Draft Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Payson Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Project USDA Forest Service Payson Ranger District Tonto National Forest Gila County, Arizona Introduction The popularity of recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) use continues to increase across the State of Arizona and the Tonto National Forest (TNF). The impacts associated with this increased use have become especially prevalent across the Payson Ranger District and a Proposed Action has been developed for recreational OHV management. The Payson Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Project is designed to address specific needs on the Payson Ranger District associated with recreational OHV use trends and local resource conditions. The purpose and need for this project is to protect sensitive riparian areas and other Forest resources and values while organizing and managing recreational OHV use. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to determine whether the proposed action of 1) Prohibiting motorized vehicle use within 200 feet for stream corridors identified in the EA; 2) Designating three OHV staging areas; and 3) Identifying a potential future OHV specific campground would significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement to disclose the effects. Preparing the EA has fulfilled agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The EA documents the analysis of two alternatives; 1) No Action, and 2) The Proposed Action to meet the purpose and need. Project Location The areas contained within this analysis are located northwest, north, east and south of Payson, Arizona within the Payson Ranger District, Tonto National Forest, State of Arizona (EA Figures 1 and 2). The proposed riparian corridor buffers, staging areas and campground sites are, generally accessible by Arizona State Routes (AZ SR) 87, 260, and National Forest System Roads (NFSR) 32, 32A, 64, 199, 272, 284, 289, 405, 405A, 440, 458, and 1190. Decision and Reasons for the Decision Based upon my review of the alternatives, my decision is to implement Alternative 2, the proposed action, which will meet the purpose and need. This alternative includes prohibiting; 1) Motorized travel off of established system roads within 200 linear feet of identified streams/rivers, 2) Dispersed overnight camping within selected reaches of Christopher Creek, East Verde River, Tonto Creek, Webber Creek and Bear Flats (also located on Tonto Creek). Alternative 2 will also serve to establish 3 separate OHV staging areas, each approximately one half acre to two acres in size within previously disturbed sites located south of Pine, AZ, within Mayfield Canyon and nearby the Jim Jones Shooting Range. Alternative 2 also identifies an OHV specific campground at Pyeatt Draw. The campground 1 Payson Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Project area would be approximately +/- 45 acres in size with final number and arrangement of individual sites to be determined, would have a single campground host site with electric service (e.g. small solar panel) and overall site amenities to be determined via the campground facility design and planning process. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) was not selected because it does not meet the mission of the Forest Service or achieve the goals necessary to move ecosystems toward desired conditions as described in the Forest Plan. Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, one other alternative was considered. While alternative sites were evaluated, the sites that the Interdisciplinary Team determined had the best access, least ground disturbance and those that limited the potential environment effects were brought forward for analysis in Alternative 2. A comparison of these alternatives can be found in the associated project EA, Chapters 2 and 3. Alternative 1- No Action This alternative is presented to establish a baseline for comparison of impacts between alternatives and to provide the responsible official a viable choice in the range of reasonable alternatives. Under the No Action alternative, a new OHV campground and three OHV staging areas would not be developed and the 200-foot streamside buffers from motorized travel and overnight camping would not be implemented. Public Involvement and Scoping The Payson Ranger District began 30 days of public scoping on March 28, 2014 with the publication of a Legal Notice in the Payson Roundup. Letters were mailed to 73 entities and individuals, including local and state governments, Tribes, Federal Agencies, partner groups and individuals who in the past had expressed interest in Forest projects. Following strong interest in the proposed project, the Payson Ranger District twice extended the scoping period, which closed on June 6, 2014. In addition, the Ranger District hosted a public forum on May 23, 2014 in Payson, Arizona. The Payson Ranger District received approximately 300 pieces of correspondence as a result of scoping, including a petition to remove the Houston Mesa Campground from consideration for conversion from an equestrian-focused campground to OHV motorized use. This issue was acted upon and an alternative campground site is proposed as part of the proposed action, Alternative 2 (e.g. Pyeatt Draw location). The Payson Ranger District provided a public notice of opportunity to comment on the draft EA for the proposed project on January 30, 2018 with the publication of a Legal Notice in the Payson Roundup. At the end of the 30 day comment period no responses had been received. On May 24, 2018 the Payson Ranger District designated an opportunity for public comment on the draft EA by written request to 45 interested parties. The parties were those that had previously provided written comments to the planning of the project and they were requested to provide written comments within 30 days from the date of the written request. There were 9 responses to the opportunity for comment. All responses were positive or neutral to the overall proposed action with many requesting that additional limitations be placed on streamside use and camping. 2 Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact 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 may be analyzed in several contexts (i.e. local regional, worldwide), and over short and long time frames. The effects of this site-specific proposed action and the significance of the effects are limited to the local level. This project is limited in scope and duration. The project was designed to minimize environmental effects through management, mitigations and resource protection measures. For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental impacts is based on the environmental analysis in the final EA. Intensity refers to the severity of the expected project impacts and is defined by the 10 factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b). My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and the results of the evaluation of effects using the following 10 factors. 1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant impact may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial. My finding of no significant impact is neither the result of balancing beneficial and adverse impacts nor biased by beneficial impacts of the proposed action. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. Organizing and managing OHV use is of limited scope not expected to present hazards to workers or the public. No significant impacts on public health and safety were identified. 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. There are no known unique characteristics associated with the areas of analysis. The action will not adversely impact any resources considered to have unique characteristics. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The proposed action includes practices that are commonly used and mitigations that address issues raised in scoping and the analyses of specialists. While there is some opposition to OHV use and other uses of public lands, this action is not controversial in the context of NEPA. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. The Forest Service is experienced in implementing the activities proposed in this action. The environmental impacts are not uncertain for organizing and managing recreational uses on Forest lands and no unique or unknown risk can be reasonably identified. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant impacts or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The proposed action is unlikely to establish a precedent for future actions, and all similar actions related to proposed OHV recreation management would be analyzed through the NEPA process and would be independent of this site-specific action to protect specific segments of riparian corridors along the East Verde River, Christopher, Webber and Tonto Creeks. 3 Payson Off Highway Vehicle Recreation Project 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Cumulative impacts are analyzed in Chapter 3 of the EA and were determined not to be significant. 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. While many historic/cultural sites exist on the Payson Ranger District and project locations (e.g.