Alternative A

Alternative A would impact reservoir water quality slightly less than

Alternative B (table 3.4) due to less recreation development and more areas of

WMA and C/OS.

Alternative C

Alternative C would impact reservoir water quality slightly more than

Alternative B (table 3.4) due to extensive recreation development.

3-10
Alternative D (No Action)

No new water quality pollutant loadings would occur from undeveloped sites.

Existing sites would continue to be used for recreation, with continuation of

impacts through existing sources. The small amount of planned recreation

development would have little additional effect on water quality, but the lack

of WMA and C/OS areas, with associated management measures, would cause an

increase.

3.2.3 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would be implemented during construction and

operation of shoreline development to minimize significant adverse water

quality impacts of Alternative B. With implementation of these measures and 

improvements in management practices on existing and proposed land uses,

particularly those in close proximity to the reservoir and tributary streams,

phosphorus levels would be reduced to less than current rates (table 3.5).

Onsite Construction

- During final design development, Reclamation would develop an erosion and

sedimentation control plan which identifies a combination of structural control

measures, cover measures, and construction practices to prevent sediment-laden

runoff from leaving the site during construction. Specific practices to be

considered in the plan include use of sediment traps, ponds, riprap, erosion

control blankets, rapid revegetation methods, vegetated reservoir buffer zones,

and filter fabric fences.

- Reclamation would provide regular construction oversight/inspection that is

focused on protecting water quality to ensure the success of the erosion/

sedimentation control plan.

Recreation Sites

- During the final design stages, Reclamation would develop specific

techniques to control site runoff that may occur at developed recreation sites.

3-11
Wastewater

- The Cascade Reservoir Sewer Study, currently in progress, recommends

priority areas for potential sewers in the southwest and northeast portions of

the reservoir. Similarly, the Valbois project includes a proposal for a waste

treatment system in the northwest corner of the reservoir. If a waste

treatment system is implemented, Reclamation would investigate the feasibility

of connecting recreational facilities.

Agricultural Lands

- Reclamation would encourage the development of Best Management Practices

(BMP’s) to provide for maintaining or improving pasture species composition,

forage production, soil structure and fertility.

- Reclamation would encourage the development of BMP’s to provide for the

management of livestock, the maintenance or improvement of streambank

vegetation, and streambank structural stability.

Public Education

- Reclamation would implement a public information/education program

concerning water quality and pollution. Features to be considered include

printed information, slide shows, signage along the reservoir, and "friendly"

enforcement of waste management practices.

- Reclamation would provide printed information which explains the reservoir’s

water quality problems, causes, and solutions, at facilities. Participating

agency staff and/or citizens groups would conduct periodic briefings and slide

shows on BMP’s and progress reports on efforts to clean up the reservoir.

- Reclamation would organize public work days to revegetate streambanks and

overused recreation sites.

3-12
3.2.4 Residual or Net Impacts

Only positive residual impacts on water quality would remain following

inclusion of the above mitigation measures into Alternative B. These

mitigation measures would not resolve all of the impacts for the other

alternatives. Impacts would remain with Alternative A because mitigation would

not compensate for erosion due to dispersed use resulting from inadequate

recreation facilities; Alternative C because of a lack of WMA and C/OS areas;

and Alternative D due to lack of management.

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

3.3.1 Affected Environment

Vegetation

The predominant vegetation surrounding the reservoir consists of wetlands,

grass/shrub, and coniferous forest (Figure 3-2, Vegetation/Fish and Wildlife).

Wetlands, which occur along much of the shoreline where there is a gradual

topographic gradient, are concentrated in the general vicinity of Willow Creek,

Duck Creek, North Fork Payette River, Lake Fork Arm, Gold Fork Arm, and Hot

Springs Creek. Most of these wetlands are shallow marshes and wet meadows or

mudflats and sandy shore. Grasses, rushes, and sedges are the dominant vegetation in these wetlands but include scrub/shrub and broadleaf hardwoods along

the various tributaries and the upper arms of the reservoir. Many of these

areas have been degraded by livestock grazing which has diminished the wildlife

habitat values and other functions of the wetlands.

Grasses and shrubs also occur throughout the reservoir area but are 

predominately located on the dryer east side and in the upper arms of the

reservoir. Grasses and shrubs often occur in association with ponderosa pine

and lodgepole pine in these areas. Typical shrubs include big and low

sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, and ninebark. Common grasses include

bluebunch, western wheat grass, Idaho fescue, and bluegrass. Forbs include

trillium, Indian paintbrush, fireweed, and lupine among many others.

3-13
The coniferous forests of the West Mountains reach into the reservoir area on

the west side. This forested area is dominated by Douglas fir and ponderosa

pine communities which include spruce, true fir, larch, and in some cases a

dense understory of shrubs, such as serviceberry, snowberry, and chokecherry.

Quaking aspen, Rocky Mountain maple, alder, and willow are found in the moist

draws. More open stands of lodgepole and ponderosa pine are common on the

northern and eastern side of the reservoir. Refer to Appendix VI in the FWS

Coordination Report for a list of plant species found in the area.

Some of the forested areas, particularly the lodgepole and ponderosa pine

stands along the north side of the Gold Fork arm and around the Boulder Creek

arm, contain dead and dying trees from a bark beetle infestation. Because the

dead trees present a higher than normal fire hazard, Reclamation is making some 

of this timber available to the public for firewood in order to clear it from

the area and reduce fire hazards.

Several areas around the reservoir have been denuded of vegetation by OHV use,

particularly the areas north of Cabarton to the dam and along roads in the

Crown Point area.

Overgrazing by livestock in some areas has reduced and weakened vegetation.

The problem is most severe in dryer areas with low soil fertility where plant

regeneration is difficult. Grazing and trampling in wetland areas has

destroyed protective plant cover for nesting waterfowl and has interfered with

nesting. Along stream corridors, livestock grazing has eroded the shoreline

and has generally added to water pollution.

Two species found in Valley County, (Tofieldia glutinosa varobsona (Sticky

Tofielda) and Douglasia idahoensis (Idaho Douglasia), are listed as candidate

(Category 2) species and may be found in the Cascade Reservoir area. No known

populations of these plants occur within 10 miles of the reservoir, but no

botanical surveys have been done in Long Valley. It is unlikely that Douglasia

idahoensis would be found around the reservoir since it is a species that

occurs at altitudes between 7,800 and 8,300 feet. Tofieldia glutinosa,

however, may be found in wetland areas of the Lake Fork and North Fork areas

since it is frequently associated with bogs over granitic soils (FWS, 1990).

3-14
Category 2 species under the Endangered Species Act is one for which

information now in possession of the FWS indicates that proposing to list as

endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data

on biological vulnerability and threat are not currently available to support

proposed rules. Further biological research and field study may be needed to

ascertain the status of taxa in this category.

Wildlife

Several significant wildlife habitat areas are located around the reservoir,

including nesting, perching, and foraging sites of the bald eagle, ospreys,

great blue herons, and numerous waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds

(figure 3-2, Vegetation/Fish and Wildlife). The reservoir is an important fall

migration staging area for water-oriented birds. It is also an important

nesting and rearing location in the spring and summer. The emergent wetland

vegetation along the shoreline, adjacent wet meadows, and riparian habitat,

swales, mudflats, and sand bars are critical as nesting, feeding, and loafing

habitat.

Due to the diversity of habitats in and adjacent to the reservoir, 83 passerine

bird species are attracted to the area. The number is based, in part, on the

national breeding bird survey that has been conducted on the west side of the

reservoir since 1985. Nineteen species of cavity nesting birds inhabit the

area, including the pileated woodpecker (FWS, 1990).

The upper arms of the reservoir support the greatest abundance and diversity of

wildlife due to the mosaic of habitat types and fewer conflicting human

activities (other than livestock grazing). These more remote areas provide the

seclusion needed by especially disturbance-sensitive species such as the great

blue heron (a rookery is located in the North Fork) and the common loon which

has been sighted and may be making an attempt to nest in the area.

Waterfowl make up a large portion of the wildlife use on and around the

reservoir. Twenty-two species of waterfowl use the area on a seasonal basis.

Tundra swans and snow geese use the Hot Springs and Sugarloaf WMA for 3 to

3-15
4 weeks in April during spring migration. Other species, such as mallards and

Canada geese, nest in the area and are residents on a nearly year-round basis

except during periods of extreme cold. Common mergansers and western grebes

are frequently seen diving for fish in the bays and open water. Both nest

around the reservoir, but no studies have been done to document productivity

(FWS, 1990).

The nesting population of 91 pairs of Canada geese require secure nesting

sites, safe from predators and human disturbance. Nest security has been a

limiting factor. Fluctuating pool levels during the spring have had detrimental effects to waterfowl production caused primarily by the destruction of

established nests. Platforms erected by Reclamation have been located in

secure locations and have served in part to reduce this effect (FWS, 1990).

During fall migration, the most common waterfowl are dabbling ducks and

American coots. These birds forage on the mudflats and loaf on exposed

sandbars around the perimeter of the reservoir. Large numbers of Canada geese,

both local and northern migrants, also use key areas such as the North Fork

arm, Hot Springs, Duck and Willow Creeks (FWS, 1990).

There are seven endangered, threatened, or candidate species in the vicinity of

Cascade Reservoir. Two of these species, the bald eagle and the American

peregrine falcon, are on the Federal endangered species list. Candidate

species for possible listing as threatened or endangered found in the Long

Valley area include the ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, and wolverine (FWS,

1990).

Some portions of the upper arms, especially the North Fork of the Payette River

arm, in addition to other areas around the reservoir, are important to the bald

eagle (figure 3-2, Vegetation/Fish and Wildlife). There are currently five

known nesting pairs of bald eagles located at the reservoir, while three other

nests are within 8 miles (FWS, 1990). Guidance concerning management to ensure

protection of nesting territories is provided in the Cascade Reservoir Bald

Eagle Management Plan (FWS, USFS, Reclamation, 1990).

3-16
Peregrine falcons were first released in 1982 at a hack site 6 miles east of

the reservoir. Since then, 39 falcons have been released and 37 have

successfully fledged from this site. No known nesting has occurred in the Long 

Valley area, but recent sightings of subadult and adult birds suggest there is

an active eyrie somewhere in the vicinity. Late spring sightings of adults

have been made at Sugarloaf Point and near Duck Creek. Recently fledged birds

were also sighted in August 1988 at Jughandle Peak, 14 miles northeast of the 

reservoir (FWS, 1990).

Ospreys have increased considerably in numbers since the Cascade Dam was

completed in 1948. This expansion is due to several factors, including

prohibiting the use of long-lived pesticides, erection of nesting platforms,

and a very productive fishery in Cascade Reservoir. The first intensive

surveys to determine the status of osprey were conducted between 1978-1980 (Van

Daele, 1981). He found that the valley supported approximately 50 nesting

pairs. By 1989, the number of nesting pairs had increased to over 90 with

69 pairs nesting at Cascade Reservoir. Nesting concentrations are highest

where artificial nesting platforms have been erected around the reservoir.

Nests are built on snags (58 percent), live trees, power poles, and artificial

platforms (20 percent). Concentration areas include the Duck, Gold Fork, and

Willow Creek areas (FWS, 1990).

In addition to the species that are mentioned above, the reservoir area also

provides habitat to a variety of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals.

Larger mammals are less common, but there has been a recent buildup of whitetailed deer in the riparian areas, mostly in the North Fork river bottom, and a

few elk or an occasional bear may also forage in the reservoir area (EDAW,

1990). Elk and deer utilize the dense timber and wet meadow complexes of West

Mountain during the spring and summer months. During late November, these

species migrate westward into the Weiser River drainage for the winter. Deer

also use the southern end of the reservoir and the Hot Springs WMA as winter

habitat. Moose are only occasionally observed passing through the area; there

is no resident population (FWS, 1990).

River otter forage extensively along each of the northern drainages that flow

into the reservoir; the North Fork of the Payette River and Gold Fork and

3-17
Boulder Creeks are used most extensively (Melquist and Hornocker, 1983). Their

data indicates that fish are the most important prey item of otters occurring

in 93-100 percent of fecal samples (FWS, 1990).

Fisheries

Fish are the main source of prey for the eagles, ospreys, and many other

animals mentioned above. The fishery resource also supports sport fishing,

which is one of the major recreational activities at the reservoir. Cascade

Reservoir provides one of the largest fishery resources in Idaho. Approximately 300,000 to 400,000 fish are harvested annually with an estimated

130,000 angler-days; a rate of about 1.7 fish per hour. Coho salmon are 

stocked as fingerlings, while rainbow trout are stocked in the spring and

summer as catchable-sized fish (FWS, 1990).

Rainbow trout is the primary fish sought in the spring and fall, and yellow

perch is the main focus in the summer and winter. Existing fishing pressure is

not considered a problem. IDFG believes that the reservoir is largely

underutilized for fishing.

The entire reservoir and major and minor tributary streams are important

habitat for either fish spawning or rearing. Gold Fork, a major tributary,

probably has the greatest potential for wild fish production in the Cascade

Reservoir drainage area. However, fish access to this stream is blocked by an

irrigation diversion. Although limited to near-mouth areas due to stream

conditions, habitat in the tributaries is of special importance when reservoir

water quality conditions become poor in the late summer. Unfortunately, most

of these areas have been denuded by past grazing, which reduces the protection

from shade of overhanging vegetation.

The diversity of 20 fish species (refer to FWS coordination report for species

listing), dominated by yellow perch, rainbow trout, and coho salmon, supports

populations of 11 bird species, including bald eagles. Fish also serve as an

important food component for mammals such as the river otter (FWS, 1990).

3-18
Currently, the fishery is threatened by poor water quality caused by a number

of different sources of pollution (refer to the water quality section of this

report). Both summer and winter fish kills have been documented and are

suspected of being caused by fish diseases aggravated by high water

temperatures and/or low dissolved oxygen content of the water. Low dissolved

oxygen content is caused indirectly by an increase in algae growth stimulated

by the pollutants. Dissolved oxygen levels also depend on the amount of water

held in the reservoir. To further protect fisheries, Reclamation has made an

administrative decision to try to maintain a minimum pool of 300,000 acre-feet

during the summer season.

3.3.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Under this alternative, large areas designated C/OS would remain open and

natural, protect wetland, waterfowl, and shorebird habitat around the

reservoir, and provide buffer zones between recreation sites or private land

uses and Wildlife Management Areas (WMA’s) to reduce disturbance. WMA’s,

managed primarily for wildlife, would benefit wildlife values by limiting uses

to those (such as hiking and nonmotorized boating) which would protect the

integrity of the areas for wildlife. Specific management actions would be

developed and implemented in the WMA’s to improve and protect habitat quality

for wildlife.

The majority of wetland areas would be protected by the proposed WMA’s. In

addition, many wetland areas would be further protected by no-wake or nonmotorized zones that would prevent disturbance of plants, water-oriented birds,

and foraging and nesting areas from fast moving motorized boats. Increased

management and elimination of livestock grazing in some areas would help to

protect water quality and reduce current impacts to fish, wildlife, and plants

(particularly in wetland areas).

Prohibiting nonwinter OHV use on all Reclamation lands, except on established,

designated trails and roads, would protect environmental quality of soils and

3-19
vegetation as well as improve water quality due to less erosion and therefore

less sediment entering the reservoir.

However, increased human activities associated with development or expansion of

recreation sites may result in disturbances to the following resources:

- wetlands, particularly those located near recreation sites R14, R17, R19,

R22, R29, R30, R31, and R32.

- bald eagles, particularly those nesting near Poison Creek and Buttercup

(Gold Fork), from improvements proposed in R29 and R30; and in general, from

opening of the old State airstrip (resulting in conflicts between aircraft

and eagles or waterfowl in the flight pattern of the airstrip).

Alternative A

To the extent that recreation development and public use of the reservoir would

be reduced under Alternative A, this alternative would have less impacts on

biological resources as Alternative B. However, if recreation demand exceeds

development provided under this alternative, uncontrolled overflow parking,

camping, and boat mooring could damage the integrity of the C/OS areas and

WMA’s for wildlife. The more extensive no-wake zones covering the southwest

shoreline, the Gold Fork arm, and the Sugarloaf area, and the increase in the

size of the Hot Springs and Gold Fork WMA’s would enhance the protection of

wildlife and wetlands in these areas.

Alternative C

To the extent that recreation development and public use of the reservoir would

increase under Alternative C, impacts on biological resources would exceed

those of Alternative B. The construction of recreational sites along the

southwest shore could disturb the Hurd Creek eagle nest, which is within a mile

of the largest of these sites (R-34), and conflict with significant wetlands.

The unique and more-or-less isolated wildlife habitat on Sugarloaf Island

(R13), which would also be excluded from WMA designation, would also be

3-20
disturbed by human activities resulting from its designation as a recreation

site.

The proposed trail along the west shoreline of the reservoir under this

alternative would pass through two WMA’s designated in Alternative B and 

through wet meadows along a substantial portion of its length. Use of this

trail would cause disturbance of ospreys, waterfowl, and shorebirds, which

would be especially significant during the nesting, breeding, and rearing

seasons. Such a trail could also lead to more disturbance of eagles perching

and foraging along the shoreline.

Alternative D (No Action)

Existing recreation sites would continue to operate and be maintained at the

present level. A gradual decline over time in facility condition and an

increase in environmental damage may occur. Under this alternative, biological resources would be protected only under general Reclamation management.

The effects of unauthorized or conflicting uses, increased public access in

some areas, piecemeal recreational development, and minimal oversight control

would continue causing disturbances to biological resources in the short term.

Without official land use designations and rules to restrict entry and use in

Reclamation areas, wildlife values would deteriorate in the long term as well.

In the absence of a RMP, impacts could exceed those discussed under

Alternative B. Without the assurance that the lands are managed according to a

RMP, Reclamation oversight may not be adequate to protect natural resources.

Mitigation measures would be limited or unavailable.

3.3.3 Mitigation Measures

General

- Site-specific environmental review in accordance with NEPA would be

conducted during layout and design of individual projects to minimize

impacts on biological resources.

