agriculture impact statementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2009-11-03 ·...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pacific Southwest Region

Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management

R5-MB-198 August 2009 Volume 1 of 2

Bishop Focus Area

Inyo National Forest Travel Management EIS – August 2009

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ii


iii

Motorized Travel Management EIS

Final Environmental Impact Statement Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor

Inyo National Forest

351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200

Bishop, CA 93514 For Further Information Contact: Susan Joyce, Forest Planner

Inyo National Forest

351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200

Bishop, CA 93514

(760) 873-2516

Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes the environmental effects of a proposal by the Inyo National Forest (INF) to: (1) Prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated National Forest System (NFS) roads, motorized trails, and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization (excluding snowmobile use); (2) Add 929 miles of unauthorized routes to the current National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) as roads and motorized trails; and (3) Change 20 miles of existing NFTS roads to NFTS motorized trails.

The FEIS discloses environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), a No Action alternative (Alternative 1), and four additional action alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6) developed in response to issues raised by the public. Each action alternative proposes changes to the transportation system on the Forest, including the addition of unauthorized routes to the system and limited changes to existing NFTS roads. Alternative 6 is the agency-preferred alternative. These actions are needed in order to implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B) while providing for a diversity of motor vehicle recreation experiences and motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities on the Inyo National Forest.


Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction to Travel Management The Forest Service Travel Management regulations require that roads, trails, and open riding

areas be designated for motor vehicle use. To designate a road or trail for motor vehicle use, it must first be added to the National Forest’s transportation system (referred to as the NFTS or just ‘system’). There are currently 1,355 miles of roads in the Inyo National Forest’s system.

In addition to these system roads, there are approximately 1,700 miles of unauthorized routes on the Forest. These routes range from narrow singletrack routes used by motorcycles, to wider routes passable by trucks and other full-size vehicles. Although many of these routes are being used by the public to recreate on the national forest, none of them are currently part of the official transportation system.

NFTS (National Forest Transportation System) roads range from primitive wheel tracks for 4WD vehicles to paved access roads. NFTS motorized trails are typically more rugged and challenging than 4WD roads, requiring higher clearance vehicles to navigate.

Under Forest Service regulations, these unauthorized routes can be considered for addition to the system and designation. If unauthorized routes are not designated, motor vehicle use on these routes will be prohibited.

Once a road or trail is part of the system, it will be designated for motorized use with the publication of a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The MVUM will display the designated transportation system available for public use. Publication of the MVUM completes the designation process. The prohibition on motor vehicle use goes into effect and is enforceable when designated routes and areas are identified on an MVUM.

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) documents the Inyo National Forest’s proposal to make changes to the transportation system, including the addition and designation of unauthorized routes. To help you find your way through the EIS, an overview of the contents and organization of the three main chapters of the EIS is provided below.

Finding Your Way through the EIS

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need One key aspect of the EIS is the purpose and need statement described in Chapter 1 of the EIS.

The purpose and need statement describes the on-the-ground problems that need to be corrected. The purpose and need serves as the basis for developing different ways to address these problems. In the language of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), these proposed solutions are called alternatives.

iv


Chapter 1 also describes the major or significant issues raised by the public.

Issue #1. Reducing the miles of routes available for public motorized use and prohibiting cross-country travel as described by the Proposed Action will adversely affect the quality and quantity of motorized recreation experiences because it:

• Does not provide adequate access to key destinations, including campsites, scenic overlooks, and hunting areas;

• Reduces the amount of loops and connectors to provide longer riding time and spurs for exploration; • Reduces the diversity of opportunities for different vehicles (ATVs, motorcycles, 4WD); and • Reduces semi-primitive riding opportunities and experiences.

Issue #2. Public motorized use of roads and trails as described in the Proposed Action will adversely affect non-motorized recreation experiences due to engine noise, dust, conflicts, and reduced aesthetic values.

Issue #3. Public motorized use of roads and trails as described in the Proposed Action will adversely affect forest resources. This includes:

• Erosion, soil compaction, and reduction in water quality; • Degradation of habitat for fish, wildlife, and rare plants; • Damage to cultural resources; • Proliferation of weeds; and inventoried roadless area character, compromising future wilderness

designation

Chapter 2: Description of the Alternatives This EIS proposes six different transportation system alternatives. Each alternative is

summarized below in the section entitled ‘The Alternatives’. One of those alternatives, the No Action, would not make any change from current use of system roads and unauthorized routes. The other five alternatives (called the action alternatives) would each result in a different transportation system on the Forest, depending on which unauthorized routes are added to the system and designated for public motorized use.

Unauthorized routes may be added to the NFTS as either high clearance roads or as motorized trails, depending on the width of the tread, surface condition, and type of use the route receives. In general, roads are managed for transportation purposes whereas trails are managed for recreational use.

Unauthorized routes are not currently part of the official forest transportation system. These routes are being considered for designation in this EIS.

Routes added to the system as roads are generally rough and unimproved, but passable by full-size vehicles. On the maps, these routes are shown as ‘Roads Open to All Vehicles’. These roads are open to all motor vehicles, including off-highway vehicles that may not be licensed for highway use. They would not be maintained for passenger vehicles.

Routes added to the system as motorized trails are classified as:

• Trails Open to All Trail Vehicles (4WD Trails). These are typically rugged, high clearance routes that allow for recreational trail driving by full-size four-wheel-drive vehicles, as well as smaller trail vehicles such as “Rhinos”, ATVs, and motorcycles.

• Trails Open to Vehicles 50-inches of Less in Width. These trails are limited to narrower ATVs and motorcycles.

v


vi

• Trails Open to Motorcycles Only. These singletrack trails typically have a 12- to 24-inch tread and are open to motorcycles only.

In addition to proposing to add routes to the system, the action alternatives also propose some limited changes to roads in the current transportation system. One change is to change a road to a motorized trail. Proposals to change a system road to a motorized trail are based on current road conditions and driveability. For example, if a system “road” is not currently passable by vehicles larger than an ATV, it is proposed to be converted from a “road open to all vehicles” to a motorized trail for vehicles 50-inches or less.

The action alternatives also propose to close some existing system roads to public motorized use. Most of these roads currently receive little to no use by the public. They are used for the administration and management of the Forest, such as maintenance of Forest Service recreations and administrative facilities. One road is proposed for closure because it crosses private land and the landowners have stated that public motorized access across the property is not allowed.

Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences or Effects Motorized use of routes has the potential to cause both beneficial and harmful effects to forest

resources. Some routes provide important access to remote campsites, hunting grounds, and a wide variety of other desirable recreation destinations. On the other hand, motorized use of routes can also result in adverse effects such as damage to streambanks, spread of invasive weeds and recreation use conflicts.

