Decision Memo. Programmatic Forest Plan Amendment for Cultural Resource Protection Standards and Guidelines. United States Department of Agriculture

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Decision Memo Programmatic Forest Plan Amendment for Cultural Resource Protection Standards and Guidelines Coconino National Forest Coconino, Gila, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona November 2015 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) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 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 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) 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 ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

2 Background The purpose of this Forest Plan amendment would be to remove specific language in the 1986 Coconino National Forest Plan, as amended, that is related to cultural resource protection. This language now conflicts with standard practices used to meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Under the NHPA, the Agency official must determine the effects of the undertaking on historic properties. The effect determination can fall into one of three categories: "no effect," "no adverse effect," or "adverse effect." In 1986 when the Forest Plan was written, the standard practice was to use a "no effect" determination to comply with NHPA prior to ground disturbing activities associated with timber sales, grazing permit authorizations, recreation site facility construction or improvements, road improvements or road construction, and almost all other activities that would not directly damage prehistoric or historic cultural resource sites. It was, and still is, forest policy to move project areas to avoid cultural resource sites or modify project activities to minimize impacts to them. In recent years, interpretation of determinations of effect under the NHPA has changed by both the State Historic Preservation Office and the Coconino National Forest so that the category "no adverse effect" is now used to clear the majority of ground disturbing projects that do not directly impact cultural resource sites. Over the years, the archaeological community, including the State Historic Preservation Officers and Forest Service archaeologists, refined their interpretation on what activities could impact a site. As part of this refinement, it was felt that any ground disturbing activity that takes place within a site boundary causes some level of effect, and could not be accurately described by a "no effect" determination unless the site was completely avoided. In other words, projects that would previously have been determined to have a "no effect" are now determined to have "no adverse effect" to more accurately depict the level of impact where sites are not completely avoided. Unfortunately, this change caused a disconnect between the language used in effects determinations made under the NHPA and the language in Forest Plan standards and guidelines. This has resulted in difficulty justifying that projects resulting in a "no adverse effect" to cultural resources are consistent with the specific language in the Forest Plan. A recent survey of cultural resource project clearances (required for all projects with potential significant effects) found that prior to 2010 almost all projects that did not result in direct effects to historic resources included ongoing activities, but did not include new activities, were determined to have no effect to cultural and historic resources. However, project clearances after 2010 included a determination of no adverse effect for the same types of projects. For example in 2005 projects that included ongoing activities such as grazing (such as the Angell Grazing Allotment) or many projects that included routine activities such as thinning or prescribed burning included a no effect determination. Project clearances occurring on or after 2010 with the same activities included a no adverse effect determination. A spreadsheet showing how the NHPA determination of effect changed around 2010 from no effect to no adverse effect for many types of projects is included in the project file. Decision It is my decision to remove existing language in the forest-wide "standards and guidelines" section on page 53 of the 1986 Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), which states: 1

3 "Significant, or potentially significant, inventoried sites are managed to achieve a "No Effect" determination, in consultation with the SHPO and ACHP (36 CFR 800)." "Management strives to achieve a 'No Effect' determination." This amendment would only remove the language listed above from the Forest Plan. This amendment would not approve projects or activities, nor would it propose ground-disturbing activities or change the Coconino National Forest's consultation responsibilities for cultural resources. Furthermore, this amendment would not change or affect requirements in the National Historic Preservation Act for the Coconino National Forest to avoid or resolve potential adverse effects unless no such measures are possible. Decision Rationale This decision removes language from the standards and guidelines section of the Forest Plan to ensure the Forest can best comply with the National Historic Preservation Act to protect cultural and historic resources while still disclosing the expected effects of a proposed activity. This decision is entirely administrative in nature which, by definition, does not include any grounddisturbing activities; as such, there will be no ecological/environmental beneficial or adverse direct effects associated with it in regard to the seven extraordinary circumstances set forth in FSH Chapter 30. Implementing the decision will result in a beneficial increase in planning efficiency. Unless projects come up for which adverse cultural or historic effects are not avoidable, future projects will not be required to include site specific forest plan amendments for cultural resource protection. Determination of Significance of Change to the Forest Plan I have determined that this Forest Plan Amendment is not a significant change to the Coconino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan based on my evaluation of the following factors in Forest Service Manual sections and Changes to the Land Management Plan That are Significant 1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected. The amendment is not expected to have any effects to goods and services associated with the Coconino National Forest. For example, the removal of the cultural resource standards/guidelines included in this decision would not result in an increase to timber sale targets, changes in grazing practices, changes in recreation patters or management, water quality or quantity, or public fuelwood use. 2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire land management plan or affect land and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period. This amendment is not expected to have effects on land or resources associated with the Coconino National Forest. While this decision will affect standards and guidelines that are to be applied forest wide, this decision would not result in approval of projects or activities, nor change the Coconino National Forest's consultation responsibilities for cultural resources. This amendment would 2

