Environmental Impact Statement, Sedona Alternate Crossing of Oak Creek, Coconino National Forest, Sedona Ranger District, Yavapai County, Sedona, AZ

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