[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 83 (Monday, May 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10397]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 2, 1994]
VOL. 59, NO. 83
Monday, May 2, 1994
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Intent To Prepare an Environmental Statement, Eldorado National
Forest et al; CA
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Revision of notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact
statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 13, 1992, the Forest Service filed a notice of intent
in the Federal Register to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to analyze revision of management guidelines for the Desolation
Wilderness on the Pacific and Placerville Ranger Districts of the
Eldorado National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, El
Dorado County, California. This notice is being filed because the draft
EIS has been delayed more than 6 months.
ADDRESSES: Craig Harasek, District Ranger, Pacific Ranger District,
Eldorado National Forest, ATTN: Desolation Wilderness EIS, Pacific
Ranger District, Pollack Pines, CA. 95726, phone 916-644-2349.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about the proposed
action and EIS to Karen Leyse, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Pacific
Ranger District, Pollock Pines, CA. 95726, phone 916-644-2349.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Eldorado National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (1989), the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
Land and Resource Management Plan (1988), and the 1964 Wilderness Act
have provided general management direction for Desolation Wilderness.
The current Desolation Wilderness Management plan was completed in
1978; both Forest Plans indicate the need to review the existing
Desolation Wilderness Plan and to revise it as needed. The decision may
result in amendment to the Forest Plans.
A great deal of scoping has been completed since the original
notice of intent was filed. Through scoping, the following issues have
been identified:
1. Fire. Fire suppression has affected the development and
maintenance of natural plant communities and the resulting ecosystems.
Current fire management policy and suppression techniques are not
consistent with maintaining natural processes and wilderness
characteristics.
2. Fisheries. Stocking of fish in wilderness lakes provides
recreational opportunities for the public, but this practice affects
naturally occurring biodiversity and ecosystems, which are protected by
wilderness designation.
3. Range. Current grazing practices may impact water quality,
vegetation, meadow and riparian areas, wildlife, and archaeological
sites. Grazing is a historical use; however, the presence of cattle
disturbs some visitors.
4. Water quality. Current use and management practices may be
creating unacceptable water quality conditions in the wilderness.
5. Wood fires. Many wilderness users value campfires as part of the
wilderness experience; however, collection of firewood and presence of
firerings, ashes, and other campfire debris degrades campsites and
eliminates down, woody debris, an important part of the ecosystem.
6. Visitor impacts. Some areas of the wilderness, especially
lakeshores and easily accessed sites, are being damaged by visitor use,
Users, including recreational stock users, may impact the vegetation,
soils, wildlife, and cultural sites.
7. Quotas and group size. The number and distribution of users and
the size of groups (including stock) affect the values and character of
the wilderness and the quality of the wilderness experience.
8. Aircraft Overflights. Overflights are common and intrude on the
wilderness experience.
9. Dogs. The presence of dogs disturbs some visitors, adds to
sanitation problems, and may harass wildlife.
10. Recreational shooting. Some visitors feel that the responsible
use of guns should be allowed. Others are disturbed by the noise and
the harassment of wildlife and have expressed concern for their own
safety.
11. Trails. Management and development of trailheads and trails may
affect the amounts and patterns of use and the quality of the
wilderness experience.
In preparing the EIS, the Forest Service will be considering a
range of alternatives for future management of the wilderness. The
Forest Service is in the process of developing these alternatives,
which range from maximum recreational use of the wilderness to maximum
wilderness protection. These preliminary alternatives may be revised
before the draft EIS is issued as new information is developed or new
comments are received:
Maximum Opportunity. This alternative would increase the use of the
wilderness by expanding the trail system and signing, maintaining all
trails, and upgrading unimproved trails. Camping would be allowed in
all zones. Fisheries opportunities would be increases. Campfires would
be permitted in designated firerings, back country toilets would be
installed, group sizes of 25 would be permitted, and quotas for
overnight camping would be raised. There would be no limits for
recreational stock. No fees would be charged.
No Action. The current situation would continue unchanged. There
would continue to be unlimited day use with quotas on overnight use in
the 3-month summer period. Camping would be permitted in all zones.