3-21
- Reclamation would use all appropriate sources of authorities, funding, and

resources to ensure proper management of biological resources. If

management of biological resources is transferred to another Federal agency

or non-Federal entity through formal agreement, Reclamation would ensure

that the proposed managing entity has adequate resources and capabilities to

properly manage the resources in accordance with the RMP. Emphasis would be

on concurrent development of recreation facilities and wildlife habitat.

- Reclamation would comply with all requirements of the Endangered Species

Act, Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, applicable EPA guidelines,

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulations.

- Reclamation would monitor effectiveness of environmental commitments to

offset or reduce adverse impacts on endangered species and wetlands

associated with construction and/or operation of project facilities.

- Reclamation would maintain a liaison with private, State, and Federal

officials who interface with endangered species, wetlands, and other

related activities

- Reclamation would provide appropriate coordination to ensure that the

conditions or commitments made as a result of Section 7 compliance

activities are integrated into construction specifications contracts and

operational agreements where appropriate.

Threatened and Endangered Species

- Reclamation has entered into Section 7 consultation with the FWS to ensure

that proposals do not violate the provisions of the Endangered Species Act

or jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle. A biological

assessment will be prepared and mitigative actions, if needed, will be

identified in the final EA.

- Reclamation would begin a 3-year study of bald eagles at Boulder Creek site,

(R16) at the time of development in order to evaluate eagle-human

3-22
interaction. A 5-foot fence would be built to block human activity.

Revegetation of the site would be conducted.

- Reclamation would conduct a 3-year assessment of use patterns of birds in

the R-14 and Hot Springs WMA areas prior to reopening of the old State

airstrip (R-14).

- Reclamation would conduct a 3-year study to determine importance of

Government Point site (R-21) to bald eagles prior to any recreational

development.

- Reclamation would manage C/OS near Gold Fork bald eagle nest in accordance

with the Cascade Reservoir Bald Eagle Management Plan.

- Reclamation would manage the C/OS areas in the upper Boulder Creek and North

side of Gold Fork with emphasis on wetlands and wildlife habitat protection.

Wetlands and Stream Corridors

- If trails, other than those proposed as part of Alternative B are 

considered, Reclamation would not locate the trails in the upper arms of the 

reservoir.

- Development of site R-32 (south of Poison Creek) would be located on the 

upland area south of Poison Creek.

Vegetation

- Reclamation would conduct plant surveys of the WMA’s to recommend

site-specific revegetation for each area. A literature search would be

conducted, and if necessary, different methods would be tested to restore

native meadows and upland flora (e.g., drilling native seed into native

soil, burn and seed).

3-23
- Reclamation would investigate the possibility of using subimpoundments in

some of the reservoir arms to imitate more natural water level changes

(e.g., Gold Fork).

Wildlife

- Reclamation would implement additional protection measures for wildlife

during sensitive nesting and rearing times. This additional protection may

include seasonal closing of trails, other areas, or any other methods deemed

necessary and effective to prevent unnecessary disturbance of wildlife

during these critical periods.

- Reclamation would conduct wildlife surveys of the WMA’s to assess seasonal

use and establish a baseline to monitor future use.

- Reclamation would evaluate ways to provide recreational access to WMA’s that

would be consistent with the purpose of wildlife populations and habitat

protection.

3.3.4 Residual or Net Impacts

No significant net or residual impacts on biological resources would remain

following adoption of the above mitigation measures into Alternative B.

3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.4.1 Affected Environment

No systematic field inventory to identify cultural resources has been completed

as yet at Cascade Reservoir. In 1947, prior to dam construction, a brief

survey was conducted, and two prehistoric archeological sites were discovered

(Drucker, 1948). However, no documentation indicating the locations of these

sites remains. In 1979, USFS personnel conducted an unsystematic cultural

resource survey of locations on the west side of the reservoir where creeks

entered the lake, and eight prehistoric sites were recorded (Arnold, 1984).

3-24
Small, project-specific areas have since been surveyed by Reclamation

archeologists, and three additional sites were recorded, including one historic

cabin (Reclamation nd). Two of the recorded prehistoric sites have been test

excavated, and both failed to yield significant deposits (Jaehnig, 1985;

Weyers, 1990). In 1989, A Class I overview was completed for Cascade Reservoir

(Sappington and Tracy, 1989). This report outlined the current understanding

of the prehistoric use of the general area, briefly discussed its historic

development, and reviewed previous archeological investigations that have

occurred around the reservoir. Sappington and Tracy also contacted cultural

resource or land management personnel with the Nez Perce Tribe and the

Shoshone-Bannock Tribe at Fort Hall to ascertain if sites of traditional value

to those tribes were present around the reservoir. Neither were aware of any

such sites.

Although few sites have been recorded around the reservoir, there appears to be

a high probability that significant, undiscovered resources are present.

Isolated artifacts recovered by collectors include one Clovis style and several

Windust Phase projectile points, indicating that the reservoir area has been

utilized for more than 10,000 years. Ethnographic and historic accounts attest

that Long Valley was utilized by the Bannock and Nez Perce. Historic records

indicated Euro-American settlement of Long Valley began in 1883, and by 1890

several towns and a sawmill had been established. Survey plat maps dated 1890

show the locations of numerous houses, roads, irrigation ditches, and fields

within the reservoir boundaries.

Undoubtedly archeological evidence remains to document these uses. However,

the depositional integrity of many of the sites around the reservoir may have

been damaged by reservoir erosion and by historic and current land use

activities. Most of the recorded archeological sites have been found around

the reservoir shoreline, exposed in eroded cutbanks or in lagged out sediments.

3-25
3.4.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

It is Reclamation’s policy to preserve significant cultural resources in situ,

when possible, and avoid related adverse effects is always attempted. However,

future actions under Alternative B could adversely affect some identified as

well as anticipated, unrecorded cultural resources. Such effects could occur

as a direct or indirect result of:

- wave action from increased boating activities

- land disturbing activities associated with proposed recreation and wildlife

management developments, shoreline stabilization activities, etc.

- increased damage to sites by relic collection, illicit digging, or vandalism

as a result of more intensive public use of areas, and improved public

access to presently unutilized areas.

Alternative A

To the extent that public recreational use of the reservoir would be reduced

under Alternative A due to more focus on wildlife management and C/OS, this

alternative would have less potential for impacts on cultural resources than

Alternative B. However, effects could still occur from construction of

proposed wildlife and recreational facilities and bank stabilization

activities. Impacts could also be greater due to recreational demand exceeding

developed facilities resulting in more dispersed use and therefore a chance of

increased trampling and erosion of sites.

Alternative C

Potential impacts on cultural resources would be the same as those of

Alternative B. However, the level of adverse effects would likely be higher

under Alternative C than Alternative B since development under this alternative

would involve more extensive areas.

3-26
Alternative D (No Action)

Treatment of cultural resources would occur on a project specific basis. Some

measures proposed under Alternative B, designed to control access and protect

lands, may not occur without the RMP. Therefore, cultural resources might

suffer damage from ongoing, unauthorized actions or poorly managed public use.

3.4.3 Mitigation Measures

The following measures would be adopted to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse

impacts of Alternative B on cultural resources.

- Reclamation would conduct a Class III intensive inventory of all lands

under its jurisdiction around Cascade Reservoir in order to locate

surface-visible prehistoric and historic sites on these lands. Completion of the inventory would partially fulfill the legal mandate to

identify significant cultural resources on public land, and would also

collect initial information necessary to manage these resources. The

inventory would occur during the low water period.

- When the Class III inventory has been completed, the Reclamation Regional

Archeologist would write a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for

the reservoir. The CRMP would discuss the sites in terms of historic

contexts; identify additional investigations needed to assess the

historic significance of individual sites; and identify factors that are 

damaging sites and measures that would be taken to protect significant

sites from further damage. The CRMP would be reviewed by the Idaho State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP), and would be the basis for execution of a

Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (PMOA) between Reclamation, SHPO,

and ACHP. Implementation of the PMOA would serve to meet Reclamation’s

mandated requirement to identify and protect significant cultural

resources at Cascade Reservoir.

- Reclamation would analyze each action implementing Alternative B in

accordance with 36 CFR 800. If a potentially damaging action is proposed

3-27
for a location where a cultural resource site has been recorded, then the

following process must ensue:

A. If the site has been determined "not eligible" to the National

Register, then the project would proceed with no further cultural

resource investigations.

B. If a site’s eligibility to the National Register has not been

determined, then the data needed to make this assessment would be

collected (historic research, archeological test excavations, etc.), and

the SHPO would be consulted to determine if the site is eligible to the

National Register.

C. If Reclamation and the SHPO determine a site is eligible to the

National Register, then Reclamation would investigate means to avoid

damage to the site. Reclamation would always avoid impact to a site when

feasible avoidance measures exist. Avoidance activities would include

relocating construction areas to miss significant sites; restricting

access or kind of use to prevent user damage; and excluding lands containing significant sites from exchange or sale to non-Federal entities.

The SHPO and ACHP would be consulted concerning the appropriateness of

avoidance actions.

D. When no feasible means exist to avoid adverse impact to a

significant site, appropriate impact mitigation actions would be

implemented. The SHPO and ACHP would comment on the mitigation plan.

Mitigation can include historic research, structural documentation,

archeological excavations, or site interpretation.

Reclamation would ensure that all construction contracts arising from a

Reclamation action provide specifications for the contracting officer to

order delays or changes in work when a cultural resource is discovered

during the construction phase. Reclamation would apply mitigation

procedures in conformance with RI 376.11 before any further work on the

site may proceed.

3-28
- Reclamation would treat human remains encountered as a result of Reclamation

actions with due respect and dignity in accordance with the Department of

the Interior "Policy on Disposition of Human Remains." Native Americans

shall be involved in the burial disposition process, in accordance with the

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

3.4.4 Residual or Net Impacts

No significant net or residual impacts on cultural resources would occur with

Alternative B and C if the above mitigation measures are included. The mitigation measures probably would not resolve all of the impacts of Alternative A

and D due to existing and increased dispersed recreation use with resulting

human disturbance.

3.5 RECREATION

3.5.1 Affected Environment

Cascade Reservoir has become a highly popular body of water for outdoor

recreation since the construction of Cascade Dam in 1948. In 1988,

approximately 255,000 people visited the reservoir, and the number is growing

by about 1.4 percent annually. Demand for recreation access and facilities

would continue to rise as reflected by steadily increasing visitation and 

participation figures. Recreation needs may become even more acute with

increased income, more leisure time, easier mobility, increased urbanization,

and more active "baby boomers" seeking greater health in the outdoors (EDAW,

November 1990). Preferred recreation activities at the reservoir are fishing,

sightseeing, swimming, power boating/waterskiing, hiking, picnicking, camping,

and snowmobile. Roughly 85 percent of the annual recreation use occurs

between May and September. However, winter use by people involved in ice fishing and snowmobile is increasing. Recreation use is greatest at the

southeast and northwest ends of the reservoir, where most developed campgrounds

are located and in the arms which are surrounded by residential development

(see figure 3-3).

3-29
Recreation and water access facilities are provided at numerous locations

around the reservoir by Reclamation, USFS, Valley County Waterways, and other

organizations under lease agreement with the Federal agencies (table 3.6).

Demand for campsites during the peak use season often exceeds available supply. 

Therefore, camping in undesignated areas is currently permitted, although such

use overburdens management and causes environmental damage. Poison Creek, West

Mountain North, and Crown Point Campground are the most popular Reclamation

campgrounds. The largest campground on the reservoir is that of the Southern

Idaho Senior Citizens Recreation Association (SISCRA) which is leased from

Reclamation.

Roughly 150 to 200 boats are on the reservoir during peak use weekends, and as

many as 250 or more have been observed on holiday weekends. The recreation

carrying capacity of the reservoir for boating activities (at low water levels

and outside of unofficially designated wildlife management areas) is

approximately 1,300 boats. At the northern end, which is more limited by

reservoir size and configuration, the carrying capacity is 209 to 252 boats,

dependent upon water level. (Carrying capacity is defined as the number of

people that can take advantage of the supply of recreation opportunity at any

one time without substantially diminishing the quality of the experience sought

or the safety of participants.)

An unpaved airstrip that was operated by the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics on the

east shore of the reservoir south of Arrowhead Point was used until its closure

in 1972. The airport was used by private pilots for recreational fly-ins (day

use and short-term overnight camping). A nine-hole golf course, leased and

managed by the City of Cascade, at the south end of Van Wyck Park; OHV use of

Reclamation lands surrounding the reservoir, currently limited to one area

north of Boulder Creek; and an interpretive facility at the Tamarack Falls day

use site are other current facilities and uses.

It is Reclamation policy to provide quality developed recreation sites to meet

user needs consistent with Reclamation guidelines, regulations, and budget

limits by emphasizing resource protection, optimal use of capital investments,

correction of health and safety deficiencies, and barrier-free access.

3-30
Table 3*6

Existing Recreation Faciilities

ACREAGE

Road Access (Payed/Dirt)

InteriorCirculation

Car Parking Spaces

Boat Trailer/Car Parking

Boat Ramps

Courtesy Docks

Fihing/SwimmingDocks

Picnic Sites- Single Unite

Picnic Sites- Double Unite

Group Picnic Shelters

Dining/Recreation Halls

Beaches at High Water

Trails/Paths

Group Campfire Areas

Archcry/Volleyball Areas

Information/Inlerprctation

Campsites - Single Unite

Campsites - Double Unite

Group (Campsites

Tent Only Campsites

Cabins

Flush Ratrooms, 1-Unit

Flush Restrooms, 2-Unit

Flush Restrooms, 3-Unit

Hush Restrooms, 4-Unit

Flush Restrooms, 5-Unit

Hush Restrooms, 6-Unit

Hush Restrooms, 8-Unit

Hush Restrooms, 10-Unit

Vault Restrooms, 1-Unit

Vault Restrooms, 2-Unit

Vault Restrooms, 4-Unit

Vault Restrooms, 6-Unit

Showers and Sinks

Potable Water

Electrical Hook-ups

Dump Stations

Maint./Storage Facilities

Disabled Persons Facilities

Restaurant^ar/Clubhouse

9-Hole Golf Course

Year Lease Expires

Estimated Persons at One

Time (PAOT)

* Converted Picnic Sites

** Ideal capacity; can accommodate groups 3 times this size

3-31
3.5.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Under this alternative, the setting, activities, and experience opportunities

would essentially remain the same. Projects resulting from this alternative

would increase capacity, distribute use, accommodate new use, and minimize user

conflicts. Existing and most future demand would be met as proposed facilities

would provide a broad mix of opportunities. Some increase in user density

would occur since recreation activities would be concentrated around developed

facilities. User conflicts would be resolved through separation or restriction

of uses, signing, fencing, site-specific recreation plans, or other means. Use

at some sites would be at capacity during peak use weekends and holidays.

Designated overflow sites would provide additional capacity. However, late

arrivals may be required to find other campsites or limit their experience to

day use. Opportunities for physically-challenged recreational users would

increase as barrier-free or near barrier-free facilities are provided.

Restricting boating with no-wake or nonmotorized areas would not limit boating

by any significant amount and would concentrate use into smaller areas.

Prohibiting OHV use from accessing the shoreline and restricting in developed

recreation areas would protect recreation sites. Under this alternative, the

carrying capacity of the reservoir would be reached but not exceeded (see

discussion of carrying capacity in sections 4 and 5 of the RMP). Marina

development at West Mountain South (R-30) would be constructed in phases in

order to minimize impacts and to further evaluate boating carrying capacity.

Alternative A

While more emphasis would be placed on wildlife conservation and management

under this alternative, Alternative A would not provide enough recreation

opportunities to accommodate existing and expected future demand. Recreation

use of adjacent non-Reclamation lands such as the Boise National Forest would

increase. Potential overuse of developed recreation sites, as well as

dispersed use areas, would cause environmental damage, require more intensive

and less efficient Reclamation management, and result in user conflicts.

3-32
Alternative C

Alternative C would substantially increase recreational opportunities and

development which would change the potential recreation experience of the

reservoir (from passive to more intensive). Additional facilities management

and personnel for control would be required. Under this alternative, the

carrying capacity of the reservoir would be exceeded in the reservoir’s

northern end. Increased use of the reservoir for recreation would result in

more crowded conditions, wear and tear on facilities, destruction of

vegetation, and possible recreation conflicts.

Alternative D (No Action)

The no action alternative would keep Reclamation lands available for other

recreation/resource management options. The current crowded conditions at

existing recreation sites would continue. Recreation use of adjacent nonReclamation lands and nondeveloped areas would increase. Existing and expected

additional use could cause significant conflicts with current recreation uses

of the reservoir, resulting in potential adverse impacts from litter and human

waste. In the absence of a RMP, piecemeal recreation development would occur

which could result in a failure to meet all the reservoir’s recreation needs.

There would be less opportunity to satisfy existing and future recreation

demand, particularly for recreational vehicle camping and overnight group use 

and boat moorage.

3.5.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are necessary since Alternative B has no adverse impacts

of major significance. No mitigation measures are identified for the other

alternatives.

3.5.4 Residual or Net Impacts

Positive residual impacts on recreation resources would occur since Alternative B is designed to meet current and future recreation demands. Impacts as

described would remain for the other alternatives.

3-33
3.6 VISUAL QUALITY

3.6.1 Affected Environment

The existing high quality scenic values of the Cascade Reservoir basin are a

prime factor in attracting visitors and residents to the area. Overall, the

visual character at the reservoir is best described as natural where little or

no evidence of development is found, or rural in those locations where

development generally is within view. As experienced from the reservoir or its

shoreline, large areas of undeveloped landscapes combine with the outstanding

natural elements of the basin, particularly the high mountain peaks and ridge

skylines to the west, to provide a highly valued setting.

The landscape character of the west shore is relatively consistent throughout.

It appears generally undeveloped and is highly scenic. A key visual feature of

the west side of the basin is the conifer forest which extends up the eastern

face of the mountainside. A strip of grassy meadow lies along the edge of the

majority of the western shore, broken in places where the conifer stands extend

to the water’s edge. Development that is seen is generally concentrated in

pockets and is at least partially screened from view by vegetation.

