[Federal Register: January 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 11)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
White River National Forest, Eagle/Holy Cross Ranger District,
Eagle County, CO; Edwards Inholding Easement Proposal
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service will prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to disclose the anticipated environmental effects of a
proposal to approve a permanent easement across National Forest System
(NFS) lands for access to a 680-acre private inholding. The private
land is entirely surrounded by NFS lands managed by the White River
National Forest (WRNF). The proposed easement would provide year-round
motorized access to the private inholding, enabling the owner
``reasonable use and enjoyment'' of the parcel as required by the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980.
DATES: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received
by February 19, 2009. The draft EIS is expected to be released in
summer 2009 and the final EIS is expected in early 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Brian Lloyd, District Ranger, Holy
Cross Ranger District, P.O. Box 190, Minturn, CO 81645. Comments may
also be sent via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
, or via
facsimile to (970) 827-9343.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names
and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record
for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be
accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide
the respondent with standing to appeal the subsequent decision.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Lloyd, email@example.com
. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The property is located approximately 1.25
miles north of the I-70 Edwards interchange and is currently accessible
in the summer months via Forest System Road (FSR) 774 and FSR 780. A
0.8-mile segment of FSR 780 traverses the southeastern leg of the
private land inholding.
Purpose and Need for Action
The owner of the 680-acre inholding (the Proponent) plans to
exercise their legal right to plat this private land into 19 individual
lots (each 35 acres in size or greater) for development of a low-
density, year-round residential community. As such, development of the
inholding into a viable residential community requires year-round,
vehicular access across NFS lands. Per ANILCA, the WRNF is obligated to
``* * * provide such access to nonfederally owned land within the
boundaries of the National Forest System * * * to secure the owner
reasonable use and enjoyment thereof * * *'' (16 U.S.C. 3210, Title I,
Sec. 1323). Therefore, the purpose and need of this proposal is rooted
in the Forest Service's legal obligations under ANILCA.
The Proposed Action would satisfy the Forest Service's minimum
obligations to accommodate ``reasonable use and enjoyment'' under
ANILCA. Issuance of a permanent easement would provide year-round
motorized access to the private inholding, thus enabling the owner to
develop it as legally entitled. The easement would be for
reconstruction and use of two existing Forest System roads--FSR 774 and
FSR 780. The total length of the easement on NFS lands (FSR 774 and FSR
780) would be approximately 2.6 miles (approximately 13,550 feet). The
easement would include:
1.1 miles on FSR 774 (beginning at the Forest Service gate
at the beginning of FSR 774 and would be followed until its
intersection with FSR 780),
1.5 miles on FSR 780 (until it intersects the lower
southeastern leg of the inholding).
FSR 774 and FSR 780 would be placed within a permanent easement and
paved/maintained for homeowners' year-round use; the public would
continue to have access to these roads consistent with the current
This alignment would provide access to the southeastern portion of
the inholding. Conceptually, an additional 5.5 miles of private road
would be constructed throughout the eastern and northern portions of
the private inholding to accommodate access to each of the 19 lots.
Road construction within the inholding is not within the jurisdiction
of the Forest Service.
The Responsible Official is the WRNF Supervisor. The Responsible
Official will document the decision and reasons for the decision in a
Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to appeal under 36
CFR part 215 or part 251.
Nature of Decision To Be Made
Based on the analysis that will be documented in the forthcoming
EIS, the Responsible Official will decide whether or not to implement,
in whole or in part, the Proposed Action or another alternative
developed by the Forest Service.
As indicated in the 2002 WRNF Land and Resource Management Plan
(Forest Plan), NFS lands in the vicinity of the private inholding are
within two Management Areas (MA): 5.41--Deer and Elk Winter Range, and
8.32--Designated Utility Corridors. Per MA 5.41, deer and elk winter
ranges are managed to provide adequate amounts of quality forage, cover
and solitude for deer, elk, and other species. Consistent with
management direction in MA 5.41, human activities are managed so that
deer and elk can effectively use NFS lands in the area.
Due to the existance of NFS lands managed in MA 5.41, motorized
travel, including over-the-snow vehicles, on FSR 774 and FSR 780 is
restricted during winter and spring. Granting a
year-round easement could result in an inconsistency with Forest Plan
standards for MA 5.41. In order to approve road reconstruction and
year-round access to the inholding across NFS lands, an amendment to
the Forest Plan would be necessary. This amendment would be specific to
standards included in MA 5.41 related to biodiversity and
Permits or Licenses Required
An Eagle County grading permit(s) would be required for
road construction on NFS and private lands.
Building construction permits would be required for
individual buildings on each lot.
Publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register
begins the planning process under provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act. Comments will be accepted during the 45-day
scoping period as described in this NOI. Comments will be reviewed and
issues identified. Issues that cannot be resolved by mitigation or
minor changes to the proposed action may generate alternatives to the
proposed action. This process is driven by comments received from the
public, other agencies, and internal Forest Service concerns. To assist
in commenting, a scoping letter providing more detailed information on
the project proposal (including a map) has been prepared and is
available to interested parties. Contact Brian Lloyd, District Ranger,
at the address listed in this NOI if you would like to receive a copy.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping process that guides the
development of the environmental impact statement. Comments that are
site-specific in nature are most helpful to resource professionals when
trying to narrow and address the public's issues and concerns.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the Draft Environment 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 Statement stage but that are not raised
until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact 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.
It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times
and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of
the Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, comments should be
provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly
articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions. The submission of
timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer's ability to
participate in subsequent administrative appeal or judicial review.
Dated: January 6, 2009.
White River National Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. E9-965 Filed 1-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P