[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17136-17137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7742]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southwestern Region, Arizona, Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, 
Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests; Amendment to National 
Forest Land and Resource Management Plans To Determine How and if 
Cross-Country Travel by Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs) Should Be Allowed

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto 
National Forests will prepare an environmental impact statement to 
address cross-country travel by motorized wheeled vehicles and how to 
standardize road and trail signing conventions for OHVs. These five 
forests differ in their current direction for this type of recreational 
use. Confusion among OHV users over permitted types of travel and road 
and trail signs is common. The EIS will evaluate the growing popularity 
of OHVs and their impacts to the Forests. Existing direction for OHV 
use will be replaced with these Forest Plan amendments if supported by 
the analysis. The intention of the EIS is to preserve options for OHV 
use in local transportation planning while reducing impacts to 
resources.

DATES: Comments in response to this Notice of Intent concerning the 
scope of the analysis should be received in writing by May 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to USDA Forest Service, Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest, P.O. Box 640, Springerville, Arizona 85938, 
ATTN: Land Management Planning.

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The Forest Supervisors of the Apache-Sitgreaves, 
Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott and Tonto National Forests will decide if it 
is necessary to more restrictively manage cross-country travel by OHVs 
and how to do so while standardizing signing for open roads and trails 
that may be used by OHVs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Land Management Planner, Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest (520) 333-6370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The five national forests involved in this 
currently have different management direction for cross-country use by 
Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs). This diversity of approaches has led to 
some confusion by the public as to where they may use OHVs. The growing 
numbers of OHVs used on national forest has also increased the impacts 
to land and resources within national forests. The growing popularity 
of this use has created conflicts with other forest uses and prompted 
many individuals and groups to express concerns over this matter.
    Many types of OHVs are common in Arizona's National Forests. Pickup 
trucks, motorcycles, and all-terrain vehicles have all become more 
prevalent and now are beyond the scope considered for their use in 
forest plans. According to industry experts more than half of all 
vehicles sold in Arizona are sport utility vehicles (SUVs) or light 
trucks. Additionally, all-terrain vehicles have increased in sales 
between 1995 and 1998 an average of 29% per year. The use of such 
vehicles on national forests has been a concern of government agencies, 
organized environmental and OHV groups and individuals. This concern 
has accelerated in a pattern similar to the expanded population of 
OHVs.

[[Page 17137]]

    Roads and trails created by wheeled OHVs are proliferating on all 
national forests in several regions. Agency personnel and the public 
note new user created trails on many national forests and roads almost 
every week. These trails arise from repetitive use of areas with 
fragile soils.
    National forests in Arizona are experiencing noticeable impacts. 
Communities adjacent to national forests have become focal points for a 
large amount of unapproved roads and trails created by OHV users. These 
trails lack engineering and environmental elements of design and many 
contributed disproportionate environmental impact. Away from 
communities, similar impacts occur near popular recreation 
destinations. The EIS will deal with alternative strategies for OHV's 
cross country travel and how to develop a standardized signing 
convention for open roads, trails and user created travelways.
    Additional concerns occur in environmentally sensitive areas. 
Specially designated wildlife protection areas are becoming 
crisscrossed with OHV tracts. Wilderness areas have frequently been 
impacted by OHV tracks; often immediately adjacent to closure signs. 
Riparian areas also attract a large number of people and provide key 
habitat elements to wildlife. OHV tracks and use areas have strongly 
impacted many of these ecological communities.
    Off highway vehicles allow many people to enjoy the national 
forests and contribute significantly to the economy of communities. 
They have become very popular because of high quality recreational 
experiences they provide and the amount of land they open up to persons 
who formerly saw little of national forests.
    Preliminary issues include: Confusion of OHV users over road and 
trail sign conventions, confusion over availability of areas open to 
OHVs, effects of OHV use on the environment, effects on jobs, effects 
on cultural resources, effects on species protected under the 
Endangered Species Act. Access to resource and access by mobility-
limited persons seeking recreation opportunities are also preliminary 
issues.
    An interdisciplinary team has been appointed by the Responsible 
Officials. They have examined documents of other agencies and Forest 
Service Regions to develop preliminary alternatives for analysis in an 
environmental impact statement. Comment on these preliminary 
alternatives during scoping could help the team analyze the 
alternatives and might suggest others that would ensure a complete 
analysis of reasonable and feasible strategies for providing recreation 
for OHV recreationists.
    The preliminary alternatives include: ``No Action'' which would 
keep the existing forest plan direction on all five forests. Another 
alternative would strictly prohibit all cross-country travel. Under 
this alternative only officially sanctioned government created roads 
and trails would be available for OHV use. These roads would be a 
portion of roads within national forests that are not state, county or 
city highways or roads. A pair of alternatives would close forests to 
cross country travel with certain exceptions. These would include 
travel to a camping spot within 300 feet of a road or trail, retrieving 
previously tagged big game, disabled access,and permitted forest 
products. In one of the alternatives, the trails and roads within the 
forest would be open if they had a sign designating them open and the 
other alternative would only sign roads and trails that are closed to 
OHV traffic. One other alternative under consideration is designating 
areas open to OHV use.
    Significant information has been obtained from ``Arizona Trails 
2000, State Motorized and Non-motorized Trails Plan'' in determining 
preliminary issues and possible alternatives. Cooperation with Arizona 
State agencies who have OHV management roles has been excellant.
    A preliminary scoping and public involvement plan has been 
developed. Comments on the nature and timing of scoping and public 
participation activities would be helpful to the team. Additional 
public notice will be given of specific planned activities when the 
scoping and public involvement plan is developed.
    It is anticipated that environmental analysis and preparation of 
the draft and final environmental impact statements will take about one 
year. The Draft environmental Impact statement can be expected in the 
summer of 2001 and the Final EIS in the early winter. A 90-day comment 
period pursuant to 36 CFR 219.10b will be provided following the Notice 
of Availability for the public to make comments on the Draft 
Environmental Impact statement.
    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. To be the most 
helpful, comments on the draft environmental review process. To be the 
most helpful, comments on the draft environmental impact statement 
should be as specific as possible and may address the adequacy of the 
statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed (see Council of 
Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural 
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3).
    In addition, Federal court decisions have established that 
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 reviewers; position and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC 435 US 519, 553 
(1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the 
draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the 
final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel 9th 
Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490F. Supp. 
1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). The reason for this is to ensure that 
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them in the final 
environmental impact statement.

    Dated: March 22, 2001.
John C. Bedell,
Forest Supervisor, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-7742 Filed 3-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M