The eastern shore also provides areas of high scenic quality, although some

areas appear less striking than others. Vegetation on the east side of the

reservoir has been strongly influenced by climate, topography, and land use

practices. Stands of conifers are found among the rolling hills and on the

ridge far in the distance. Some conifer stands occur in flatter areas

immediately adjacent to the east shoreline. At other points, broad areas of

pasture used for grazing livestock are found, while in other locations rolling

hillsides feature a dryland vegetative cover of low-growing sagebrush and

grasses. In some locations, substantial residential development is evident

near the shore. Existing elements or conditions which detract from the scenic

quality of the east shore include slash piles, significant bank erosion, and

inadequate, failing, and uncoordinated retaining wall construction.

The southeastern portion of the reservoir has a developed character. Areas of

development include Van Wyck Park, the Cascade public boat ramp, and the golf

3-34
course. The boat launch appears as a center of activity with a large, exposed

parking area and restaurant immediately adjacent to it. The golf course

presents a well maintained appearance which is pleasing to the eye and

harmonious with the overall surrounding area. The old quarry at Crown Point is

not extremely noticeable or objectionable because it has naturally revegetated

over time.

3.6.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

New recreational facilities proposed under Alternative B would generally be

located in areas which are not visually prominent. New extraction from the old

quarry could have significant adverse impacts on the visual quality of this

portion of the reservoir. Generally, however, implementation of this

alternative would tend to provide needed visual enhancement or improvement to

identified areas by controlling significant bank erosion, uncontrolled

vehicular access, individual boat docks, and ineffective or uncoordinated

retaining wall construction.

Recreation activities would be concentrated around developed facilities.

Management of recreation activities would help avoid visual resource impacts.

Restriction and designation of OHV use areas with a prohibition on accessing

the shoreline would protect scenic resources and would increase environmental

quality.

The designation of lands as WMA’s and C/OS would preserve large, undeveloped

landscapes and would serve as buffers between potentially conflicting uses.

The designation of certain shoreline areas as Rural Residential would also

improve scenic quality by implementing visual quality guidelines for permitted

uses and by prohibiting structural development.

Alternative A

Alternative A would result in little change from the present scenic quality of

the reservoir. However, Alternative A would not provide enough recreation

3-35
opportunities to accommodate existing and expected future demand. Potential

overuse of developed and dispersed recreation sites would cause wear and tear

on facilities and impacts to vegetation and soils, resulting in adverse visual

conditions.

Alternative C

Alternative C would increase recreational opportunities and development without

providing WMA and C/OS areas. This could result in adverse visual resource

conditions through increased human activity, devegetation, and soil erosion.

Large areas of undeveloped landscapes visible from the reservoir or shore could

be reduced or eliminated. The extent of shoreline development proposed under

this alternative could substantially change the open, rural character of the

reservoir setting, particularly in visually prominent locations or in buffer

zones between existing developed land uses and WMA’s.

Alternative D (No Action)

Under the no action alternative, the development of recreational facilities

would not keep pace with existing or expected future demand. Overcrowding

would cause existing visual conditions to degrade. Uncontrolled and

indiscriminate use in undesignated areas would result in adverse modifications

to the landscape. Inappropriate development could occur, resulting in

unplanned and incompatible public access or use. Vital features that

contribute to the natural beauty, visual distinctiveness, or diversity of the

reservoir could be destroyed. Without a RMP, resolution of existing adverse

visual resources conditions relating to such features as erosion, individual

docks, retaining walls, patios, decks, and landscaping would not occur.

3.6.3 Mitigation Measures

The visual-related policies contained in this alternative should ensure that

scenic quality is maintained around the reservoir. The only significant

adverse impact would be extraction of materials from the old quarry. This

would be done in a manner not to adversely impact the visual quality of the

reservoir, or materials would be obtained elsewhere. Mitigation for the other

3-36
alternatives includes development of a management plan, providing adequate

facilities for current and future recreation use, and providing areas of open

space to maintain a rural aspect. These are measures already included in

Alternative B.

3.6.4 Residual or Net Impacts

Because the significant impacts on visual resources would be mitigated for,

there would be no residual or net impacts with Alternative B. The impacts as

described would remain for the other alternatives.

3.7 AIR QUALITY

3.7.1 Affected Environment

The project area is located within Air Quality Region No. 063 - Idaho

Intrastate. Air quality in the project area is very high (and well below

ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants) due to the absence of

nearby artificial pollutants. Pollutants which occur periodically are derived

from wildfires, campfires, prescribed burns, dust, and emissions from motor

vehicles. These emissions have been of short duration and have not resulted in

pollution problems due to high dispersion rates found in the area (Forest

Service, 1990).

It is Reclamation’s general policy to protect and maintain air quality at all

its projects and facilities and support air pollution abatement in compliance

with Federal and State standards and emission levels.

3.7.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

The following future actions implementing the RMP could have an adverse effect

on air quality:

3-37
- Construction activities and vehicular traffic on unpaved surfaces would

temporarily generate dust at and near construction sites

- Additional vehicular traffic due to public recreational use would produce a

localized increase in carbon monoxide and odor

- Burning of wood in campfires at new or expanded recreational sites would

produce smoke particulates

However, it is unlikely that any of these actions would be significant enough

to require a State New or Modified Source Permit, and/or violate any ambient

air quality standards.

Alternative A

To the extent that development of recreational facilities and public use of the

reservoir would be reduced under Alternative A, this alternative would have

less impact on air quality than Alternative B.

Alternative C

To the extent that development of recreational facilities and public use of the

reservoir would increase under Alternative C, impacts on air quality would

exceed those of Alternative B. However, these impacts would be sufficiently

minimal so as not to exceed air quality standards.

Alternative D (No Action)

Impacts on air quality would be limited to dust emissions caused by land

modifications and localized increases in carbon monoxide levels resulting from

any increases in vehicular traffic. These impacts are not considered to be

significant.

3-38
3.7.3 Mitigation

No mitigation is necessary for any of the alternatives since impacts are not

considered to be significant.

3.7.4 Residual or Net Impacts

No net or residual impacts on air quality would occur since no significant

impacts are expected.

3.8 NOISE

Those readers not familiar with the fundamental concepts of environmental noise

are referred to Appendix A.

3.8.1 Affected Environment

The most sensitive noise receptors in the reservoir area are existing

residential areas, campgrounds, and areas important to wildlife, including

WMA’s and nesting sites of sensitive species. These areas are shown on

figures 3-2 (Vegetation/Fish and Wildlife) and 3-5 (Land Use). The ambient

sound levels throughout most of the area are generally rural to residential in

nature. These ambient levels are affected by noise from vehicular traffic on

nearby roads, OHV use, motorboats and jet skis on the reservoir, overhead

airplane traffic, and general recreational activities, all of which exert a

greater influence during summer peak-use weekends. Noise from snowmobiles

increases ambient levels during the winter.

Motor Vehicles

Table 3-7 (Existing Traffic Noise in the Reservoir Area) provides estimated

sound levels near area roads for peak evening hours during the peak summer

season. The table shows that traffic does not currently create a noise problem

on roads adjacent to the reservoir (table A-l). Traffic on State Highway 55

produces intrusive roadside (at 50 meters from the center line) noise levels.

3-39
These levels, and much higher sound levels, however, are common along highways

and drop to more tolerable levels at 100 to 200 meters from the road.

Table 3-7

Existing Traffic Noise(dBA)1

in the Reservoir Area2

LOCATION (hourly L

Highway 55*

South of Cascade 63

North of Cascade 63

South of Donnelly 63

North of Donnelly 63

Lakeshore Drive 45

West Mountain Road

South of Poison Creek 40

South of Tamarack Falls Store 45

Tamarack Falls Road 47

1 A-weighted decibels are used to measure environmental noise. Refer to

Appendix A for definition and discussion.

2 Noise estimates using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise

Prediction Model (FHWA, 1978)

3 Average, or equivalent, sound level over the PM peak-hour as estimated for a

location 50 meters from the center line of the road (refer to the Traffic

and Circulation section of this EA for a basis of these estimates)

Noise levels in Cascade and Donnelly drop at least 5 DBA from those shown

due to the reduction in speed.

Watercraft

During the peak use season (holiday weekends), there are an estimated 240 boats

on the water at one time. The majority of these are for fishing, but about

40 percent are used for powerboating and waterskiing. These latter boating

activities are among the noisiest on the water. If about half of these louder

boats are operating at cruising speed at the same time, there would be

approximately 50 boats generating significant amounts of noise. Fortunately,

3-40
the boats are dispersed throughout the reservoir, and many are a substantial

distance from the shoreline and sensitive receptors. However, these boats do

produce intrusive and annoying noise levels as they pass by. Existing

regulations are not sufficient to protect sensitive noise receptors from such

noise levels.

Individually, ski boats produce noise levels of between 69 and 76 dBA during a

36 mph drive-by at 100 feet. With two or three passing by at the same time,

noise levels are as high as 80 dBA. Jet boats and boats with dry exhausts and

improper mufflers are considerably louder, exceeding 90 dBA.

Many of the powerboats spend much of their operational time at significant

distances from the shoreline. At the widest part of the reservoir, a receptor

on the shoreline would hear a 45 DBA level from a typical ski boat in the

center of the reservoir; at 1 mile, 56 DBA; at 3,200 feet, 58 dBA; and 61 dBA

at 1,600 feet.

Aircraft

Cascade Reservoir is in the midst of the main Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft flight corridor in Idaho for north-south destination flights. Planes

usually fly over the reservoir at an altitude of 1,000 to 5,000 feet. Planes

landing at either the Donnelly or Cascade airports fly a standard traffic

pattern which includes a fly-by at 1,000 feet. There is also a private airstrip on the west side of the reservoir, north of the French Creek boat launch.

Float planes also have access to the reservoir. Float planes on the reservoir

are rare because the reservoir is not particularly suitable for this use and

there are few float planes statewide (primarily due to numerous land-based

airports).

Most of the aircraft using the local airports (Cascade and Donnelly) are small,

single-engine planes not over 12,500 pounds. Small aircraft of this type

typically produce fly-over noise levels of 70 to 80 dBA. Takeoff and approach

3-41
noise levels are typically around 70 and 65 dBA, respectively, for a receptor

directly under the aircraft on the ground at a given distance from the airport.

Due to standardized techniques of measurements, the distances of planes from

the airport after lift-off (6,500 meters) and before touchdown (2,000 meters)

are quite substantial for these noise level measurements and altitudes vary.

Noise levels just after takeoff, the noisiest of the two operations, are

commonly around 85 to 90 dBA at 100 feet. For receptors on the ground, this

level would be sustained for a considerable distance after takeoff depending on

how quickly altitude is gained. However, average day-night noise levels at

local airports do not exceed an L,q(refer to Appendix A for definition) of

60 dBA more than 5,500 feet from start of takeoff roll or 65 dBA on the runway

itself.

Figure 3-4 (Relationship Between Sound Level and Response of 11 Species of

Birds) shows the responses of various birds to aircraft noise. The figure

indicates that some species, such as snow geese and Canada geese, have no

tolerance to loud noises; others, like great egrets, seem to tolerate noise at

very high levels; still others, including grebes, display a variable response

depending on the noise level. Caution should be exercised when interpreting

this figure. While certain birds may not seem to respond immediately to noise,

noise can have other effects that are not readily apparent. For example,

recent research on the great blue heron has shown that loud noises prevent

mating and nesting behavior.

3.8.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Future actions implementing Alternative B could increase noise levels. Impacts

could occur as a direct or indirect result of:

- an increase in intrusive noise reaching residential areas from recreational

users at nearby campgrounds, picnic sites, and other recreational sites.

This increase would be insignificant due to land use management

designations.

3-42
- an increase in average traffic noise levels on interior roads around the

reservoir or on area roads (table 3-8). However, average noise levels at

all locations would still be below Federal Highway Administration noise

abatement levels.

- OHV use and snowmobile use near residential areas, campgrounds, and WMA’s

- more than doubling the number of boats on the water at one time, with an

equivalent increase in the number of intrusive, annoying, and disruptive

noise incidents for powerboats passing near residential areas, campgrounds

(particularly during nighttime), and WMA’s

- an increase in the very annoying levels associated with jet boats and boats

with dry exhausts and improper mufflers

- an increase in annoying and very annoying noise levels in residential areas,

campgrounds, and WMA’s near the potentially reopened old State airstrip

- an increase in annoying and very annoying noise levels associated with float

planes, particularly during takeoff

Alternative A

Reduced recreational use of the reservoir as proposed under this alternative

would have a corresponding decrease in overall noise levels when compared with

Alternative B. Table 3-8 indicates that traffic noise impacts for Alternative A would be slightly lower than for Alternative B on most roads. Compared

to the No Action Alternative D there would be a slight increase in average

noise levels at most locations along Highway 55, and a significant to serious

increase on two interior roads. Average noise levels at all locations would be

below Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise abatement levels. Noise

impacts would be generally acceptable on interior roads according to

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines.

3-43
Table 3-8

Projected Traffic Noise

in the Reservoir Area1

dBA (hourly Leq2)

Location

Preferred

Alternative

Alt.

A

Alt.

C

Alt.

D

Highway 553

South of Cascade 67 65 68 63

North of Cascade 66 65 67 63

South of Donnelly 65 65 66 63

North of Donnelly 63 63 63 63

Lakeshore Drive 53 45 54 45

West Mountain Road

S. Poison Creek 53 53 55 40

S. of Tamarack Fall Store 51 50 53 45

Tamarack Falls Road 48 47 49 47

1 Noise estimated using the FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA, 1978)

2 Average, or equivalent, sound level over the P.M. peak-hour as estimated for

a location 50 meters from the center line of the road (Refer to the Traffic

and Circulation Section of this EA for a basis of these estimates).

3 Noise levels in Cascade and Donnelly drop at least 5 dBA from those shown

due to the reduction in speed.

The significantly lower number of boat slips and launch lanes would allow for

fewer boats on the water at any given time. Consequently, the overall boat

noise and the number of incidents of intrusive, annoying, and disruptive noise

would be significantly lower than for Alternative B. The more extensive

no-wake zones and the larger total wildlife management area would minimize

noise impacts to waterfowl and other wildlife as compared to Alternative B.

Under Alternative A, the old State airstrip would not be reopened. Any

increase in air traffic caused by the increase in visitor use of the reservoir

would be absorbed by other local airports. Associated impacts would shift to

3-44
these locations but could still increase the number of fly-overs for certain

areas of the reservoir.

All other noise impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

Alternative C

To the extent that public recreational use of the reservoir would increase

under Alternative C, noise impacts would exceed those of Alternative B. The

potential for greater conflicts between recreational and residential areas

exists since more sites would be adjacent to residential areas.

Table 3-8 indicates that traffic noise impacts for Alternative C would be

slightly higher than for Alternative B at most road locations. Compared to

the No Action Alternative D, there would be a moderate increase in noise at

most locations along Highway 55, and a significant to serious increase on four

interior roads. Average noise levels at all locations would be below FHWA

noise abatement levels. Average noise levels would be acceptable for all

measured interior road locations except one, which at an average noise level of

55 dBA would be considered a significant adverse impact.

The number of boats on the water at any given time would be slightly higher

than for Alternative B. Consequently, the overall boat noise and the number of

incidents of intrusive, annoying, and disruptive noise would be about the same.

This impact represents a significant increase over existing conditions due to

the substantial increase in boat use. No-wake zones in the WMA’s would help to

alleviate the impacts to waterfowl.

All other noise impacts, including those for the old state airstrip, would be

similar to Alternative B.

Alternative D (No Action)

In the absence of a RMP, an increase in public access in some areas, minimal

oversight control, and undesignated and/or unauthorized uses, noise incidents

and conflicts around the reservoir would increase. Since all reservoir waters

3-45
would be accessible to motor boats (i.e., no designated no-wake or nonmotorized areas), noise impacts to waterfowl would increase.

3.8.3 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would be adopted to reduce significant

adverse impacts on noise levels to less than significant levels:

Recreation

- During detailed planning and design of recreational sites, Reclamation would

consider potential noise impacts to adjacent uses.

- A noise study for any proposed development that may have a probable significant adverse noise impact would be developed. Reclamation would monitor

effectiveness of noise mitigation.

Motor Vehicles

- Reclamation would prohibit OHV use near recreational sites, sleeping areas,

residential areas, WMA’s, and any other area where peace and serenity are

important.

Watercraft

- Reclamation would increase funding for an increase in County Sheriff

reservoir patrol in order to enforce the county ordinance prohibiting

excessive boat noise.

- Reclamation would work with Valley County to designate and enforce a

shoreline no-wake zone at least 100 feet in width.

- Reclamation would monitor jet ski noise levels during the summer season.

Based on the monitoring study and the criteria for identifying significant

noise impacts identified in Appendix A, Reclamation would work with the

3-46
county to develop a jet skis ordinance with appropriate restrictions to

reduce identified impacts to an insignificant level.

- Reclamation would request that the county enforce no-wake and nonmotorized

zones in WMA’s to avoid negative effects of disruptive noise on sensitive

waterfowl.

Aircraft

- Reclamation would recommend to the State Aeronautics Board a traffic pattern

for the old State airstrip that would provide for approaches from the north

and takeoffs to the south. An approach from the north would result in the 

lowest noise levels over residential and recreational areas near and north

of the runway. A takeoff pattern to the south would be mostly over water

and have the least effect on human activities. Informational signs would be

installed to inform pilots to practice quiet climb-out.

- If float plane use of the reservoir creates a noise problem, Reclamation

would consider appropriate restrictions.

3.8.4 Residual or Net Impacts

No net or residual impacts related to noise would remain following inclusion of

the above mitigation measures into Alternative B.

3.9 LAND USE

3.9.1 Affected Environment

Existing land use within the Cascade Reservoir area is shown in figure 3-5.

There are two major categories of ownership for lands surrounding the

reservoir: Federal lands administered by either Reclamation or USFS, and 

private land. The reservoir has 86 miles of shoreline; approximately 3 percent

is privately owned, and 97 percent is publicly owned. Reclamation manages

approximately 86 percent of the shoreline, and the USFS manages 11 percent

3-47
(Martin and Mehroff, 1984). Approximately 6,329 acres are Reclamationadministered land; 1,198 acres are administered by the USFS; and 1,300 acres

are private land with a Federal flowage easement. The 1,300 acres of flowage

easements were initially purchased by Reclamation where flooding or future

shoreline erosion was expected to occur. Reclamation obtained these easements 

for erosion and flood protection.

