Intent To Prepare an Environmental Statement, Eldorado National Forest et al; CA

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