draft decision notice and finding of no significant impact for...

Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact – La Fragua Canyon Public Access Project

of 9

Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact

for the La Fragua Canyon Public Access Project

USDA Forest Service Jicarilla Ranger District Carson National Forest

Rio Arriba County, New Mexico

Introduction

The La Fragua Canyon Public Access Project is located within the La Fragua Canyon area of the

northwestern portion of the Jicarilla Ranger District (District) in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico

(Figure 1). The project area includes sections of National Forest System (NFS) Roads 309C, 311,

311A, 311E, 312, 312G, and 312H, as well as an approved, but not yet constructed

administrative-use road which runs between NFS Roads 311A and 309P within an existing

pipeline corridor. Refer to Figures 1 and 2 for a depiction of the road segments composing the

project area.

The purpose of the project is to restore public motorized access to the La Fragua Canyon area,

which has been affected by private road closures, by providing access via National Forest System

Road 311A. The project would also retain NFS road segments which have been affected by

private land closures, but would provide for alternative administrative actions which could be

undertaken if certain thresholds were met. Changes to public motor vehicle use would be

published on the District’s Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM).

The District MVUM currently identifies National Forest System (NFS) Road 311 within the La

Fragua Canyon area as a road open to public motorized travel. However, gating and closures of

private roads have impacted the public’s ability to access portions of NFS Road 311 in the La

Fragua Canyon area of the District (refer to Figure 1 for a depiction of the project area within the

District). The gates and closures are outside the authority of the Forest Service because they are

located on private land and the Forest Service does not hold an easement or similar instrument

allowing public access across the private land. Refer to Figure 3 for a depiction of the area made

inaccessible because of private land road closures.

An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared and documents the environmental

analysis conducted for the project. The EA completed for this project is incorporated by reference

into this Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact document. Two alternatives were

analyzed in detail by the interdisciplinary team assigned to conduct the environmental analysis,

namely, Alternative A: no action, and Alternative B: the proposed action. The EA can be viewed

at the Jicarilla Ranger District office or online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/carson/landmanagement/projects.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/carson/landmanagement/projects


of 9

Decision

Based upon my review of the La Fragua Canyon Public Access Project EA, comments received,

and other information included in the project record, I have decided to implement Alternative B,

the proposed action. This decision authorizes modification of the travel management status of

several road segments within the Jicarilla Ranger District.

Specific elements of the proposed action authorized by this decision include:

Re-designate approximately 2,100 linear feet of an approved but not yet constructed

administrative-use road to an open to public motorized vehicle use road. This road would

be an extension of NFS Road 311A, extending from the existing closed to public access

NFS Road 311A to NFS Road 309P (refer to Figure 2) and would be published on the

district’s MVUM.

Re-designate approximately 3,700 linear feet of NFS Road 311A from administrative use

to open to public motorized vehicle use and publish on the district’s MVUM. An existing

gate restricting public access to NFS Road 311A would also be removed (refer to Figure

2).

The six NFS road segments which have been affected by private land road closures (refer

to bulleted list below and displayed in Figure 3) would remain open to the public, as it is

the intention of this project to facilitate public access to the project area. However, the

District could also undertake alternative administrative actions in the future to adjust to

changing circumstances.

o NFS Road 309C in Cat Draw, with approximately 120 ft. of NFS 309C road.

o NFS Road 311 in La Fragua Canyon, with approximately 100 ft. of NFS 311

road.

o NFS Road 311E in Lopez Canyon, with approximately 423 ft. of the NFS 311E

road.

o NFS Road 311 at the western boundary of the District, with approximately 770 ft.

of the NFS 311 road.

o NFS Road 311 at Cabresto Mesa, with approximately 581 ft. of the NFS 311 road

and,

o NFS Road 312 at Mesteñas Mesa. This section would involve approximately

3,061 ft. of the NFS 312 road, as well as approximately 323 ft. of the NFS 312G

road and 3,552 ft. of the 312H road. Additionally, approximately 3,038 ft. of the

312 road and 472 ft. of the 312H road that are located on private land would be

removed from the MVUM.