Of the approximately 6,329 acres of Reclamation land lying above the high water 

line around the reservoir, 1,600 acres are subject to permanent agricultural

easements and used for livestock grazing; approximately 100 acres are leased to

the IDFG for wildlife management; 365 acres are recreation areas, including

117 acres managed by Reclamation and 248 acres leased to other entities; and

the remaining 4,264 acres are used for open space and dispersed recreation.

Current direction for managing these and other Reclamation lands surrounding

the reservoir is provided in the previous Cascade Land Use Management Plan,

completed in 1978 but never formally adopted. Table 3.9 shows use of

nonflooded project lands within the reservoir area.

Most of the land to the east and south of the reservoir is privately owned,

used for recreational and permanent homes and livestock grazing. To the west,

most lands are in the Boise National Forest (subject to forest management

direction under the U.S. Forest Service Land and Resource Management Plan),

with some private land being used for residential purposes. Scattered pieces

of State land adjoin or are nearby throughout the project area.

Reclamation has recently terminated all grazing leases on its lands surrounding

the reservoir. Grazing still occurs on the permanent agricultural easements

which exist in several areas along the reservoir shoreline and has contributed

to reduced water quality of the reservoir. Reclamation has erected fencing in

some areas to prohibit livestock (and vehicles) from accessing the shoreline.

Grazing is also still permitted on USFS land.

Shoreline erosion at the reservoir has encroached on private land in the

Arrowhead Point area. Although it was riprapped, this has not been completely

3-48
effective in controlling the erosion. Depending upon the rate of erosion,

Reclamation flowage easements have been more successful in some areas than

others in accommodating a reasonable amount of shoreline erosion.

Table 3.9

Existing Land Use

Reclamation Acres

Grazing

Wildlife Management

Recreation

Open Space and Dispersed Recreation

1,600

100

365

4264

USFS

Subtotal 6,329

Grazing

Recreation

Multiple Use

354

174

670

Subtotal 1,198

Private

Erosion and Flood Protection* 1,300

Total Nonflooded Project Land 8,827

* Private with Reclamation Flowage Easement

Numerous instances of private trespasses and implied exclusive use of public

lands on the reservoir have been noted, particularly in the northeast portion

of the reservoir. Lack of public land access to narrow strips of Reclamation

lands between the water and the privately owned lands along the shoreline has,

in some cases, discouraged public use and has given the impression that the

lands are private property. Trespasses have included retaining walls; boat

docks; other land-based boating support facilities such as gasoline storage

tanks, walkways, and boat ramps; cabins, decks, and patios; underground. 

3-49
sprinkler systems, storage sheds, benches, landscaping, and other items of

personal property. Reclamation initiated a program in 1983 to resolve the

trespass and encroachment problems, some of which involved private boat docks.

The program, which initially required removal of all boat docks from the

reservoir, now allows boat docks under permit until 1993 and encourages the

development of community docks through a permit system.

3.9.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Actions proposed in this alternative would:

- facilitate orderly, coordinated development and management of all reservoir 

land and water areas under Reclamation jurisdiction

- coordinate resources management planning and activities for reservoir areas

with other State and local entities responsible for broad resource planning

and with other Federal agencies which administer and manage resources 

adjacent to the reservoir

- create additional water-related recreational opportunities and/or public

shoreline accessibility

- set aside and develop areas for wildlife management and protection

- resolve or minimize existing or potential conflicts among activities through

establishing desirable use levels, identifying and separating potentially

incompatible types of development and land uses, and other measures

- improve livestock distribution and control and protect wildlife and

recreation areas by proposing improvements (fencing, water developments,

etc.), and by modifying or eliminating any grazing use where it causes an

undesirable change in soil, vegetation, or water quality

- restrict OHV use (other than over-snow types) to designated trails or roads

3-50
- provide resolution of trespass and encroachment problems and private use of

public lands

These impacts are considered to be significant and beneficial.

Alternative A

While more emphasis would be placed on wildlife conservation and management

under this alternative, Alternative A would allow for the same range of

possible future land uses as Alternative B. The effects on land use would be

essentially the same as under Alternative B. However, fewer recreation opportunities would require greater Reclamation oversight to manage unauthorized/

undesignated uses and minimize environmental damage.

Alternative C

This alternative would allow for more recreational development than

Alternative B. However, impacts of Alternative C on land use would be similar

to those under Alternative B.

Alternative D (No Action)

Without implementation of a RMP, conflicts between private and public use would

become more apparent and difficult to resolve. Possible significant adverse

land use impacts could result from incompatible or unauthorized uses. Uses of

Reclamation lands not in the public interest would continue. Recreation and

fish and wildlife needs may not be met. Without a RMP, opportunities for

mitigating the impacts would be limited or unavailable. However, resolution of

conflicts between private and public use would be sought by legalizing actions

where appropriate, improving boundary delineation, and conducting more

intensive inventories.

3.9.3 Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures for Alternatives B and C are needed since the identified

impacts are positive. Possible mitigation for Alternative A would be increased

3-51
Reclamation oversight in order to minimize environmental damage; for

Alternative D mitigation measures are not identified.

3.9.4 Residual or Net Impacts

Only positive residual impacts on land use would remain with Alternatives B

and C. If identified mitigation for Alternative A is implemented, there should

be no residual impacts, but the impacts identified with Alternative D would

remain.

3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

3.10.1 Affected Environment

The project area is located in Valley County, Idaho, but draws heavily on a

seven-county area of influence for its visitor base. Within Valley County,

there are two incorporated cities and other unincorporated areas that are

affected by the existing facilities and could be affected by the proposed

project. In addition, private firms and individuals may be affected by

decisions resulting from implementation of a RMP.

Population

The area of influence includes the seven counties of Ada, Adams, Boise, Canyon,

Payette, Valley, and Washington. The total population of these counties

increased from over 200,000 in 1970 to almost 300,000 by 1980. This was a very

high 3.8 percent annual growth rate.

Since 1980, however, the rate of growth has declined. The 1988 estimate for

the seven counties was 327,600, a 1.4 percent annual growth rate over the

8-year period. Projections for 1993 assume a similar growth rate to 351,386.

Although both periods (1980-88 and 1988-93) represent considerably lower growth

rates than what happened during the 1970’s, the rates are still slightly higher

than those of the State as a whole (1.0 and 1.1 percent during the same

periods).

3-52
Valley County, where most socioeconomic impacts would occur, represents only

2.1 percent of the region’s population in 1988 (6,800). Its annual growth rate

during the 1970’s was 4.5 percent (3,609 to 5,604), faster than the regional

rate. The county’s population in 1990 is estimated at 7,049 which represents a

2.3 percent annual rate during the 1980’s. By the year 2000, estimates show a

population of 8,318 for a growth rate of 1.7 percent during this decade.

Employment

Total employment in Valley County increased from 874 in 1970 to 2,132 in 1980.

The 1970 employment figure was the fifth lowest during the period 1950 to 1970.

The highest level during that time was 1,159 persons in 1961. Since 1980,

employment has fluctuated slightly around the 2,200 level. Wood products

employment has declined from one-third of the total employment in 1970 to about

7 percent in 1989.

3.10.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Socioeconomic impacts associated with implementation of Alternative B revolve

around minor (1.4 percent) changes in visitation levels, visitor activities

(duration of stay and seasonal activity levels) and spending, direct and

indirect employment, adjacent private property values, and public costs and

revenues.

Direct employment should increase primarily because of new restrictions on how

the reservoir area would be used. Restricting visitors from areas they

currently access would probably require additional management personnel and 

oversight (especially in the early years until users become accustomed to

changes in past use).

While this may be considered a beneficial direct impact, in that it would

provide jobs, costs would also result. These costs would be primarily the

responsibility of Reclamation, but State Waterways, IDFG, and Valley County

would potentially contribute in funding these positions.

3-53
Restriction of use in some areas currently being grazed would cause some

economic impacts on those individuals affected.

Alternative A

Impacts would be essentially the same as those identified for Alternative B.

While there are fewer recreation facilities identified, there are more WMA’s

which would still necessitate the additional management personnel.

Alternative C

Impacts would be essentially the same as those identified for Alternative B.

Alternative D (No Action)

Without a RMP to promote and substantiate the staffing levels needed to

properly manage the resources at Cascade Reservoir, inadequate management and

oversight would continue.

3.10.3 Mitigation Measures

The following actions are mitigation measures for Alternatives A, B, and C. No

mitigation is identified for Alternative D.

- Reclamation would develop an information program to increase public

awareness of the proposed changes and benefits resulting from the RMP

- Reclamation would work with livestock operators to explore options in

removing grazing from sensitive areas

3.10.4 Residual or Net Impacts

With inclusion of the above mitigation measures into Alternatives A, B, and C,

there would be no residual or net impacts. Impacts of Alternative D would

remain as described.

3-54
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

3.11.1 Affected Environment

Electric

Idaho Power Company supplies electricity to the reservoir area. Electrical

power is available to all Reclamation recreation sites. However, none of the

campgrounds have individual electrical hookups, except for SISCRA and the

Cascade Christian Camp. A 69-kV transmission line crosses the Gold Fork arm.

No other transmission lines exist or are planned across Reclamation lands.

Wastewater

The city of Cascade provides wastewater collection and treatment services to

the Van Wyck facilities. Cascade is served by a conventional sewage collection

system followed by treatment in lagoons, land application through rapid

infiltration basins, and discharge to the North Fork of the Payette River

downstream of Cascade Dam. The recently upgraded system is currently at

70 percent capacity.

Poison Creek and West Mountain South Recreation Areas and some of the lease

holders have flush toilets with septic systems (all other restroom facilities

are vaults that require periodic pumping). Dump stations for RV’s are only

available at West Mountain South on the west side and Van Wyck Park and SISCRA

on the east side. No dump stations exist for boaters.

The city of Donnelly is served by a conventional sewage collection system

followed by three lagoons and land application of pond effluent on a tree farm

and pasture. The system is currently operating beyond capacity. Donnelly is

currently exploring the purchase of additional property for a treatment plant

expansion.

3-55
Solid Waste

Solid waste is collected and deposited in the county sanitary landfill.

Dumpsters are no longer used by Reclamation due to past unauthorized use

(dumping) by nonvisitors.

Fire

By cooperative agreement, the Donnelly Rural Fire Protection Association

provides fire protection on Reclamation lands within the association’s

boundary, which extends approximately one-half mile south of Gibson Creek on

the west side and to the Hot Spring area on the east side. The USFS and city

of Cascade may respond to fires elsewhere on Reclamation lands although there

is no formal agreement or prearranged conditions of compensation. Several

fires have occurred on Reclamation property in the last 3 or 4 years.

Police

Law enforcement in the reservoir area is provided by the Valley County

Sheriff’s department. The department currently has 22 employees and a budget

of $412,389. The department operates a 15-bed jail with an average population

of 12 to 13 prisoners.

The reservoir is patrolled 5 days per week from Memorial Day weekend through

Labor Day weekend. Responsibilities include: boat and ramp inspections;

responding to emergencies and disturbances; boat towing; and removing floating

debris. Although few conflicts, accidents, or fatalities on the reservoir have

occurred, the Valley County Commissioners have projected the need for an

additional one-half-person year at an estimated cost of $12,850 for reservoir

patrol. Reservoir patrol is financed through contracts with the Valley County

Sheriff’s Department and the city of Cascade.

Roads

Road maintenance and improvements to the road system within the reservoir area

are provided by the Valley County Engineer. Currently, the county does not

3-56
provide the normal level of road maintenance to many outlying or thinly

populated rural areas. This lower level of maintenance standard meets current

demands but may change with an increase in population. Valley County does not

have a taxing district for the road and bridge budget. These funds are

obtained from State and Federal contributions.

3.11.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

Implementation of Alternative B may at a later stage affect public facilities

and services. It is likely that implementation would result in the need for

substantial expansion of staff, equipment, and infrastructure capacity but

would probably not exceed accepted standards or ratios related to the provision

of services.

Alternative A

Impacts would be essentially the same as those identified for Alternative B.

Alternative C

Impacts would be essentially the same as those identified for Alternative B.

Alternative D (No Action)

No direct impacts are expected. Reclamation would continue to take actions to

correct any public services or facilities deficiencies as warranted.

3.11.3 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures would be adopted during project planning to

reduce adverse impacts of Alternative B on public facilities and services to a

level of insignificance:

3-57
- Reclamation would coordinate planning with appropriate agencies for projects

impacting public services and utilities to ensure the orderly development of

needed facilities and services.

- Reclamation would treat incurred costs as project costs to be allocated

following Reclamation allocation procedures. It may be necessary to obtain

a commitment to cost share an appropriate portion of the added costs with

appropriate Federal, State, or local entities.

- Reclamation would amend existing agreements and develop new agreements, as

necessary, with servicing agencies for necessary changes in service

requirements or levels resulting from the selected alternative.

3.11.4 Residual or Net Impacts

No net or residual impacts on public services and utilities from any of the

alternatives would remain following adoption of the above mitigation measures.

3.12 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

3.12.1 Affected Environment

State Highway 55 (SH 55) provides the main access to Cascade Reservoir from

McCall to the north and from Boise to the south (map 1-1). SH 55, a rural

highway located to the east of the reservoir, is under the jurisdiction of and

is maintained by the Idaho Transportation Department. The highway is a

two-lane facility approximately 24 to 28 feet wide. Gravel shoulders on either

side of the roadway may vary in width from 2 to 6 feet. The posted speed limit

is 55 mph, decreasing to 25 mph in Cascade and 35 mph in Donnelly. SH 55 is

also known as Main Street when passing through Cascade.

West Side Road runs along the west shore of Cascade Reservoir from Tamarack

Falls Store at the north end of the reservoir to an intersection with Lakeshore

Drive at the southeast end of the reservoir. It is a graded gravel road

approximately 20 to 30 feet wide with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Oil is

3-58
applied along about a 3-mile stretch, from Tamarack Falls Store south to Poison

Creek, in order to reduce dust. West Side Road continues south as an untreated

gravel road for approximately 15 miles, with sharp turns towards the southern

end of the reservoir. The road is paved from the West Mountain Lodge near the

south end of the reservoir to the Lakeshore Drive/West Side Road intersection.

The pavement is approximately 24 feet wide with gravel shoulders that vary from

2 to 6 feet in width.

Access to the north and west sides of the reservoir from the city of Donnelly

is provided by a series of interconnecting roadways (Roseberry Road, Norwood

Road, and Tamarack Falls Road). Roseberry Road is a paved east-west, two-lane

facility with one 12-foot travel lane in each direction. Gravel shoulders on

either side range from 2 to 6 feet. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. One of

the northern arms of the reservoir is crossed with a 26-foot-wide bridge.

Roseberry Road is approximately 1.5 miles in length between SH 55 and Norwood

Road.

Norwood Road is a paved north-south, two-lane facility with one 12-foot travel

lane in each direction. Two to 6 foot gravel shoulders are on both sides of

the road. This north-south leg is approximately 1 mile in length and is the

connection used between Roseberry Road on the north and Tamarack Falls Road on

the south. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

Tamarack Falls Road is the east-west connection between West Side Road and

Norwood Road. It is approximately 1.4 miles in length. It is a paved,

two-lane facility with one 12-foot travel lane in each direction and 2 to

6 foot gravel shoulders on either side of the roadway. The posted speed limit

is 35 mph. A 26-foot-wide bridge is located over the North Fork of the Payette

River near the West Side Road/Tamarack Falls Road.

Lakeshore Drive runs along the eastern side of the reservoir south of the city

of Cascade between Old State Highway and West Side Road for approximately

3 miles. It is a north-south, paved two-lane road approximately 24 feet in

width with a 2 to 6 foot gravel shoulder on either side of the roadway. The

speed limit is 35 mph. Access to several recreation areas and subdivisions are

located on this roadway.

3-59
Old State Highway provides direct access to the reservoir from the city of

Cascade. Old State Highway forms a modified "T" intersection with Main Street

(SH 55) approximately one-tenth of a mile north of the Valley County

Courthouse. The speed limit is posted for 25 mph. It is a paved, two-lane

facility, 22 to 24 feet wide, with gravel shoulders of approximately 2 to

6 feet on both sides of the roadway.

Table 3.10 shows current Level of Service (LOS) ratings for various locations 

around the reservoir. Refer to Appendix B for definition and discussion

concerning Level of Service (LOS).

3.12.2 Potential Impacts

Alternative B (Preferred)

New or expanded recreational facilities as proposed under Alternative B would 

result in additional trips on local roadways. Since most increased visitation

is expected to hinge upon annual population growth of 1.4 percent more than

upon facility construction, little impact would occur. However, the construction of the 250-slip marina at Van Wyck Park (R-7) and increased RV camping in

the area would result in more concentrated use of the east side of the

reservoir. While traffic would increase in this area, it would only be

significant a couple of days of the week for 3 or 4 months out of the year

during the peak use period (Friday, Saturday, and holidays during June to

September). Areas most affected would be Lakeshore Drive and the Old State

Highway intersection with Main Street.

Alternative A

Impacts of Alternative A and Alternative B are similar. Significant impacts

would occur for only a few days during the peak use season of June to

September.

3-60
Table 3.10

1990 Existing Levels of Service

in the Reservoir Area

(p.m. peak hour)

Location LOS

State Highway 55north of Donnelly C

State Highway 55 south of Donnelly C

State Highway 55north of Cascade B

State Highway 55south of Cascade B

Lake Shore Drive south of Old State Highway A

West Mountain Road south of Poison Creek A

West Mountain Road south of Tamarack Falls Store A

State Highway 55/Roseberry Road

Northbound Approach A

Southbound Approach A

Eastbound Approach A

Westbound Approach B

Main Street (SH 55)/01d State Highway

Northbound Approach A

Eastbound Approach A

Note: Reflects peak use period; Friday, Saturday and Holidays, June-September

Alternative C

Impacts of Alternative C and Alternative B are similar, even with more

intensive recreative development. Significant impacts would occur for only a

few days during the peak use season of June to September.

