[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 183 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49297-49298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24028]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Environmental Impact Statement, Sedona Alternate Crossing of Oak
Creek, Coconino National Forest, Sedona Ranger District, Yavapai
County, Sedona, AZ
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Yavapai County in the vicinity of Sedona, Arizona, proposes to
develop a safe and fully functional 2-lane, paved, through-route
between the Village of Oak Creek and State Route 89A for general
traffic, but especially for medical, fire and law enforcement
emergencies. Ultimately, this development, much of which is within the
Coconino National Forest and an existing transportation easement, will
require, over time and in phases, the replacement of a vehicular
crossing of Oak Creek, segmented realignment of both the Verde Valley
School and Upper Red Rock Loop roads, segment surfacing, construction
of scenic viewpoints, mitigation of driveway safety issues, etc. In the
short run (the next 5 years), because the existing roads are capable of
safely handling the anticipated low volume increases in traffic during
this time as is, the County proposes to focus on the construction of a
replacement vehicular crossing of Oak Creek at what is known as Red
Rock Crossing. The only exception and inclusion besides the bridge and
its approaches may be the upgrading of selected drainage crossings
(concrete or asphalt bottoms) along the unpaved Verde Valley School
Road corridor. The remaining improvements would be scheduled after the
crossing installation on an as-needed basis in conformance with the
Yavapai County Road Ordinance 1995-1 and in response to traffic
changes. While the County is unable to ``obligate'' future funding, it
appears likely (because of the route's predicted popularity and
therefore increasing traffic) that subsequent improvements that may be
needed will rank high in the County's priority and appropriation
processes.
The recently completed Design Concept Report for the crossing calls
for a 4-span concrete bridge designed for 2-lane traffic (2 twelve foot
wide travel lanes). The proposed bridge is characterized by the various
colors, shapes, textures, and forms found in the adjoining landscape to
partially mitigate its presence in this location, such as exposed faces
of the structure will be textured and colored to match the red rock of
the area. In addition, the bridge as conceived includes numerous
provisions for pedestrians (walkways on both sides), a bike path on the
bridge, access to the creek, parking, etc., all further design features
to reduce or eliminate concern for its presence.
An alternate route needs determination was completed by Yavapai
County in January 1995. The conclusion was drawn that an alternate
crossing/route is needed to address traffic flow, reduce public risk,
particularly for movement of emergency vehicles and enhancing the
viability of public transit. A subsequent corridor evaluation indicated
four crossing locations that would best meet Yavapai County's
objectives. Red Rock Crossing was one of the four locations and was
chosen by the County as its preferred route. Its advantages included
existing roads, existing easements, and the strongest potential for
phased improvement. This analysis also predicted a potential use of
6000 vehicles per day once fully upgraded to a 2-lane, paved roadway,
potentially reducing State Route 179 congestion by 38%.
As noted earlier, inherent in the phased improvement of the
corridor are the impacts associated with potential realignment,
surfacing, scenic viewpoints, mitigation of driveway safety issues,
dust abatement, etc. Yavapai County's Road Ordinance prioritizes road
improvements within the county system based on number of residents,
number of vehicles per day, right of way, road geometrics, accident
history, maintenance cost, future growth, placement in the Regional
Road system, and benefit to the public. The County Engineer would make
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on when additional
improvements to the remainder of the roadway corridor leading to the
crossing would be necessary based on the above criteria and how this
corridor relates with other county roadway needs and the limited
funding for these types of improvements.
This EIS will include analysis of the proposed improvements within
the easement area granted to Yavapai County in 1983 and alternatives to
those improvements.
DATES: Public scoping will begin in September 1996 and will continue
over the life of the analysis. The Draft EIS is scheduled for
publication in April 1997 and the Final EIS in September 1997. Written
comments concerning this proposed action should be received on or
before November 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Questions and written comments and suggestions concerning
the analysis should be sent to Ken Anderson, District Ranger, Sedona
Ranger District, P.O. Box 300, Sedona, AZ 86339, phone (520) 282-4119,
FAX (520) 282-4119 (FAX is available during office hours Monday through
Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm, MST).
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL: The Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest,
will be the responsible official and will make the decision on the
Sedona Alternate Oak Creek Crossing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sedona District Ranger, Ken Anderson
or Judy Adams, Sedona Lands Officer at (520) 282-4119.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A public scoping letter with information
similar to this notice will be sent to all persons indicating or having
previously indicated interest in the project by responding to the needs
assessment, corridor analysis and correspondence to the Forest Service
or Yavapai County or who otherwise notify the Sedona Ranger District
that they are interested in the Sedona Alternate Crossing of Oak Creek.
Public scoping meetings will be scheduled during September or October.
The EIS will evaluate Yavapai County's proposed improvements for
the corridor. The EIS will also evaluate the no action alternative
which would disapprove the proposed improvements and alternatives to
those improvements
[[Page 49298]]
considered in response to significant issues.
Preliminary issues include: scenic quality of the area, recreation
experience and facilities, traffic and transportation needs, hydrology
of the stream, residential concerns about noise, light, air quality and
property values and development, emergency vehicle and public transit
issues, water quality, and land use along the corridor.
There is information on use of the crossing in this area and the
road corridor in the record for many years under the management of
Yavapai County. The last vehicular crossing was washed out in 1978. The
record indicates substantial discussions during the subsequent 3-4
years relative to replacement, culminating in an easement issued by the
USFS to Yavapai County across national forest lands where they occur
between the Village of Oak Creek south of Sedona on Arizona Highway 179
and U.S. Highway 89A in West Sedona, just downstream from the old
crossing location. Although the easement was issued by the Forest
Service in 1983, detailed construction plans were not submitted at that
time. The easement wording allows the Forest Service approval of the
detailed construction plans once submitted. All indications in the
records up until recently was that the crossing would be replaced by a
low water crossing similar to what had been at the location prior to
the 1978 flood. Yavapai County has submitted plans (submitted in March
1996) for a bridge in order to better meet their transportation needs
at the current time and for the future.
There has been many changes in the transportation system and
transportation planning that has occurred since 1983 through Arizona
Department of Transportation, Yavapai County and the City of Sedona
that relate to the concern about replacement of this crossing, as well
as increased residential and recreation development and use in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed crossing location. This location is
in the foreground of Cathedral Rock, one of the most photographed spots
in Arizona.
This project is very controversial with strong feelings both in
favor of and against a replacement crossing in this location. The
historical presence of a road and crossing are not challenged and there
is no general disagreement that traffic management of some forms are
needed in the area. Even the most staunch critics of the Red Rock
Crossing proposal would add that they realize an alternate crossing of
Oak Creek is probably appropriate. They further add, however, that it
should not be at Red Rock Crossing which has far greater value and
purpose for the esthetic and amenity values.
Yavapai County will be required to obtain permits from the Army
Corps of Engineers and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ) for working within Oak Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers has
indicated that this proposal falls under their Nation-wide permit
requirements and would not require further environmental analysis for
permitting. Since Oak Creek is a unique waterway, ADEQ will require a
401 certification before working in the stream channel for
construction. Yavapai County will be cooperating with the Forest
Service in the development of the EIS and alternatives.
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 impacts statements must structure their
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is
meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's positions and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553
(1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the
draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the final environmental impacts 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 environmental impact statement.
To assist the Forest Service in 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 on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at
40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Dated: August 27, 1996.
Fred Trevey,
Forest Supervisor, Coconino National Forest.
[FR Doc. 96-24028 Filed 9-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