Alternative future administrative actions which could be implemented for the six NFS

road segments, and the conditions which would trigger the action are outlined below.

Separate actions could be taken for each individual entrance depending on whether a

given road segment meets a given threshold.


of 9

o If, at any time, public motor vehicle use access continues to be prevented by

private land closures, then the affected NFS road segment could be closed to

public motor vehicle use and removed from the District MVUM. The road would

be retained for administrative use by the Forest Service and other authorized

personnel. The road segment could be gated to control access. Road closures

would prevent inadvertent trespass on private land.

o If, at any time, public access across private land is assured through an easement

or similar instrument, the affected NFS road segment(s) would be designated as

open to public motorized vehicle use and published on the District MVUM.

o If, at any time, the Forest Service determines that a given NFS road segment

identified above is posing an undue administrative burden or a safety issue with

the public, then the affected NFS road segment could be closed to all motor

vehicle use and decommissioned.

The unconstructed approximately 2,100-linear foot extension of FS Road 311A was previously

approved under a decision signed May 4, 2016 for the 2016 New Mexico Department of Game

and Fish Habitat Stamp Program Project. The road was approved as an access route utilizing an

existing pipeline corridor to facilitate construction to enlarge the existing Dead Horse sediment

trap wildlife water development. This proposed action does not modify construction standards for

the road; the road would be built as approved in the previous decision. This proposed action

would only re-designate the road from closed to open to public motorized vehicle use.

Roads to be re-designated from closed to open to public motorized vehicle access, including the

2,100 linear feet of approved but not yet constructed road, would receive long-term maintenance

through the Carson Forest Road Maintenance Committee (Jicarilla Road Committee). Roads

would generally be maintained in accordance with Gold Book standards and guidelines, which

represent standard best management procedures for road maintenance (BLM and USFS 2007).

Additionally, these roads would be subject to the same design features identified in the Travel

Management on the Jicarilla Ranger District project decision notice, signed August, 13, 2010

which are applicable to other roads identified on the District’s MVUM. In line with other roads

on the District MVUM, these additions to the MVUM would be open to all motor vehicles

(including smaller off-highway vehicles which may not be licensed for highway use, but

excluding oversize or overweight vehicles under state traffic laws) all year long. Furthermore, the

additions to the District MVUM would not have a designated 300-foot corridor for big game

retrieval and dispersed camping because of concerns associated with cultural resources.

Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered one other alternative in detail, the no action

alternative. Under this alternative, travel management designations for road segments would

continue with their current designations. Additionally, two other alternatives were considered but

eliminated from detailed study. A comparison of the alternatives can be found in the EA on pages

2-4.


of 9

Decision Rationale

Alternative B, the proposed action was selected because it best meets the purpose and need for

the project in a manner that is consistent with applicable laws, regulation, and policy. Other

alternatives would not have met the purpose and need for the project, would have resulted in

greater environmental impacts, or would have been infeasible to implement because of costs or

other constraints.

The proposed action meets the purpose and need for the project by restoring reliable public

motorized vehicle access to the La Fragua Canyon area of the Jicarilla Ranger District, while

minimizing potential environmental impacts. This alternative is in compliance with the Carson

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and other laws, regulations,

and policies, as applicable.

Public Involvement and Scoping

The proposed project was first published to the Carson National Forest quarterly Schedule of

Proposed Actions on October 1, 2016. Additionally, a combined scoping and 30-day public

comment period was initiated with release of the preliminary EA and publication of a legal notice

in The Farmington Daily Times on November 15, 2016. Notification was sent to 36 different

interested groups, agencies, and individuals. Two comment letters were received during the

combined scoping and comment period. One additional letter was received following completion

of the combined scoping and comment period.

