Decision Notice
And
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Fort Valley Restoration
(Phase 1)
Peaks Ranger District
Coconino National Forest
USDA Forest Service
Coconino County, Arizona


The decision made a couple of months ago to move forward with the Fort Valley Environmental Assessment was appealed by several environmental groups. Although there were eight points of appeal, the Decision was remanded on just two points. A review of the project record by the Regional Forester revealed that: 1) effects to cultural resources had not been fully documented according to procedures and; 2) that cumulative effects concerning future projects within the Flagstaff area was insufficiently documented.

We are disappointed that our decision was remanded on procedural issues. The Grand Canyon Forest Partnership is on the cutting edge of government reinvention. As with all change, there are struggles between established procedures and new ways of doing business. The Coconino National Forest and Rocky Mountain Experimental Station will continue to work with the Partnership to pioneer solutions that lead to community collaboration in achieving our joint forest heath goals. The Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Clearance Report for the Fort Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project contains the documentation of the identification of archaeological and historic properties, tribal consultation, determinations of eligibility and the determination of no adverse effect for the project. Consultation with the SHPO was completed with concurrence with our determinations of eligibility and effect on August 3, 1999 (Project Record Document #250). Cumulative effects have been further addressed. Both of these items are documented in Addendum #3 of the Fort Valley Environmental Assessment. In addition, sensitive species analysis not related to the appeal has been completed.

At this point we are ready to move forward with the following decision.

Decision and Rationale

It is our decision to implement only a portion of Alternative B as described by the Fort Valley Environmental Assessment (and addendums). The portion for which we are making a decision is described as Phase 1 (of Alternative B). Phase 1 will allow us to make some progress in our efforts to restore forest health and lessen the risk of catastrophic fire in the Fort Valley area, and to provide for additional demonstration sites and evaluations of various restoration thinning treatments.

Restoration projects include: thinning dense stands of ponderosa pine to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and restoring the balance of tree overstory and grass/shrub/forb understory; reducing wildlife disturbance by closing some roads and relocating/constructing trails; restoring the natural role of wildfire; and restoring meadow and riparian habitats.

These projects are the result of community-based consensus efforts by the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership. This Partnership was formed nearly two years ago to facilitate the restoration of forest lands in and around the Flagstaff area.

We have determined that there is community-wide support from the general public, academicians, and environmentalists to proceed with the selected portion of Alternative B. Having this support is one of the important goals of the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership. The Partnership hopes to learn from monitoring and evaluating the results of Phase 1.

Phase 1 includes (see attached map and thinning treatment descriptions):

1. Thinning approximately 1,700 acres as described below:

a. 400 acres to demonstrate four restoration thinning approaches;
b. 400 acres of five restoration treatments to demonstrate thinning approaches in heavy dwarf mistletoe;
c. 200 acres in goshawk post family fledging area (PFA) to demonstrate Retention of Dense Tree Canopy Thinning in this sensitive wildlife habitat to increase tree growth and vigor in the (PFA);
d. 200 acres in an important wildlife travel/migration corridor to demonstrate the Minimal Restoration Thinning to improve the health of old growth trees;
e. 200 acres Modified Restoration while retaining 20% of the thinned areas in untreated patches to demonstrate a restoration approach for wildlife cover and visual diversity;
f. 100 acres Full/Modified Restoration Thinning utilizing three new marking guides to demonstrate tactics to achieve greater tree groupiness and patch diversity. (This is based on monitoring from demonstration plots already thinned);
g. 200 acres of thinning in an anticipated blending of the above approaches to demonstrate another, but undetermined forest restoration approach. This treatment will occur last, while the rest of the listed projects have no specific order.

2. Constructing a wooden fence and ripping roads to restore a meadow,
3. Capping a springbox to restore a riparian area,
4. Relocating/constructing about 8 miles of recreation trails,
5. Closing/obliterating roads (19 miles) as described under Alternative B (Roads will remain open until the thinning activities are completed for each area);
6. Implementing some seasonal and site restrictions for camping on Freidlein Prairie Road,
7. And prescribing fire to reduce slash and create conditions for restoring the natural role of wildfire.

Implementation of only Phase 1 of Alternative B allows us the opportunity to review results of a number of restoration thinning treatments, to conduct further research, and to continue engaging the Flagstaff area community about forest restoration thinning, before we commit to thinning the remaining 3,060 acres of the Fort Valley landscape. This action serves to both mitigate concerns about the rapid pace of implementing restoration thinning and concerns about only evaluating the results of a single restoration model. We have limited the cutting of trees to less than 16 inches in diameter.

When an adequate review of the Phase 1 projects has occurred, we will consider the balance of Alternative B's projects. This review includes evaluating data from research plots in portions of the initial 1,700 acres of thinning, results from monitoring the 16 inch tree issue, and social reactions to the various thinning approaches. We have been and will continue to actively bring interested people to our demonstration sites for evaluation of restoration projects. Should significant changes occur to the balance of proposed restoration projects in Alternative B, then we will make adjustments in the Fort Valley Environmental Assessment and open a new public review period.