Maintenance and reconstruction of existing trails would continue. Fish
stocking of lakes and operation of stream flow management dams would
continue. Wood fires would continue to be prohibited. All fires,
including lightening caused fires, would be suppressed. Sanitation
recommendations would continue to include a 100-foot setback from
water. There would be no limits on recreational shooting or
recreational stock. The forests would continue to pursue charging a
permit reservation fee.
Enhanced Wilderness Experience. The quality of the wilderness
experience would be improved by restricting the number of day users in
heavily used areas and by slightly reducing the number of overnight
users permitted over a 5-month summer period. Group sizes would be
reduced in remote areas. The number of stock permitted per group would
be limited, and recreational shooting would be limited during the heavy
use season. There would be a leash requirement for dogs. Fish stocking
would continue at reduced levels, and catch-and-release regulations
would be encouraged. Overnight wilderness permits would be issued by
zone or by destination, with no camping in heaviest use areas. ``No
trace'' wood fires would be allowed in designated areas. The use of
loop trails in heaviest use areas would be considered; other trails
would be made more primitive. Directional signing would be found only
in the heaviest use areas. Prescribed natural fire would be allowed in
areas of the wilderness where fire hazard is low.
Physical Restoration. The number of day and overnight users would
be further reduced from the Enhanced Wilderness Experience alternative
during a 6-month summer quota period. Group sizes for users and stock
would be reduced. Grazing would be permitted only where appropriate
based on wilderness resource conditions. Recreational shooting would be
limited to the less pristine areas. Camping and outfitter/guide use
would be regulated by zone. Dogs would be required to be on a leash in
popular areas and would be prohibited in pristine areas. Fish stocking
would be reduced, and riparian areas would be revegetated. Some trails
could be removed and others would be re-routed in sensitive areas.
Planned and natural prescribed fire would be used to return interior
areas of the wilderness to pre-historial conditions. Reservation and
permit fees (if legal) would be collected.
Enhanced Ecosystem. Group sizes for users and stock would be
further reduced from the other alternatives, and the numbers of overall
visitors would be reduced. Cattle would be excluded from riparian areas
within the wilderness. Stocking of non-native fish species would be
precluded in more pristine areas. Dogs, recreational shooting, and
campfires would be prohibited. The number of signs, stream maintenance
dams, and trails would be reduced. Trails would be re-routed away from
sensitive areas; stream crossings would be repaired; riparian areas
would be revegetated. Planned and natural prescribed fire would be used
throughout the wilderness. Reservation and permit fees (if legal) would
be collected.
Maximum Wilderness Preservation. The wilderness would be managed
for very primitive to pristine conditions. Stock and human use levels
would be reduced. Dogs, shooting, and campfires would be prohibited.
Signing, stream-flow maintenance dams, some campsites, and many trails
would be removed. Fish stocking would cease. Reservation and permit
fees (if legal) would be collected.
Ronald E. Stewart, Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region, San
Francisco, California, is the responsible official.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by
September 1994. At that time the EPA will publish a notice of
availability of the draft EIS in the Federal Register.
The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date
EPA's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is
very important that reviewers participate at that time. To be the most
helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible
and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the
alternatives discussed (see The Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3). In addition, Federal court
decisions have established that reviewers of draft EIS's must structure
their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that
it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and
contentions, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519,
553 (1978), and that environmental objections that could have been
raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after
completion of the final EIS. Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490
F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure
that substantive comments and objections are made available to the
Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and
respond to them in the final EIS.
After the comment period ends on the draft EIS, the comments will
be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final
EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by January 1995. The
Forest Service is required to respond in the final EIS to the comments
received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible official will consider the
comments, responses, disclosure of environmental consequences, and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision
regarding this proposal. The responsible official will document the
decision and rationale in the Record of Decision. That decision will be
subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215.
Dated: April 20, 1994.
Susan R. Swinson,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.
Dated: April 14, 1994.
Robert E. Harris,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest.
[FR Doc. 94-10397 Filed 4-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
