[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 149 (Monday, August 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41922-41924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20461]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Environmental Statements; Availability, etc.: Eldorado National 
Forest, CA

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revision of notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 7, 1989, the Forest Service filed a notice of 
intent in the Federal Register to prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) to analyze management of off-highway vehicle use in the 
Rock Creek area, Eldorado National Forest, Georgetown Ranger District, 
El Dorado County, California. An update was filed in the Federal 
Register on March 5, 1996 to update the expected date for release of 
the draft EIS (DEIS), provide a list of issues and alternatives 
considered, and to note that the scope was expanded to include non-
motorized uses (hiking, equestrians, and mountain bikes) in response to 
public comments. Notice of availability of the Rock Creek Recreational 
Trails DEIS was filed in the Federal Register on April 26, 1996. In 
addressing comments on the DEIS, the Forest Service has made some 
changes to alternatives and is preparing a revised draft EIS (RDEIS). 
Changes to the alternatives include the addition of some new routes, 
addition of vegetation treatments to enhance deer habitat, and a 
modified seasonal closure of the critical deer winter range in the 
preferred alternative. This notice is being filed to update the notice 
of intent and to notify interested parties that the RDEIS will soon be 
available for comment.

DATES: The RDEIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in September 
1997. At that time EPA will publish a notice of availability in the 
Federal Register. The public comment period on the RDEIS will be 45 
days from the date of EPA's notice of availability in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Raymond LaBoa, District Ranger, Georgetown Ranger District, 
Eldorado National Forest, ATTN: Rock Creek EIS, 7600 Wentworth Springs 
Road, Georgetown, California 92634.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Direct questions about the EIS to Linda Earley, Interdisciplinary Team 
Leader, Georgetown Ranger District, 7600 Wentworth Springs Road, 
Georgetown, California 95634; phone (916) 333-4312.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Work on the EIS began in 1989 with a study 
of impacts to the Pacific Deer Herd. Since that time the deer study has 
been completed, issues identified, alternative management plans 
developed, and extensive data collection and analysis conducted. The 
draft Rock Creek Recreational Trails EIS was released for public 
comment in April 1996.
    The draft EIS analyzed alternative management plans for all types 
of recreation uses on the trails: hiking, equestrians, mountain bikes, 
and OHVs. The need to look at all uses of the trails arose from 
concerns that other types of recreation use may have some of the same 
impacts as OHVs; as well as concerns about compatibility of uses. 
Another concern identified in the analysis is open road densities which 
exceed limits established in the Eldorado National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan (LRMP). Because the EIS analyzes road and 
trail densities, and because the EIS proposes designation of both open 
and closed roads for OHV use, it was decided that proposals for road 
closures to meet the LRMP management direction would be also analyzed 
in this EIS.
    The following issues identified during scoping for this EIS were 
used to develop and compare alternative management plans.
    1. Erosion: The bare soils on road and trail surfaces create a 
potential for erosion. The amount of erosion may be affected by total 
miles of roads and trails, soil type, trail location, design, 
maintenance, grade, vegetative cover, and use in excessively wet or dry 
conditions.
    2. Water Quality: Erosion of soils can impact water quality by 
adding sedimentation to streams. Sedimentation may be affected by trail 
location and design, stream crossings, and proximity of trails to the 
stream. Another potential impact to water quality from use of trails is 
the risk of oil or fuel spills at stream crossings.
    3. Wildlife Species: Use of the trails has the potential to impact 
wildlife species primarily through disturbance by human presence or 
noise. Road and trail densities influence the potential disturbance by 
providing increased or decreased access into the area.
    4. Air Quality: Air quality may be affected by emissions from 
motorized vehicles as well as dust from use of roads and trails.
    5. Noise: The sound of OHVs is unacceptable to many people, and 
therefore may have a negative impact on adjacent landowners and the 
experience of their Forest users. The sound of OHVs may also contribute 
to disturbance of wildlife.
    6. Opportunity and Quality of the Recreation Experience: The 
quality of the recreation experience may be affected by: the condition, 
variety, and level of challenge of the trails; the availability of 
staging areas and the level of development there; other uses allowed on 
the trails; and the aesthetics of the trail experience. Opportunity for 
recreation is determined by the trail mileage available and uses 
allowed on each; the number and size of recreation events allowed; and 
the frequency and duration of trail closures.
    7. Health and Safety: Safety may be affected by a variety of 
factors. Width of trails may affect speeds traveled, and therefore risk 
of accidents. Intersections of roads and trails may pose increased 
risks of accidents. Combination of equestrian and mountain bike use on 
trails may pose a risk since bikes come up quietly and may startle 
horses. Two-way traffic poses a risk for OHVs since they cannot hear 
each other coming, which could result in a head-on collision. 
Chipsealing of road surfaces poses a risk to equestrians due to the 
slippery contact between the chipseal and the horseshoes. Trail 
structures such as gabions and cinderblocks may also pose a risk to 
horses. Health may be affected by availability of drinking water and 
sanitation facilities for recreationists; or by impacts to air quality 
and water quality.
    8. Risk of Fire: Risk of fire is increased by human activity such 
as campfires and smoking that may be associated with use of trails. 
Internal combustion

