Trail System and Off Highway Vehicle Management and Development, Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland, Crook, Grant, Jefferson, Harney, and Wheeler Counties, OR Publication: Federal Register Agency: Forest Service Byline: Thomas A. Schmidt Date: 24 April 1995 Subject: American Government

[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20073-20075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10013]



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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service


Trail System and Off Highway Vehicle Management and Development, 
Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland, Crook, 
Grant, Jefferson, Harney, and Wheeler Counties, OR

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revision of notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service, USDA, will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for analysis of [[Page 20074]] development and 
management of the Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National 
Grassland trail system and off highway vehicle (OHV) use. Forest 
Service proposes to develop a framework for designating OHV routes and 
areas to provide a variety of motorized recreation opportunities. 
Regulations prescribing operating conditions for OHV use will be 
developed for specific areas. Regulations considered may include 
designated areas and/or routes, seasonal closures, and/or complete area 
closures.
    The revised proposed action will also include: (1) Clarifying 
conflicting trail standards and guidelines and/or developing additional 
trail standards and guidelines for all Forest and Grassland lands; and 
(2) developing recreation trail objectives that address all user groups 
and acceptable intensity of use for all Forest and Grassland lands.
    The purpose of the EIS is to develop a framework for providing 
well-designed OHV trails while protecting fish, wildlife, soils, air 
quality, and adjacent land owner rights; as well as mitigating 
conflicts between various recreation trail groups.
    Changes proposed in this EIS to the current Management Allocations 
Standards and Guidelines in the Ochoco National Forest and Grassland 
Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMP) will result in amendments to 
these plans. The EIS will be programmatic in nature. Any future 
proposed ground disturbing activities that tier to this EIS and 
associated Forest and Grassland Plan amendment will have a site 
specific environmental analysis conducted at a later date. The Forest 
Service invites written comments on the scope of this project. In 
addition, the Forest Service gives notice of this analysis so that 
interested and affected people are aware of how they may participate 
and contribute to the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of analysis of this proposal must 
be received by May 20, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope 
of analysis to Thomas A. Schmidt, Forest Supervisor, Ochoco National 
Forest, P.O. Box 490, Prineville, Oregon 97754.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions and comments about this EIS should be directed to Susan 
Kocis, Forest Recreation Planner, Ochoco National Forest, P.O. Box 490, 
Prineville, Oregon 97754, phone 503-447-6247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A need to address access and travel on the 
Ochoco National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland became 
apparent from public comments and appeals to the Record of Decision for 
the LRMP. Increasing resource damage and public demand for OHV 
opportunities on the Ochoco National Forest and Grassland continues to 
show the need to complete this EIS process, which started in 1991 
(Notice of Intent, Federal Register, May 22, 1991, (56 FR 23546)). 
Based on new issues the proposed action has been revised. This revised 
proposed action has lead to the development of several different 
alternatives considered. At a minimum, alternatives being considered 
will include. One, Existing Condition Alternative, which will continue 
with existing Forest and Grassland Plan direction. Two, No Action 
Alternative, which will build no new motorized or nonmotorized trails. 
Three, Designated Trail Alternative, which would allow OHV use only on 
designated Forest and Grassland trails and off-trail use would not be 
allowed.
    Currently the Forest and Grassland provide 198 miles of trail of 
which 8.1 miles are designated for OHV summer use, 75 miles are for 
winter motorized use, and 123 miles are for summer and winter 
nonmotorized use. The Forest and Grassland Plans call for additional 
construction of approximately 130 miles of OHV trail and 196 miles of 
nonmotorized trail by 1999. Since 1989 the Forest and Grassland have 
constructed 23.0 miles of nonmotorized trail. An additional 12 miles of 
trail were analyzed and a decision not to build them was made.
    Demand for OHV trail opportunities has been increasing, as 
evidenced by increasing comments and letters from the public. There is 
a need to proceed with attaining the Desired Future Condition (DFC) for 
trails as stated in the LRMP.
    To attain DFC, direction prescribing operating conditions for OHV 
use will be developed for the following areas:

--Riparian areas (including springs, seeps and meadows);
--Closed areas (identified in the existing LRMP);
--Sensitive plant communities (including high elevation sites, rare 
plants, and old growth);
--Sensitive soils (including erodible and/or compactable soils on 
moderate/steep slopes, and scablands); and
--Sensitive areas (including cultural resource sites, forest tree 
plantations, wild animal calving areas, and threatened, endangered and 
sensitive wildlife use sites).

    A tentative list of issues has been identified from the Forest and 
Grassland access and travel meeting in 1990-1991, as well as from 
letter and comments received from the public through 1994. Issues can 
be grouped into five keys areas: Social; travel route management; 
multi-recreational use; resource considerations; public affairs and 
user education.
    Since the Notice of Intent, the Forest and Grassland have held over 
30 public meetings and received comments from over 40 individuals and 
groups. Public participation is and will be an important during this 
environmental analysis. The Forest Service is seeking information, 
comments, and assistance from Federal, State, Tribes, and local 
agencies, and other individuals or organizations who may be interested 
in or affected by the revised proposed action. Comments received 
regarding travel and access from 1990-1994 will also be used. This 
information will be used in preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping 
process includes:
    1. Identifying potential issues.
    2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth.
    3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been 
covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis process.
    4. Exploring additional alternatives.
    5. Identifying potential environmental effects or the proposed 
action and alternatives (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 
and connected actions).
    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review June 
1995. EPA will publish a notice of availability of the draft EIS in the 
Federal Register. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days 
from the date of the EPA notice appears in the Federal Register. It is 
very important that those interested in the management of the Ochoco 
National Forest and Crooked River National Grassland participate at 
that time.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should 
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to 
specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address 
the adequacy of the draft EIS 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.)
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice, at [[Page 20075]] this early stage, of several court ruling 
related to public participation in the environmental review process. 
First, reviewers of a draft EIS 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 EIS state 
but that 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). In light of these court rulings, 
it is very important that those interested in this proposed action 
participate by the close of the 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 EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering 
issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS 
should be as specific as possible.
    The final EIS is scheduled to be completed around October 1995. In 
the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments 
and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the 
environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable 
laws, regulations and policies considered in making the decision 
regarding this proposal. Tom Schmidt, Forest Supervisor, Ochoco 
National Forest, is the responsible official. As the responsible 
official he will document the decision and reasons for the decision in 
the Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service 
appeal regulations (36 CFR Part 217).

    Dated: April 14, 1995.
Thomas A. Schmidt,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 95-10013 Filed 4-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M