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

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