41922 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices

of the information requested; and (4)

ways to minimize the burden, including

use of automated or electronic

technologies.

Comments should reference OMB No.

0581–0177 and Marketing Order No.

930, and be mailed to Docket Clerk,

Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS,

USDA, Post Office Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456.

Comments should reference the docket

number and page number of this issue

of the Federal Register. All comments

received will be available for public

inspection in the Office of the Docket

Clerk during regular USDA business

hours at 14th & Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC, room 2525–S.

All responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments will

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: July 29, 1997.

Ronald L. Cioffi,

Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–20460 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

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. Twoway 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices 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 nonmotorized 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 nonmotorized 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 nonmotorized 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
41924 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Sugarbush Resort EIS, Ski Area

Improvement and Development

Analysis, Green Mountain National

Forest; Washington County, VT

AGENCY: USDA, Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service will prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) to disclose effects of alternative

decisions it may make to allow

upgrading and/or development of

recreational facilities within the existing

permit boundaries of the Sugarbush

Resort, on the Rochester Ranger District

of the Green Mountain National Forest.

DATES: Written comments concerning

the scope of the analysis should be

received on or before September 19,

1997. The Forest Service predicts the

Draft EIS will be filed during late Winter

1998 and the Final EIS during late

Spring 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Beth LeClair, Rochester District Ranger,

Green Mountain National Forest, RR #2

Box 35, Rochester, Vermont 05767.

James W. Bartelme, Forest Supervisor,

Green Mountain National Forest, is the

Responsible Official for this EIS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

Bayer, Project Coordinator, Manchester

Ranger District, Green Mountain

National Forest—(802) 362–2307.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Special Use Permittee, Sugarbush Resort

Holdings, Inc. (SRHI), is proposing that

improvements to the Sugarbush ski area

be made which include upgrading

existing facilities and constructing new

facilities. The scope of their proposal

includes eleven categories: (1)

Development of tree skiing and

snowboarding at Lincoln Peak; (2)

expanded snowmaking on seven

existing trails at Lincoln Peak; (3) the

connection of Lincoln Peak and Mount

Ellen snowmaking systems with two air

pipelines, (4) upgrade of two chair lifts

and installation of a tow and magic

carpet at Lincoln Peak; (5) installation of

night lighting along Easy Rider Trail and

the Village Quad at Lincoln Peak to

facilitate night skiing; (6) trail

expansions at Lincoln Peak and Mount

Ellen; (7) construction of a seasonal

performing arts center at Lincoln Peak;

(8) installation of one view deck at

Mount Ellen; (9) expansion of an

existing lodge and construction of a new

lodge at Lincoln Peak; (10) exchanging

approximately 243 acres of privately

owned land and/or moneys that in total

equal the appraised value of two parcels

of National Forest System land (a 57-

acre parcel adjacent to their existing

permit area at the base of Lincoln Peak

which would be used as a site for a new

hotel, and a 32-acre parcel surrounded

by private property in Slide Brook); and

(11) increasing the current comfortable

carrying capacity stipulated in SRHI’s

special use permit from 8,650 skiers to

10,550 skiers.

The aforementioned categories

constitute all actions proposed on

National Forest System lands and falling

within the existing permit area

boundary. Most of the elements of this

proposal are part of the 1996 Sugarbush

Resort Master Plan Update. Because this

plan also includes ‘‘reasonably

forseeable’’ development activities that

could further impact resources in the

project area, this EIS will also address

the cumulative impacts of the full

implementation of the plan. The

applicant’s proposal also would involve

development on adjacent private lands

which have land use jurisdictions

outside of Forest Service control, and

therefore are not subject to NEPA

analysis.

The site-specific environmental

analysis provided by the EIS will assist

the Responsible Official in

determinining which improvements are

needed to meet the following objectives:

improve the quality and efficiency of

the services and facilities offered at the

resort; allow SRHI to provide a more

complete, higher quality year-round

recreational experience; and sustain the

resource uses and amenity values which

local communities depend on and

enjoy.

Public participation will be

incorporated into preparation of the EIS

under the provisions of NEPA. The

Forest Service invites comments and

suggestions on the scope of the analysis

to be included in the draft EIS. A

substantial amount of scoping has been

completed under an earlier

Environmental Assessment. Information

gained from that scoping effort was used

to determine that an EIS was needed.

Major issues identified include: (1)

Analyzing all portions of proposed

developments at Sugarbush Resort at

one time, (2) including the hotel and

land exchange in the analysis, (3)

justifying the need for night lighting, (4)

analyzing impacts to wildlife habitat, (5)

increasing traffic associated with the

expansion, (6) increasing air and noise

pollution, and (7) analyzing impacts of

night lighting to the view of the night

sky. The Forest Service will be seeking

additional scoping information,

comments, and assistance from Federal,

State, and local agencies, as well as

other individuals or groups who may be

interested or affected by the proposed

action. This information will be used in

preparing the EIS. Public meetings will

be held to assist in the public

involvement process. The exact

locations and dates of these meetings

will be published in the local

newspapers at least two weeks in

advance.

Preliminary alternatives include the

applicant’s proposal (described above)

and No Action, which in this case is

continuing current administration of the

ski area. Additional alternatives will be

developed based on scoping comments.

The Responsible Official will be

presented with a range of feasible and

practical alternatives.

Permits and licenses required to

implement the proposed action will, or

may, include the following: Section 404

permit from the Army Corps of

Engineers; consultation with the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service for

compliance with Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act; compliance

with the Act 250 process for the State

of Vermont; as well as cooperation from

other Local, State, or Federal agencies.

The Forest Service will seek

comments on the Draft EIS for a period

of at least 45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency

publishes the notice of availability in

the Federal Register. Comments will be

summarized and responded to in the

Final EIS.

The Forest Service believes it is

important, at this early stage, to give

reviewers notice of several court rulings

related to public participation in the

environmental review process. First,

reviewers of a draft EIS must structure

their participation in the environmental

review of the proposal so that it is