This EIS discloses the effects of the new NFTS roads and trails proposed in the alternatives on forest lands, resources, and uses. For purposes of NEPA, “consequences”, “effects”, and “impacts” mean the same thing. They include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health impacts, whether adverse or beneficial.

The Forest Service must make sure the alternatives avoid impacts to cultural resources, and minimize damage to forest resources such as soil, rare plants, and wildlife. At the same time, the alternatives must also provide access to dispersed recreation opportunities such as camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and exploring. Chapter 3 presents the beneficial and adverse effects of the alternatives on fifteen different resource areas, including:

• Society, Culture, and the Economy

• Recreation

• Water Resources

• Botanical Resources

• Terrestrial Wildlife

For the complete list of resources, please refer to the Table of Contents at the end of this Summary.

Each section in Chapter 3 includes a description of the Affected Environment and the Environmental Consequences. The Affected Environment describes the current or existing


vii

conditions of a resource, such as the number of wildlife or rare plant populations near unauthorized routes. The Environmental Consequences describe the possible effects of implementing each of the alternatives on those existing conditions.

Under NEPA, the Forest Service must analyze the full range of possible effects of the alternatives. This includes effects caused by the alternatives either immediately or later in time (direct and indirect effects), as well as those which could result in “snowball effects” when added to effects caused by other unrelated activities such as livestock grazing and wildfire (cumulative effects).

The Alternatives Five action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and a No Action alternative (Alternative 1) are

analyzed in detail in this EIS. These alternatives are summarized below.

Alternative 1 (No Action). The No Action alternative provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, current management direction would continue to guide motorized travel on the Forest. The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, and no changes would be made to the current NFTS (approximately 1,360 miles of roads open to all vehicles), no permanent prohibition on cross-country travel would be established, and no Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) showing designated roads, trails, and areas would be produced. Public motor vehicle use of all existing unauthorized routes (approximately 1,700 miles) would continue, but these routes would have no status or authorization as NFTS facilities.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action described in the Notice of Intent (NOI) published October 1, 2007 with minor corrections. Alternative 2:

• Prohibits cross-country motorized travel off of designated roads, trails and the Poleta Open Area.

• Adds 875 miles of unauthorized routes as NFTS roads.

• Adds 54 miles of unauthorized routes as NFTS motorized trails.

• Changes 13 miles of existing NFTS road to NFTS motorized trails open to vehicles 50 inches or less and 7 miles of NFTS road to trails open to motorcycles.

• Closes 30 miles of existing NFTS roads to public motor vehicle use and retains 29 miles of those roads for Forest Service administrative use (including motor vehicle use authorized by contract, permit, or other written authorization).

Alternative 3. Alternative 3 responds to motorized access and recreation concerns raised during the public scoping process (Issue #1). This alternative places less emphasis on avoiding concerns with forest resource conditions, and adds unauthorized routes to the system as roads or motorized trails based on public comments. Alternative 3:


viii


• Adds 841 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads open to all vehicles (21 miles of this would be opened to public use after completion of required mitigations).

• Adds 225 miles of unauthorized routes as NFTS 4WD trails open to all trail vehicles, 71 miles as trails for vehicles 50-inches wide or less, and 34 miles as motorcycle trails.

• Convert 7 miles of existing NFTS road to motorcycle trail, 13 miles of NFTS road to ATV trail for vehicles 50-inches wide or less, and 167 miles of NFTS road to 4WD motorized trails open to all trail vehicles.


Alternative 4. Alternative 4 responds to issues related to non-motorized recreation and natural resource impacts (Issues #2 and 3). This alternative considers adding routes to the system to meet recreational access needs, but emphasizes avoiding resource concerns. This alternative:

• Prohibits cross-country motorized travel off of designated roads and trails.

• Limits motorized use in the Poleta Open Area to 5 miles of existing NFTS roads and 8 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as roads and trails. Cross-country vehicle travel would be prohibited.

• Adds 659 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads open to all vehicles (of which 19 miles would be opened to the public after completion of required mitigation).

• Adds 12 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails for vehicles 50-inches wide or less, 8 miles of unauthorized routes as motorcycle trails, and 15 miles of unauthorized routes as 4WD trails open to all trail vehicles.

• Convert 7 miles of existing NFTS road to motorcycle trail, 13 miles of NFTS road to ATV trail for vehicles 50-inches wide or less, and 139 miles of NFTS road to 4WD motorized trails open to all trail vehicles.


Alternative 5. Alternative 5 responds to issues related to non-motorized recreation and natural resource impacts (Issues #2 and 3). This alternative:



ix

• Closes 30 miles of existing NFTS roads to public motor vehicle use and retains 29 miles of those roads for Forest Service administrative use (including motor vehicle use authorized by contract, permit, or other written authorization). No other changes to the NFTS are proposed.

Alternative 6 (Preferred Alternative). Alternative 6 responds to Issues #1, 2, and 3. This alternative emphasizes balancing the addition of routes important to the public with resource concerns raised during scoping. This alternative modifies the Proposed Action by incorporating suggestions provided by members of an independent collaborative group convened by the Desert Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Council. This alternative:


• Adds 850 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads open to all vehicles (of which 25 miles would be opened for public use after completion of required mitigation).

• Adds 20 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as motorized trails for vehicles 50-inches wide or less, 15 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS as motorcycle trails, and 120 miles of unauthorized routes as 4WD trails open to all trail vehicles (of which 8 miles would be opened to the public after completion of required mitigation.


Summary of Environmental Consequences The following table summarizes the effects of the six alternatives on natural, cultural, and social

resources. Effects are described in more detail in Chapter 3 of this document.


