Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fishlake National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation Project
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Department of Agriculture Final Environmental Forest Service Impact Statement for Intermountain Region the Fishlake National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation Project On the cover: Once the final preferred alternative is implemented, the Fishlake National Forest will begin producing motor vehicle use maps that will be updated annually and distributed free to the public. Forest users will need to obtain and use a current motor vehicle use map to know where and when routes and areas are open to motorized use. These maps will be available on the Internet and at district and forest headquarters. This requirement applies to all National Forests in the nation. A motor vehicle use map is as necessary to travel on National Forest System lands as a hunting proclamation is necessary to know how and where to legally hunt. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326- W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fishlake National Forest Off-Highway Vehicle Route Designation Project Lead Agency: Fishlake National Forest Responsible Official: Mary Erickson, Forest Supervisor Fishlake National Forest 115 East 900 North, Richfield, UT 84701 For Information Contact: Dale Deiter Phone: (435) 896-1007 Abstract: The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses the effects of modifying the current motorized travel plan for the Fishlake National Forest to make it compliant with new travel management regulations. The current travel plan, which is presented as the No Action alternative, maintains existing allowances and restrictions for motorized use and cross-country travel. Each of the action alternatives specifies open routes and areas, seasons of use, and appropriate vehicle types for motorized travel. The preferred alternative, Alternative 5, adds 587 miles of unauthorized routes to and would remove 73 miles of authorized routes from the forest’s existing motorized system. About 635 miles of unauthorized motorized routes would be obliterated and 23 miles converted to non-motorized trail. This action would result in a system of roughly 2,181 miles of road and 639 miles of trail for a combined total of 2,820 miles of motorized routes. Of the latter total, 2,742 of these miles would be open to the public. The amount of seasonally restricted routes would increase from 329 miles to 424 miles. The January 1st starting date for seasonal closures would remain, while the ending date for the closure period for nearly all of these routes would be lengthened from March 31 to April 15th. The existing configuration of the Paiute and Great Western Trail systems would be retained. Motorized travel off designated routes would be prohibited except in open use areas or as specified for access to dispersed camping, firewood gathering, emergency fire suppression, search and rescue, law enforcement, military operations, Forest Service administrative use, or for over-snow vehicle travel. Some changes in area restrictions for winter travel by over-snow vehicles are proposed to protect critical mule deer winter ranges. The preferred alternative designates 690 acres in two open use areas west of Richfield, UT and 189 acres at Velvet Ridges above Torrey, UT where motorized cross-country travel would still be permitted. The alternatives also incorporate an implementation plan that identifies strategies for managing risks from motorized use and infrastructure, enforcement considerations, public education plans, monitoring requirements, and, strategic considerations for future travel planning decisions. Send Comments to: Dale Deiter, OHV Project Leader 115 East 900 North, Richfield, UT, 84701 e-mail: [email protected] Date Appeals Must Be Received: 45 days after publication of the notice of availability for this document in the Federal Register (see the Record of Decision for details). Project Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/fishlake/projects/ohv.shtml Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fishlake OHV Route Designation Project Contents Contents............................................................................................................................................ i Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Issues......................................................................................................................................... 2 Alternatives............................................................................................................................... 3 Changes between the Draft EIS and the Final EIS ................................................................... 6 Document Structure .................................................................................................................. 8 Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................. 10 Location of the Analysis Area ................................................................................................ 10 Existing Condition .................................................................................................................. 11 Desired Condition................................................................................................................... 11 Purpose of and Need for Action.............................................................................................. 12 Proposed Actions .................................................................................................................... 15 Decision Framework............................................................................................................... 16 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................. 16 Scope of the Project and Analysis .......................................................................................... 17 Issues....................................................................................................................................... 18 Questions from Scoping.......................................................................................................... 24 Relationship to Other Plans, Decision Documents and Regulatory Authority ....................... 27 Decisions to Be Made ............................................................................................................. 28 Chapter 2. Description of the Alternatives................................................................................... 29 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 29 Development of Alternatives .................................................................................................. 29 Management Requirements Common to All Alternatives...................................................... 36 Management Requirements Common to All Action Alternatives .......................................... 37 Alternatives Considered in Detail........................................................................................... 42 Alternative 1, No Action......................................................................................................... 43 Alternative 2, Proposed Action............................................................................................... 51 Alternative 3, Modified Proposed Action............................................................................... 62 Alternative 4, Non-motorized Emphasis Alternative.............................................................. 71 Alternative 5, Final Preferred Alternative............................................................................... 80 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 89 Selection of the Preferred Alternative..................................................................................... 98 Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study........................................................................ 99 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................ 107 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 107 Environmental Setting of the Analysis Area......................................................................... 107 General Assumptions...........................................................................................................