Additionally, tribal consultation was initiated with a letter mailed to 10 different Indian Nations

on October 25, 2016. No responses were received.

Comments received from the public and other agencies during scoping and the designated 30-day

comment period did not identify significant environmental issues regarding the effects of the

proposed action. All comments received and Forest Service consideration of comments are

included in the project record.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The following is a summary of the project analysis to determine significance, as defined by Forest

Service Handbook 1909.15_05. “Significant” as used in NEPA requires consideration of both

context and intensity of the expected project effects.

Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts (i.e.

local regional, worldwide), and over short and long time frames. For site-specific actions,

significance usually depends upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole.

Intensity refers to the severity of the expected project impacts and is defined by the 10 points

below.

Context

This project is a site-specific activity which is limited in scope. As such, the potential effects of

the project are limited to the local area and will not have greater state-wide, regional, national, or

international effects. The District road system consists of approximately 194 miles of roads

designated as open to public motorized vehicle use and approximately 194 miles of roads

designated for administrative use. The proposed action would re-designate a total of

approximately 5,800 linear feet of administrative-use road to open to public motorized vehicle


of 9

use, which is less than one percent of the total mileage of roads currently open to public

motorized vehicle use within the District. Similarly, approximately 6,900 linear feet of NFS roads

currently open to public motorized vehicle use could be subject to administrative actions, which

represents less than one percent of the District’s roads open to public motorized vehicle use.

The project was designed to minimize environmental effects through utilizing existing

disturbances rather than construction of new roads. The project is intended to simply restore

access to approximately 10 miles of roads currently designated as open to public motorized

vehicle use where access has become unreliable because of private land closures. The project

improves public access to approximately 7,600 acres of the District which constitutes

approximately 5 percent of the District’s total acreage (approximately 153,000 acres). Therefore,

the effects of the project are limited to the local area and are not significant.

Intensity

The following factors were considered to evaluate intensity.

1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial.

Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered for the proposed action and are

disclosed in the EA (Chapter 3, pages 5-16). Significant effects were not identified during the

environmental analysis, and beneficial effects were not used to minimize the severity of adverse

effects in consideration of this project.

2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

The selected alternative will not have a significant adverse effect on public health or safety as

roads which would be made available for public motorized vehicle use will comply with

applicable industry safety standards and regulations.

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural

resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas.

The proposed action will not adversely affect unique characteristics of the geographical area. As

disclosed in the EA (Chapter 3, pages 5-16), wildernesses, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands,

wild and scenic rivers, and ecologically critical areas are not located in the immediate area of the

project. Furthermore, the project will not result in significant impacts to historic or cultural

resources. Refer to factor number 8 below for additional information regarding cultural and

historic resources.

4) The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

This factor pertains to disagreement between experts in a given field over the potential effects of

this proposal. Public concerns and input have been considered throughout the analysis process.

Comments received for the project did not provide evidence that effects of the proposed action

(EA, pages 5-16) have been wrongly predicted. Therefore, effects of the proposed project on are

not likely to be controversial.


of 9

5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain

or involve unique or unknown risks.

The proposed action does not entail activities which pose potential effects that are highly

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The project consists of standard practices, as the

Forest Service has considerable experience providing and analyzing the effects of travel

management. The potential effects of these practices are generally well documented. Potential

effects are addressed and analyzed in the EA (Chapter 3, pages 5-16).

6) The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with

significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

This decision does not set a precedent for future actions with significant effects, nor does it

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. The EA is site-specific and the

proposed action is compliant with the Forest Plan (EA, Chapter 1; page 1). Potential future

administrative actions were considered as a component of the proposed action and effects of the

potential future actions were analyzed in the EA (pages 2-4 and 5-16). Future travel management

decisions would be evaluated through the NEPA process.

7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but

cumulatively significant impacts.

