1

DECISION NOTICE

AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Alpine and Clifton Ranger Districts

Greenlee County, Arizona

DECISION NOTICE

Action and Its Purpose

The Forest Service has conducted an environmental analysis to evaluate the 

suitability of four eligible river segments of the Blue River and one eligible river 

segment of KP Creek (a tributary to the Blue River) on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests in Arizona for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. The analysis was conducted pursuant to section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act. The analysis is described in the Environmental Assessment

for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability Study. The 

suitability of these river segments is being considered at this time due to a 

proposal to construct a channel-spanning fish barrier in segment 4 of the Blue 

River on the Clifton Ranger District. KP Creek has been included in this analysis 

because it is a tributary to Blue River above the barrier site that supports a 

valuable native fishery. Both Blue River and KP Creek were identified as 

potential eligible rivers in the Resource Information Report, Potential WildScenic-Recreation River Designation, National Forests in Arizona (USFS 1993) 

and confirmed as eligible in the Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System (Apache-Sitgreaves NF 2009). 

In response to the USDI Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) proposal to build a 

channel-spanning fish barrier in the Blue River, I conducted an analysis of the 

potential effects on Blue River’s free-flowing characteristics (Appendix C). The 

analysis determined that the proposed barrier would affect the free-flowing 

character of Blue River. BOR’s proposed barrier is a conservation measure to 

protect federally listed threatened and endangered fishes, as required by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2008 Biological Opinion for the Central Arizona 

Project. 

Suitability provides the basis for determining whether to recommend a river as 

part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It is designed to answer the 

following questions:
2

Should the rivers’ free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly 

remarkable values (ORVs) be protected, or are one or more other uses 

important enough to warrant doing otherwise?

Will the rivers’ free-flowing character, water quality, and ORVs be 

protected through designation? Is designation the best method for 

protecting the river corridors? 

Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any nonfederal 

entities that may be partially responsible for implementing protective 

management?

This analysis is programmatic; that is, no specific on-the-ground actions are 

proposed or examined. The analysis of environmental effects addresses the 

potential changes in management which may occur if the eligible river segments 

are found suitable or unsuitable for designation into the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. It includes a general discussion of the effects if any or all 

segments are subsequently designated by Congress.

Decision and Rationale

My decision is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive 

further review and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, 

Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States. Congress has 

reserved the authority to make final decisions on designation of rivers as part of 

the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

Based on the results of the analysis documented in the Environmental 

Assessment for the Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability 

Study, including public scoping and comments, it is my decision to select 

Alternative 3 which will also amend the Forest Plan (EA at page 45). The 

selected alternative (Alternative 3) was developed based on: comments that 

emphasized collaborative efforts with other agencies and local stakeholders; 

potential for water resource development (including the proposed fish barrier 

construction); consistency with other plans including the recovery plan for loach 

minnow (USFWS 1991), the Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USFS 1987), and the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan 

(AGFD 2006); and on the key issues described in the environmental assessment. 

In determining which river segments are suitable for recommendation in this 

decision, I placed the heaviest weight on the following key suitability criteria and 

factors: 

The consistency of designation with other agency plans and programs 

and, particularly, the biological opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for the Central Arizona Plan with its focus on recovery of loach 

minnow and Chiricahua leopard frog.
3

The potential for construction of the proposed fish barrier in the lowermost 

portion of Segment 4 of Blue River.

The interest in designation or nondesignation by other federal agencies, 

state, local and tribal governments, and national and local publics.

Ability to protect regionally and nationally significant values.

As a result, I am recommending Blue River Segments 2, 3 and 4a and the 

eligible segment of KP Creek for designation. I am not recommending Blue River 

Segments 1 and 4b. My rationale follows.

Blue River – Segment 1. This 25.1 mile segment begins at the confluence of 

Campbell Blue and Dry Blue Creeks and flows downstream through the Smith 

Place to Bear Creek. This segment contains ORVs of scenery, recreation, 

geology, fish, wildlife, historic resources, prehistoric resources, and vegetation. It 

is classified as recreational. 

