[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54996-54998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-21706]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


White River National Forest, Colorado, Travel Management Plan

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.7, the 
Forest Supervisor of the White River National Forest gives notice of 
the intent to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) in 
conjunction with the Travel Management Plan (Travel Plan) for the White 
River National Forest.
    This notice describes the specific elements to be included in the 
Travel Plan, decisions to be made, estimated dates for filing the EIS, 
information concerning public participation, and the names and address 
of the agency officials who can provide information.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received 
by October 31, 2002. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is 
expected in the winter of 2004, and the final environmental impact 
statement (FEIS) is expected winter/spring of 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Dottie Bell, White River National 
Forest, PO Box 948, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vincent Picard, Public Affairs 
Specialist, White River National Forest, PO Box 948, Glenwood Springs, 
Colorado 81602, (970) 945-2521.

For technical information contact:   
Wendy Haskins, Transportation Planner, White River National Forest, PO 
Box 948, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602, (970) 945-2521, or
Dan Hormaechea, Planning and Information Systems Director, White River 
National Forest, PO Box 948, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602, (970) 
945-2521.

    Responsible Official: Martha Ketelle, Forest Supervisor, White 
River National Forest, PO Box 948, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) 1501.7, the Forest Supervisor for the White River National Forest 
gives notice of the agency's intent to prepare an EIS in conjunction 
with the Travel Management Plan required under 36 CFR 212.5(b). The 
White River National Forest invites those interested parties and 
affected people to participate in the analysis and contribute to the 
final decision for this proposed action.
    The Forest Service is seeking information, comments and assistance 
from individuals, organizations, tribal governments, and federal, state 
and local agencies that are interested in or may be affected by the 
proposed action. The public is invited to help identify issues and 
define the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIS. The range 
of alternatives will be based on the identification of significant 
public issues, management concerns, resource management opportunities, 
and plan decisions specific to Travel Management within the scope of 
the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 2002 
Revision (Forest Plan). Written comments identifying issues for 
analysis and range of alternatives are encouraged.

Background

    Travel can be described as the movement of people, goods and 
services. Travel management on the White River National Forest 
considers the planning of and providing for the appropriate movement of 
people and products through the Forest. An efficient transportation 
network is essential for forest resource management, outdoor recreation 
use and access. Forest management considers vegetation, water, soil, 
aquatic ecosystems, wildlife, range, recreation, minerals, and fire 
management. Access is necessary to manage these resources and 
activities, as well as provide egress and ingress to private in-
holdings. This transportation network and the manner in which it is 
used needs to be efficient, effective in providing access, properly 
maintained, and ecologically sound to minimize adverse affects on 
resources.
    The White River National Forest's current travel system receives 
most of its use from recreation users. Recreation on the Forest has 
substantially increased since the last major transportation planning 
effort in 1984. Since that time, there have been technological changes 
that effect access and recreation use. Mountain bikes have become very 
popular, and they are able to go on a variety of terrains. Likewise, 
all terrain vehicle and snowmobile advances allow these machines to 
access areas that were once inaccessible.
    There are two main types of recreation travel, destination travel 
and recreation occurring on the travelway.

[[Page 54997]]

Destination travel can be defined as using the travelway to get to a 
particular site for recreational purposes. Examples are fishing, 
picnicking, boating, hunting, skiing, site seeing, gathering forest 
products, visiting historic sites and camping. Recreation occurring on 
the travelway can include driving for pleasure, 4-wheel driving, 
jeeping, all terrain vehicle driving, motorcycling, horseback riding, 
hiking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing and mountain 
biking. Some types of recreation entail both types of travel; all of 
these uses require some type of transportation access. With the amount 
and variety of uses, recreational activities can cause user conflict. 
The transportation network and uses on the network needs to be able to 
accommodate the varied recreational activities our publics enjoy. At 
the same time, this network has to be an efficient, manageable system 
for the Forest Service. Developing a Travel Plan to accommodate and 
balance the transportation needs of the public and to provide adequate 
access for forest and resource management is the goal of this document.