Alternative D (No Action)

No significant impacts are anticipated from the background growth of traffic or

due to the small amount of planned recreation development in the reservoir

area.

3-61
3.12.3 Mitigation Measures

Reclamation would encourage the adoption of the following mitigation measures

in order to reduce adverse traffic impacts on roadways during peak use periods

to less than significant levels:

Main Street (SH 55)/Old State Highway Intersection

Reconstruct Old State Highway so that it intersects Main Street

perpendicularly.

Install a traffic signal.

SH 55/Roseberry Road Intersection

Widen the eastbound and northbound approaches to accommodate the addition of

turning lanes.

Install a traffic signal.

West Side Road

Pave the roadway.

Road from Donnelly to Tamarack Falls Store

Repave the existing roadway and widen the gravel shoulders.

Lakeshore Drive and Southern Paved Portion of West Side Road

Repave the existing roadway and widen the gravel shoulders.

Old State Highway/Lakeshore Drive

Reconfigure Old State Highway to intersect Lakeshore Drive at right angles.

3-62
Move the entrance into the Van Wyck boat launch parking lot slightly

northward so it is more clearly defined.

3.12.4 Residual or Net Impacts

No or net impacts related to traffic would remain with Alternative B following

implementation of the above mitigation measures. If they are not adopted

impacts during the peak use season would remain.

3-63
4. Consultation and Coordination

4.1 List of Contacts

Much of the information in this EA was obtained from a November 1990 report

prepared by EDAW, Inc. under contract for Reclamation.

During the development of the proposed RMP (Alternative B), EDAW conducted

public meetings to solicit input on development of the Cascade Reservoir area.

An advisory work group was formed to aid in the development of alternatives and

to assist in the identification of environmental issues. The following list

provides a description of agencies and individuals contacted in the preparation

of this environmental assessment by either Reclamation or EDAW.

Public review of this EA provides additional opportunities for consultation.

Comments received will help us to further evaluate the alternatives and will be

an important factor in our decision concerning need for further environmental

compliance action. Copies of this EA are being sent, for review and comment,

to those addresses listed in section 4.3.

Cascade Reservoir Association

Cliff Day, member

Central District Health

Jeffrey Lappin, Senior Environmental Health Specialist

City of Cascade

John Cloninger, Former Mayor

Marilyn Scott, City Council member

City of Donnelly

Dorothy Gestrin Ireland, City Council member

Donnelly Rural Fire Protection Association

Terry Gestrin

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Don Anderson, Fishery Biologist

Jeff Rohlman, Wildlife Biologist

Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation

Yvonne Ferrell, Director

Jeffry Hoedt, Boating Program Coordinator

Idaho Department of Transportation

Ray Mikelson, Highway Planner

Candy Smith, MVB User Manager

Idaho Department of Commerce

Alan Porter

4-1
Idaho State Waterways

Dave Fritchle, Valley County

Idaho State Lands Department

Bill Petzak

Idaho State Historic Preservation Office

Idaho Water Users Association

Brick Andrew

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Charles Lobdell, Field Supervisor, Boise Field Office

Rich Howard

Valley County Commissioners

Tom Olson

Valley County Planning and Zoning

Glenn Loomis, Committee Member

Leslie Ankenman, Engineer

Valley County Road Department

Wayne Peterson

Valley County Sheriffs Department

Lewis Pratt, Sheriff

Ken Belnap, Boat Deputy

Larry Olson, Chief Deputy

Valley County Soil Conservation District

Anthony Bennett

U.S. Forest Service, Boise National Forest

Supervisor’s Office:

Bob Entwistle, Landscape Architect

Vicki Lawson, Recreation Planner

Greg Spangenberg, Project Manager for Valbois

Cascade Ranger District:

Ronn Julian, District Ranger

Ed Huston, Recreation Planner

Golden Eagle Audubon Society

Jessie Somerton, member

Idaho Wildlife Federation

Gene deReus, member

Trout Unlimited

Tom McGlashen, member

4-2
Idaho Boaters Association

Lars Hanson, member

Southern Idaho Sailing Association

John Gabiola, member

Idaho Aviation Association

Boyd Miller, member

Idaho Snowmobile Association

Dick Trudeau, member

Good Sam Club

Herman Evans, member

Idaho All Terrain Vehicle Association

Tim Bernard, member

West Mountaineers

Jim Richmond, member

Agricultural Easement Representative

Glenn Loomis

Commercial/Real Estate Representative

Orin Makinson

Seasonal Homeowners

Glenda Kuhlman

Nick Sterling

Marc Bechard, Bald Eagle Specialist

Dennis Taggart, Valbois Developer

Ron Guilieri, Waterways Commissioner

Idaho Department of Transportation

William C. Miller, Chief, Bureau of Aeronautics

4.2 Bibliography

Anderson, Don, 1989. "Fisheries in Jeopardy, Holding Out Hope for Fishing Hole

#1," McCall, Idaho.

Arnold, Quentin Mark, 1984. "Prehistory of Long Valley, Idaho," Cultural

Resource Report No. 10. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden,

Idaho.

Bechard, Marc J., David Berg, and Richard P. Powell, no date. "Historical Nest

Sites of the Peregrine Falcon in Idaho," for Boise Field Office, USFWS.

4-3
Beecham, John, January 1986. "Black Bear, 1986-1990, Idaho Department of Fish

and Game Species Management Plan."

Drucker, Philip, 1948. Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources of Cascade,

Smith’s Ferry, Scriver Creek, and Garden Valley Reservoirs, Upper Payette River

Basin, Columbia Basin Project, River Basin Surveys. Smithsonian Institution,

Eugene.

Hanna, Paul L., December, 1985. "White-Tailed Deer, 1986-1990, Idaho

Department of Fish and Game Species Management Plan."

Howard, R. P., 1986. "Bald Eagle Nesting Survey of Cascade and Anderson Ranch

Reservoirs," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Jaehnig, Manfred E. W., 1985. Test Excavation of Site 10-VY-520, Cascade

Reservoir, Idaho. A report prepared by the Museum of Anthropology, Eastern

Oregon State College, for the Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region,

Boise, ID.

Krol, W. and M. J. Bechard, 1989. "Proposed French Creek Bald Eagle Territory

Management Plan, Cascade Reservoir, Idaho," Boise State University, Boise,

Idaho.

Ibid., 1989. "Donnelly and Gold Fork Bald Eagle Territory Management Plans,

Cascade Reservoir, Idaho," Boise State University, Boise, Idaho.

Lobdell, Charles H., Field Supervisor, United States Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise Field Office, letter to J.S. Tixier,

Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah, and John Keys, Regional

Director, Bureau of Reclamation Pacific Northwest Region, "Early Consultation

1-4-89-F-34, Valbois Four Season Resort Regarding Endangered Bald Eagle and

Peregrine Falcon."

Morache, Mart, December 1985. "Nongame, 1986-1990, Idaho Department of Fish

and Game Species Management Plan."

Melquist, Wayne, 1987 and 1989. "Idaho Bald Eagle Nesting Report," Idaho

Department of Fish and Game.

Othberg, K. L., 1987. Landforms and Surface Deposits of Long Valley, Valley

County, Idaho. Idaho Geological Survey, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Reininger, Bruce and Ned Horner, December 1982. "Cascade Reservoir Fisheries

and Limnological Investigation, Final Report," United States Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.

Sappington, Robert Lee, and Ray L. Tracy, 1989. An Overview of Cultural

Resources in the Vicinity of Cascade Reservoir, Valley County, West Central

Idaho. A report prepared by the Bowers Laboratory of Anthropology, University

of Idaho, for EDAW, Inc.

4-4
Toweill, Dale E., December 1985 a. "Elk, 1986-1990, Idaho Department of Fish

and Game Species Management Plan."

Ibid., December 1985 b. "Furbearers, 1986-1990, Idaho Department of Fish and

Game Species Management Plan."

Trent, Tracey T., December 1985. "Mule Deer, 1986-1990, Idaho Department of

Fish and Game Species Management Plan."

Van Daele, Lawrence, Hilary A. Van Daele and Donald Johnson, 1980. "Status and

Management of Ospreys Nesting in Long Valley, Idaho," Boise, Idaho.

Weyers, Ken, 1990. Personal communication with Lynne MacDonald, Regional

Archaeologist, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID.

Will, Gary C., January 1986. "Water Fowl, 1986-1990, Idaho Department of Fish

and Game Species Management Plan."

Zimmer, D. W., 1980. "Phosphorus Loading and Bacterial Contamination of

Cascade Reservoir Boise Project," U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho.

Zontek, Terry, Regional Archaeologist, 1980. Memorandum to Mike Misner, Chief,

Recreation Branch. Subject: Cultural Resources at Cascade Reservoir. Bureau

of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, Idaho.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),

1984. "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets."

Bureau of Aeronautics, Idaho Department of Transportation, April 9, 1990.

Letter from William C. Miller, Chief, to John Petrovsky, Project Manager, EDAW,

Inc. concerning the reopening of the Cascade Reservoir Airstrip.

Cascade Newsletter, Volume No. 4, April 1990. Prepared by EDAW, Inc. for

United States Bureau of Reclamation.

EDAW, Inc., 1990. Environmental Report Cascade Reservoir Resource Management

Plan. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise,

ID.

EDAW, Inc., 1990. Cascade Reservoir Resource Management Plan. Prepared for the

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.

DOT), June 30, 1988. Advisory Circular No 36-1E, Noise Levels for U.S.

Certified and Foreign Aircraft.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.

DOT), December 22, 1987. Advisory Circular No. 36-3E, Estimated Airplane Noise

Levels In A-weighted Decibels.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.

DOT), October 8, 1985. Airport Environmental Handbook, 5050.4A.

4-5
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.

DOT), Office of Environment and Energy, March 1985. Aviation Noise Effects,

Report No. FAA-EE-85-2.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.

DOT), August 9, 1982. Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Right-ofway and Environment, Chapter 7, Environment, Section 3, Procedures for

Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, Transmittal 348.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.

DOT), December 1978. FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model, PB81-194227,

FHWA-RD-77-108.

Idaho Department of Commerce, 1989. "County Profiles of Idaho."

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, December 1985. "Federal Aid to Fish and

Wildlife Restoration Job Performance Report," Project F-71-R-9.

Idaho Fish and Game, B9AD385BR, no date. "Idaho Fisheries Management Plan,

1986-1990."

Idaho Department of Transportation, 1989. "Six Year Plan."

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 1987. "Trip Generation Manual,

4th Edition." September 1987.

Transportation Research Board, Special Report 209, 1985 "Highway Capacity

Manual."

University of Idaho Wildland Recreation Department, 1987. "Idaho Leisure

Travel and Recreation Study."

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service / University of Idaho

College of Agriculture / Idaho Soil Conservation Commission. 1981. Soil Survey

of Valley Area, Idaho / Parts of Adams and Valley Counties.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (in cooperation with Bureau of

Reclamation), June 1989. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Valbois, a

Year-Round Destination Resort Village, Valley County, Idaho. Boise National

Forest, Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (in cooperation with Bureau of

Reclamation), March 1990. Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for Valbois, a Year-Round Destination Resort Village, Valley County,

Idaho. Boise National Forest, Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, March 1990. Boise National

Forest Draft Forest Plan. Boise National Forest, Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1989. "Biological Assessment

of Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate

Plant Species for the Proposed Valbois All-Seasons Resort."

4-6
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1989. "Draft Land and Resource

Management Plan for the Boise National Forest."

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, no date. "Proposed Land and

Resource Management Plan for the Payette National Forest."

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, June, 1989. "Valbois Draft

Environmental Impact Statement."

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, July 1981. "Soil

Survey of Valley Area, Idaho."

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, nd, form reports, site

forms, and notes on file in the Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Boise, ID.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, October 1978. Cascade

Land Use Management Plan for Cascade Reservoir, Valley County, Idaho. Pacific

Northwest Regional Office, Boise, Idaho.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest

Region. 1974. Cascade Reservoir Shoreline Erosion, Observations of the East

Shoreline during 1974. Boise Project Payette Division, Regional Office Boise,

Idaho.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho, July

1985. "Boise Project Power and Modification Study, Payette River Basin."

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District,

Idaho, August 1987. "Cascade Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final

Environmental Impact Statement."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 10, Noise Guidelines for

Environmental Impact Statements. 1975, revised November 24, 1980.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho, 1989. "Interim Management Plan

for Bald Eagles of Cascade Reservoir."

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 1986. "Recovery Plan for the

Pacific Bald Eagle."

WaterSki Magazine, Jan./Feb. 1990, World Publications, Inc., P.O. Box 2456

Winter Park, FL 32790.

4-7
4.3 Mailing List

Individuals

L. F. Adams

6850 W. Black Canyon

Emmett, ID 83617

Harold and Joan Allen

Donnelly, ID 83615

Elaine Ashley

P.O. Box 744

Cascade, ID 83611

Marc Bechard

BSD Biology Dept.

1910 University Dr.

Boise, ID 83725

Tim Bever

3733 Stone Creek Way

Boise, ID 83703

Marie Biaggne

1202 N. 24th

Boise, ID 83702

James and Sally Bishop

312 Parkway

Boise, ID 83706

Robert K. Borron

2314 S. Midland

Nampa, ID 83686

Ollie Boyanger 

P.O. Box 238

Cascade, ID 83611

Jo and Carl Broadbent

P.O. Box 1015

Cascade, ID 83611

Dean Burgess

P.O. Box 190

Donnelly, ID 83615

David and Micki Butler

1125 Steepleview

Eagle, ID 83616

Art Campbell

1402 N. 13th

Boise, ID 83702

Rich Cardelli

HC71, Box 2120

Cascade, ID 83611

Therion Christensen

5910 N. Black Cat

Meridian, ID 83642

Thelma Church

Donnelly, ID 83615

Marilyn Clapp

1111 E. Hays

Boise, ID 83702

Jerry and Betty Clapp

116 18th Ave. So.