Approximately 17% of the acreage of this segment is privately owned, creating a 

pattern of mixed private and federal ownership. Collaborative planning efforts 

between local citizens, including the Upper Eagle Creek Watershed Association, 

the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (Arizona Ecological Services Office), Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, and USDA Forest 

Service (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests) have been ongoing to facilitate 

working together on watershed improvement, riparian improvement, and native 

fisheries restoration in the Eagle Creek and Blue River watersheds on non-Tribal 

lands within the watershed. 

I am not recommending this segment due, in part, to landowner concerns and 

because the important river values are protected on these lands through County 

zoning and landowner stewardship as evident in existing collaborative planning 

efforts. Significant portions of the National Forest System lands are located in 

the Blue Range Primitive Area, which is managed to emphasize wilderness 

recreation, while maintaining wilderness resource values.

Blue River – Segments 2, 3 and 4a. Segment 2 is 16 miles, beginning at Bear 

Creek and flowing downstream to 1⁄4 mile above the Blue River Trailhead. It is 

classified as wild. Segment 3 is 4.2 miles, beginning 1⁄4 mile above the Blue 

River Trailhead and flowing to 1⁄2 mile below Forest Road 475. It is classified as 

scenic. Segment 4a is 7.34 miles, flowing from 1⁄2 mile below Forest Road 475 to 

0.76 miles above the confluence of the Blue River with the San Francisco River. 

It is classified as wild. These segments contain ORVs of scenery, recreation, 

geology, fish, wildlife, historic resources, prehistoric resources, and vegetation. 

All three segments are entirely National Forest System lands. 

KP Creek: The KP Creek segment, which is 11.3 miles, begins near the 

Mogollon River and flows to the private land boundary in section 11, township 2 
4

north, range 30 east. This segment contains ORVs of scenery, recreation, fish 

and wildlife. It is classified as wild, and is entirely National Forest System lands. 

I am recommending Blue River segments 2, 3, and 4a, and KP Creek to provide 

additional focus on protecting aquatic resources, consistent with recovery plans, 

and to protect their free-flowing condition and other important values for the long 

term. 

The potential benefits of designation include, but are not limited to, the 

development of a comprehensive river management plan to determine what 

additional direction is necessary to protect river values on these National Forest 

System lands. This planning process also provides the opportunity to promote 

public participation in developing goals for river protection and to identify 

technical assistance for river conservation for activities within the river corridors 

and elsewhere in the watershed. 

While most activities on Federal lands within the river corridors may continue, as 

they are generally protective of river values, designation affords certain legal 

protections from adverse development. The Act prohibits the construction of 

dams and other federally assisted water resources projects judged to have an 

adverse effect on river values. It also withdraws Federal lands within wild 

classified segments from locatable and leasable mineral entry. 

Portions of segment 2 and portions of KP Creek are in the Blue Range Primitive 

Area. This Area was designated by the Secretary of Agriculture in 1933 with 

direction to manage the included lands to emphasize wilderness recreation, while 

maintaining wilderness resource values. However the Administrative designation

of the Blue Range Primitive Area allows for water resources projects that do not 

involve road construction and the Area is not withdrawn from either locatable or 

leasable mineral entry. If these segments are subsequently included in the 

National System, the Act will provide permanent additional protection.

I also considered other rivers which have been included in the National System 

that flow partly or entirely in areas protected by other designations including 

wilderness and other congressionally designated areas. Congress designated 

such rivers in recognition of their important river-related values and provided 

explicit direction in the Act to manage wild and scenic rivers flowing in wilderness 

by the most protective provisions of either law. Other overlapping designations 

are managed so as to be most protective of river values.

Blue River – Segment 4b: This approximate 3⁄4 mile segment includes the 

location of the proposed fish barrier. While it has the same important ORVs as 

the upper river and is free-flowing, the critical need to implement conservation 

measures to protect loach minnow and Chiricahua leopard frog, and to allow for 
5

future repatriation of roundtail chub and spikedace is more important than 

protecting the free-flowing condition of this short segment. 