Table i-1: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Resources Resource Area Indicator Alt 1a Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Aquatic Wildlife Overall effect of routes within or adjacent to TES aquatic biota habitat. Moderate Negligible Minor Negligible Beneficial Negligible

Botanical Resources Number of sensitive/watch list species/fens within 100 feet of routes available for motorized use b

107 / 202 / 2 49 / 75 / 0 66 / 89 / 2 8 / 67 / 0 2 / 1 / 0 58 / 76 / 1

Cultural Resources Number of cultural sites at risk 123 73 93 54 0 81

Noxious Weeds Number of high priority/lower priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of routes available for public use

20 / 468 6 / 316 11 / 360 2 / 292 0 / 0 8 / 327

Recreation Resources Total miles of existing NFTS roads / proposed route additions available for public motorized use

1,355 / 1,670a 1,325 / 929 1,325/1,171 1,325/ 694 1,325 / 0 1,325 / 1005

Miles of existing / proposed roads and trails within Concentrated Recreation Areas

262 / 147 262 / 94 262 / 104 262 / 75 262 / 0 262 / 98

Total area greater than ¼ mile from road or motorized trails (acres) non-wilderness / wilderness

535,000 / 1 million

602,000 / 1 million

566,000 / 1million

619,000 / 1 million

671,000 / 1 million

590,000 / 1 million

Terrestrial Wildlife

Northern Goshawk: Acres of suitable habitat within 30 ft of routes available for motorized use / Percent of total suitable habitat forestwide

3,870 / 0.9% 2,394 / 0.6%

2,672 / 0.6%

1,630 / 0.4% 0 / 0% 2,475 /

0.6%

Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep: Miles of routes available for motorized use within critical habitat / Percent of critical habitat within 1,148 ft of routes

6.8 / 1.3% 0.45 / 0.3% 6.3 / 1.1% 0 / 0.1% 0 / 0% 4.2 / 0.8%

American Marten: Acres of suitable habitat within 30 ft of routes available for motorized use / Percent of total suitable habitat forestwide

705 / 0.3% 412 / 0.2% 507 / 0.2% 277 / 0.2% 0 / 0% 429 / 0.2%

Greater Sage Grouse: Acres of suitable habitat within 30 ft of routes available for motorized use / Percent of total suitable habitat forestwide

2,709 / 0.9% 1,586 / 0.5%

2,004 / 0.7%

1,330 / 0.4% 0 / 0% 1,795 /

0.6%

Economics Visitor spending No

measurable effect

No measurable

effect

No measurable

effect

No measurable

effect

No measurable

effect

No measurable

effect

x


xi

Resource Area Indicator Alt 1a Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Overall effect on roadless characteristics Minor adverse Minor

beneficial Minor

beneficial Minor

beneficial Minor

beneficial Minor

beneficial

Soil Resource Percent of routes available for motorized use on highly erosive soils 11% 3% 7% 2% 0% 4%

Visual Resources Form, line, color and texture of routes available for motorized use

Long-term adverse effect

Beneficial effect

Beneficial effect

Beneficial effect

Beneficial effect

Beneficial effect

Miles of routes available for motorized use in riparian conservation areas 15.4 miles 8.03 miles 10.8 miles 5.47 miles 0 miles 8.2 miles

Water Resources Number of perennial stream crossings on routes available for motorized use 37 19 25 11 0 21

Motorized Mixed Use

Miles of low standard, high clearance roads designated for motorized mixed use (existing NFTS roads / routes added as roads and trails for all veh.)

No change to current use. 1,185 / 875 1,185 / 1066 1,185 / 674 1,185 / 0 1,185 / 972

Miles of NFTS passenger car roads authorized for motorized mixed use pending CHP concurrence.

No change to current use. 6 miles 6 miles 6 miles 6 miles 6 miles

Total annual additional maintenance cost for proposed NFTS additions N/A $98,025 $124,085 $74,225 $0 $105,115 Sustainability of the

Transportation System Total mitigation cost for added facilities N/A $444,150 $746,550 $211,550 $0 $639,400

aAlthough public use of all existing unauthorized routes would be allowed in Alternative 1, none of the routes would be added to the NFTS. Because these routes would not be part of the NFTS, they would not have any status or authorization as NFTS facilities, nor would existing resource concerns be mitigated. b Unless otherwise indicated, ‘miles of routes available for motorized use’ refers to those unauthorized routes added to the NFTS in the action alternatives, not existing NFTS roads. For the No Action alternative, this measure includes all unauthorized routes.


This Page Intentionally Left Blank

xii


xiii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action 1

1.1 Document Structure 1 1.2 Background 1 1.2.1 Travel Management Planning on the Inyo National Forest 3 1.2.2 Scope of the Analysis 6 1.2.3 Project Area 7 1.3 Purpose and Need 7 1.4 Proposed Action 10 1.5 Principle Laws and Regulations that Influence the Scope of this EIS 10 1.6 Decision to be Made 12 1.7 Public Involvement 12 1.7.1 Issues 13 1.7.2 Alternative Development and the Draft EIS 14

Chapter 2: The Alternatives 17

2.1 Introduction 17 2.2 How the Alternatives Were Developed 17 2.2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail 18 2.2.2 Changes Between the DEIS and FEIS 18 2.3 Descriptions of the Alternatives 20 2.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action 21 2.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action 22 2.3.3 Alternative 3: Maximize Access and Motorized Recreation Opportunities. 23 2.3.4 Alternative 4: Minimize Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Natural Resources,

and Cultural Resources 24 2.3.5 Alternative 5: Cross-County Travel Prohibition Only – No Additions to the Current

NFTS 26 2.3.6 Alternative 6: Modified Proposed Action (Forest Service Preferred Alternative) 26 2.3.7 Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 28 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 34 2.4.1 Maximum Motorized Recreation Access Alternative 34 2.4.2 Emphasis on Motor Vehicle Access, Affordability, and Environmental Protection 36 2.4.3 Programmatic Reduction in NFTS and Unauthorized Route Density 38 2.4.4 Add All Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS 40 2.4.5 Minimum Transportation System 41 2.4.6 Avoidance of Critical Aquatic Refuges and Watersheds with High Route Density 43 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives 43 2.5.1 Summary of Environmental Consequences 44


xiv

Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 49

3.1 Introduction 49 3.1.1 Analysis Process 49 3.1.2 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 54 3.1.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 55 3.1.4 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 55

3.2 Society, Culture, and the Economy 57 3.2.1 Introduction 57 3.2.2 Economic Effects Analysis 57 3.2.3 American Indian Concerns 75 3.2.4 Lifestyles, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values 78 3.2.5 Environmental Justice 79 3.2.6 Civil Rights Impact Analysis 80

