[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6675-6677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-3394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southwestern Region, Arizona, Coconino, Yavapai, Navajo, Apache, 
Gila, Graham, Greenlee Maricopa, and Mohave Counties for the Apache-
Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forest; 
Amendment to National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans 
Regarding Cross-Country Travel by Wheeled Motorized Vehicles Commonly 
Known as Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs)

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent (RNOI) to prepare an environmental 
impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: On March 27, 2001 the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, 
Prescott, and Tonto National Forests issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in 
the Federal Register (pages 17136 to 17137) to prepare an environmental 
impact statement addressing cross-country travel by motorized wheeled 
vehicles and how to standardize road and trail signing conventions for 
OHVs. Extensive public meetings have been held in Arizona to facilitate 
the scoping process. Hundreds of written and electronic comments were 
submitted prior to the May 15, 2001 deadline. The national forests did 
not identify a proposed action alternative in that NOI. Information 
obtained at these public meetings has helped refine the issues 
associated with this project. Through public comment and inter-agency 
coordination the Forest Service has developed a proposed action 
alternative. Standardization of signing conventions has been dropped 
from the project because this is an administrative matter that will be 
resolved through coordination with governmental units. Public input 
concerning the signing policy will be sought by Arizona forest 
supervisors.

DATES: Comments in response to this Revised Notice of Intent concerning 
the scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before 
March 15, 2002.

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

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: 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. 
These Forest Supervisors are: John C. Bedell, Apache-Sitgreaves 
National Forest, Forest Supervisor's Office, PO Box 640, Springerville, 
AZ 85938, James W. Golden, Coconino National Forest, Forest 
Supervisor's Office, 2323 E Greenlaw Lane, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, Mike 
King, Prescott National Forest, Forest Supervisor's Office, 344 S. 
Cortez, Prescott Arizona, 86303, Karl Siderits, Tonto National Forest, 
Forest Supervisor's Office, 2324 E. McDowell Road, Phoenix, Arizona 
85006, Mike Williams, Kaibab National Forest, Forest Supervisor's 
Office, 800 S. 6th Street, Williams, Arizona 86046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Anderson Land Management Planner, 
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest (928) 333-6370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The five national forests involved in this 
project currently have different management direction for cross-country 
use of OHVs. This diversity of approaches has led to confusion by the 
public as to where they may use OHVs. The growing numbers of OHVs used 
on national forests has impacted land and resources. Popularity of this 
use has created conflicts with other forest uses and prompted many 
individuals and groups to express concerns over this matter.

                                                                                Current OHV Management Direction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            National forest                                       Cross country travel policy                                           Special area cross country travel policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/Sitgreaves......................  Open except specific closed areas............................................  Closed.
Coconino...............................  Open except Sedona Special Travel Area.......................................  Closed.
Kaibab.................................  Open except specific areas...................................................  Closed.
Prescott...............................  Closed.......................................................................  OHV areas open.
Tonto..................................  Desert Closed, Forested Ranger Districts open................................  OHV area open except in-desert areas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Improper use of such 
vehicles on national forests has been a concern of government agencies, 
organized

[[Page 6676]]