Purpose and Need for Action

    In order to align the travel strategy on the Forest with the White 
River Forest Plan and to comply with 36 CFR 212.5(b), the Forest 
Supervisor expressed the need for a forest-wide Travel Management Plan. 
This effort is the extension of an earlier effort to provide a Travel 
Management Plan along with the White River Forest Plan. Due to public 
input and the complexity of the subject matter, the decision was made 
to separate the two plans and develop the Travel Management Plan after 
the completion of the Forest Plan. This Travel Management Plan and the 
incorporated EIS intend to meet that commitment.
    Since the last Travel Plan (1984), land management concepts, 
practices and priorities have modified. Technology and science have 
advanced, and they are reflected in Forest Service land management. 
These changes also need to be reflected in an efficient travel system 
that serves land management in an ecologically sound manner.
    Recreational use on the Forest has increased over the past eighteen 
years and new modes of travel have come into play (i.e., mountain bikes 
and all-terrain vehicles). Advances in vehicular and mechanical travel 
have allowed machines to travel further and over rougher terrain than 
before. The Forest needs to address how and where to allow various 
forms of recreation and how to accommodate the varied, and sometimes 
conflicting, recreation uses.
    This document seeks to update the travel management uses and to 
identify an efficient road and trail system for the White River 
National Forest. The purpose is to have a clear and concise plan for a 
transportation network that addresses the needs for forest management, 
public access and recreation use.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Travel Management Plan is an assessment of how and where travel 
should occur on the Forest. The development of this document shall be 
an accumulation of ideas, concepts, and analysis from forest 
specialists, district personnel, other agency personnel, and interested 
publics.
    The six decisions to be made in the Travel Management Plan are:
    1. Designation of summer (snow-free) travel area strategies.
     Area strategy describes whether an area is open, 
restricted, or closed to a specific use and where that use is allowed 
to occur.
    2. Designations for road and trail uses during summer (snow-free) 
periods.
     These define specific use for each road and trail 
including seasonal restrictions. The standard use categories are 
passenger car, four-wheel drive vehicles, all-terrian vehicle, 
motorcycle, mountain bike, horse and pack animal, and foot.
    3. Designation of winter travel area strategies.
     An area strategy describes whether an area is open, 
restricted, or closed to a specific use.
    4. Designation of winter routes.
     Defines routes through restricted areas for over-snow use.
    5. Designation or elimination of unclassified travelways.
     Currently there are over 500 miles of inventoried or known 
roads and trails that are not officially designated as part of the 
Forest travel system. These may have been constructed for specific 
short-time purpose and were never properly closed, or they may also be 
the result of traffic going off-road or trail repeatly forming an 
illegal road or trail. Legally, the Forest Service cannot recognize nor 
maintain them. Therefore, it is proposed to either designate these 
travelways or eliminate them. This will be a one-time look at these 
travelways for designation or elimination; one which follows the NEPA 
process and examines the environmental impacts. After this process, any 
new unclassified travelways will automatically be designated for 
elimination. Any new road or trail proposed would have to undergo 
analysis in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA).
    6. Identification of specific roads for decommissioning.
     One of the objective strategies in the Forest Plan is to 
decommission 22 miles of unneeded road per year. The Travel Plan will 
identify specific system roads that meet the criteria for 
decommissioning.

Range of Alternatives

    The proposed action is to create a Travel Management Plan for the 
White River National Forest. All alternatives will be in compliance 
with and tier to the decisions made in the Forest Plan. It is not the 
intent of this proposal to amend the Forest Plan.
    The range of alternatives considered will address different options 
to resolve concerns raised as significant issues and to fulfill the 
purpose and need. A reasonable range of alternatives will be evaluated. 
Rationale will be given for any alternative eliminated from detailed 
consideration. Alternatives will represent differing concepts based on 
quality and quantity of travel.
    A ``no-action alternative'' is required by law. The no-action 
alternative under this analysis will assume travel management 
conditions as described under the Forest Plan. Additional alternatives 
will provide a range of ways to address and respond to public issues, 
management concerns and resource opportunities identified during the 
scoping process.
    The following thematic descriptions represent three alternatives to 
be considered in the EIS.
     Maximum: This alternative emphasizes the social and 
recreational needs associated with an expanded the transportation 
system. It allows more opportunity for separation of recreational uses 
and more opportunity for winter travel. It adds relatively more 
unclassified roads and trails into the system and has less miles of 
roads to be decommissioned. It would contain the most miles of roads 
and trails available for travel. With more miles of trail and road, 
there would be relatively more impacts to resources; therefore, 
mitigation and protection measures would take longer to implement under 
this alternative.
     Minimum: This alternative places less of an emphasis on 
meeting social and recreational needs. It follows the hierarchical or 
shared recreational use system, with few routes designated for a single 
use, and provides less opportunity for winter travel. Fewer 
unclassified roads and trails are added to the system with more miles 
of road