3.3 Recreation Resources 83 3.3.1 Introduction 83 3.3.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 83 3.3.3 Affected Environment 84 3.3.4 Environmental Consequences 87 3.3.5 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Recreation Resources 92 3.3.6 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Summary by Alternative 112 3.4 Visual Resources 119 3.4.1 Introduction 119 3.4.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 119 3.4.3 Affected Environment 122 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences 123 3.4.5 Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives 142 3.4.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 142 3.5 Cultural Resources 145 3.5.1 Introduction 145 3.5.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 145 3.5.3 Affected Environment 147 3.5.4 Environmental Consequences 155 3.5.5 Summary of Effects Analysis for All Alternatives 169 3.5.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 172 3.6 Soil and Geologic Resources 175 3.6.1 Introduction 175 3.6.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 175 3.6.3 Affected Environment 178 3.6.4 Environmental Consequences 180 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects 193 3.6.6 Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects 198 3.6.7 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 198


xv

3.7 Water Resources 201 3.7.1 Introduction 201 3.7.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 201 3.7.3 Affected Environment 207 3.7.4 Environmental Consequences 211 3.7.5 Summary of Effects 241 3.7.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 241 3.8 Botanical Resources 245 3.8.1 Introduction 245 3.8.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 246 3.8.3 Affected Environment 248 3.8.4 Environmental Consequences 259 3.8.5 Summary of Effects for All Alternatives 289 3.8.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 290 3.9 Noxious Weeds 297 3.9.1 Introduction 297 3.9.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 297 3.9.3 Affected Environment 298 3.9.4 Environmental Consequences 300 3.9.5 Summary of Effects For All Alternatives 319 3.9.6 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 319 3.10 Terrestrial Biota 321 3.10.1 Introduction 321 3.10.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 321 3.10.3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 331 3.10.4 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 413 3.11 Aquatic Wildlife 417 3.11.1 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 417 3.11.2 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 418 3.11.3 Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects 470 3.11.4 Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 471 3.12 Air Quality 473 3.12.1 Introduction 473 3.12.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction 473 3.12.3 Affected Environment 474 3.12.4 Environmental Consequences 477 3.12.5 Effects of Mitigation Measures 479 3.12.6 Cumulative Effects 480 3.12.7 Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Direction 481


xvi

3.13 Inventoried Roadless Areas 483 3.13.1 Introduction 483 3.13.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 483 3.13.3 Affected Environment 483 3.13.4 Environmental Consequences 486 3.13.5 Summary of Effects 516 3.13.6 Compliance with Forest Plan Direction 518 3.14 Transportation Facilities 519 3.14.1 Introduction 519 3.14.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 519 3.14.3 Affected Environment 520 3.14.4 Environmental Consequences 529 3.15 Authorized Uses and Lands 537 3.15.1 Affected Environment 537 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences 538 3.16 Wild and Scenic Rivers 541 3.16.1 Introduction 541 3.16.2 Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction 541 3.16.3 Affected Environment 543 3.16.4 Environmental Consequences 545

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination 551

4.1 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement 551 4.2 List of Preparers 551

Glossary of Acronyms 553

Index 557

References 561

Appendices Volume 2


Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. It is organized into four chapters:

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the Proposed Action, the need for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public responded.

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a detailed description of the Agency’s Proposed Action, as well as alternative actions that were developed in response to comments raised by the public during scoping. The end of the chapter includes a summary table comparing the environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives on the human environment.

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement.

• Appendices: The appendices provide detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement. Responses to public comments are contained in Appendix E.

Additional documentation may be found in the project planning record located at Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Bishop, CA.

1.2 Background Over the past few decades, the availability and capability of motor vehicles, particularly off-

highway vehicles (OHVs) and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), has increased tremendously. Nationally, the number of OHV recreationists has climbed sevenfold in the past 30 years, from approximately 5 million in 1972 to 36 million in 2000. California is experiencing the highest level of OHV use of any state in the nation. There were 786,914 ATVs and OHV motorcycles registered in 2004, up 330% since 1980. Annual sales of ATVs and OHV motorcycles in California were the highest in the U.S. for the last 5 years. Similarly, sales of four-wheel drive vehicles in California increased by 1500% to 3,046,866 from 1989 to 2002.

Unmanaged motor vehicle use, particularly OHV use, has resulted in unplanned roads and trails, erosion, watershed and habitat degradation, and impacts to cultural resource sites. Compaction and erosion are the primary effects of motor vehicle use on soils. Riparian areas and aquatic dependent species are particularly vulnerable to damage from motor vehicle use. Unmanaged recreation,

Chapter 1 – 1


including impacts from OHVs, is one of “Four Key Threats Facing the Nation’s Forests and Grasslands” (USDA Forest Service, June 2004).

On August 11, 2003, the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service entered into a Memorandum of Intent (MOI) with the California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, and the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. That MOI set in motion a region-wide effort to “Inventory and Designate OHV roads, trails, and any specifically defined open areas for motor vehicles on maps of the 19 National Forests in California by 2007.”

On November 9, 2005, the Forest Service published final Travel Management regulations in the Federal Register (FR Vol. 70, No. 216-Nov. 9, 2005, pp. 68264-68291). Subpart B of the final Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212) requires designation of those roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use on national forests. Only roads and trails that are part of a National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) may be designated for motorized use. Designations are made by class of vehicle and, if appropriate, by time of year. Part 261 – Prohibitions, Subpart A (36 CFR 261.13) of the final rule prohibits the use of motor vehicles off designated roads, trails, and areas, as well as use of motor vehicles on roads and trails that is not consistent with the designations.

On NFS lands not protected by a permanent prohibition of the use of motor vehicles off designated roads, trails, and areas (i.e., cross-country motor vehicle use), unrestricted repetitive motor vehicle travel has resulted in unplanned, unauthorized, routes. These routes were developed without agency authorization, environmental analysis, or public involvement and do not have the same status as roads and trails included in the NFTS. Nevertheless, some unauthorized routes are well-sited, provide excellent opportunities for outdoor recreation by motorized and non-motorized users, and would enhance the NFTS. Other unauthorized routes are poorly located and cause unacceptable environmental impacts. Only NFTS roads, NFTS trails, and discrete, specifically delineated areas can be designated for motor vehicle use. In order for an unauthorized route to be designated, it must first be added to the NFTS. In order for areas to be designated, a discrete, specifically delineated area that is smaller, and in most cases much smaller, than a Ranger District must be identified.

Between 2003 and 2005, the INF completed an extensive inventory of unauthorized routes on NFS lands and identified approximately 1,700 miles of unauthorized routes in addition to 1,360 miles of existing NFTS roads. The majority of the unauthorized routes on the Forest are short spurs and lightly-used vehicle tracks. Over 60 percent of the inventoried unauthorized routes are spurs less than ¼ mile long; approximately 7 percent of the routes are more than a mile in length.

The INF used an interdisciplinary process to assess the need for change to the motorized transportation system. This process included review of the INF Land and Resource Management Plan, internal and external discussions, including extensive public collaboration and input to identify the need for changes to the existing INF transportation system.