environmental and OHV groups and individuals. This concern has 
accelerated in a pattern similar to the expanded population of OHVs.
    Cross-country travel is defined as travel off of or away from open 
roads or trails. Where cross country travel is permitted under land 
management plans, these roads and trails are often products of repeated 
cross country use and not trespass per se. Where cross-country travel 
is prohibited, trails and roads created by repeated use are not legal 
additions to a designated transportation system. Agency personnel and 
the public note new user created trails on many national forests and 
roads almost every week. National forests in Arizona are experiencing 
noticeable impacts from improper OHV use.
    Communities adjacent to national forests and popular recreation 
destinations have become focal points for development of a large amount 
of unapproved roads and trails created by OHV users. These user created 
trails lack engineering and environmental elements of design. The EIS 
will contain substantial information on what constitutes an open road 
or trail.
    Even greater concerns occur in environmentally sensitive areas. 
Specially designated wildlife protection areas are becoming 
crisscrossed with OHV tracks. 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.
    The EIS will deal with alternative strategies for cross-country OHV 
travel. While it was once envisioned that this process would 
standardize the convention for signing open roads and trails, that has 
been dropped from the project because that is an administrative matter 
that is not subject to the documentation in an EIS or other 
environmental document. Forest supervisors will seek public input on 
their administrative decision for road signs. This EIS and that 
administrative process will over lap in time frames and may use common 
meetings to facilitate public input to both projects.
    Off highway vehicles allow many people to enjoy the national 
forests and contribute significantly to the economy of communities when 
used properly. OHVs have become very popular because of high quality 
recreational experiences they provide and the amount of national forest 
land they can access on them.
    Preliminary issues include:
      Law enforcement efficiency.
     Ability to access resources by persons of diverse cultures 
and abilities. An interdisciplinary team has been appointed by the 
Responsibilities Officials. They have examined documents of other 
agencies and Forest Service Regions to develop preliminary alternatives 
for analysis in an environmental impact statement. Comments on these 
preliminary alternatives during the initial scoping helped the team 
analyze reasonableness of the alternatives and the appropriateness of 
the range of alternatives. Our approach is to ensure a complete 
analysis of reasonable and feasible strategies to provide opportunities 
for OHV recreationists.
    The preliminary alternatives include: ``No Action'' which would 
keep the existing forest plan direction on all five forests. The 
alternatives outlined in the table below have been developed to reflect 
the outcomes of multi-agency coordination and input from people and 
organizations during scoping contacts. The five Forest Supervisors have 
selected a proposed action alternative to facilitate public 
participation in the process.

   Preliminary Alternative Features--Cross Country Travel EIS for Five
                        Arizona National Forests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Cross country      Exceptions to cross
            Title             travel strategy    country travel allowed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative 1. No Action      Per Current      Variable according to
 Alternatives.                 Forest Plans,    forest and ranger
                               See table        district.
                               above.
Alternative 2. Restrictive    Closed on all    Search and rescue
 Mgt.                          forests.         Emergency Military.
Alternative 3...............  Closed. Except   Administrative access.
                               areas            Permittees and lessees
                               dedicated to     granted access necessary
                               OHV in Forest    for terms of permit.
                               Plans or other   Campsite access within
                               projects.        150 ft of road. Fuelwood
                                                permits would not allow
                                                off road access by
                                                motorized vehicles.
                                                Disabled access by local
                                                permit. Game retrieval
                                                by vehicle not allowed
                                                off road.
Alternative 4 (Proposed       Closed. Except   Administrative access.
 Action).                      dedicated to     Permittees and lessees
                               OHV in forest    granted access necessary
                               plans or other   for terms of permit.
                               projects.        Campsite access within
                                                300 ft of road. Fuel
                                                wood by local permit.
                                                Disabled access by local
                                                permit. Retrieval of big
                                                game other than turkey
                                                and javelina.
Alternative 5. Closed areas.  Areas open       Administrative access,
                               where traffic    Search and rescue, Law
                               and use would    enforcement, Emergency
                               be sustainable.  military action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 and remains 
excellent.
    It is anticipated that environmental analysis and preparation of 
the draft and final environmental impact statements will take about 
eight months. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement can be expected 
in the spring of 2002 and the Final EIS in the late summer. A 45-day 
comment period will be provided for the public to make comments on the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
    The intention of the EIS is to programmatically preserve options 
for local transportation planning including OHV consideration while 
reducing existing and potential impacts to resources. Subsequent to 
adoption of an alternative from this EIS, Forest officers will issue 
Forest Orders implementing the selected alternative. Site specific 
planning at the ranger district or national forest level will examine 
the need for additional facilities to provide for motorized recreation. 
This process is described in 36 CFR part 212.
    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 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

[[Page 6677]]

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 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 they can meaningfully consider them in the final 
environmental impact statement.

    Dated: January 31, 2002.
John C. Bedell,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-3394 Filed 2-12-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M