[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