Based on this review, the scope of analysis was narrowed as described in the Purpose and Need section of this chapter. Existing NFTS roads currently open to motor vehicle travel and the Poleta open area will remain designated for such use except as described below under the Proposed Action. In accordance with the 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B), the Proposed Action and alternatives propose needed changes to the Inyo National Forest transportation system

Chapter 1 – 2


Chapter 1 – 3

such as the addition of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads or motorized trails and vehicle class changes.

In accordance with Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule, following a decision on this proposal, the INF will publish a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) identifying all NFTS roads, trails, and areas that are designated for motor vehicle use. The MVUM will specify the classes of vehicles and, if appropriate, the times of year for which use of each route is designated. Upon publication of the MVUM, possession or operation of a motor vehicle on NFS lands other than in accordance with those designations will be prohibited. The MVUM will be available to the public at the Supervisor’s Office and Ranger Districts of the Inyo National Forest, as well as on the Forest’s website. The designations of roads, trails, and areas resulting from the current proposal are not permanent. Changes in environmental conditions, recreation demand, and other factors identified through monitoring may lead the responsible official to consider revising designations in the future. Unauthorized routes not included in this proposal are not precluded from future consideration for either addition to the NFTS and inclusion on a future revision of the MVUM, or for removal from the landscape and restoration to the natural condition. Future revision of the NFTS and the MVUM may trigger the need for additional environmental analysis, public involvement, and documentation.

1.2.1 Travel Management Planning on the Inyo National Forest This Travel Management proposal is just one of many in the Inyo National Forest’s continuing

effort to manage the transportation system to meet current and future needs. During the past 30-40 years, the Forest has added roads to the NFTS, decommissioned roads that were causing resource impacts or that were no longer needed for the use and management of the Forest, and identified and mitigated road-related resource concerns. These actions have been accomplished as part of forest plan development and through project-level planning and decisions. Implementation of this project is only one step in the overall management of motor vehicle travel on the Inyo NF.

The Inyo National Forest currently manages and maintains approximately 1,360 miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads. The current Inyo National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) was developed over many decades to meet a variety of needs including recreation access, vegetation management, mineral development and exploration, access to private inholdings, fire control, utility management, and special uses management. The NFTS is managed and maintained to various road standards depending on management objectives. They range from paved roads to roughly graded high clearance roads, depending on the type of access necessary.

The NFTS is displayed on a Forest Transportation Atlas. A Forest Transportation Atlas identifies the existing NFTS and the management objectives for each transportation facility. The initial Forest Transportation Atlas consists of the maps, inventories, and plans for forest transportation facilities and associated information available as of January 12, 2001 (FSM 7711.2), although the Inyo National Forest’s initial transportation atlas underwent significant revision in 2007 as described below. Details concerning the management of individual roads and trails are maintained in the Forest Infrastructure database (INFRA). Following the completion of this analysis, the INFRA database will be updated using vehicle class, system status, and other road- and trail-specific management information for the selected alternative.


1.2.1.1 Development of the Baseline Transportation System For many years, engineers on the Inyo NF defined classified or system roads as those that were

‘actively maintained’ on a regularly scheduled basis, primarily using appropriated road maintenance funding. System roads were generally those which provided access to major recreation areas and for forest management activities. The majority of existing high clearance 4x4 roads, on the other hand, were generally included in the ‘unclassified’ category, as these low standard, primitive routes did not need or receive active maintenance on a regular basis. However, many of these routes had been actively managed for recreational use by the public for years, in that resource issues were being addressed, the routes were being patrolled by rangers, and many of the routes were shown on Forest Service maps.

In the late 1980s, the Forest conducted an inventory (called the OHV inventory) to identify existing unclassified routes as part of the Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan Revision. This inventory identified approximately 850 miles of system roads (some of which were not located on NFS land) and 1,500 miles of unclassified routes. For the reasons described above, system roads were primarily those actively maintained roads which provided access to major recreation areas and for forest management activities. In the early 1990s, extensive public involvement was conducted for the revision of the Motor Vehicle Use Plan, culminating in route-specific recommendations for management of the unclassified routes documented in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement released for comment in 1993. The Motor Vehicle Use Plan Revision process was not completed, however, and a decision was not made regarding the status of the unclassified routes identified in the OHV inventory.

In 2001, Forest Supervisor Jeff Bailey signed a letter which described his intent to manage the unclassified roads identified in the OHV inventory as part of the official transportation system (see discussion of the initial Forest Transportation Atlas above). The Forest’s INFRA database was updated to reflect a managed system of approximately 2,300 miles of Maintenance Level 2, 3, 4, and 5 roads.

This figure was used until 2007, when the Forest re-examined its baseline system prior to publication of the Motorized Travel Management Proposed Action. The Forest examined previous records (prior NEPA decisions, maintenance plans, maintenance expenditures, existing road and trail atlases, forest maps, etc.) to verify the initial Forest Transportation Atlas and transfer the necessary information into the Travel Management planning database. The Forest found that Supervisor Bailey’s 2001 letter was not accompanied by sufficient environmental analysis to support a decision regarding the designation of routes for public motorized use. For that reason, the Forest scrutinized the 2,300 miles of routes considered to be part of the system as well as any unauthorized routes identified during the inventory. Of those, documentation reviewed by the Forest—including the 1977 Motor Vehicle Use Plan, the 1989 Mono Basin Scenic Area Plan, and the 1991 High Desert OHV Project, among others—indicated that approximately 600 miles of ‘unclassified or unauthorized’ routes were actually part of the official system. The remaining routes (approximately 1,700 miles) were considered to be unauthorized. Since 2007, adjustments to the NFTS have been made to correct errors and account for NFS roads that were either newly constructed or overlooked in 2007 (see, e.g., Section 2.2.2 of the EIS). Pending completion of the current planning effort, changes to the existing NFTS have been recorded in the project database; the INFRA database will be updated accordingly once a decision has been made.

Chapter 1 – 4


Chapter 1 – 5

The NFTS is always changing depending on resource needs and management concerns. Decisions regarding changes to the NFTS (new road construction, realignment, decommissioning, etc.) are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and require public involvement and disclosure. Implementation of the current project is only one step in the overall management of motor vehicle travel on the Inyo NF. Other ongoing efforts include: 1) the temporary Forest Order which prohibits cross-country travel off existing routes pending completion of this project, 2) project-specific efforts to reduce the impacts associated with unauthorized routes, and 3) addressing impacts associated with the current NFTS through the Forest’s road operation and maintenance program. Together, these efforts contribute to sustainable management of the Forest’s NFTS.

