[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60821-60823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29791]



[[Page 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. 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.
    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:

[[Page 60822]]

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 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. 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

[[Page 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