United States Department of Interior Final Environmental Bureau of Land Management Impact Statement Gunnison Basin Federal Lands United States Travel Management Department of Agriculture Forest Service USDA Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office Gunnison, Delta, Hinsdale, and Saguache Counties, Colorado April 2010 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. i Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison, Delta, Hinsdale, and Saguache Counties, Colorado Joint Lead Agencies: USDA Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest USDI Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office Responsible Officials: Charles S. Richmond, Forest Supervisor, GMUG National Forest 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416 Brian St. George, Field Manager BLM, Gunnison Field Office 216 N. Colorado St. Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197 For Information Contact: Gary S. Shellhorn GMUG National Forest 2250 Highway 50 Delta, Colorado 81416 (970) 874-6666 [email protected] Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses the effects of modifying the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin. The purpose of changing the existing travel management plan is to complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. This was a commitment made in the Gunnison Travel Interim Restrictions (April 2001) by both the Forest Service and the BLM. Additionally, the Forest Service, in order to comply with its 2005 Travel Management Rule mandates, shall decide which routes on the National Forest System lands are to be designated open to the public for motorized travel and prepare a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The existing conditions resulting from the Gunnison Travel Interim Restrictions (April 2001) are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, the current travel system is maintained. Each of the four action alternatives describe a variation and differing combination of route designations and mode of travel on approximately 3,730 miles of roads and about 1,050 miles of trails on federal lands in the upper Gunnison Basin. Under all the alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. This analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in Wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Comments received by the public and interested parties during the Draft EIS (DEIS) comment period were considered and evaluated during the process of completing the FEIS by revising, updating and adding the Preferred Alternative to the DEIS. The development of the FEIS included the inclusion of the Forest Service and BLM Preferred Alternative. That alternative was identified pursuant to NEPA (40 CFR 1502.2) for the Record of Decision (ROD). The public comments and responses to the comments are contained in an Appendix to the FEIS. The FEIS is open to public review for no less than 30 days before a ROD will be completed by the responsible officials for the Forest Service and BLM. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Reviewers of the FEIS should send comments pertaining to the final document in during the 30-day review period to make their views known to the deciding officials (40 CFR 1506.10). Send Comments to: Gunnison Travel Management Planning Team GMUG National Forest 2250 Hwy 50 Delta, CO 81401 Fax: (970) 874-6698 (reference Gunnison Travel Management) Email: [email protected] Public review period: there is, at a minimum, a 30-day review period for the FEIS after the publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (40 CFR 1506.10 (b)(2)). After the 30-day review period the Forest Service and BLM will publish Record of Decision documents for both agencies. The RODs will describe the responsible officials final decision, identify all alternatives considered, which alternative was considered to be the environmentally preferable, discuss factors which were balanced by the agency in making the decision, and possible mitigation to be implemented. Project Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/travel_mgmt Table of Contents — iii Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Table of Contents SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................... 5 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 5 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Location of Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Current Travel Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 8 Why Replace the Current Travel Management Direction? .................................................................................. 9 TRAVEL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 10 DRAFT EIS PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................. 15 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................................................... 15 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND NEEDS ................................................................................................ 15 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 16 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ............................................................................................................................ 17 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................................ 19 Legal Foundation for Decision Making .............................................................................................................. 20 Responsible Officials ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Relationship to Other Plans, Decision Documents, and Regulatory Authority .................................................. 20 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 22 SCOPING ISSUES....................................................................................................................................... 23 Issue 1: Scope of Draft EIS Analysis ................................................................................................................ 24 Issue 2: Recreational Experience and Opportunity ........................................................................................... 25 Issue 3: Route Integrity ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Issue 4: Resource Protection ............................................................................................................................ 26 Issue 5: Access................................................................................................................................................. 26 Issue 6: Compatibility and Safety...................................................................................................................... 26 Issue 7: Maintenance and Funding ..................................................................................................................