1.2.1.2 Relationship to the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan The Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan),

completed in 1988, includes direction to designate off-highway vehicle (OHV) routes by updating the 1977 Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan (1977 Plan), evaluate routes during that update on the basis of affected resources, limit vehicle access to designated routes, and to close routes with irresolvable resource impacts. Several separate planning efforts were initiated in the late 1980s to update the 1977 Plan to be consistent with direction in the 1988 LRMP. These include:

• 1989 Mono Basin Scenic Area Plan. The approved Management Plan for the Mono Basin Scenic Area provides programmatic direction for motor vehicle use within the Scenic Area Boundary. In addition, the plan designated routes for motor vehicle use as shown on the OSV / OHV Use / Facilities map for the selected alternative.

• 1991 High Desert OHV Plan. The selected alternative identifies and provides for maintenance and use of designated routes within parts of the White Mountain Ranger District and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bishop Resource Area.

• Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan Revision (not completed). The Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan covered Inyo National Forest lands outside of the Mono Basin Scenic Area and the High Desert Plan study area. The revision was initiated in 1988 with an inventory of existing routes, followed by publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Interagency Motor Vehicle Use Plan Revision in 1993. The Plan Revision was never completed.

The current Travel Management Project would implement direction in the 1988 LRMP to designate motor vehicle routes by updating the 1977 Motor Vehicle Use Plan. To do so, the alternatives consider the inventoried unauthorized routes on the Forest for possible inclusion in the NFTS. Existing NFTS facilities (i.e., approximately 1,360 miles of roads and the Poleta open area) which were added to the NFTS through previous management decisions are not subject to further environmental analysis at this time provided use or access to these facilities is not changed (36 CFR 212.50(b)).


1.2.2 Scope of the Analysis This proposal is not intended to revisit previous decisions that resulted in the current NFTS. This

proposal is narrowly focused on the designation of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use in accordance with 36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B, through publication of an MVUM. Only roads and trails that are part of a National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) may be designated for motorized use.

Consistent with Forest Service policy for travel analysis, the INF has identified issues, assessed benefits and risks, and, through the alternatives analyzed in this EIS, described and documented opportunities to address those risks. Only those actions within the capability of the Forest have been brought forward by the responsible official and proposed in accordance with the purpose and need for action.

The following list summarizes the key elements considered when developing the scope of the action:

1. Previous decisions on the NFTS do not need to be revisited to implement the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.50(b)). Allowing continued motor vehicle use of the facilities in the NFTS in accordance with existing laws and regulations does not require NEPA.

2. User-created roads, trails, and areas are not NFTS facilities. They are unauthorized. Proposals to add these to the NFTS require NEPA analysis and decision.

3. The unauthorized routes not included in the Proposed Action or action alternatives are not precluded from future consideration for either addition to the NFTS, conversion to other uses, or restoration to a natural condition.

4. Any activity associated with contract, permit, lease or other written authorization is exempt from designation under the Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.51 (a) (8)) and is not part of the proposal (e.g., fuelwood permits, mining activity, etc.). Such actions are subject to separate project-level NEPA analysis.

5. For travel management, the federal action requiring NEPA analysis and decision is any change to the current NFTS (e.g., prohibiting cross-country travel, adding or removing facilities, or changing vehicle class or season of use). ‘Designation’ is an administrative act which does not require NEPA analysis and decision. Designation technically occurs with printing of the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM), and NEPA is not required to print a map.

The infrastructure of a national forest will always have room for improvement and the INF welcomes suggestions for improving the transportation system. Such suggestions are considered within the context of the overall mission of the INF as availability of staff and funding allow. Many suggestions for improving the NFTS through NFS road decommissioning and closures were received during public scoping. These ideas and suggestions have been captured by the INF and may be considered in future programs of work.

Chapter 1 – 6


Chapter 1 – 7

1.2.3 Project Area The project area encompasses approximately 1.3 million acres divided into eleven focus areas.

The project area includes approximately 313,000 acres of land added to the National Wilderness Preservation System in March of 2009. Although motorized and mechanized travel are prohibited in wilderness, the new wilderness areas were included in the project area in order to allow consistent comparison of focus area acreage between DEIS and FEIS. These focus areas are:

Mammoth and Mono Lake Ranger Districts: White Mountain and Mt. Whitney Ranger Districts:

Mono Lake/June Lake Mammoth West Mammoth East

Glass Mountains Pizona

White Mountains Casa Diablo

Bishop/Coyote Inyo Mountains

South Sierra Escarpment Monache

1.3 Purpose and Need The underlying need for taking action at this time is:

1. There is a need for regulation of unmanaged motor vehicle travel by the public. The proliferation of unplanned, unauthorized, non-sustainable roads, trails and areas adversely impacts the environment. The 2005 Travel Management Rule, Subpart B, is intended to prevent resource damage caused by unmanaged motorized travel by the public. Subpart B provides policy for the designation of National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads, trails, and areas, and the prohibition of cross-country travel. In accordance with national direction, implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule for the Inyo National Forest is scheduled for completion in 2009.

2. There is a need for limited changes to the INF transportation system to:

a) Provide motor vehicle access to existing dispersed recreation opportunities (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, etc.). There is a need to maintain motor vehicle access to dispersed recreation activities that historically have been accessed by motor vehicles. A substantial portion of known dispersed recreation activities (camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, etc.) are not located directly adjacent to an existing NFTS road or motorized trail. Some dispersed recreation activities currently depend on foot or horseback access, while others depend on motor vehicle access, including use of existing unauthorized routes. If unauthorized routes are not added to the NFTS and designated, motor vehicle use on these routes would be prohibited (36 CFR 261.13) and motorized access to many dispersed recreation activities would be precluded.


Figure 1-1: Travel Management Project Focus Areas

Chapter 1 – 8


Chapter 1 – 9

b) Provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities (four wheel drive (4WD) vehicles, motorcycles, ATVs, etc.). It is Forest Service policy to provide a diversity of road and trail opportunities for experiencing a variety of environments and modes of travel consistent with the National Forest recreation role and land capability (FSM 2353.03(2)). Implementation of Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule could severely reduce motorized recreation opportunities relative to current levels. As a result, there is a need to consider potential additions to the NFTS as well as limited changes to the vehicle classes permitted on existing NFTS roads. Changing the status of these facilities from roads to motorized trails would better reflect current driveability, management, and recreational use patterns.

c) Reduce maintenance and administration cost associated with NFTS roads that serve only administrative purposes and receive little or no use by the public (Appendix A, Table A-2). These roads are currently used for the administration and management of the Forest, including Forest Service recreation and administrative facilities, authorized special uses, or legal rights of access. As such, they currently receive little to no use by the general public.

d) Resolve a situation where the Forest Service does not have the authority to provide public entry or to cross private property on NFTS road 07S17. The private landholders have stated that public motorized access across their property is not granted.