Nampa, ID 83651

Earl and Eva Cole

Box 833

Cascade, ID 83611

Jerry and Marilyn Collins

3065 North Mountain Rd

Boise, ID 83702

Dave Couch

790 Riviera Dr. #13

Boise, ID 83703

Joe E. Couch

1130 W. 1st St.

Meridian, ID 83642

Lyle G. Couch

11215 W. Greenhurst

Nampa, ID 83651

Hershel Coulter

P.O. Box 502

Donnelly, ID 83615

4-8
Michael Creamer

Givens, Pursley, Webb, & Huntley

Suite 200, Park Place

P.O. Box 2720

Boise, ID 83701

Elmer and Louella Crew

Box 571

Donnelly, ID 83615

John and Sharon Crim

3514 Mountain View Dr.

Boise, ID 83704

Lyle Cromwell

Box 702

Donnelly, ID 83615

Marty Culten

Box 126

Donnelly, ID 83615

Clifford and Mary Day

4635 Freedom Dr.

Meridian, ID 83642

Robert and Pamela Dunbar

2307 E. Franklin Rd.

Meridian, ID 83642

Ray and Lucille Durham

Box 587

Donnelly, ID 83615

Charles and Carolyn Eiriksson

1287 Candleridge Dr.

Boise, ID 83707

John and Lillian Elleman

Box 189

Cascade, ID 83611

Leslie A. Ellingsen

P.O. Box 636

Middleton, ID 83644

Ruth Erickson

1800 N. Cole Rd. J203

Boise, ID 83704

Herman Evans

8700 Craydon

Boise, ID 83704

Darwin and Verna Feller

P.O. Box 171

Donnelly, ID 83615

Steve Fredriksen

2103 Hillway

Boise, ID 83702

Don and Marie Fudrea

443 Winged Foot Pl.

Eagle, ID 83616

Grace Fuller

Donnelly, ID 83615

Darrell L. Gallup

1806 Norcrest Dr.

Boise, ID 83705

Linda Gestrin

P.O. Box 965

Cascade, ID 83611

Antone Larado Goitis

Box 109

Cascade, ID 83611

Mary Helen Golsch

24108 Ten Davis Rd.

Parma, ID 83660

Kenneth and Frances Grabner

1416 Washington

Boise, ID 83702

Mary Fran Groll

West Mountaineers

5233 N. Turret Way

Boise, ID 83703

Ralph Gurnay

1111 W. Central Rd.

Emmett, ID 83617

Rex W. Gurney

4346 Sandy Ave.

Emmett, ID 83617

4-9
Hank Hall

P.O. Box 839

Cascade, ID 83611

Jim Keating

P.O. Box 743

Cascade, ID 83611

Robert and Donna Hamilton

Box 401

Donnelly, ID 83615

Ralph Kengas

Box 202

Donnelly, ID 83615

Kipton C. Hanes

P.O. Box 94

Donnelly, ID 83615

Rupert and Hazel Kent

3020 Lakewood Way

Boise, ID 83706

Larry Hansen

885 Pringle Rd.

Weiser, ID 83622

Carl Kerrick

P.O. Box 390

McCall, ID 83638

Lars Hanson

450 W. State St. 8th Floor

Boise, ID 83702

Gwenn Kibler

5501 Armstrong

Boise, ID 83704

Charles and Mary Henry

3321 Sunset Ave.

Boise, ID 83703

Jim and Ann Kincaid

907 East Washington

Boise, ID 83712

John and Elaine Hoffman

5220 Cruzen St.

Boise, ID 83704

Donald Kisher

Box 156

Parma, ID 83660

Dorothy Ireland

Box 10

Donnelly, ID 83615

Dale and Glenda Kuhlmann

2185 Hollywood Lane

Emmett, ID 83617

Harvey and Delores Iverson

P.O. Box 488

Donnelly, ID 83615

Mr. and Mrs. Llayt Lee

P.O. Box 1015

Donnelly, ID 83615

Al Jacobs

P.O. Box 564

Donnelly, ID 83615

Don Lojek

305 W. Fort

Boise, ID 83702

Victor Johnsie

Route. 1, Box 76

McCall, ID 83638

Glenn Loomis

P.O. Box 458

Donnelly, ID 83615

J.A. and Willa Jontz

1025 Camelot Dr.

Boise, ID 83704

Keith A. Loveless

3935 Glendale

Boise, ID 83703

Rick and Sandy Junge

2302 Norcrest Ct.

Boise, ID 83705

Orin Makinson

P.O. Box 612

Cascade, ID 83611

4-10
4-11

Don and Glenda Mann

P.O. Box 131

Donnelly, ID 83615

Earl Putman

4546 Rim Ridge

Boise, ID 83709

Harold and Lucy Marsison

Box 374

Donnelly, ID 83615

Robert H. Remaklus

Box 759

Cascade, ID 83611

McColly Trust

David and Sally McColly

5910 Randolph Dr.

Boise, ID 83704

Jim Richmond

2000 Targee

Boise, ID 83702

Mrs. Elizabeth M. Richmond

Tom McGlashen

P.O. Box 721

Cascade, ID 83611

2400 Hillway Dr.

Boise, ID 83702

Earl and Lois Roberts

Albert Miller

P.O. Box 266

Donnelly, ID 83615

115 S. Canyon

Nampa, ID 83651

Earl Roberts

Boyd Miller

P.O.Box 1558

McCall, ID 83638

P.O. Box 816

Cascade, ID 83611

Orville Roberts

R. E. Mortin

P.O. Box 489

Cascade, ID 83611

HC 38, Box 20

Donnelly, ID 83615

Richard and Roberta Schoonover

John and Margaret Murray

1720 S. Gourley

Boise, ID 83705

Box 75

Donnelly, ID 83615

Marilyn Scott

Patrick O’Keefe

1040 Camelot Dr.

Boise, ID 83704

P.O. Box 718

Cascade, ID 83611

Dennis and Dianna Sherman

Ralph and Aileen Paulson

612 N. Stanley St.

Boise, ID 83704

3515 Greenbrier

Boise, ID 83705

Curtis and Wanda Smith

E. Dean and Helen Peterson

2213 Heights Dr.

Boise, ID 83702

P.O. Box 114

Donnelly, ID 83615

John Petrovsky

EDAW

753 Davis St.

San Francisco, CA 94111

Gary and Cathy Smith

1250 Stegerman Ct.

Meridian, ID 83642

Sherm Smith

5392 Pebble Brook Ln

Boise, ID 83703
Jessie Somerton

Box 156

Donnelly, ID 83615

John W. Squires

6580 San Luis Way

Boise, ID 83709

Ray W. Squires

1706 S. Phillippi

Boise, ID 83705

Robert and Gail Steele

Box 1061

Cascade, ID 83611

Stephanie Steele

817 Orchard Park Drive

Fruitland, ID 83619

Traci Sterling

6446 Douglas

Boise, ID 83711

Carter and Bobbie Stewart

6621 Hummel 1 Dr.

Boise, ID 83705

Jim Stone

P.O. Box 240

Donnelly, ID 83615

Bob Stuck

P.O. Box 1053

Cascade, ID 83611

Chuck Sundby

Toothman-Orton Engineering Co.

1802 N. 33rd St.

Boise, ID 83703

Dennis and Donna Taggart

877 Main Street #600

Boise, ID 83702

Faye Taggart

P.O. Box 494

Donnelly, ID 83615

Dick Trudeau

2642 Haven Dr.

Eagle, ID 83616

James and Judy Tucker 

P.O. Box 386

Donnelly, ID 83615

Tom Twedt

Bio West

1063 West 1400 North

Logan, UT 84321

Wayne and Myrna Van Cour

2155 Bird

Boise, ID 83704

Wayne Van Coun

P.O. Box 569

Donnelly, ID 83615

Ralph and Susan Van Paepeghem

7110 Overland

Boise, ID 83709

Susan Van Paepeghem

6674 Hollilynn

Boise, ID 83709

Duane Vickery

3810 W. Idaho Blvd.

Emmett, ID 83617

E. L. Vickery

917 E. 2nd

Emmett, ID 83617

R. Virkin

Box 851

Cascade, ID 83611

Richard Waite

Box 238

Cascade, ID 83611

Ben Wei 1ington

P.O. Box 713

Cascade, ID 83611

David Wenman

646 Wickham Fen Way

Boise, ID 83709

Bill Wheeler

P.O. Box 797

Cascade, ID 83611

4-12
Ted Whiteman

P.O. Box 1566

Me Call, ID 83638

Agencies, Organizations

Ada County Fish and Game League

Wayne Peterson

Calvin and Rosie Williams

3285 Sycamore Dr.

6220 Robertson Dr.

Boise, ID 83705

Boise, ID 83703

Boise National Forest

Everett and Joel la Williams

2418 Cherry Lane

Boise, ID 83705

Cascade District

Box 851

Cascade, ID 83611

John A. Williams

12528 Sunnyslope Rd.

Caldwell, ID 83605

Boise National Forest

Forest Supervisor

1750 Front St.

Boise, ID 83702

John and Evelyn M. Williamson

Route 4, Box 766

Caldwell, ID 83605

Bureau of Land Management

State Director

3380 Americana Terrace

Mikel and Lorrette Williams

8966 Brookview Dr.

Boise, ID 83709

Boise, ID 83706

Cascade Chamber of Commerce

Cascade, ID 83611

Winn Family Trust

Samuel R. Winn

2520 Hillway Dr.

Boise, ID 83702

Cascade Fire District

Jim Haas

Cascade, ID 83611

Dick Woodworth

825 E. State

Boise, ID 83702

Cascade Reservoir Association

Monette Baldwin

P.O. Box 392 .

Donnelly, ID 83615

Carol Writer

2380 N. Overview Pl.

Boise, ID 83702

Center Irrigation District

Donna Gestrin

Donnelly, ID 83615

Jon Wyman

3216 N. 28th

Boise, ID 83703

City of Cascade

Mayor Tad House

P.O. Box 451

Pete Wyman

North 16702 Dartford Dr.

Spokane, WA 99208

Cascade, ID 83611 •

City of Donnelly

Jean Allen

Bob Zach

HC71, Box 30

Cascade, ID 83611

P.O. Box 365

Donnelly, ID 83615

City of Donnelly

Mayor Tom Anderson

Donnelly, ID 83615

4-13
Dept. Environmental Quality

Treasure Valley Area Office

Linda Boyle

1410 N. Hilton, Suite 101

Boise, ID 83706-1290

Donnelly Rural Fire Protection

Terry Gastrin

Donnelly, ID 83615

Eastshore Homeowners

Earl Putman

4546 Riva Ridge Rd.

Boise, ID 83702

Fly Fisherman Association

Ron Stockdale

P.O. Box 311

Boise, ID 83701

Fly Fishers of Idaho

Doug Dingledein

P.O. Box 8861

Boise, ID 83707

Golden Eagle Audubon Society

P.O. Box 8261

Boise, ID 83707

High Country River Rafters

Larry Stuhl

P.O. Box 709

Golden, CO 80402

Idaho Association of Soil

Conservation Districts

Route 2, Box 2190

Nampa, ID 83651

Idaho Audubon Council

Bert Cleveland

411 Melrose

Boise, ID 83706

Idaho Aviation Association

Anita Lewis

3483 Rickenbacker St.

Donnelly, ID 83705

Idaho Boaters Association

Lars A. Hansen

3790 S. Cayuga Pl

Boise, ID 83709

Idaho Cattle Association

George Bennett

2120 Airport Way

Boise, ID 83705

Idaho Conservation League

P.O. Box 844

Boise, ID 83701

Idaho Dept. of Commerce

Fisheries Program

Alan Porter

847 19th Ave.

Portland, OR 97232

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

P.O. Box 25

Boise, ID 83707

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Supervisor, Region III

109 W. 44th St.

Boise, ID 83714

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Jeff Rohlman

P.O. Box 905

MCCall, ID 83638

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Don Anderson

P.O. Box 905

McCall, ID 83638

Idaho Department of Health

and Welfare

Division of Environment

Statehouse

Boise, ID 83720

Idaho Department of Lands

Bill Petzak

Room 221, Statehouse

Boise, ID 83720

4-14
Idaho Department of Parks

and Recreation

Jeff Hoedt

Statehouse Mail

Boise, ID 83720

Idaho Department of Parks

and Recreation

Yvonne Ferrell

2117 Warm Springs

Boise, ID 83712

Idaho Department of Transportation

Ray Mikelson, Candy Smith,

William Miller

3483 Rickenbacker Blvd.

Boise, ID 83705

Idaho Department of Water Resources

Keith Higginson

Statehouse

Boise, ID 83720

Idaho Snowmobile Association

Tom Glass

701 N. 9th

Boise, ID 83702

Idaho State Archeologist

610 Julia Davis Dr.

Boise, ID 83706

Idaho State Waterways

Dave Fritchle, Ron Guilieri

P.O. Box 97

Donnelly, ID 83615

Idaho Water Users Association

Sheri Chapman

410 S. Orchard #144

Boise, ID 83705

Idaho Whitewater Association

Roger Rosentreter

1423 E. State

Boise, ID 83702

Izaak Walton League

1217 S. Juniper

Nampa, ID 83651

Long Valley Preservation Society

P.O. Box 444

Donnelly, ID 83615

McCall Chamber of Commerce

McCall, ID 83638

The Nature Conservancy

Idaho Chapter

2015 Sunrise Rim Rd.

Boise, ID 83705

Northwest Planning Council

851 SW 6th Ave. #1100

Portland, OR 97204

Payette Lakes

Water and Sewer District

P.O. Box 1566

McCall, ID 83638

Payette Lakes Wildlife

Burt Bunch

P.O. Box 392

Donnelly, ID 83615

Payette National Forest

P.O. Box 1026

McCall, ID 83638

Pine Lakes Homeowners

Fred K. O’Brien

P.O. Box 548

Cascade, ID 83611

Sierra Club

Dr. John Moser

P.O. Box 331

Cascade, ID 83611

SISCRA

Marvin Kerns

9325 Jewell

Boise, ID 83704

Soil Conservation Service

State Conservationist

304 N. 8th, Rm. 345

Boise, ID 83702

4-15
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Soil Conservation Service

Russ Manwaring

1646 N.Washington

Valley County Historic Preservation

County Courthouse

Cascade, ID 83611

Emmett, ID 83617

Valley County Planning & Zoning

Soil Conservation Service

Kay Coski

P.O. Box 209

Donnelly, ID 83615

Gene Hardy

P.O. Box 451

Letha, ID 83636

Valley County Road Department

S. ID Timber Protection Assn

Robert Kirk

Box 1003

McCall, ID 83638

Wayne Peterson

Cascade, ID 83611

Valley County Sheriff Department

Cascade, ID 83611

Trout Unlimited

Reed Gillespie

P.O. Box 1

McCall, ID 83638

West Mountain Cabins

Brenda and Lee Heinrich

Cascade, ID 83611

Trout Unlimited

Shawn Miller

P.O. Box 1

McCall, ID 83638

Westside Homeowners Association

Col. Louis Fausett

Cascade, ID 83611

Wilderness Society

Trout Unlimited

Upper Snake River Chapter

291 Dale Dr.

Idaho Falls, ID 83401

413 W. Idaho, Suite 102

Boise, ID 83702

Libraries

Field Supervisor, Ecological

Services

4696 Overland Rd., Rm 576

Boise, ID 83705

Boise Public Library

715 S. Capitol Blvd.

Boise, ID 83702

Cascade Public Library

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Richard Howard

4696 Overland Rd., Rm 576

Boise, ID 83705

Cascade, ID 83611

Idaho State Library

325 W. State

Boise, ID 83702

Valley County Commissioners

Tom Olson

Cascade, ID 83611

McCall Public Library

McCall, ID 83638

Valley County Health District

Jeffrey Lappin

Box 456

McCall, ID 83638

Nampa Public Library

Nampa, ID 83651

4-16
Congressional

Governor Cecil D. Andrus

Statehouse

Boise, ID 83720

Honorable Larry E. Craig

Attention: Missy Guisto

304 N. 8th Rm 136

Boise, ID 83702

Honorable James McClure

304 N. 8th St. Rm. 149

Boise, ID 83702

Honorable Richard Stallings

304 N. 8th, Rm. 434

Boise, ID 83702

Honorable Steve Symms

304 N. 8th St., Rm. 134

Boise, ID 83702

Honorable Gayle Wilde

P.O. Box 984

McCall, ID 83638

4-17
APPENDIX A

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
A. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE

Noise is unwanted sound that causes annoyance or interferes with sleep,

conversation, or concentration, and under extreme conditions can cause hearing

loss. Environmental noise is measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The decibel

scale is a linear numbering scale used to compress the wide range of values

associated with the logarithmic nature of sound. A-weighting assigns greater

value (weight) to higher frequency sounds to which the human ear is most

sensitive. Table A-l (Sound Levels and Human Responses) shows various A-weighted

sound levels and indicates how they are perceived. Table A-2 (FHWA Noise

Abatement Criteria) identifies acceptable noise levels for various activity

categories, and table A-3 (EPA Noise Impact Guidelines) illustrates the impacts

of noise at various levels.

Because sound levels are logarithmic, they cannot be combined through simple

addition. An increase of 10 dBA would cause a doubling of the perceived loudness

but would be a tenfold increase in sound energy and intensity. A doubling of

noise sources would cause a noticeable 3 dBA increase in the sound level. Noise

from sound sources diminishes with distance due to absorption by the ground and

spreading of the energy; a reduction of 6 dBA may be achieved for each doubling

of distance from a point source, and 3 (hard surfaces and water) to 4.5 dBA (soft

surfaces such as soil) from a line source such as traffic. Sound may also be

attenuated with absorption by manmade or topographic barriers.

Duration of sound should be considered along with sound level when evaluating the

effects of noise on people. To simplify estimates of duration, fluctuating sound,

the usual condition of the sound that we hear, is ordinarily measured as an

average sound level. The average sound level is the level of a steady sound that

is equivalent to the energy of fluctuating sound over a specific time period.

Thus the average sound level is known as equivalent sound level (L,q). Usually

the Leq is determined for 1-hour periods.

The Leq for 24-hour periods is known as the day-night average sound level (Leq).

Because nighttime sounds are more annoying, they are weighted with an additional

A-1
10 dBA prior to estimation of the Ldn. The Ldn is an important factor to consider

in residential areas or camping areas where nighttime noise is undesirable and can

interfere with sleep. Along highways and art erials the Ldn is approximately the

same as the peak-hour Leq, the highest noise level produced when traffic volumes

are the heaviest.

A-2
TABLE A-l

Sound Levels (dBA) and Human Response

ACTIVITY dBA RESPONSE

CONVERSATIONAL

RELATIONSHIP

Carrier Deck Jet Operation 140 Threshold of Pain

50 HP Siren (100 feet) 130 Limit on Amplified

Speech

Jet Takeoff (200 feet),

Auto Horn (3 feet)

120 Maximum Vocal Effort

Riveting Machine, Chainsaw,

Noisy Automobile

no

Jet Takeoff (2,000 feet), 100

Lawn Mower, Power Tools (3 feet),

Noisy Motorcycle (50 feet)

Continuous Exposure

Can Cause Hearing

Loss

Shouting in Ear

Farm Tractor (50 feet), 90

Heavy Truck (50 feet),

Food Blender, Pneumatic Drill

(50 feet)

Very Annoying,

Hearing Difficult,

Hearing Damage in

8 Hours

Shouting at Two

Feet

Garbage Disposal

Car (65 mph, 25 feet)

Quiet snowmobile (50 feet)

Quiet motorcycle (50 feet)

80 Annoying Very Loud Conversation

Vacuum Cleaner (10 feet)

Freeway Traffic (50 feet)

70 Hearing

Interference

Loud Conversation at

Two Feet

Large Store Air Conditioning

Unit (20 Feet)

60 Intrusive Loud Conversation at

Four Feet

Light Auto Traffic

(100 feet)

50 Quiet, Sleep

Interference

Normal Conversation

(12 feet)

Living Room or Bedroom of

Quiet Home

40

Library, Soft (15 feet) 30 Very Quiet

A-3
Table A-2

FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria*

Leq Description of Activity Category

57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary

(Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where the

preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to

continue to serve its intended purpose.

67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports

(Exterior) areas, parks, residences, hotels, motels, schools, churches,

libraries, and hospitals.

72 Developed land, properties, or activities not included in the

(Exterior) two categories described above.

52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,

(Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums.

*Hourly A-weighted sound level decibels (dBA)

Table A-3

EPA Noise Impact Guidelines

Exterior Noise (Ldn Noise Impact

Less than 55 dBA Levels are generally acceptable: no noise impact is

generally associated with these levels.

55 to 65 dBA Adverse noise impacts exist: lowest noise level

possible should be achieved.

65 to 60 dBA Significant adverse noise impacts exist: allowable

only in unusual cases where lower levels are clearly

demonstrated not to be possible.

Greater that 70 dBA Levels have unacceptable public health and welfare

impacts.

A-4
APPENDIX B

LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
B. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

From the Transportation Research Board’s "Highway Capacity Manual," Special

Report 209, 1985, the following three parameters are used to describe service

quality for two-lane highways:

1. Average travel speed

2. Percent time delay

3. Capacity utilization

Average travel speed reflects the mobility function of two-lane highways and is

the length of the highway segment under consideration divided by the average

travel time of all vehicles traversing the segment in both directions over some

designated time interval.

Percent time delay reflects both mobility and access functions and is defined

as the average percent of time that all vehicles are delayed while traveling in

platoons due to the inability to pass. "Percent time delay" is difficult to

measure directly in the field. The percent of vehicles traveling at headways

less than 5 seconds can be used as a surrogate measure in field studies.

The utilization of capacity reflects the access functions and is defined as the

ratio of the demand flow rate to the capacity of the facility.

Level of service criteria utilize all three of the parameters noted above, with

percent time delay being the primary measure of service quality. Speed and

capacity utilization are secondary measures. Table B-l shows the level of

service criteria for rural two-lane highways.

