[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