3. Prevent unauthorized cross-country travel and associated resource damage occurring on NFS land outside the designated boundary of the 1,110-acre Poleta OHV Open Area.

In meeting these needs, the Proposed Action should also:

A. Avoid impacts to cultural resources. B. Provide for public safety. C. Provide access to public and private lands. D. Administer and maintain roads, trails, and areas based on availability of resources. E. Minimize damage to soil, vegetation, and other forest resources. F. Minimize harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitat. G. Minimize conflicts between motor vehicles and existing or proposed recreational

uses of NFS lands. H. Minimize conflicts among different classes of motor vehicle uses of NFS lands or

neighboring federal lands. I. Assure compatibility of motor vehicle use with existing conditions in populated

areas, taking into account sound, emissions, etc. J. Maintain valid existing rights of use and access (rights-of-way).


1.4 Proposed Action Five action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and a No Action alternative (Alternative 1) are

analyzed in detail in this EIS. Alternative 2 is the initial Proposed Action described in the Notice of Intent (NOI) published October 1, 2007 with minor corrections. It represents a starting point for a system of routes based on public input and comment. The Proposed Action would:

• Prohibit cross-country motorized travel off of designated NFTS roads, trails, and open areas to regulate public motor vehicle travel on the Forest.

• Add a total of 929 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS as roads or motorized trails to provide a diversity of recreation experiences and motorized access to dispersed recreation opportunities. More specifically, this alternative:

o Adds 875 miles of unauthorized routes as NFTS roads, including 22 miles open after completion of mitigation.

o Adds 41 miles of unauthorized routes as NFTS ATV trails open to vehicles 50-inches or less and 13 miles as motorcycle trails.

• Change 13 miles of existing NFTS road to NFTS motorized trails open to vehicles 50-inches or less and 7 miles of NFTS road to trails open to motorcycles to provide a diversity of recreation experiences.

• Close 29 miles of existing NFTS roads to public motor vehicle use to reduce maintenance and administration cost associated with NFTS roads that serve only administrative purposes.

• Close 1.1 miles of existing NFTS road (07S17) to public motor vehicle use to resolve the situation where the Forest Service does not have the authority to provide public entry or to cross private property.

The Proposed Action requires two amendments to forest plan direction to change: (1) management direction for Dispersed Recreation (LRMP, p. 86) related to Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes (see Section 3.3.5.6 of the Recreation Resource analysis in Chapter 3 for more information), and (2) recreation management direction for Prescription 3, Mountain Sheep Habitat (LRMP, p. 116; see Section 3.10.4 of the Terrestrial Wildlife analysis in Chapter 3 for more information).

Including the additions and closures described above, the Proposed Action would result in a system of approximately 2,180 miles of NFTS roads and 74 miles of NFTS motorized trails open to public motorized use. A more detailed description of the Proposed Action and five other alternatives considered in the analysis can be found in Chapter 2. Maps of the Proposed Action and other alternatives are available on compact disc.

1.5 Principle Laws and Regulations that Influence the Scope of this EIS

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires all major federal actions be analyzed to determine the magnitude and intensity of impacts on the human environment, the

Chapter 1 – 10


Chapter 1 – 11

disclosure of the analysis results to the public, and that the public be given opportunity to comment on the analysis. The regulations implementing NEPA further require that to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with environmental analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other environmental review laws and executive orders. Principle among these are the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 as expressed through the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), the Clean Air Act of 1955, the Clean Water Act of 1948, and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. In addition, the Motorized Travel Management EIS is designed specifically to implement the requirements of 36 CFR 212, Subpart B, of the November 5, 2005 Travel Management Rule (36 CFR 212.50-57). Other laws, regulations, and guidance specific to individual resources are found within the respective resource sections in Chapter 3 of this document.

In order to better integrate federal proposals into state or local planning processes, NEPA requires federal agencies to dicuss any inconsistency of a proposed action with approved state or local plans and laws (40 CFR 1506.2). Forest Service staff has reviewed the approved Inyo County General Plan (December 2001) and Mono County General Plan (October 2007) to evaluate the consistency of the six alternatives with those plans. Inyo County General Plan policies relevant to the travel management planning and coordination process were identified in a Resolution passed by the Inyo County Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2008.

Both County General Plans include a mix of goals and policies which provide general and specific guidance for the protection of natural, social, and cultural resource values. In both cases, review of these plans identified numerous policies which would be directly achieved through the completion of this project. Based on that review, it has been determined all action alternatives are generally consistent with county plan policies, including providing a balanced and functional mix of land uses (MCGP, p. II-31), maintaining and enhancing the local economy (MCGP, p. II-34); and providing continued access through and within the county, continued provision of public recreational facilities and access, and multiple use management of the land and resources (ICGP, p. 3-8). Additional information about the consistency review is available in the project record.

The issue of ensuring consistency with a county’s General Plan requirements is complicated. California State law requires each county and city to prepare and adopt a comprehensive and long-range general plan for its physical development, and to provide a framework for land use decisions. Under California law, no specific plan, area plan/community plan, zoning, or public works project may be approved unless the county finds it to be consistent with their adopted general plan. This standard, however, does not apply to federal lands, as county general plans influence, but do not control, activities within non-jurisdictional areas (including lands under federal management like the Inyo National Forest).

The difficulty in the determination of consistency with the general plan is that this determination is based on the perspective of the reviewer. Differences in opinion are understandable, especially when considering the different obligations that a County government has in comparison to a federal land management agency like the Forest Service. The mission of the Forest Service is to manage the national forests for multiple use as required by law, and to do so the agency must balance competing


regulations, policies, and the diverse and ever-changing needs and values of the American public. Uses of the National Forest must be balanced, rather than one use being given preference over another.

1.6 Decision to be Made The Forest Supervisor for the Inyo National Forest will be the responsible official. The

responsible official will decide whether to adopt and implement the Proposed Action, an alternative to the Proposed Action, or take no action at this time.

This proposal is focused on implementing 36 CFR 212 Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule. Previous administrative decisions concerning development of the existing NFTS, road construction, road reconstruction, trail construction, and land suitability for motorized use on the existing NFTS are outside of the scope of this analysis.

1.7 Public Involvement Public involvement in the travel management planning process has occurred during four key

periods. The first phase of public participation, described here in Section 1.7, began in 2004 and continued into the fall of 2007, the second during the 75-day public scoping period for the Notice of Intent (NOI) as described in Section 1.7.1, the third during meetings with members of public groups to explore issues raised during scoping (Section 1.7.1.1), and the fourth during the 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS (January 31 – March 31, 2009) (Section 1.7.2).

