![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
White River National Forest, Colorado, Travel Management Plan
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 27, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 166)]
[Notices]
[Page 54996-54998]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27au02-27]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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