[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 89 (Thursday, May 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25162-25163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11949]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Rock Mountain Region; Environmental Impact Statement for
Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan; Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and
Gunnison National Forests; Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa, Montrose, Ouray,
San Juan and San Miguel Counties, Colorado
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: Robert Storch, Forest Supervisor of the Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, 22550 Highway 50,
Delta, Colorado 81416.
SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact
statement on a proposal to revise the existing Uncompahgre National
Forest Travel Plan. The existing travel plan was implemented in 1984 as
directed by the 1983 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand
Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. The 1991 Amended Land
and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and
Gunnison National Forests identified a need to refine travel management
on the Forest.
The purpose of revising the existing Uncompahgre National Forest
plan is to provide safe access to and through the National Forest to
support resource management and to provide a variety of recreation
opportunities for public users, while protecting the environment.
Reasons why the National Forest is proposing to revise the existing
travel plan include: 1) There is a need to plan for the current as well
as the future recreation demands which will be placed on the Forest.
There has been an increase in the amount and a change in the type of
public recreational travel on the Uncompahgre National Forest since
1984. 2) There is a need to provide transportation systems that provide
recreational opportunities for many different users. Most
transportation routes on the Uncompahgre National Forest developed as
access for commodity uses, such as livestock grazing, timber harvesting
and mining, and were not designed or located for recreational travel.
3) There is a need to restrict indiscriminate vehicle travel off of
roads and trails. Currently much of the Uncompahgre National Forest has
an open travel designation, which means off-route travel with motorized
vehicles is allowed so long as resource damage does not occur. However,
unplanned and unauthorized routes have developed through off-route use,
and efforts to close routes or restrict travel to meet Forest Plan
objectives have been ineffective as a result of the open travel. 4)
There is a need to make travel management consistent between the four
Ranger Districts on the Uncompahgre National Forest and the various
Counties, especially concerning travel by off-highway vehicles (OHVs).
The decisions to be made in revising the Uncompahgre National
Forest Travel Plan include: 1) Determining which area-wide travel
management option(s) will be applied to what specific areas. Options
are: (a) open travel, off-route travel by motorized and mechanized
vehicles is allowed. (b) restricted travel, travel by motorized and
mechanized vehicles is allowed only on designated routes with the
possible exception of snowmobile travel occurring on snow. (c) closed
travel, travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles is not allowed. 2)
Determining which Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) setting will be
maintained in specific areas. 3) Determining the roads and trails that
will comprise the transportation system for the Uncompahgre National
Forest. 4) Determining the uses to be allowed on each specific road and
trail. 5) Amending the Forest Plan to incorporated changes needed based
on the four previous decisions.
The Forest Service held a series of 38 public meetings between
April 1994 and June 1996 to discuss travel management issues and
alternatives. Written comments from people unable to attend these
meetings were also accepted. As a result, the following issues were
identified; 1) Open road/trail density exceeds Forest Plan standards
(as related to habitat effectiveness) in some areas. 2) Unauthorized
routes are developing on National Forest System land. 3) Closing some
and designating other routes will result in increased use and damage
from concentrating use on the remaining open routes. 4) Riparian/
acquatic habitats and other special resources need to be protected. 5)
Wet season access needs to be managed to prevent damage to vegetation,
soils and water quality. 6) There are conflicts between different types
of recreational users. 7) Indiscriminate motorized travel during
hunting season conflicts between different types of recreational users.
7) Indiscriminate motorized travel during hunting season conflicts with
hunting experience and results in unauthorized route development. 8)
Habitat capability is affected by travel. 9) Big game distribution is
affected by travel. 10) There are conflicts with winter recreation and
big game winter range. 11) There are conflicts with existing and
proposed routes in important habitat. 12) Threatened, endangered and
sensitive species and their habitat needs to be protected.
As a result of public input, five alternatives were developed and
will be analyzed in the environmental impact statement. Alternatives
vary in the emphasis placed on providing different recreational
opportunities; ranging from providing more non-motorized settings, to
providing more motorized settings, to no change (no action).
Restricting travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles to routes
designated for those types of use is common to the four action
alternatives.
The decision to prepare an environmental impact statement is a
result of preliminary analysis indicating that some of the effects to
the human environment from revising the Travel Plan may be significant.
All public comment received to date will be considered in this
analysis. Parties who previously expressed interest have been informed
individually by mail that this analysis is continuing. No additional
public meetings are planned; however, the Forest Service will consider
any new information that may be received as a result of this notice of
intent. Written comment should be sent by May 15, 1997.
[[Page 25163]]
DATES: Publication of Draft EIS: June 1997; Final EIS: September 1997.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Uncompahgre National Forest Travel
Plan, USDA Forest Service, 2250 Highway 50, Delta, CO 81416.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Hemphill, Team Leader. Phone:
970-874-6600. FAX: 970-874-6698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The comment period on the draft
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 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 environmental impact stage but that are not raised until after
completion of the final environmental 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 propose 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 meaningful consider them and respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service identifying and considering issues and
concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental
impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful
if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement.
Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental
impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and
discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council
to Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in
addressing these points.
Dated: April 21, 1997.
Robert L. Storch,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 97-11949 Filed 5-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