Beginning in the fall of 2004, the INF held a series of public workshops to get comments and feedback on the inventory of unauthorized routes. The public provided feedback to confirm:

• Presence or absence of unauthorized routes on draft inventory maps;

• Type of recreation or access provided by the route (touring, challenge, fishing, hunting, etc.);

• Types of vehicles used on route; and

• Key destinations and recreation opportunities, such as scenic viewpoints and dispersed campsites, accessed by routes.

In the fall of 2005, a group of interested individuals with a range of perspectives came together to offer their ideas to the Forest on how to best engage the public during the planning process. This group, known as the design team, helped the Forest develop the process used to involve the public in the travel management planning process and assisted with outreach efforts in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The design team has continued to meet and offer its ideas to the Forest Service up to the present day.

Collaborative development of the Proposed Action began in the spring of 2006 with a series of public meetings, workshops, and field trips. The purpose of this step was to gather public information about inventoried unauthorized routes, including the benefits and opportunities provided by particular routes, as well as potential concerns or issues. More than ten meetings and workshops were held in various towns and cities in the vicinity of the Forest, including Lee Vining, June Lake, Mammoth Lakes, Bishop, Lone Pine, and Ridgecrest, CA. Consultation was also initiated with local

Chapter 1 – 12


Chapter 1 – 13

tribal governments during this phase. The Forest regularly presented project updates to County Boards of Supervisors, the Mammoth Tourism and Recreation Commission and other groups as requested.

Public scoping for the INF Travel Management EIS began on October 1, 2007 with publication of the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register. That notice identified the purpose and need for the action, summarized the Proposed Action, provided information about the process, and initiated a public comment period scheduled to end on November 15, 2007. In response to public and local government requests, this period was extended by an additional 30 days. The public was also notified of the scoping period through news releases to the local media, the INF website, and direct mailings to hundreds of interested individuals, agencies, tribes, and organizations.

During the scoping period three public meetings were held in Bishop, Mammoth Lakes, and Ridgecrest. The meetings provided an overview of the need for the Proposed Action and the planning process. In addition to these meetings, the public was invited to two open houses at the Supervisor’s Office in Bishop and one at the Ranger Station in Lone Pine. More than 100 people attended the six public meetings. Participants were invited to review materials, and participate in a question and answer period. The questions and answers from those meetings were made available on the INF website. All attendees were encouraged to participate in the scoping process by submitting their comments in writing. The Forest received comments from almost 400 individuals, organizations, and agencies during the scoping period. The comments were carefully reviewed to identify the issues of key concern to the public as described in Section 1.7.1 below.

1.7.1 Issues Comments received during scoping were used to identify issues of key concern to the public. An

issue is an unresolved conflict with the Proposed Action, or an effect on physical, biological, social, or economic resources caused by the Proposed Action. An Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) of specialists representing a variety of disciplines participated in the comment analysis and issue identification.

The IDT recorded, compiled, reviewed, and analyzed the comments to identify the issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The IDT first determined whether the comment identified an unresolved conflict with the Proposed Action. Comments that identified specific impacts that would be caused by one or more components of the Proposed Action were identified as issues.

Issues with the Proposed Action were then categorized as significant issues, minor or non-significant issues, or issues not analyzed in detail. From the comments received, the IDT identified three significant issues, five non-significant issues, and seven issues not analyzed in detail. A list of non-significant issues and reasons why they were found non-significant may be found in the Scoping Report (April, 2008) in the project record located at the Inyo National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Bishop, CA, or on the Forest’s website at: www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/ohvroute5.shtml


1.7.1.1 Significant Issues The three significant issues were used to formulate alternatives to the Proposed Action and to

prescribe mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce or eliminate environmental effects. The issues are also used to focus the environmental analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement on the main issues raised by the public.

Issue #1. Reducing the miles of routes available for public motorized use and prohibiting cross-country travel as described in the Proposed Action will adversely affect the quality and quantity of motorized recreation experiences because it:

• Does not provide adequate access to key destinations, including campsites, scenic overlooks, and hunting areas;

• Reduces loops and connectors to provide longer riding time and spurs for exploration;

• Reduces the diversity of opportunities for different vehicles (ATVs, motorcycles, 4WD); and

• Reduces semi-primitive riding opportunities and experiences.

Issue #2. Public motorized use of roads and trails as described in the Proposed Action will adversely affect non-motorized recreation experience (engine noise, dust, conflicts, and aesthetic values).

Issue #3. Public motorized use of roads and trails as described in the Proposed Action will adversely affect forest resources. This includes:

• Erosion, soil compaction, and reduction in water quality;

• Degradation of habitat for fish, wildlife, and rare plants;

• Damage to heritage resources;

• Proliferation of weeds; and

• Inventoried Roadless Area character, compromising future wilderness designation

1.7.2 Alternative Development and the Draft EIS The Forest Service used the significant issues to develop several alternatives to the Proposed

Action. The alternatives provide different approaches to:

• Fulfill the purpose and need for the project as described in this Chapter, and

• Address the significant issues.

These alternatives were presented to the public in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS or Draft EIS) released in January of 2009 for a 60-day comment period. The Forest Service hosted five public meetings in Mammoth Lakes, Bishop, and Ridgecrest CA, and Hawthorne and Dyer, NV. The meetings were designed to provide an overview of the alternatives as well as hands-on instruction on how to use and understand the DEIS maps. The Forest Service also offered a series of informal

Chapter 1 – 14


Chapter 1 – 15

‘drop-in sessions’ during the comment period to provide additional opportunities for interested citizens to learn about the need for the project and the alternatives, discuss their concerns with Forest staff and the responsible official, and review maps of the alternatives. For those not able to attend the drop-in sessions in person, the Forest hosted a public conference call with Forest Supervisor Jim Upchurch to allow participants to discuss the project with the responsible official. More than 100 people attended the meetings and drop-in sessions. The Forest received comments from more than 200 individuals, organizations, and agencies during the DEIS comment period. These comments were carefully considered, resulting in:

• Modification of the alternative(s) to address the concern;

• Development of additional alternatives considered, but not analyzed in detail;

• Factual corrections and additional explanation to improve clarity of content; and

• Modification of effects analyses.

Forest Service responses to comments are contained in Appendix E of this FEIS.


This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Chapter 1 – 16

agriculture impact statementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2009-11-03 ·...

Documents