Overall, Alternative B best provides for a more sustainable forest while minimizing disruption to existing wildlife and recreational uses. Alternative B provides more sustainable forest conditions by reducing (but not eliminating) catastrophic wildfire. By thinning large areas of the landscape, restoring the understory of grasses, shrubs, and forbs, and by re-introducing the natural role of fire, significant portions of the Fort Valley landscape will not likely sustain a catastrophic wildfire.

In the event of a wildfire, open forest areas will burn with much less intensity and will be easier to suppress or manage. Dense forest areas will remain for the Mexican spotted owl, the northern goshawk, animals migrating/traveling southwest from the San Francisco Peaks, and animals requiring cover for movement, hiding and other life-sustaining needs. Such forest conditions will remain subject to intense burning conditions in the event of a wildfire. However, by providing a mosaic of open and dense forest, Alternative B will alter potential wildfires from catastrophically burning large contiguous areas of the Fort Valley area. In this manner, Alterntive B balances the need to reduce wildfire risk with the needs of wildlife which require dense forest conditions.

When compared to current conditions, Alternative B provides a better balance between the needs of wildlife and the needs of people. Disturbance to wildlife from excessive miles of roads and trails has been reduced. People will continue to have recreational access to all the major places of interest in the Fort Valley area, even though half of the existing roads will be closed or obliterated. Relocation of some trails will result in less disturbance to a pair of Mexican spotted owls. Trails will also become safer and connect more logically to other trails in the Forest Service and Flagstaff Urban Trail systems.

Consultation with thirteen Southwest Native American tribes has been completed. A "No Adverse" effect determination on historic properties within the Fort Valley Restoration project resulted from the archaeological inventory, evaluation, and tribal consultations. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this determination on August 3, 1999.

All practicable means have been employed to avoid and/or minimize environmental harm. Detailed descriptions of required mitigation and monitoring can be found in Section 3 of the environmental assessment.


Public Involvement and Scoping

The Grand Canyon Forests Partnership has made an extensive effort to inform the Flagstaff community about forest restoration and to gather opinions about restoration proposals. Many of you have participated in open houses and field trips, have listened to forest restoration information on the radio or the television, and have read the numerous forest restoration articles in the Arizona Daily Sun newspaper and other weekly publications. The Partnership teamed up with Fort Valley area residents and Flagstaff recreation enthusiasts to shape trail and road management proposals. The Partnership also worked closely with environmental organizations like the Southwest Forest Alliance, Sierra Club, and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity about restoration methods and concerns. Most recently, the Partnership sponsored a gathering of restoration scientists that furthered our collective understanding of forest restoration, and identified areas of concern where we need to focus our research and monitoring efforts. Section 5 of the environmental assessment has a major summary of all the public involvement efforts for this analysis.

All comments received throughout the analysis were considered in this decision. An explanation of the comments and how they were dealt with is contained in Addendum #1 to the Fort Valley Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment was released in December 1998 with a 30-day public comment period. We received nearly 30 letters. The majority of the comments revolved around the following topics: 16 Inch Trees, economics, roads, restoration model, adaptive management strategies, implementation, recreation, old growth, wildlife, and Traditional Cultural Properties.


Alternatives Considered

Three alternatives were studied by the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team.

Alternative C (no action) is a required alternative which maintains the status quo. There is no thinning, no prescribed fire, no restoration of meadows and riparian areas, and no relocation/construction of trails. Approximately 24 miles of roads will be closed as money and time permits based on previous road management decisions.

Alternative A is the Proposed Action that was released in April 1998. Proposals included full restoration thinning on about 3,500 acres, minimal restoration treatments on about 1,300 acres, prescribed fire on about 5,200 acres, closing about 24 miles of roads including the Freidlein Prairie Road, constructing about 8 miles of trails, restoring Chimney Springs and a nearby meadow, and restoring about 25 acres of aspen.

Alternative B (selected alternative) changes Alternative A to include: retaining a greater number of trees; not cutting any trees over 16 inches in diameter; retaining groups of young pine seedlings and saplings and letting prescribed fire naturally thin these out; using "uneven-age" and the environmental community's "Forest Forever" prescriptions for side-by-side comparisons; not restricting motorized vehicles to "designated open only" roads; and leaving Freidlein Prairie Road open.

The net result is full restoration thinning on about 690 acres, modified restoration thinning on about 2,760 acres, minimal restoration treatments on about 1,300 acres, prescribed fire on about 5,200 acres, closing about 19 miles of roads, constructing about 8 miles of trails, restoring Chimney Springs and a nearby meadow, and restoring about 25 acres of aspen.

Findings Required by Other Laws

Restoration projects of the Fort Valley Area are located in Management Area 3 of the Coconino National Forest. The project is consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan's long term goals and objectives. The project was designed in conformance with Coconino's Forest Plan standards and guidelines and incorporates appropriate Forest Plan guidelines for the Mexican spotted owl, the northern goshawk, and old growth management (Coconino National Forest Plan Amendment #11).