4 not change or affect requirements in the National Historic Preservation Act for the Coconino National Forest to avoid or resolve potential adverse effects unless no such measures are possible. Changes to the land management plan that are not significant can result from: 1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the management prescription. This amendment is consistent with these changes to land management plans that are not significant. As discussed earlier in this section, multiple use goods and services are expected to remain the same. The amendment will not result in changes to management prescriptions or land management planning decisions or planning processes. The purpose of the plan amendment is to make minor changes to standards and guidelines by updating the plan to be consistent with evolving interpretations of effects to cultural and historic resources. Public Involvement This proposal was listed in the online Schedule of Proposed Actions starting in August Amendments to Forest Plans that are categorically excluded from analysis in an EIS and that are documented in a decision memo are subject to notice and comment under 36 CFR which states that the responsible official must complete appropriate environmental analysis and public involvement in accordance with Forest Service NEPA procedures. A notice of the comment period was published in the Arizona Daily Sun, and electronically sent to 75 individuals and organizations and post mailed to 49 individuals and organizations. Thirteen letters were sent to tribal entities. The 30-day notice and comment period was August 13 through September 14, One comment was received during the 30-day comment period. This comment was from the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, who concurred with the proposed amendment. Exclusion from Further National Environmental Policy Act Analysis This amendment is excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) under categorical exclusion 36 CFR 220.6(e)(16) - Land management plans, plan amendments, and plan revisions developed in accordance with 36 CFR 219 et seq. that provide broad guidance and information for project and activity decision-making in a National Forest Service unit. The environmental analysis determined that there are no extraordinary circumstances related to this project based on the following: Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat: Since the plan amendment affects forest-wide management, the project area includes the Coconino National Forest and thus does include the presence of Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat. The plan amendment is only procedural in 3

5 nature, and it will not result in any ground disturbing activities or a change in biological services. Consequently, there will be no direct effects to threatened, endangered, and proposed species. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds: Since the plan amendment affects forestwide management, the project area includes the Coconino National Forest and thus does include the presence of floodplains, wetlands, and areas that supply water to municipalities. However, because the plan amendment is only procedural in nature, it will not result in any ground disturbing activities or a change in biological services. Consequently, there will be no direct effects to flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds on the Forest. Future projects will be analyzed and will include an appropriate level of protection for floodplains, wetlands and/or municipal watersheds. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or National Recreation Areas: The project area includes Congressionally designated areas. However, because the plan amendment is only procedural in nature, it will not result in any ground disturbing activities. Consequently, there will be no direct effect to Congressionallydesignated areas, because no treatments are being proposed within the wilderness areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, or other congressionally designated areas. Future projects will be analyzed and will include an appropriate level of protection for Congressionally designated areas. Inventoried roadless areas: The project area includes inventoried roadless areas. However, because the plan amendment is only procedural in nature, it will not result in any ground disturbing activities. Consequently, there will be no direct effect to inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas. Future projects will be analyzed and will meet direction for inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas where they occur. Research Natural Areas: The project area includes research natural areas. However, because the plan amendment is only procedural in nature, it will not result in any grounddisturbing activities. Consequently, there will be no direct effects to the research natural areas on the Forest. Future projects will be analyzed and will meet direction for research natural areas where they occur. American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites: The project area includes religious and cultural sites. However, because the plan amendment is only procedural in nature, it will not result in any ground disturbing activities. Consequently, there will be no direct effects to religious or cultural sites on the Forest. The amendment is a minor change meant to clarify and facilitate compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and will in no way affect the protection of cultural sites. This amendment will result in no change to the process to protect cultural and historic resources and will not modify other Forest Plan language or Forest policy to move project areas to avoid cultural resource sites or modify project activities to minimize impacts to them. Consultation with thirteen tribal entities has not identified any concerns or the potential for significant effects. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the proposal to make this change. Consultation on any future projects will occur as the proposals are being developed. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas: The project area contains archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas. However, because the plan amendment is only procedural in nature, it will not result in any ground disturbing activities. Consequently, there will be no direct effects to archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas on the Forest. The amendment is a minor change meant to clarify and facilitate 4

6 compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and will in no way affect the protection of cultural sites. This amendment will result in no change to the process to protect cultural and historic resources and will not modify other Forest Plan language or Forest policy to move project areas to avoid cultural resource sites or modify project activities to minimize impacts to them. Consultation with thirteen tribal entities has not identified any concerns or the potential for significant effects. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the proposal to make this change. Consultation on any future projects will occur on as the proposals are being developed. Implementation Date This amendment will be implemented immediately. Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities This decision is not subject to administrative review according to 26 CFR (a), which states, A plan, plan amendment, or plan revision is not subject to objection when the responsible official receives no substantive formal comments ( ) on that proposal during the opportunities for public comment ( (a)). Contact Person For additional information concerning this decision, contact Mike Dechter, NEPA Coordinator, 1824 S. Thompson St., Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, LAURA JO WEST Coconino National Forest Supervisor Date 5