The proposed action was evaluated with consideration for cumulative effects resulting from other

past, present, or future actions. The selected alternative will not result in significant cumulative

effects. Analysis of effects disclosed in the EA includes consideration of cumulative effects for

each of the affected resources (EA, Chapter 3; pages 5-16).

8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures,

or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction

of significant cultural or historical resources.

The selected alternative will not result in significant adverse effects to cultural or historical

resources. Portions of the project area which may be subject to ground disturbing activities under

the proposed action were previously inventoried for heritage resources. Nine surveys conducted

between 1990 and 2012 for various road and pipeline projects cover the current project area;

therefore, no new survey was conducted. Archeological sites identified during previous surveys

within the project area would be protected by a combination of temporary protective fencing

during project implementation activities and monitoring by an archeologist. A finding of “no

adverse effect” to heritage resources was made for the proposed project. Additionally, tribal

consultation was conducted, and tribal entities did not identify concerns for development of the

project (EA, Chapter 3; pages 14 and 15).

9) The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species

or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act.

The proposed action will not result in adverse impacts to federally listed species or their critical

habitats. As disclosed in Biological Assessment prepared for the project and in Chapter 3 of the

EA, suitable habitat for federally listed species with the potential to occur within the District is

not present within the project area (pages 8 and 9 of EA). Therefore the proposed action would

have ‘no effect’ on federally listed threatened and endangered species or their critical habitats.


of 9

10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

The selected alternative will not violate applicable federal, state, or local laws or requirements for

protection of the environment. The EA was prepared in compliance with applicable regulations,

including, but not limited to, the following:

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

American Indian Religious Freedom Act

Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites

Endangered Species Act

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Clean Water Act

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management

Clean Air Act

Conclusion

After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and specialist reports, I have

determined that Alternative B, the proposed action, will not have significant effects on the quality

of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27).

Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Administrative Review Opportunities

The La Fragua Canyon Public Access project is an activity implementing a land management plan

and not authorized under the HFRA and is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts

A and B. Legal notice of the opportunity to object to the proposal was published in The

Farmington Daily Times with issuance of this draft Decision Notice and Finding of No

Significant Impact.

In accordance with §218.5(a), objections to this draft decision will only be accepted from those

who previously submitted timely, specific written comments during scoping or other designated

opportunity for public comment. Issues raised in objections must be based on issues raised in

previously submitted written comments on the proposed project. We will accept new issues only

on new information that arose after the designated comment opportunities (e.g., new analysis in

the final EA). Objections, including attachments, must be filed via mail, fax, email, hand-

delivery, express delivery, or messenger service to:

James Duran, Reviewing Officer

Carson National Forest

208 Cruz Alta Rd.

Taos, NM 87571

Fax (575) 758-6213

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


of 9

The office hours for delivery are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding

Federal holidays. Electronically filed objections may be submitted by email in word (.doc), rich

text format (.rtf), text (.txt), and hypertext markup language (.html).

Objections must be submitted within 45 calendar days following the publication of a legal notice

in The Farmington Daily Times. The publication date in the newspaper of record is the exclusive

means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon

dates or timeframes provided by any other source. The regulations prohibit extending the time to

file an objection.

An objection must include the following (36 CFR 218.8(d)):

1. The objector’s name and address, with a telephone number, if available;

2. A signature or other verification of authorship upon request (a scanned signature for

email may be filed with the objection);

3. When multiple names are listed on an objection, identification of the lead objector;

4. The name of the proposed project, the name and title of the Responsible Official, and the

name(s) of the National Forest(s) and/or Ranger District(s) on which the proposed project

will be implemented;

5. 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 for the

reviewing officer to consider; and

6. A statement that demonstrates connection between prior specific written comments on

the particular proposed project or activity and the content of the objection.

Implementation

If no objections are filed within the 45-day objection time period, implementation of the decision

may occur on, but not before, the 5th business day following the close of the objection filing

period.