Twenty-four threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitats were evaluated. Seven species were located within the project area (Mexican spotted owl, bald eagle, occult little brown bat, Navajo Mountain Mexican vole, northern goshawk, flammulated owl, and milk vetch). A Biological Assessment and Evaluation for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species was completed and is included in the Fort Valley project record. A "may effect but not likely to adversely affect" determination was made by the District Biologist for the Mexican spotted owl and the bald eagle. The US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred, but issued a "take" for the Mexican spotted owl because of at least another year's continued disturbance to the owl nesting area by adjacent recreational trail use.

The District Biologist determined that proposed activities "may impact but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability" for the occult little brown bat, the Navajo Mountain Mexican vole, the northern goshawk, the flammulated owl, and milk vetch.

The Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Clearance for the Fort Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project made a " No Adverse Effects" determination for the project. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this determination on August 3, 1999.

Based on the Fort Valley Environmental Assessment and Addendums #1-3, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was made (see below).


Significance Findings

Context. This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not have international, national, regionwide, or statewide importance. The discussion of significance criteria that follows applies to the intended action and is within the context of local importance in the area associated with the Peaks Ranger District.

Intensity. The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significance Criteria described in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1508.27).

1. Impacts from the site-specific project are both beneficial and adverse. The adverse effects are short-term in nature and will not impair land productivity. The long-term effects are considered to be beneficial, especially to the overall health of the pine forest as a result of decreased catastrophic fire potential, and increases in the understory of grasses, forbs and shrubs. The Environmental Assessment contains a complete discussion of the effects on pages 38-102.

2. The intended action will improve public safety by reducing the risk of catastrophic fire.

3. The project area is not in proximity to any historic sites, park lands, prime farm lands, wet lands or ecologically critical areas. The area is adjacent to the Kachina Peaks Wilderness. Because treatments are occurring south of the Freidlein Prairie Road, and the wilderness boundary is north of the road, there are no treatments within the wilderness. Protection measures are in place for historic properties located within the project area.

4. The effects of the project are limited to Fort Valley. Disagreements over restoration techniques have been raised, but a number of mitigation measures and consensus efforts have been implemented to mitigate those concerns (see above discussion under "Decision and Rationale"). Some environmental organizations are concerned over the potential precedent setting nature of applying the Full/Modified Restoration Approach. Any use of this approach in other National Forests will be subject to environmental analysis and public review. No one has provided evidence that the environmental effects of the project have been wrongly predicted; therefore, the effects are not likely to be controversial.

5. The effects are not unique or pose unknown risks. Mitigation that the agency has successfully used before will be effective in holding environmental effects at or below expectations (see mitigation discussion in the Environmental Assessment, pages 34-37).

6. A decision to implement restoration projects does not establish any future precedent for other actions that may have a significant effect. Future actions will be evaluated through the NEPA process and will stand on their own as to environmental effects and project feasibility.

7. Cumulative effects were considered (see the Environmental Assessment, pages 101-102) and Addendum #3 To Fort Valley Environmental Assessment. The effects of this project, when viewed incrementally with effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are not cumulatively significant.

8. No highways, structures, or National Register Sites will be affected in any way.

9. A Biological Assessment and Evaluation was completed (see discussion above in "Findings Required by Other Laws"). There will be no significant effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

10. This proposal is in compliance with all federal, state, and local law requirements. Local and city governments are partners in this project as official members of the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership.

Summary. The analysis and other evidence compiled for this site-specific project proposal have not revealed any potential for significant environmental effects; therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) is not necessary.

Implementation Date

This project will not be implemented sooner than five business days following the close of the appeal filing period established in the notice of decision in the Arizona Daily Sun. If an appeal is filed, implementation will not begin sooner than 15 calendar days following a final decision on the appeal. Implementation means actually doing the ground disturbing actions described in this notice. Field project preparation work may proceed (marking, design, contract preparation, etc.).


Appeal Rights Statement

This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with 36 CFR215.7. A notice of appeal must be in writing and clearly state that it is a Notice of Appeal being filed pursuant to 36 CFR215.14. Appeals must be filed with Regional Forester, Southwestern Region, 517 Gold SW, Albuquerque, NM 87102-0084 within 45 days of the date of legal notice of this decision in the Arizona Daily Sun.


Information and Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service appeal process, contact the District Ranger, Gene Waldrip, Peaks Ranger District, 5075 N. Highway 89, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, (520) 526-0866 or John Gerritsma, Grand Canyon Forests Partnership Liason, 2323 E. Greenlaw Lane, Flagstaff, AZ 86004, (520) 527-3600.


/s/ Rodger Zanotto (for) September 10, 1999
JIM GOLDEN Date
Forest Supervisor
Coconino National Forest


/s/ Raymond Czaplewski September 10, 1999
RAYMOND L. CZAPLEWSKI Date
Acting Assistant Director for Research
Rocky Mountain Research Station

Fort Valley 10K

Back

02/10/00kmf
Page designed by Ponderosa Computer Marketing Services, all rights reserved, 2000. Services Donated.