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

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