Final Environmental Impact Statement

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Final Environmental Impact Statement Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management R5-MB-198 August 2009 Volume 1 of 2 Bishop Focus Area

2 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) (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 , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ii

3 Motorized Travel Management EIS Final Environmental Impact Statement Lead Agency: Responsible Official: USDA Forest Service Jim Upchurch, Forest Supervisor Inyo National Forest 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200 Bishop, CA For Further Information Contact: Susan Joyce, Forest Planner Inyo National Forest 351 Pacu Lane, Suite 200 Bishop, CA (760) 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. iii

4 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

5 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 nonmotorized 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 are not currently part of the official forest transportation system. These routes are being considered for designation in this EIS. 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. Routes added to the system as roads are generally rough and unimproved, but passable by fullsize 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

6 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 vi

7 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: vii

8 Prohibits cross-country motorized travel off of designated roads, trails and the Poleta Open Area. 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. 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 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. 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 5. Alternative 5 responds to issues related to non-motorized recreation and natural resource impacts (Issues #2 and 3). This alternative: Prohibits cross-country motorized travel off of designated roads, trails and the Poleta Open Area. viii

9 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: Prohibits cross-country motorized travel off of designated roads, trails and the Poleta Open Area. 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. 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). 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. ix

10 Table i-1: Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Forest Resources Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 a 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 107 / 202 / 2 49 / 75 / 0 66 / 89 / 2 8 / 67 / 0 2 / 1 / 0 58 / 76 / 1 available for motorized use b Cultural Resources Number of cultural sites at risk Noxious Weeds Number of high priority/lower priority weed occurrences within 100 feet of 20 / / / / / 0 8 / 327 routes available for public use Recreation Resources Total miles of existing NFTS roads / proposed route additions available for 1,355 / 1,670 a 1,325 / 929 1,325/1,171 1,325/ 694 1,325 / 0 1,325 / 1005 public motorized use Miles of existing / proposed roads and trails within Concentrated Recreation Areas 262 / / / / / / 98 Terrestrial Wildlife Economics Total area greater than ¼ mile from road or motorized trails (acres) nonwilderness / wilderness Northern Goshawk: Acres of suitable habitat within 30 ft of routes available for motorized use / Percent of total suitable habitat forestwide Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep: Miles of routes available for motorized use within critical habitat / Percent of critical habitat within 1,148 ft of routes American Marten: Acres of suitable habitat within 30 ft of routes available for motorized use / Percent of total suitable habitat forestwide Greater Sage Grouse: Acres of suitable habitat within 30 ft of routes available for motorized use / Percent of total suitable habitat forestwide Visitor spending 535,000 / 1 million 3,870 / 0.9% 602,000 / 1 million 2,394 / 0.6% 566,000 / 1million 2,672 / 0.6% 619,000 / 1 million 1,630 / 0.4% 671,000 / 1 million 0 / 0% 590,000 / 1 million 2,475 / 0.6% 6.8 / 1.3% 0.45 / 0.3% 6.3 / 1.1% 0 / 0.1% 0 / 0% 4.2 / 0.8% 705 / 0.3% 412 / 0.2% 507 / 0.2% 277 / 0.2% 0 / 0% 429 / 0.2% 2,709 / 0.9% No measurable effect 1,586 / 0.5% No measurable effect 2,004 / 0.7% No measurable effect 1,330 / 0.4% No measurable effect 0 / 0% No measurable effect 1,795 / 0.6% No measurable effect x

11 Resource Area Indicator Alt 1 a Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 Inventoried Roadless Areas Soil Resource Visual Resources Water Resources Motorized Mixed Use Sustainability of the Transportation System Overall effect on roadless characteristics Percent of routes available for motorized use on highly erosive soils Form, line, color and texture of routes available for motorized use Miles of routes available for motorized use in riparian conservation areas Number of perennial stream crossings on routes available for motorized 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.) Miles of NFTS passenger car roads authorized for motorized mixed use pending CHP concurrence. Total annual additional maintenance cost for proposed NFTS additions Total mitigation cost for added facilities Minor adverse Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial Minor beneficial 11% 3% 7% 2% 0% 4% Long-term adverse effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect 15.4 miles 8.03 miles 10.8 miles 5.47 miles 0 miles 8.2 miles No change to current use. No change to current use. 1,185 / 875 1,185 / ,185 / 674 1,185 / 0 1,185 / miles 6 miles 6 miles 6 miles 6 miles N/A $98,025 $124,085 $74,225 $0 $105,115 N/A $444,150 $746,550 $211,550 $0 $639,400 a Although 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. xi

12 This Page Intentionally Left Blank xii

13 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action Document Structure Background Travel Management Planning on the Inyo National Forest Scope of the Analysis Project Area Purpose and Need Proposed Action Principle Laws and Regulations that Influence the Scope of this EIS Decision to be Made Public Involvement Issues Alternative Development and the Draft EIS 14 Chapter 2: The Alternatives Introduction How the Alternatives Were Developed Alternatives Considered in Detail Changes Between the DEIS and FEIS Descriptions of the Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative 3: Maximize Access and Motorized Recreation Opportunities Alternative 4: Minimize Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Natural Resources, and Cultural Resources Alternative 5: Cross-County Travel Prohibition Only No Additions to the Current NFTS Alternative 6: Modified Proposed Action (Forest Service Preferred Alternative) Elements Common to All Action Alternatives Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Maximum Motorized Recreation Access Alternative Emphasis on Motor Vehicle Access, Affordability, and Environmental Protection Programmatic Reduction in NFTS and Unauthorized Route Density Add All Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS Minimum Transportation System Avoidance of Critical Aquatic Refuges and Watersheds with High Route Density Comparison of Alternatives Summary of Environmental Consequences 44 xiii

14 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction Analysis Process Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity Unavoidable Adverse Effects Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Society, Culture, and the Economy Introduction Economic Effects Analysis American Indian Concerns Lifestyles, Attitudes, Beliefs and Values Environmental Justice Civil Rights Impact Analysis Recreation Resources Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives on Recreation Resources Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Summary by Alternative Visual Resources Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Summary of Effects Analysis Across All Alternatives Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Cultural Resources Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Summary of Effects Analysis for All Alternatives Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Soil and Geologic Resources Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Cumulative Effects Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction 198 xiv

15 3.7 Water Resources Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Summary of Effects Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Botanical Resources Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Summary of Effects for All Alternatives Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Noxious Weeds Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Summary of Effects For All Alternatives Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Terrestrial Biota Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Aquatic Wildlife Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction Air Quality Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Effects of Mitigation Measures Cumulative Effects Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Direction 481 xv

16 3.13 Inventoried Roadless Areas Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Summary of Effects Compliance with Forest Plan Direction Transportation Facilities Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Authorized Uses and Lands Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Wild and Scenic Rivers Introduction Analysis Framework: Statute, Regulation, Forest Plan, and Other Direction Affected Environment Environmental Consequences 545 Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement List of Preparers 551 Glossary of Acronyms 553 Index 557 References 561 Appendices Volume 2 xvi

17 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 offhighway 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 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 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 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

18 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 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 ). 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 ) 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

19 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 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 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 ), 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. Chapter 1 3

20 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 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 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

21 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) projectspecific 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 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 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 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 (b)). Chapter 1 5

22 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 (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 (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

23 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 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: Mono Lake/June Lake Mammoth West Mammoth East Glass Mountains Pizona White Mountain and Mt. Whitney Ranger Districts: 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 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 ) and motorized access to many dispersed recreation activities would be precluded. Chapter 1 7

24 Figure 1-1: Travel Management Project Focus Areas Chapter 1 8