I am not recommending this segment because of the intent of and clear direction 

in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as mirrored in Forest Service policy (FSH 

1909.12, Chapter 80) which would not allow construction of the fish barrier as 

proposed by the BOR. This does not imply that every proposed fish barrier is 

precluded in a study or designated river. To the contrary, those structures that 

mimic existing stream features may not be judged to adversely affect a river’s 

free-flowing condition or other values. However, for any fish barrier judged to 

adversely affect a river’s free-flowing condition, neither the Act nor agency policy 

allows for balancing its benefits with the negative effects. Based on my review of 

the contents of this environmental assessment, I am choosing to allow for the 

potential future construction of the barrier.

Forest Plan Amendment

As part of this decision, I am amending the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

Plan. This amendment provides direction to manage the eligible and suitable 

river corridors in accordance with agency policy and procedures, which are 

intended to protect or enhance river values (free-flowing condition, water quality 

and ORVs), as well as each segment’s classification (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 80). 

This amendment clarifies the management requirements.

Alternatives Considered

The alternatives compared in detail included Alternative 1(a No Action Alternative 

that would defer suitability determination); Alternative 2 (No Segments Suitable 

and Recommended); Alternative 3 (Some Segments Suitable and 

Recommended), and Alternative 4 (All Segments Suitable and Recommended). 

Additional alternatives were considered in Chapter 4, but eliminated from detailed 

study. These were a) study just a portion of the Blue River, and b) study all 

eligible rivers in the watershed.

I did not select the No Action Alternative, or Alternatives 2 and 4, because those 

alternatives would not best meet the need to best protect federally listed 

threatened and endangered fish species. Specifically Alternative 2 would 

preclude the benefits of designation which provides the river manager tools or 

mechanisms to protect free-flowing conditions and river-specific outstandingly 

remarkable values. Alternative 4 would preclude the construction of the 

proposed fish barrier and not help to meet key conservation measures of the 

Central Arizona Project Biological Opinion, which triggered this suitability study. 

I also considered studying other eligible rivers in the watershed through this 

analysis. This alternative was eliminated from a detailed study so as to limit the 
6

size of the analysis area and increase the agency’s ability to make a decision 

responsive to the BOR’s barrier proposal in a timely manner. The BOR needs to

sequentially make its site-specific decision whether or not to construct the barrier 

or risk time-sensitive funding.

Public Involvement

On January 30, 2009, a scoping letter describing the proposed action and 

seeking public comments was mailed to approximately 1,730 groups, individuals, 

and agencies in the area served by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, 

requesting comments on the proposed action and scope of the NEPA analysis. 

The notice and scoping letter were placed on the forest’s website in February 

2009. The proposed action was also listed on the forest’s Schedule of Proposed 

Actions (SOPA) on January 1, 2009. The Forest Service also hosted public 

meetings on March 21, 2009, in Blue, Arizona, and on March 28, 2009, in Clifton, 

Arizona

Approximately 95 unique responses and three different form letters, totaling over 

1900 submissions, were received in response to the scoping notice. Four key 

issues were identified, and four suitability alternatives were developed to address 

them. The issues are: 

Issue 1 – Designation Offers Long-term Protection

Issue 2 – Designation Could Have Economic Impacts

Issue 3 – Designation May Preclude, Limit or 

Enhance Uses and Activities on Private and Public Lands 

Issue 4 – Current Management and Collaboration

In early August 2010, the pre-decisional environmental assessment was provided 

to parties who had expressed interest in the project. The public was also notified 

of the opportunity to comment for 30 days on the proposal through publication of 

a legal notice in the White Mountain Independent (the newspaper of record) on 

August 6, 2010. The proposal was also made available on the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests website. The comment period closed on September 

7, 2010. The Forest received 34 timely comment letters from individuals, 

organizations, one state agency, and several tribes. Two letters were received 

after the comment period closed. 

