Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Notices 60821

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.

Another update was filed in the Federal

Register on August 4, 1997, to notify the

public that changes were made to the

alternatives in response to comments on

the DEIS, and that a Revised Draft EIS

(RDEIS) was being prepared. Since then,

it was determined that five of the six

alternatives under consideration would

require nonsignificant amendments to

the Eldorado National Forest Land and

Resources Management Plan (LMRP).

For this reason, the responsible official

has been changed from the Georgetown

District Ranger to the Eldorado National

Forest Supervisor. This notice is filed to

notify interested parties of the

nonsignificant amendments under

consideration, the change in responsible

official, and the new expected release

date.

DATES: The RDEIS is expected to be filed

with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and available for public

review in November 1997. At that time

EPA will publish a notice of availability

in the Federal Register. The public

comment period on the RDEIS would

normally be 45 days from the date of

EPA’s notice of availability in the

Federal Register; however, the comment

period will be extended to 60 days.

ADDRESSES: John Phipps, Forest

Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest,

100 Forni Road, Placerville, CA 95667.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions or requests for copies of

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

also be 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,

type and intensity of use, and use in

excessively dry conditions. Use in

excessively wet conditions may cause

rutting which will accelerate erosion by

channeling water.

2. Water Quality: Erosion of soils can

impact water quality by adding

sedimentation to streams.

Sedimentation may be affected by

erosion from trails, design of stream

approaches and crossings, and

proximity of trails to streams. 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 other 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.

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

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 chosen

alternative and, therefore, to protect the

environment and the quality of the

recreation experience.

The following alternatives are

analyzed in the revised draft EIS:
60822 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Notices

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 generally

November 1 to May 1 each year. Trails

are also closed to OHVs during wet

weather conditions. This alternative

would require a nonsignificant LRMP

amendment to increase the open road

density limit in the Rock Creek area to

3.25 miles per square mile.

Alternative 2—No OHV Use

OHV use would be eliminated in this

alternative. There would be

approximately 46 miles of nonmotorized 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 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. This

Alternative would require a

nonsignificant LRMP amendment to

designate the staging areas as developed

recreation sites, and to establish a

vegetation buffer along the trails. These

amendments would apply to the Rock

Creek area only.

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. This Alternative would require a

nonsignificant LRMP amendment to

designate the staging areas as developed

recreation sites, to close staging areas in

the critical deer winter range from

February 1 to May 1, and to prohibit

OHV use on trails when the Sale

Activity Level is 4 or 5. These

amendments would apply to the Rock

Creek area only.

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. This

Alternative would require a

nonsignificant LRMP amendment to

designate the staging areas as developed

recreation sites, to close staging areas in

the critical deer winter range from

November 10 to May 1, to close trails to

OHVs during Forestwide fire

restrictions, to close trails in the critical

deer winter range to all uses from

November 10 to May 1, to prohibit large

recreation events, and to limit OHV

sound levels to 94 dB using 20-inch

SAE J1287 test methods. These

amendments would apply to the Rock

Creek area only.

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.

This Alternative would require a

nonsignificant LRMP amendment to

designate the staging areas as developed

recreation sites, and to close the

Crossier Loop Staging Area from

November 10 to May 1. These

amendments would apply to the Rock

Creek area only.

John Phipps, Forest Supervisor,

Eldorado National Forest, 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 November 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

would normally be 45 days from the

date EPA’s notice of availability appears

in the Federal Register; however, the

comment period will be extended to 60

days. It is very important that reviewers

participate at that time. To be the most

helpful, comments on the revised 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Notices 60823

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, the 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

final EIS is scheduled to be completed

in March 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: November 3, 1997.

Raymond E. Laboa,

Acting Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National

Forest.

[FR Doc. 97–29791 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Announcement of a Meeting To

Discuss an Opportunity To Join a

Cooperative Research and

Development Consortium on

Brachytherapy Manufacturing

Technology

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards

and Technology.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST)

invites interested parties to attend a

meeting on December 9, 1997 to discuss

the possibility of setting up a

cooperative research consortium on

Brachytherapy Manufacturing

Technology. The goal of the consortium

is to identify critical industrial needs for

NIST to be involved in source dosimety

modeling, developing necessary

standards and standard reference

materials, and developing and

disseminating systems for performing

automated high accuracy dosimety

measurements and calculations.

DATES: The meeting will take place on

December 9, 1997 at 10:00 a.m.

Interested parties should contact NIST

to confirm their interest at the address,

telephone number or FAX number

shown below.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place

and inquiries should be sent to Room

C301, Building 245, National Institute of

Standards and Technology,

Gaithersburg, MD 20899–0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Christopher

Soares, 301–975–5589; FAX 301–869–

7682

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any

program undertaken will be within the

scope and confines of The Federal

Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public

Law 99–502, 15 U.S.C. 3710a), which

provides federal laboratories including

NIST, with the authority to enter into

cooperative research agreements with

qualified parties. Under this law, NIST

may provide ‘‘personnel, service,

facilities, equipment, or other resources

with or without reimbursement (but not

funds to non-federal parties)’’—to the

cooperative research program.

Members will be expected to make a

contribution to the consortium’s efforts

in the form of personnel, data, and/or

funds. This is not a grant program.

The R&D staff of each industrial

partner in the Consortium will be able

to interact with NIST researchers on

generic measurement needs in the

industry for specific brachytherapy

source designs. The industrial partners

will also be able to schedule at NIST

collaborative projects in which they

could participate. All partners will

receive a copy of all non-proprietary

data on all materials measured. All

partners will have a certain amount of

NIST measurements made on materials

they request. All partners have some

influence as to the type and accuracy of

the measurements and calculations

pursued by the consortium.

Development of standard reference

materials suitable for use for the range

of activities and radioisotopes and

photon energies appropriate for use in

brachytherapy in accordance with U.S.

regulatory protocols and accepted

standard protocols is an integral part of

the mission of the NIST Brachytherapy

Manufacturing Technology Consortium.

Dated: November 6, 1997.

Elaine Bunten-Mines,

Director, Program Office.

[FR Doc. 97–29883 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[Docket No. 970828208–7262–02; I.D.

072997C]

Scup and Black Sea Bass; Interstate

Fishery Management Plans;

Cancellation of Moratorium

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of determination of

compliance; cancellation of moratorium.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative

Management Act of 1993 (Act), the

Federal moratorium on fishing for scup

and black sea bass in the coastal waters

of the State of Maryland and the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts that

would have been effective on November

15, 1997, is cancelled. The Secretary

was notified by the Atlantic States

Marine Fisheries Commission

(Commission) that because Maryland

and Massachusetts are now in

compliance with the provisions of the

Commission’s Interstate Fishery

Management Plans (FMPs) for scup and

black sea bass, that it was withdrawing

its findings and determinations of

noncompliance. The Secretary concurs.

Accordingly, the moratorium is

cancelled.

DATES: Effective November 14, 1997.