The highest quality of traffic service occurs when motorists are able to drive

at their desired speed. Without strict enforcement, this highest quality,

representative of Level of Service A, would result in average speeds

approaching 60 mph on two-lane highways. The passing frequency required to

maintain these speeds has not reached a demanding level. Passing demand is

well below passing capacity, and almost no platoons of three or more vehicles

B-l
are observed. Drivers would be delayed no more than 30 percent of the time by

slow-moving vehicles. A maximum flow rate of 420 passenger cars per hour

(pcph), total in both directions, may be achieved under ideal conditions.

Table B-l

Level of Service

Criteria for Rural Highways

Average Speed (mph) Level of Service Percentage of Time Delayed

55 A 30 percent*

50 B 45 percent

45 C 60 percent

40 D 75 percent

25-40** E greater than 75 percent

25-40** F traffic demand exceeds capacity

* Drivers would be delayed no more than (xx) percent of the time by slowmoving vehicles.

** The exact speed at which capacity occurs varies with the percentage and

length of grade, traffic compositions, and volume.

Level of Service B characterizes the region of traffic flow wherein speeds of

55 mph or slightly higher are expected on level terrain. Passing demand needed

to maintain desired speeds becomes significant and approximately equals the

passing capacity at the lower boundary of level of service B. Drivers are

delayed up to 45 percent of the time on the average. Service flow rates or

750 pcph, total in both directions, can be achieved under ideal conditions.

Above this flow rate, the number of platoons forming in the traffic stream

begins to increase dramatically.

Further increases in flow characterize Level of Service C, resulting in

noticeable increases in platoon formation, platoon size, and frequency of

passing impediment. Average speed still exceeds 52 mph on level terrain, even

though unrestricted passing demand exceeds passing capacity. At higher volume

levels, chaining of platoons and significant reductions in passing capacity

begin to occur. While traffic flow is stable, it is becoming susceptible to

B-2
congestion due to turning traffic and slow-moving vehicles. Percent time

delays are up to 60 percent. A service flow rate of up to 1,200 pcph, total in

both directions, can be accommodated under ideal conditions.

Unstable traffic flow is approached as traffic flows enter Level of Service D.

The two opposing traffic streams essentially begin to operate separately at

higher volume levels, as passing becomes extremely difficult. Passing demand

is very high, while passing capacity approaches zero. Mean platoon sizes of

5 to 10 vehicles are common, although speeds of 50 mph can still be maintained

under ideal conditions. The fraction of no passing zones along the roadway

section usually has little influence on passing. Turning vehicles and/or

roadside distractions cause major shockwaves in the traffic stream. The

percentage of time motorists are delayed approaches 75 percent. Maximum

service flow rates of 1,800 pcph, total in both directions, can be maintained

under ideal conditions. This is the highest flow rate that can be maintained

for any length of time over an extended section of level terrain without a high

probability of breakdown.

Level of Service E is defined as traffic flow conditions on two-lane highways

having a percent time delay of greater than 75 percent. Under ideal

conditions, speeds will drop below 50 mph. Average travel speeds on highways

with less than ideal conditions will be slower, as low as 25 mph on sustained

upgrades. Passing is virtually impossible under level of service E conditions,

and platooning becomes intense when slower vehicles or other interruptions are

encountered. The highest volume attainable under level of service E defines

the capacity of the highway. Under ideal conditions, capacity is 2,800 pcph,

total in both directions. For other conditions, capacity is lower. Operating

conditions at capacity are unstable and difficult to predict. Traffic

operations are seldom observed near capacity on rural highways, primarily

because of a lack of demand.

As with other highway types, Level of Service F represents heavily congested

flow with traffic demand exceeding capacity. Volumes are lower than capacity,

and speeds are below capacity speed. Level of service E is seldom attained

over extended sections on level terrain as more than a transient condition;

B-3
most often, perturbations in traffic flow as Level E is approached cause a

rapid transition to level of service F.

The general level of service concept also holds for stop-sign-controlled

intersections, although the capacity of the stop-sign-controlled approaches is

less than that of signalized intersection approach. Table B-2 shows the level

of service criteria for unsignalized intersections.

Table B-2

Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections

Reserve Capacity

(PCPH)

Level of

Service

Expected Delay to

Minor Street Traffic

400 A Little or no delay

300-399 B Short traffic delays

200-299 C Average traffic delays

100-199 D Long traffic delays

0-99 E Very long traffic delays

* F *

* When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be

encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other 

traffic movements in the intersection. This condition usually warrants

improvements to the intersection. (Transportation Research Board Special

Report 209, "Highway Capacity Manual," 1985.)

B-4
APPENDIX C

MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES OF ALTERNATIVES A, B AND C
C. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVES A, B, AND C

Authority and Funding

Program adequate implementation funds for facility and management

recommendations according to established phasing priorities. All funding

is subject to congressional approval.

Ensure that all special use permits and Reclamation land leaseholders

assume their fair share of public service and management costs.

Reservoir Operation

Operate Cascade Reservoir with a minimum pool of 300,000 acre feet

(approximate elevation 4816 feet above msl) except during periods of

extreme drought to ensure good water quality, a healthy fishery and optimum

recreation use. Pool levels should be kept as high as possible (up to

elevation 4828 feet) as long as possible into the peak recreation season,

consistent with other operational requirements.

Resources Planning and Administration

To the extent possible, make all regulations and guidelines related to

use/activity on Reclamation lands consistent with those of other adjacent

or involved jurisdictions (including State of Idaho, Valley County, USFS,

Coast Guard Auxiliary, FWS, and IDFG). Where needed, regulations and/or

guidelines that are not now in place, coordinate with adjacent involved

jurisdictions in developing these management tools. Avoid duplication of

regulations and guidelines.

Encourage Valley County and the State of Idaho to develop and approve

ordinances and legislation to better manage the reservoir for public

health, safety, and welfare and to control residential development adjacent

to Reclamation lands.

C-l
Encourage the USFS to manage their shoreline lands in accordance with

Reclamation goals and policies.

Since Reclamation does not have enforcement authority, achieve enforcement

of regulations/guidelines through clear, formal contract with Valley County

or other jurisdictions (e.g., Coast Guard Auxiliary), as appropriate.

Ensure that Reclamation enforcement/management needs which are met by

contract with Valley County (or other jurisdiction) do not represent an

uncompensated economic burden on the supplying jurisdiction.

Pursue coordinated plans for camping, trails, golf, air access, and other

uses with involved jurisdictions and private entities.

Continue to pursue Reclamation enforcement authority through Congress.

Provide adequate staff levels in order to properly implement the selected

alternative and its policies and to provide adequate management during

the interim.

Develop a fire management plan for all areas surrounding the reservoir in

cooperation with affected jurisdictions and other fire management agencies

and organizations.

Coordinate with Valley County and local cities in determining

responsibilities for road maintenance and improvements.

Public Information

Establish clear, consistent signs to guide public access to and use of

Reclamation lands and facilities.

Prepare concise public information materials concerning: an overall guide

map to reservoir facilities, including identification of conservation and

wildlife areas where use is restricted; facility characteristics, capaciC-2
ties and limitations; facility use guidelines and regulations; boating

etiquette, safety regulations, and waste management; reservoir boating

conditions; dispersed use regulations; environmental interpretation and

education; and other management regulations/guidelines.

Ensure adequate dissemination of public information through availability of

materials at all Reclamation facilities and through cooperation with

surrounding jurisdictions, Chambers of Commerce, and interest groups.

Land Use and Access

Provide adequate buffer zones between public use areas and adjacent private

development (including adequate signs and/or fencing as appropriate).

Provide adequate buffer zones between important WMA’s and public use areas.

Provide adequate vehicular access to and parking at all designated use

areas on Reclamation lands.

In providing for vehicular access, use route/alignment planning as a

primary means of minimizing opportunities for public trespass onto private

property or environmental damage from informal/unauthorized access.

Attempt to ensure that access control measures installed to prevent

unauthorized access to sensitive areas (e.g. wildlife management and

conservation or restoration areas) do not inadvertently result in public

trespass onto private property.

Provide "barrier free" access for the physically challenged at all

appropriate Reclamation facilities, consistent with current Federal 

regulations and guidelines.

Develop an excavation and reclamation plan that is visually sensitive for

the rock quarry at Crown Point.

C-3
Recreation

Ensure that expansion of shoreline facilities does not result in providing

levels of water access which exceed the reservoir’s carrying capacity.

Establish no-wake restrictions near shoreline development and recreation

areas in order to minimize conflicts with swimming, shore fishing, and

other passive uses and to reduce erosion effects and noise.

Encourage Valley County to adopt and enforce an ordinance to establish

no-wake or nonmotorized restrictions where necessary to protect key WMA’s

Prohibit nonwinter OHV use on all Reclamation lands including those below

the high water line; the only exceptions being designated trails connecting

with USFS OHV trails and shoreline.

Permit winterized OHV use around the reservoir except in WMA’s.

Biological Resources

Establish WMA’s at appropriate locations around the reservoir to preserve

long-term, viable habitat for waterfowl, birds of prey, and mammals.

Coordinate with FWS in the designation and management of wildlife areas.

Develop specific wildlife habitat enhancement plans and priorities for each

WMA.

Establish measures to avoid conflict with or damage to WMA’s arising from

human activities (on land or water).

Protect habitat for rare and endangered species, especially the bald eagle;

cooperate with FWS and IDFG in planning for endangered species protection.

Protect wetlands in accordance with existing Federal regulations.

C-4
Restore riparian vegetation along tributary stream corridors wherever

feasible.

Protect forested areas on Reclamation lands from further degradation or

removal, and develop silvicultural management plans to reduce fire hazard,

minimize damage from disease, and enhance wildlife habitat.

Water Quality

Control/eliminate adverse water quality effects caused by livestock grazing

on Reclamation lands (including agricultural easements).

Provide adequate sanitation/waste management facilities at all recreation

sites (e.g., restrooms, trash containers, RV dump stations, fish cleaning

stations, etc.)

Avoid or reduce use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and/or pesticides

on Reclamation lands (including agricultural easements and leases).

Work with the Valley Soil Conservation Service District in implementing

applicable recommendations for water quality improvement which emerge from

the Cascade Reservoir Watershed Project.

Encourage local cities and counties to achieve proper installation,

operation, and maintenance standards for sewer systems/treatment plants and

private septic systems on properties around the lakeshore and upstream of

the reservoir.

Agricultural Easements

Negotiate with permanent agricultural easement holders to fence cattle at

least 300 feet away from the high water line and all reservoir tributaries,

or remove them entirely (especially in WMA’s) from all Reclamation easement

lands; offer the fair market value of the land as agriculture to acquire

C-5
the easement; or trade other Reclamation land that is suitable for grazing

but has less potential for adversely affecting water quality.

Explore other options to keep cattle away from the reservoir and its

tributaries for water quality purposes if necessary.

Soil Erosion

Control or prohibit recreational and/or livestock uses in shoreline areas

where such uses can result in significantly increased erosion.

Protect and/or restore shoreline vegetation and tributary riparian

vegetation as a means of controlling erosion.

Provide engineered erosion control measures and safety barriers where

necessary to enhance safety at recreation sites.

Provide assistance and oversight to private landowners in their efforts to

design and implement effective erosion control barriers (e.g., retaining

walls to protect private improvements from erosion damage).

Implement Best Management Practices (BMP) for erosion control in all

construction projects under the jurisdiction of the Reclamation (i.e.,

Reclamation projects or the actions of special use permitees).

Encroachments and Private Use of Public Facilities/Land

Encourage the county to adopt new subdivision regulations that require

developers to provide shoreline access and use easements and to increase

the amount of required setback from the shoreline.

Provide opportunity for individuals to acquire a seasonal use permit for

using the public boat docks at the marinas.

C-6
Continue to allow shoreline protection structures reservoir-wide, subject

to design and construction standards, proper maintenance, and other

conditions, including specification of removal responsibility in case of

failure or poor maintenance.

C-7
TABLES AND FIGURES
Alternative B: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

Note: The number of facilities is approximate and may vary somewhat upon specific site layout and design.

Note: Information under “Proposed Sites" on this matrix includes reference to potential recreation sites which

were considered but not adopted in the proposed Plan. Their final status is noted here

Table 2-1

Map Location

Managing

Agency or

Lessee

Boat

Launch

Lanes

Boat

Dock

“Slips”

Boat

Trailer

Parking

Car

Parking

Picnic

Sites*

Group

Picnic

Shelters

Tent

Camp

Sites*

RV

Camp

Sites’

Group

Camp

Sites*

Fish

Cleaning

Station

RV

Dump

Station

Toilets

(total units)

Sinks

&/or

Showers

Winterized

Restroom

Domestic

Water

Electrical

Hook-Ups

Improved

Beach with

Float Docks Trails

Tree

Planting

Handicap

Access Other

Existing Sites

RI Cabarton 3 USBR 9/0 10/0 1/-1 4/0 c

R2 Cabarton 2 USBR 25/0 20/0 0/1 1/-1 4/0 •/

/• /•

........ c...........

R3 Cabarton 1 USBR 2/0 10/10 22/10 23/50 32/0 0/6 12/-12 2/0 0/1

4

6/1 /• •/

/• /• c

R6 Cascade Golf Course Cascade 25/0 2/0 •/ •/ •/ /• /• •/ d

R7 Van Wyck Park USBR 2/2 0/250 40/120 20/30 0/20 0/1 22/-22 0/1 1/-1 4/2 /• /• •/ /• /• e

R9 Crown Point USBR 5/5 11/0 6/0 38/30 0/1 0/1 14/8 /• •/ /• /• /• /• •/

Rll Sugarloaf USBR 2/0 0/10 27/15 23/20 20/0 0/1 42/0 0/1 0/1 14/8 /• •/

/• •/ c

R17 SISCRA Camp SISCRA 3/0 0/10 40/0 0/50 0/15 1/1 130/50 2/1 0/1 1/1 14/12 •/ •/ •/ •/ /• /• ./

R19 Donnelly City Park Donnelly 2/0 0/10 10/10 25/15 0/10 1/0 0/10 0/1 1/3 /• •/ •/

R20 4H Club Camp 4H 2/0 5/0 30/0 1/0 1/0 16/0 •/ •/ •/

•/

R24 Tamarack Falls USFS 25/0 3/0 2/0 /•

R25 Rainbow Point USFS 1/0 15/0 12/0 0/1 4/0 •/

/•

R26 Amanita USFS 10/0 2/0 •/ /•

R27 West Mountain North USBR 0/10 33/0 0/1 4/0 •/ /• •/

R28 Curlew USBR 25/-25 1/0 2/0 •/ /•

R29 Buttercup USBR 0/2 0/10 0/20 30/0 0/1 8/2 •/ /• /• •/

R30 West Mountain South USBR 0/2 0/150 0/100 0/20 36/0 0/1 1/0 4/4 •/ /• /• •/

f

R31 Poison Creek USBR 2/0 0/20 24/15 22/8 23/0 1/0 20/0 3/-3 0/1 12/0 /• •/ /• /• •/

R33 Osprey Point BSU 20/0 20/0 •/ •/ •/ •/

R35 SICMSCamp SICMS 25/0 18/0 1/0 7/0 •/

R39 French Creek USFS 1/0 12/0 21/0 0/1 0/1 6/0 •/

R40 Campbell Creek USFS 2/0 15/0 2/0

Subtotal 19/6 20/475 216/290 278/193 108/45 4/4 25/-9 424 /46 12/-4 0/12 3/4 152/40

Proposed Sites

R4 Shoreline South of Golf Course USBR /35 /I /I /I 2/8 /• ..../• /• /•

R5 Above Road from R4 USBR To be managed as Conservation/Open Space as a buffer between USBR recreation facilities and adjacent private land uses.

R8 South of Dam Cascade /40 /15 /40 /I /12 /• /• /• /• /•

R10 North of Crown Point USBR /2 /30 /50 /100* /12 /80h /21 /I /28 /• /• /• /• /•

R12 North Side of Sugarloaf IDF&G /5 /25 /io /2 /• /• J

R13 Sugarloaf Island IDF&G To be included in the Hot Springs Creek Wildlife Management Area

d.«.VA%V.tAV.V.VA%V^^^ ^w.v.vA^.V.V.V.V.V.V.V.*.

R14 Old State Airstrip USBR /5 .L— /15k 1....

- S A A A A 1 A A A A A A A A A A A A A Jk ... A A A A . • KAK & • 1 k A A A A A A A A A A A A ^

RI 5 North Side of Gold Fork USBR To be managed as Conservation/Open Space with emphasis on wildlife values (due to past and potential future use by bald eagles)

R16 Boulder Creek Site USBR /I /io /io /15 /io .......... /2 1 ' /■

R18 West Side of Boulder Creek USBR To be managed as Conscrvation/Opcn Space to preserve wetland values, retain open land buffer with private development, and visual quality.

•’•.V.V.'.-.V •. •••.*..’.•.•.■.’.•.•.•.•

R21 Government Point USBR ......./ 15 /15k / 2 ... /<

R22 YMCA Site USBR /30 /60 /I /20 /. /• /• /•' /•

m

R23 Across Road from R22 USBR To be included in the North Fork Wildlife Management Area

R32 South ofPoison Creek USBR Z130" /10 Z20 /2° /20 /• /• /•

R34 Hurd Creek Area USFS

R36 North of Deer Creek USFS

R37 South ofSilver Creek USFS To be mamtged acct rding to USFS F )rest Pla Q...

R38 Van Wyck Creek USFS

Subtotal /3 /95 /60 /370 /45 /o /62 /155 /6 /3 /2 /96

Total 19/ 9 20 / 570 216 / 350 278/563 108/90 4/4 25/53 424/201 12/2 0/15 3/6 154/136

a Includes tables and grills

b Includes group-size tables and grills

c 6 picnic shelters for individual picnic tables

d 9-hole golf course; relocate golf cart storage

e Includes marina with fuel, visitors center

f Includes marina with fuel

g At beach - 20; RV group campground - 30; and hike-in tent campground - 18

h Plus 50 overflow sites

i One for tents only

j Wildlife observation platform with interpretive displays

k Also double as picnic sites

11-13-90 7:9sl09:0010.CHP

1 On-site only

m May include manager’s residence, chapel, lodge, cabins and other organizational recreation facilities

n 50 spaces for each group site; 20 at the tent camping trailhead and 10 near the beach/bankfishing area

o One group site can also be used as an overflow campground for 50 RVs, when needed

•/ existing; no quantity specified

/• proposed; no quantity specified

11-13-90 7:9tlO9:OO12.CHP
Alternative A: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

Note: The number of facilities is approximate and may vary somewhat upon specific site layout and design.