[[Page 41923]]

engines, such as OHVs also increase the risk, particularly if proper 
spark arresters are not in place.
    9. Funding: Levels of funding available affects the ability to 
maintain trails properly, the number of trails that can be maintained, 
ability to construct trails, ability to effectively rehabilitate closed 
trails, the amount of monitoring that can be conducted, and the level 
of law enforcement that can be maintained. These, in turn, affect the 
ability to implement the management plan and, therefore, to protect the 
environment and the quality of the recreation experience.
    The following alternatives are analyzed in the draft EIS:
    Alternative 1--No Action: This alternative would continue the 
current management of the Rock Creek Trails. Most trails in the area 
are multiple use, open to all four use types: hiking, equestrians, 
mountain bikes, and OHVs. There are approximately 136 miles of multiple 
use routes (roads and trails) and 5 miles of routes restricted to non-
motorized uses. The current management plan includes closure of the 
critical deer winter range to OHVs and mountain bikes from November 1 
to May 1 each year. Trails are also closed to OHVs during wet weather 
conditions.
    Alternative 2--No OHV Use: OHV use would be eliminated in this 
alternative. There would be approximately 46 miles of non-motorized 
routes available. Approximately 33 miles of roads would be closed. 
Trails would be closed to equestrians and mountain bikes during wet 
weather conditions, and staging areas in the critical deer winter range 
would be closed from February 1 to May 1. Up to two large recreation 
events, with up to 300 participants, would be allowed each year for 
each non-motorized use type.
    Alternative 3--Increased Multiple Use Recreation: This alternative 
reduces trail closures and allows the maximum trail density. 
Approximately 130 miles of multiple use routes would be available, and 
15 miles of non-motorized routes. Approximately 30 miles of roads would 
be closed. There would be no closure of the critical deer winter range. 
Wet weather closures would apply to OHVs, equestrians, and mountain 
bikes. Up to two large recreation events per year, with up to 500 
participants each, would be allowed for each use type.
    Alternative 4--Separated Multiple Use Recreation: This alternative 
addresses concerns about shared use of trails by different types of 
uses. The system would include approximately 86 miles of multiple use 
routes, 17 miles of non-motorized routes, 5 miles of hiking only 
routes, and 11 miles of hiking and equestrian routes. Approximately 28 
miles of roads would be closed. Staging areas in the critical deer 
winter range would be closed from February 1 to May 1. Trails would be 
closed to OHVs, equestrians, and mountain bikes during wet weather 
conditions. One large recreation event would be allowed per year for 
each use type, with up to 300 participants in each.
    Alternative 5--Reduced Multiple Use Recreation: This alternative 
includes approximately 71 miles of multiple use routes and 28 miles of 
non-motorized routes. Approximately 34 miles of roads would be closed. 
Routes in the critical deer winter range would be closed to all uses 
from November 10 to May 1 of each year. Roads and trails would be 
closed to OHVs, equestrians, and mountain bikes during the Forest 
seasonal road closures (generally November through March). Trails would 
be closed to OHVs during Forest fire restrictions (generally August and 
September). Large recreation events with over 75 people involved would 
be prohibited.
    Alternative 6--``Carrying Capacity'' Alternative: This alternative 
was developed based on a review of effects of other alternatives. The 
goal of the alternative is to maximize recreation opportunity while 
providing protection of the natural resources.The system would include 
approximately 111 miles of multiple use routes, and 14 miles of non-
motorized routes. Approximately 34 miles of roads would be closed. 
Routes would be closed to OHVs, equestrians, and mountain bikes during 
wet weather conditions. Vegetation treatments, including mastication of 
brush and understory burning, would be implemented on the critical deer 
winter range to improve the quantity and quality of forage for the 
wintering deer. The critical deer winter range would be divided into 
two zones: north and south. Routes in the south would be closed to OHVs 
and mountain bikes from November 10 to May 1 each year. Deer use would 
be monitored and the seasonal deer closure reevaluated in five years. 
Up to two recreation events, with up to 300 participants, would be 
allowed each year for each type of use.
    Raymond LaBoa, District Ranger, Georgetown Ranger District, 
Eldorado National Forest, is the responsible official.
    The revised draft EIS is expected to be filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public 
review in September 1997. At that time the EPA will publish a notice of 
availability of the revised draft EIS in the Federal Register.
    The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date 
EPA's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is 
very important that reviewers participate at that time. To be the most 
helpful, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible 
and may address the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the 
alternatives discussed (see The Council on Environmental Quality 
Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3). In addition, Federal court 
decisions have established that reviewers of draft EIS's must structure 
their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that 
it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewers' position and 
contentions, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
553 (1978), and that environmental objections that could have been 
raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after 
completion of the final EIS. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803F.2d 1016, 
1022 (9th cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. 
Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure 
that substantive comments and objections are made available to the 
Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and 
respond to them in the final EIS.
    Comments received, including names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed 
action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted 
anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit 
anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent 
decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 
1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission 
from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons requesting such 
confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality 
may be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect 
trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the 
Agency's decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where 
the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify 
the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name 
and address within five days.
    After the comment period ends on the revised draft EIS, the 
comments will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in 
preparing the final EIS. The

[[Page 41924]]

final EIS is scheduled to be completed in January 1998. The Forest 
Service is required to respond in the final EIS to the comments 
received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible official will consider the 
comments, responses, disclosure of environmental consequences, and 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making a decision 
regarding this proposal. The responsible official will document the 
decision and rationale in the Record of Decision. That decision will be 
subject to appeal.

    Dated: July 24, 1997.
Raymond E. LaBoa,
District Ranger, Georgetown Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest.
[FR Doc. 97-20461 Filed 8-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M