If an objection is filed, the reviewing officer must issue a written response to the objector(s)

concerning their objection(s). Once objection responses are complete, the reviewing officer may

issue instructions to the responsible official to follow before finalizing the EA and signing the

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. A project which undergoes an objection

review may be implemented immediately after signing of the decision notice.

In either case, regulations (36 CFR 218) do not require legal notice of a signed decision.

However, the Forest Service may send out a letter or press release to notify interested parties of

the availability of the final decision document(s).


of 9

For further information concerning this project, contact J.J. Miller, District Minerals

Administrator at (505) 632-2956 during normal business hours.

Approved by:

Richard A. Rymerson Date

District Ranger

Jicarilla Ranger District, Carson National Forest

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin,

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g.,

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other

than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form,

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:

[email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

Proposed Project Area

Land OwnershipNational Forest System (NFS) LandsPrivateState

0 5

Miles

/ UTM Zone 13NAD 83

09/20/2016

Proposed ProjectArea

ColoradoNew Mexico

Carson National Forest

Jicarilla Ranger District

0 100

Miles/


Figure 1

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

Photo point looking south.

Photo point looking southwest.

Photo point looking south.

Photo point looking southwest.

309

311

311A

309P

Overview of existing pipelineand authorized road corridor.

Existing pipeline corridor and approved but not constructedroad corridor. This section wouldbe open per the MVUM.Approximately 2,100 feet.

Existing road that would be converted from authorized use to open per the MVUM.Approximately 3,700 feet.

! Gas wellWell location

Road AccessAuthorized use roadOpen per Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) road

/

0 500 1,000

Feet UTM Zone 13NAD 83

09/21/2016

Proposed Project Road DetailsExisting gate to be removed.

Road Location


Figure 2

!

!

!

"!

!

!

!! !

!"

!

!

!

"

!

"

!

!

!

!

!!!

! !

!

"

!!

!!

!"

!!!

!!!

"

!" !

!"

""

!

"

!

!

! !!!

!!

!

!

!

"!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

"

"

""

"

!!!

!!!

"! !

!

"!!

!

!

"

"

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!"

!

!!

!

!

!

!

"

"

""

"

"

!

!!

"

!

!

!

!!

!

! "!"

!!"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!"

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

Rosa Road

!

!!!

!

"

!!

!

Proposed La Fragua road re-routeAuthorized use road to be opened as part of proposalOpen road with blocked/ restricted accessRoads closed from private gates

Well Status! Active well" Plugged well

Well padRoad Access

Public access allowed or open per MVUMAuthorized useDecommissioned well road

Land OwnershipJicarilla Ranger District/ NFS LandsStatePrivate

/UTM ZONE 13

NAD 838/16/2016

0 1 2

Miles

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !"

!

!

!

!

"

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! "

!!

!

!

!!

"

!

"

!

!"

!

!

!

"

!

!

!!

!

!

Inset A

Inset A

Inset B Inset B

Inset C

Inset C

Private Land30

9C

311

120 ft. of NFS 309C road would beeligible for administrative actions.

100 ft. of NFS 311 road would beeligible for administrative actions.

311E

311

423 ft. of NFS 311E road would beeligible for administrative actions.


2,476 ft. of NFS 312 roadwould be eligible for administrative actions.

323 ft. of NFS 312G road and585 ft. of NFS 312 road.Roads would be removed from MVUM.NFS 312G will remain until well location is abandoned andthen decommissioned. NFS 312 wouldremain until 312G is decommissionedand then be eligible for administrativeactions.

3,552 ft. of NFS 312H road.Road would be removed from MVUM, but will remain until welllocation is abandoned andthen decommissioned.

3,038 ft. of the NFS 312 road and472 ft. of the NFS 312H road locatedon private land would be removed from the MVUM.

312H

3 12G

312

Overview of access points andpotential administrative actions.


311

311

312

Figure 3

draft decision notice and finding of no significant impact for...

Documents