Eldorado National Forest, Georgetown Ranger District, Georgetown, CA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplement to the Rock Creek Recreational Trails Final Environmental Impact Statement, 60275-60277 [05-20699]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60275-60277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20699]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Eldorado National Forest, Georgetown Ranger District, Georgetown, 
CA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplement to the Rock Creek 
Recreational Trails Final Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact 
statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare a supplement to the 1999 Rock 
Creek Recreational Trails EIS. The supplement will be limited to the 
cumulative environmental effects on the Pacific Deer Herd. 
Specifically, the supplement will analyze the cumulative effects of the 
existing proposed action and all alternatives, in combination with 
past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, as bounded by 
the mapped range of the Pacific Deer Herd.

DATES: Scoping is not required for supplements to environmental impact 
statements (40 CFR 1502.9(c)4(4)). The draft supplemental environmental 
impact statement is expected to be issued in January 2006 and the final 
supplemental environmental impact statement is expected June 2006. 
Comments on the draft supplemental environmental impact statement must 
be received by 45 days after publication.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Tim Dabney, District Ranger, 
Georgetown Ranger Station, 7600 Wentworth Springs Road, Georgetown, CA 
95634, Attn: Rock Creek Supplement.

[[Page 60276]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charis Parker, District Wildlife 
Biologist and Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Georgetown Ranger Station 
at (530) 333-4312, FAX (530) 333-5522, or by e-mail to 
cparker@fs.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Rock Creek area encompasses approximately 23,600 acres of 
public lands centered about five miles to the southeast of the town of 
Georgetown, CA. Historic uses of mining, logging, and cattle grazing 
created roads and trails throughout the area to access both public and 
private lands. Recreational use of these routes, including horseback 
riding, hiking, fishing, off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel, and mountain 
biking, has occurred in the area since at least the late 1950s. In 
1987, the Forest Service issued Decision Notice and Finding of No 
Significant Impact on the Rock Creek Off-Road Vehicle Use Environmental 
Assessment (EA), to better manage recreational use. The decision was 
challenged in court and the Forest Service was ordered in 1989 to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) [Friends Aware of 
Wildlife Needs (FAWN) vs. United States Department of Agriculture, et 
al., Civ. S-88-214 LKK (E.D. California)]. The Rock Creek Recreational 
Trails Draft EIS was first published in 1996 with a Revised Draft EIS 
being published in 1997 based on comments received. The Rock Creek 
Recreational Trails Final EIS and Record of Decision was issued in 1999 
implementing Alternative 6--Resource Protection and Recreation 
Opportunities.
    In February 2002, a lawsuit was filed against the Forest Service 
that, among other OHV-related issues on the Eldorado National Forest, 
alleged the cumulative effects analysis conducted for the 1999 Rock 
Creek Recreational Trails Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 
Decision was inadequate. On February 15, 2005, Judge Lawrence K. 
Karlton, United States District Court (Eastern District of California), 
issued a finding [Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation, et al., v. 
John Berry, Eldorado National Forest Supervisor, et al., CIV-S-02-0325 
LKK/JFM (E.D. California)] that the cumulative effects analysis was 
indeed inadequate, particularly in regard to the Pacific Deer Herd. 
More specifically, Judge Karlton found that the cumulative impacts 
analysis area was incorrectly limited to the Rock Creek project area 
and that ``other activities,'' including grazing, within the deer 
herd's entire range, were not analyzed in sufficient detail to 
adequately determine the cumulative impacts of the proposed action on 
the deer herd. On August 16, 2005, Judge Karlton issued his order that 
a supplement to the Rock Creek Recreational Trails Environmental Impact 
Statement be prepared as specified in its February 15, 2005 finding.

Purpose and Need for Action

    Because this supplement is limited to a cumulative effects analysis 
for the Pacific Deer Herd, the purpose and need for action remain the 
same as was described in the 1997 Rock Creek Recreational Trails 
Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIS). ``The need for 
the Proposed Action arises from continuing conflicts over how the 
trails in the Rock Creek Area should be managed and the impacts of 
trail use on the natural resources * * * The purpose or goal in 
designing the trail system, designated uses, and resource protection 
measures is to provide a quality recreation experience for all trail 
users, while minimizing conflicts between the trail users and adjacent 
landowners, providing protection of natural resources, and promoting 
safety.'' (Rock Creek Recreational Trails RDEIS, page 1-3)

Proposed Action

    The proposed action and all alternatives will also remain the same 
as was described in the 1997 Rock Creek Recreational Trails Revised 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Six alternatives were analyzed in 
the original RDEIS to address the Purpose and Need including: (1) No 
Action--continue with current trail system and management plan; (2) No 
OHV Use; (3) Increased Multiple Use Recreation--all trail uses allowed 
on predominantly shared-use trails with reduced closure periods; (4) 
Separated Multiple Use Recreation--all trail uses allowed but uses 
segregated to some extent to reduce conflicts between different use 
types; (5) Reduced Multiple Use Recreation--all trail uses allowed, but 
trail mileages reduced and closures increased; and (6) Resource 
Protection and Recreation Opportunities (preferred alternative)--all 
trail uses allowed in a manner that attempts to find an optimal balance 
of resource protection and opportunity for a quality recreation 
experience.

Responsible Official

    John Berry, Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest, 100 Forni 
Road, Placerville, CA, 95667.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The responsible official will decide, based on the cumulative 
effects analysis for the Pacific Deer Herd in the supplement, whether 
to confirm the decision in the 1999 ROD or choose another alternative. 
This will be documented in a new Record of Decision.

Comment Requested

    A legal notice will be published in the newspaper of record and a 
Notice of Availability will be published in the Federal Register to 
inform the public that supplemental information is available for review 
and comment. The draft supplemental environmental impact statement will 
be distributed to all parties that received the 1999 final 
environmental impact statement.
    Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review: A draft supplemental environmental impact 
statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft 
supplemental environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the 
date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of 
availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft supplemental environmental impact statements must structure their 
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is 
meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 
553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the 
draft supplemental environmental impact statement stage but that are 
not raised until after completion of the final supplemental 
environmental impact statement may be waived or dismissed by the 
courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) 
and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 
Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that 
those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of 
the 45-day comment period so 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 
supplemental environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and

[[Page 60277]]

concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft supplemental 
environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is 
also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the 
draft supplemental statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of 
the draft supplemental environmental impact statement or the merits of 
the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers 
may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
for implementing the procedural provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
    Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal 
and will be available for public inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: October 3, 2005.
John D. Berry,
Forest Supervisor, Eldorado National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-20699 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P