[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