Table 2-2

Map Location

Managing

Agency or

Lessee

Boat

Launch

Lar^s ||

Boat

Dock

■:W

Boat

Trailer

Parking

Car

Parking

Picnic

Sites4

Group

Picnic

Shelter?

Tent

Camp

Sites4

RV

Camp

Sites*

Group

Camp

Sites*

Fish

Cleaning

Station

RV

Dump

Station

Toilets

(total units)

Sinks

&/or

Showers

Winterized

Restroom

Domestic

Waler

Electrical

Hook-Ups

Improved

Beach with

Float Docks Trails

Tree

Planting

Handicap

Access Other

Existing Sites

RI Cabarton 3 USBR 9/0 10/0 1/-1 4/0 /• /• c

R2 Cabarton 2 USBR 25/0 20/0 0/1 1/-1 4/0 •/ /• /• ........c.........

R3 Cabarton 1 USBR 2/0 10/10 22/10 23/50 32/0 0/6 12/-12 2/0 0/1 6/1 /• •/ /• /• •/

c

R6 Cascade Golf Course Cascade 25/0 2/0 •/ •/ •/ /• /• d

R7 Van Wyck Park USBR 2/2 0/250 40/120 20/30 0/20 0/1 22/-22 0/1 1/-1 4/2 /• /• •/ /• /• /• •/ c

R9 Crown Point USBR 5/5 11/0 6/0 38/30 0/1 0/1 14/8 /• •/ /• •/

Rll Sugarloaf USBR 2/0 0/10 27/15 23/20 20/0 0/1 42/40 0/1 0/1 14/8 /• •/ /• •/

c

R17 SISCRA Camp SISCRA 3/0 40/0 0/50 0/15 1/1 130/50 2/1 0/1 1/1 14/12 •/ •/ •/ •/

R19 Donnelly City Park Donnelly 2/0 0/10 10/10 25/15 0/10 1/0 0/1 1/1 /• •/ •/ •/

R20 4H Club Camp 4H 2/0 5/0 30/0 1/0 1/0 16/0 •/ •/ •/

R24 Tamarack Falls USFS 25/0 3/0 2/0 •/

R25 Rainbow Point USFS 1/0 15/0 12/0 0/1 4/0

R26 Amanita USFS 10/0 2/0 •/

R27 West Mountain North USBR 0/10 33/0 0/1 4/0 •/ •/

R28 Curlew USBR 25/0 1/0 2/0 •/ /•

R29 Buttercup USBR 0/2 0/10 0/20 ■ 30/0 0/1 8/2 •/ /• •/

R30 West Mountain South USBR 0/10 36/0 1/0 4/0 •/ /• •/

R31 Poison Creek USBR 2/0 0/20 24/15 22/8 23/0 1/0 20/0 3/-3 0/1 12/0 /• /• •/

R33 Osprey Point BSU 20/0 20/0 •/ •/ •/ •/

R35 SICMS Camp SICMS 25/0 18/0 1/0 7/0

R39 French Creek USFS 1/0 12/0 21/0 0/1 0/1 6/0 •/

R40 Campbell Creek USFS 2/0 15/0 2/0 •/

Subtotal 19/4 20/335 216/190 278/173 108/45 4/4 25/6 424 / 86 12/-4 0/10 3/4 152/34

Proposed Sites

R4 Shoreline South ofGolf Course USBR 2/0 /•

R5 Above Road from R4 USBR

R8 South of Dam Cascade /40 /15 /4 /• /• /•

R10 North of Crown Point USBR /30 /100' /12 /8(/ /28 /I /28 /• /• /• /• /•

R12 North Side of Sugarloaf IDF&G

R13 Sugarloaf Island IDF&G

R14 Old State Airstrip USBR

R15 North Side ofGold Fork USBR

R16 Boulder Creek Site USBR /I /io /io /15 /io /2 /• /• /•

R18 West Side of Boulder Creek USBR

R21 Government Point USBR /5 /5 /I

R22 YMCA Site USBR

R23 Across Road from R22 USBR

R32 South of Poison Creek USBR /130h /io /20 /2 /14 /• /• /•

R34 Hurd Creek Area USFS

R36 North of Deer Creek USFS

R37 South of Silver Creek USFS

R38 Van Wyck Creek USFS

Subtotal /I /45 /io /285 /40 /o /32 /80 /4 /I /O 2/49

Total 19/5 20/380 216 / 200 278/458 108/85 4/4 25/32 424/ 156 12/0 0/11 3/4 154/83

a Includes tables and grills

b Includes group-size tables and grills

c 6 picnic shelters for individual picnic tables

d 9-hoIe golf course

11-13-90 7:9s!09:0006.CHP

e At beach - 20; RV group campground - 30; and hike-in tent

campground - 18

f Plus 50 overflow sites

g One for tents only

h See “1”, Alternative B

•/ existing; no quantity specified

/• proposed; no quantity specified

11-13-90 7:9il09:0008.CHP
Alternative C: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

Note: The number of facilities is approximate and may vary somewhat upon specific site layout and design.

Table 2-3

Map Location

Managing

Agency or

Lessee

Boat

Launch

Lanes

Boat

Dock

“Slips"

Boat

Trailer

Parking

Car

Parking

Picnic

Sites*

Group

Picnic

Shelters1*

Tent

Camp

Sites*

RV

Camp

Sites*

Group

Camp

Sites*

Fish

Cleaning

Station

RV

Dump

Station

Toilets

(total units)

: .................

Sinks

&/or

Showers

.......; ■ Winterized

Restroom

Domestic

Waler

Electrical

Hook<Ups

Improved

Beach with

Float Docks Trails

Tree

Planting

Handicap

Access Other

Existing Sites

RI Cabarton 3 USBR 9/0 10/0 1/-1 4/0 •/ /• /•

c

R2 Cabarton 2 USBR 25/0 20/0 0/1 1/-1 . 4/0 •/ /• /• c

R3 Cabarton 1 USBR 2/0 10/10 22/10 23/50 32/0 0/6 12/12 2/0 0/1 6/1 /• •/ /• /• •/

c

R6 Cascade Golf Course Cascade 25/-25 2/0 •/ •/ •/ /• /•

d

R7 Van Wyck Park USBR 2/2 0/250 40/120 20/30 0/20 0/1 22/-22 0/1 1/-1 4/2 /• /• •/ /• /• •/

e

R9 Crown Point USBR 5/5 11/0 6/0 38/30 0/1 0/1 14/8 /• •/ /• /• •/

Rll Sugarloaf USBR 2/0 0/10 27/15 23/20 20/0 0/1 42/0 0/1 0/1 14/8 /• •/ /• /• /• •/

c

R17 SISCRA Camp SISCRA 3/0 40/0 0/50 0/15 1/1 130/50 2/1 0/1 1/1 14/12 •/ •/ •/ •/ •/

R19 Donnelly City Park Donnelly 2/0 0/10 10/10 25/15 0/10 1/0 /10 0/1 1/3 /• •/ •/

R20 4H Club Camp 4H 2/0 5/0 30/0 1/0 1/0 16/0 •/ •/ •/

R24 Tamarack Falls USFS 25/0 3/0 2/0 /• /•

R25 Rainbow Point USFS 1/0 15/0 12/0 0/1 4/0 •/ /•

R26 Amanita USFS 10/0 2/0 •/ /•

R27 West Mountain North USBR 0/10 33/0 0/1 0/1 4/0 •/ /• •/

R28 Curlew USBR 25/-25 1/-1 0/1 2/0 •/ /•

R29 Buttercup USBR 0/2 0/10 0/20 30/0 0/1 8/2 •/ /• /• •/

R30 West Mountain South USBR 0/2 0/150 0/100 0/20 36/0 0/1 1/0 4/4 •/ • /• /• •/

f

R31 Poison Creek USBR 2/0 0/20 24/15 22/8 23/0 1/0 20/0 3/-3 0/1 12/0 /• •/ /• /• /• •/

R33 Osprey Point BSU 20/0 20/0 •/ •/ •/ /• •/

R35 SICMS Camp SICMS 25/0 18/0 1/0 7/0 •/ /•

R39 French Creek USFS 1/0 12/0 •

21/0 0/1 0/1 6/0 •/ /•

R40 Campbell Creek USFS 2/0 15/0 2/0 /•

Subtotal 19/6 20/475 216/290 278 /168 108/45 4/4 25/-9 424 /36 12/-5 0/13 3/4 152/40 /•

Proposed Sites

R4 Shoreline South of Golf Course USBR /35 /I /I /I 2/8 /• /• /• /•

R5 Above Road from R4 USBR /75 /4 /•

R8 South of Dam Cascade /40 /15 - /40 /I /12 /• /• /• /• /• g

R10 North of Crown Point USBR /2 /30 /50 / 125h /15 /I /12 /80‘

/2j

/2 /I /32 /• /• /• /• /•

R12 North Side of Sugarloaf IDF&G /15 /io /io /2 /• /• /•

R13 Sugarloaf Island IDF&G /io /IO* /I

R14 Old State Airstrip USBR /5 /15k

/2 /•

R15 North Side ofGold Fork USBR /2 /20 /40 /80 /15 /60 /I /I /I /20 /• /• /• /• /•

R16 Boulder Creek Site USBR /io /15 /1011 /2 /• /• /•

R18 West Side of Boulder Creek USBR /100 /2 /8 /•

R21 Government Point USBR /15 /15k /2 /•'

R22 YMCA Site USBR / 15 /170 /I / 14 /• /• /• m

R23 Across Road from R22 USBR /15 /io /I /•

R32 South of Poison Creek USBR /130" /io /20 /50° /2 /20 /• /• /•

R34 Hurd Creek Area USFS /2 /io /20 /25 /I /4 /• /• /•

R36 North of Deer Creek USFS /8 /5 /I /• /•

R37 South of Silver Creek USFS /8 /5 /I /•

R38 Van Wyck Creek USFS /8 /5 /I /•

Subtotal /6 /100 /no /719 /85 /I /102 /370 /9 /5 /4 /135

Total 19/12 20 / 575 216/400 278/887 108 /130 4/5 25/ 93 424 / 406 12/4 0/18 3/8 154/175

a Includes tables and grills

b Includes group-size tables and grills

c 6 picnic shelters for individual picnic tables

d 9-hole golf course

e Includes marina with fuel and visitors center

f Includes marina with fuel k

g Additional 9 holes of golf and new clubhouse 1

h Same as Alternative B plus 15 at picnic area and 10 at boat launch m

i Plus 50 overflow sites n

j One for tents only 11-13-90 7:9slO9.OO14.CHF o

Also double as picnic sites

On-site only

Contract with YMCA terminated

50 spaces for each group site; 20 at the tent camping trailhead and 10 near the beach/bank fishing area

Plus an overflow area for an additional 30

•/ existing; no quantity specified

/• proposed; no quantity specified

11-13-90 7^109:0016.CHP
Alternative D: Existing/Proposed Recreation Facilities

Note: The number of facilities is approximate and may vary somewhat upon specific site layout and design.

Table 2-4

Map Location

Managing

Agency or

Lessee

Boar Launch

Lanes

Boar 

Dock

Slips

Boar

Trailer

Parking

Car 

Parking

Picnic

Sites

Group

Picnic

Sites

Tent Camp

Sites

RV Camp

Sites

Group 

Camp

Sites

Fish

Cleaning

Station

RV 

Dump

Station

Toilets

Sinks 

&/or

Showers

Winterized

Restroom

Domestic

Water

Electrica

l Hook-Ups

Improved

Beach with 

Float DocksTrails

Tree 

Planting

Handicap

Access Other

Existing Sites

RI Cabarton 3 USBR 9/0 10/0 1/0 4/0 /•

R2 Cabarton2 USBR 25/0 20/0 1/0 4/0 •/ /•

R3 Cabarton 1 USBR 2/0 10/0 22/0 23/0 32/0 12/0 2/0 6/0 /• •/

R6 Cascade Golf Course Cascade 25/0 2/0 •/ •/ /• c

R7 Van Wyck Park USBR 2/0 0/0 40/0 20/0 22/0 1/0 4/0 •/ /• •/

R9 Crown Point USBR 5/5 11/0 6/0 38/30 0/1 0/1 14/8 /• •1 /• •/

Rll Sugarloaf USBR 2/0 0/0 27/0 23/0 20/0 42/0 14/0 •j /• •/

R17 SISCRA Camp SISCRA 3/0 40/0 1/0 130/0 2/0 1/0 14/0 •/ •/ •i •/

R19 Donnelly City Park Donnelly 2/0 10/0 25/0 1/0 1/1 •j •/ •/

R20 4H Cub Camp 4H 2/0 5/0 30/0 I/O 1/0 16/0 •/ •/ •/

R24 Tamarack Falls USFS 25/0 3/0 2/0 •/

R25 Rainbow Point USFS 1/0 15/0 12/0 4/0

R26 Amanita USFS 10/0 2/0 •/

R27 West Mountain North USBR 33/0 4/0 •/ •/

R28 Curlew USBR 25/0 1/0 2/0 •/ /•

R29 Buttercup USBR 0/2 0/10 0/20 30/0 0/1 8/2 •/ /• •/

R30 West Mountain South USBR 36/0 1/0 4/0 •/ /• •/

R31 Poison Creek USBR 2/0 24/0 22/0 23/0 1/0 20/0 3/0 12/0 •/ /• •/

R33 Osprey Point BSU 20/0 20/0 •/ •/ •/ •/

R35 SICMS Camp SICMS 25/0 18/0 1/0 7/0

R39 French Creek USFS 1/0 12/0 21/0 6/0 •1

R40 Campbell Creek USFS 2/0 15/0 2/0 •/

Subtotal 19/2 20/15 216/20 278/0 108/0 4/0 25/0 424 / 30 12/0 0/2 3/1 152/11

Proposed Sites

R4 Shoreline South ofGolf Course USBR

R5 Above Road from R4 USBR

R8 South of Dam Cascade

R10 North of Crown Point USBR

R12 North Side of Sugarloaf IDF&G

R13 Sugarloaf Island IDF&G

R14 Old State Airstrip USBR

R15 North Side ofGold Fork USBR

R16 Boulder Creek Site USBR 0/1 0/10 0/10 0/15 0/10 0/2 /• /• /•

R18 West Side of Boulder Creek USBR

R21 GovernmentPoint USBR

R22 YMCA Site USBR

R23 Across Road from R22 USBR

R32 South ofPoison Creek USBR

R34 Hurd Creek Area USFS

R36 North of Deer Creek USFS

R37 South ofSilver Creek USFS

R38 Van Wyck Creek USFS

Subtotal 0/1 0/10 0/10 0/15 0/10 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/2

Total 19/3 20/25 | 216 / 30 278/15 108 /10 4/0 25/0 424/30 12/0 0/2 3/1 152/13 1 1

a Includes tables and grills c 9-hole golf course

b Includes group-size tables and grills

•/ existing; no quantity specified

/• proposed; no quantity specified

12-17-90 7:9s 109:0023 .CHP 12-17-90 7:9s 109W25.CHP




Hartsell Creek

Parks Creek

Lone Tree Peak

Hurd Creek

Silver Creek

Duck Creek

Van Wyck Creek Poison Creek

West Side Road

Rock Creek

French Creek Hazard Creek

Mud Creek

CASCADE RESERVOIR Road Campbell Creek

Lake Fork Arm

Lake Fork Creek

Sugarloaf Island

City of Donnelly

Vista Point

Crown Point Boulder Creek

Golf Course

Gold Fork

Dam

State Highway

Hot Spring Creek

Grandma Creek

City of Cascade

Gold Fork Creek

Legend

Willow

\ Creek

Cascade Peak

Crown Point

Gibson

Creek

Curtis

Creek

Deer

, Creek

Willow

Creek

- North Fork

Payette River

Arrowhead

Point

Cabarton

Road

Government

Point c

West Side

Road

Tamarack

Falls

Location of High Water Line

(4828 Elevation)

Approximate Location of

Average Low Water Line

(4816 Elevation)

Approximate Location

of Minimum Water Line

(300,00 acre feet/4812 Elevation)

Sugarloaf "

Point

Resource Management Plan

US Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation

Physical Resources

Lakeshore -5

Drive 1

Old State

Highway

■ North Fork

of the Payette River

Soils Suitable

for Recreation Development

Soils Moderately Suitable

for Recreation Development

Soils Poorly Suited

for Recreation Development

Shoreline Erosion

Note: Soil suitability reflects flooding, wetness, slope and surface conditions, and to a lesser degree, the ability

of the soil to absorb septic tank effluent, as determined by the Soil Conservation Service.

NORTH

Tributary to

Cascade Reservoir

Cascade Reservoir


4

3

2

1

__ Alerting,

Attending

Disturbed, — Agitated,

Moving Away

__ Escaping, / / CANADA.SNOW /

Flushing

SANDHILL CRANES

LITTLE ORNONE TURKEY VULTURES GREAT EGRETS

75 80 85 90 95

L*(dBA)

* Th® sound leva! exceeded only 1 percent at the time

Figure 3-4

Relationship Between Sound Level

and Response of 11 Species of Birds
Cascade Reservoir

Resource Management Plan

US Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation

Current Land Use

Figure 3-5

Lone i ree

Peak

M

M

West Side Road —[■

M

L-G

West Side Road

CASCADE RESERVOIR G

Arrowhead Point

Lake Fork Arm

G

City of Donnelly

Crown Point

Vista Point G w

Golf Course

Dam

G G

Tamarack

Fails

State Highway

55

Cascade Peak

Crown Point

Government

Point

Gold Fork

Arm

New

x Road

Tamarack Fails

Bridge

North Fork Payette River

Road

Cabarton Road

Sugarloaf Island

Sugarloaf Point

Willow

Creek

Boulder Creek

Lakeshore _ , _

Drive Old State

Highway

x County

City of Cascade —
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY