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.

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