Forest Supervisors Dale Deiter of the Prescott National Forest and Aaron Mayville of the Coconino National Forest have prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and draft Decision Notice (DN) for the Upper Verde River – Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study and the proposed Forest Plan amendments. In addition to recommending suitability for designation as a Wild and Scenic River, the draft decision would amend land and resource management plans for the Prescott and Coconino National Forests to incorporate the management direction regarding suitability in the decision.
The Final EA, Draft Decision with Plan Amendments, and supporting documentation are available online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/coconino/?project=61191. These documents are also available for review at the Coconino National Forest or the Prescott National Forest supervisors’ offices by appointment. Additional information regarding this action can be obtained from: Jason Williams, jason.a.williams@usda.gov, 928-910-3742.
The analysis with the Upper Verde River Wild and Scenic Suitability Environmental Assessment and the associated programmatic plan amendments to both the Prescott and Coconino national forest plans will result in two separate decisions, which consequently require two separate but concurrent pre-decision objection periods and processes.
This proposed project is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B, and the Forest Plan amendment is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR 219 Subparts A and B. Objections to the draft decision on the suitability recommendation or to the Forest Plan amendments will only be accepted from those who have previously submitted timely comments regarding these planning efforts during any designated opportunity for public comment, unless based on information not available during an earlier designated opportunity for public comment (i.e., new information).
Objections on the Upper Verde River Suitability Study draft decision and Forest Plan amendments must be submitted within 45 calendar days following the publication of the notice in the Prescott Daily Courier and the Arizona Daily Sun. The date the legal notice is published in the Prescott Daily Courier is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. We anticipate this publication to occur on or about September 24, 2023. We will post a copy of the published notice on our website (above) once received.
Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. A timely submission will be determined by USPS postmark, the agency’s electronically generated posted date and time for email and facsimiles; or shipping date for delivery by private carrier. It is the responsibility of the sender to ensure timely receipt of any objections submitted. The regulations at 36 CFR 218 prohibit extending the time to file and objection.
Objections, including attachments, must be addressed to the Reviewing Official, Michiko Martin, Regional Forester, filed via mail or express delivery to 333 Broadway Blvd SE, Albuquerque, NM, 87102; by email to objections-southwestern-regional-office@usda.gov, or via online web form at https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public//CommentInput?Project=61191. An automated response will confirm the electronic objection has been received. If an automated response is not received, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely filing by other means. Electronic objections must be submitted in MS Word, portable document format (PDF), or rich text format (RTF). The subject line for electronic submissions should contain Upper Verde River Suitability Study.
Eligible objections must be filed, in writing, with the reviewing officer of the plan, and must be open to public inspection during the objection process. At a minimum, an objection must include the following: (1) The objector’s name and address, along with a telephone number or email address if available; (2) Signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for electronic mail may be filed with the objection; (3) Identification of the lead objector, when multiple names are listed on an objection, and verification of the identity of the lead objector, if requested. Individual members of an entity must have submitted their own individual comments in order to have eligibility to object as an individual. Additional requirements are included below. Including documents by reference is limited.
The Reviewing Officer must set aside and not review an objection when one or more of the following applies: (1) they are not filed in a timely manner; (2) the proposed project or plan amendment is not subject to the objection procedures; (3) the individual or entity did not submit timely and specific written comments or substantive formal comments during opportunities for public comment; (4) except for issues that arose after the opportunities for comment, none of the issues included in the objection are based on previously submitted written comments and the objector has not provided a statement demonstrating a connection between the comments and the objection issue; (5) the objection does not provide sufficient information as required; (6) the objector withdraws the objection; (7) an objector’s identity is not provided or cannot be determined from the signature, and a reasonable means of contact is not provided; or (8), the objection is illegible for any reason, including submissions in an electronic format different from that specified in the legal notice, and a legible copy cannot easily be obtained. Other issues raised in an objection that meet the requirements will be reviewed.
For questions on the pre-decisional objection process, please contact Mike Dechter, michael.dechter@usda.gov, 928-527-3416.
In addition to the identifying information outlined above, written objection comments on the proposed project must include (1) the name of the proposed project, the name and title of the responsible official, and the name(s) of the forest or district on which the proposed project will be implemented; (2) a description of those aspects of the proposed project addressed by the objection, including specific issues related to the proposed project; if applicable, how the objector believes the environmental analysis or draft decision specifically violates law, regulation, or policy; suggested remedies that would resolve the objection; supporting reasons the reviewing officer should consider; and (3) a statement that demonstrates the connection between prior specific written comments on the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the designated opportunity(ies) for comment. Specific written comments are written comments within the scope of the proposed action, with a direct relationship to the proposed action, and included supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider.
In addition to the identifying information outlined above, written objection comments must include (1) the identification of the plan amendment being objected to, and the name and title of the responsible official; (2) a statement of the issues and/or the parts of the plan amendment to which the objection applies; (3) a concise statement explaining the objection and suggesting how the proposed plan amendment decision may be improved. If applicable, the objector should identify how the objector believes that the plan amendment is inconsistent with law, regulation or policy; and, (4) a statement that demonstrates the link between prior substantive formal comments attributed to the objector and the content of the objection, unless the objection concerns an issue that arose after the opportunities for formal comment. Substantive formal comments are those that are within the scope of the proposal, are specific to the proposal, have a direct relationship to the proposal, and include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
