[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27715-27717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12857]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Notice of Intent
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. A subsequent notice was filed on May 2,
1994, because the draft EIS was delayed more than 6 months. This notice
is being filed because the EIS has been delayed more than 6 months and
because the responsible official has been changed.
ADDRESSES: John Phipps, Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest,
ATTN: Desolation Wilderness EIS, 100 [[Page 27716]] Forni Rd.
Placerville, CA 95667, phone 916-622-5061.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions about the proposed action and EIS to Karen Leyse,
Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Eldorado National Forest, 100 Forni Rd.
Placerville, CA 95667, phone 916-622-5061.
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 increased. Campfires would
be permitted in designated firings, 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 on
recreational shooting. There would be no group size 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. 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.
Several trails could be removed. Other trails would be made more
primitive. Directional signing would be found only at major trail
intersections. 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 5-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
prohibited. Camping and outfitter/guide use would be regulated by zone.
Dogs would be required to be on a leash. 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 areas of the wilderness
to pre-historical 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. Grazing would be permitted only where
appropriate based on wilderness resources conditions. Stocking of non-
indigenous fish species would be allowed only if the fish populations
were adversely influenced by humans. Dogs would be required to be on a
leash. 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 [[Page 27717]] 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, streamflow maintenance dams, some campsites, and many trails
would be removed. Fish stocking would cease. Reservation and permit
fees (if legal) would be collected.
John Phipps, Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest, and
Robert E. Harris, Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit,
are the responsible officials.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by August
1995. 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 objectives 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 1996. The
Forest Service is required to respond in the final EIS to the comments
received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible officials will consider the
comments, responses, disclosure of environmental consequences, and
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision
regarding this proposal. The responsible officials will document the
decision and rationale in the Record of Decision. That decision will be
subject to appeal.
Dated: May 15, 1995.
Robert E. Harris,
Forest Supervisor, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.
Dated: May 15, 1995.
John Phipps,
Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest.
[FR Doc. 95-12857 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M