[[Page 54998]]

selected for decommissioning. This alternative would have the least 
amount of roads and trails available for travel. Under this 
alternative, there are relatively less impacts to resources; therefore, 
mitigation and protection measures take a shorter amount of time to 
implement.
     Blended: In this alternative, social, recreation and 
resource needs associated with the transportation system are considered 
equitably. This alternative seeks to create a balanced emphasis 
containing both separation of uses and shared use systems, along with a 
moderate amount of area available for winter travel. In this 
alternative, some unclassified roads and trails are be added to the 
system. Some system roads are selected for decommissioning.
     No Action: This alternative reflects the current condition 
under the Forest Plan. It contains the roads and trails currently in 
the travel system. The uses generally follow the heirarchical system. 
No unclassified roads or trails are added to the system, and no 
classified roads are designated for decommissioning under this 
alternative.
    The public is encouraged to comment on these alternative concepts 
as well as present others for consideration.

Scoping Process/Comment Requested

    The first formal opportunity to comment on the White River Travel 
Management Plan is during the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7), which 
begins with the issuance of this notice of intent. All comments, 
including the names, addresses and when provided, are placed in the 
record and are available for public inspection. Comments must be in 
writing. Mail comments to: Dottie Bell, White River National Forest, PO 
Box 948, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602.
    The Forest Service requests comments on the nature and scope of the 
environmental, social and economic issues, and possible alternatives 
related to the development of this Travel Management Plan and EIS.
    A series of public opportunities are scheduled to explain the 
Travel Management Planning and provide an opportunity for public input. 
Five (5) scoping meetings are planned.

September 10--Garfield County Fairgrounds (one of the rooms under the 
grandstand), 6-9 p.m.
September 12--Blanco Ranger District Office, 3-7 p.m.
September 16--Eagle County Office in Basalt (Mt. Sopris Room), 6:30-9 
p.m.
September 17--Summit County Middle School auditorium, 6-9 p.m.
September 18--Avon Public Library (Beaver Creek Room), 6-9 p.m.

    Written comments will be accepted at these meetings. The Forest 
Service will work with tribal governments to address issues that would 
significantly or uniquely affect them.

Response To Comments/Forest Plan EIS Process

    During the Proposed Forest Plan and DEIS comment period, many 
comments were received regarding travel management. Many of these were 
addressed in the White River Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement 
in Appendix A, Response to Comments. The remaining comments, which 
tended to be site-specific (i.e., addressed a specific road or trail), 
were sorted and distributed to the responsible ranger district. The 
ranger district and the ID team will use these for reference. The 
comments received from the Proposed Forest Plan and DEIS on travel 
management will be incorporated into internal deliberative processes. 
The comments that do not comply with the Forest Plan cannot be 
considered. Because the Travel Management Plan/EIS is a stand-alone 
document, only public comment letters on the Travel Management Plan 
DEIS will be formally addressed in an appendix in the FEIS.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A DEIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the DEIS 
will be 60 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency 
publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the 
environmental review process. First, reviewers of DEISs must structure 
their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so 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 
DEIS stage but are not raised until after completion of the final EIS 
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 60-day comment period 
so 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 FEIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the DEIS 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 DEIS 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.
    Comments received, including the names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal 
and will be available for public inspection.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21)

    Dated: August 20, 2002.
Stephen C. Sherwood,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 02-21706 Filed 8-26-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-BW-P