Tribal Consultation

The Forest Supervisor contacted 9 tribes and pueblos in July, 2010, to inform 

them of the progress of the analysis and the upcoming public comment period 

which would allow them to thoroughly examine and comment on the 

environmental analysis and suitability assessment. The following comments 

were received from the tribes:
7

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office: Recognition of the rich history of human 

occupation in and near the study corridors over the course of thousands of years. 

Support for Alternative 4 to find all segments suitable and recommended for 

inclusion in the NWSRS.

White Mountain Apache Tribe: The proposals for suitability will not have an effect 

on the White Mountain Apache Tribe's Cultural Heritage Resources and/or 

historic properties. 

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe: The project area is outside Yavapi Territory with no 

concerns for effects to Traditional Cultural Properties. The Tribe defers to other 

consulted tribes.

All comments from individuals, business owners, organizations, one state agency 

and the tribes were carefully read and analyzed. The comments expressed a 

range of perspectives, values, and interests, which were considered in making 

this decision. 

Finding of No Significant Impact

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended,

and based upon the analysis presented with the attached final Environmental 

Assessment for Blue River and KP Creek Wild and Scenic River Suitability 

Study, I have determined that this is not a major federal action, individually or 

cumulatively, and it will not significantly affect the quality of the human 

environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not warranted. 

The determination is based upon the following findings documented in the EA 

and Project Record. 

I have considered the significance of the effects of this project upon the quality of 

the human environment in terms of both context and intensity of those effects.

A. Context

This is a programmatic decision that by itself does not make international, 

national, regional, or statewide decisions. The effects of the decision are limited 

to the locale of the described area. The decision to determine which segments of 

Blue River and KP Creek are suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers system is within the context of local importance in the area 

associated with the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. 

B. Intensity

The following discussion is organized around the ten significance criteria 

described in the NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27, which are used to 

determine intensity. 
8

1. Both beneficial and adverse impacts, including cumulative effects, were 

considered in the analysis (EA Chapter 5 pages 47-95). The 

programmatic decision will not significantly affect any resource.

 

2. Because this is a programmatic decision with no on-the-ground effects, 

there will be no effects to public health and safety. 

 

3. Known unique characteristics are associated with the analysis area, as 

exemplified by the outstandingly remarkable values identified for the 

eligible river segments. There will be no significant effects to the unique 

characteristics of the area. The proposed forest plan amendment will 

continue to emphasize and implement policy to protect the rivers’ freeflowing characteristics, ORVs, and classification, with the exception of 

25.1 miles in segment 1 (where local zoning, collaborative efforts, and 

the Clean Water Act will provide continued protection) and 0.76 miles of 

segment 4 of Blue River. The analysis will not affect the Blue Range 

Primitive Area, or the Centerfire, Nolan, Pipestem, and Lower San 

Francisco Inventoried Roadless Areas. The analysis will not affect 

wetlands, floodplains, or other unique characteristics within the 

geographic analysis area. 

4. There is no known controversy regarding the effects of this proposal on 

the quality of the human environment, based on the analysis and public 

comments received, as documented in the content analysis report in the 

project record and summarized in Chapter 1 of the EA. There is no 

known scientific controversy regarding the effects of this proposal on the 

quality of the human environment.

5. There are no known effects upon the human environment that are highly 

uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

6. This is not a precedent-setting decision. Wild and scenic river suitability 

is a preliminary administrative recommendation subject to additional 

within-agency and Departmental review. Congress may or may not act 

on the resulting recommendation and will consider additional public 

comments if a bill is subsequently introduced.

7. Cumulative effects were considered in the environmental assessment 

(EA Chapter 5 and pages 47-95). There will not be a significant 

cumulative impact from this analysis individually or in concert with other 

related actions, past, present or in the foreseeable future (EA chapter 5 

and pages 47-98).

8. No impacts are foreseen on any proposed or listed National Historic 

Places nor any loss or destruction of scientific, cultural or historic places 
9

expected (EA Chapter 5, pages 73-76). Comments received by Indian 

tribes or other interested parties regarding traditional uses or significant 

places within the project area indicate no concerns for cultural 

resources. The Hopi Tribe supported designation as proposed in 

Alternative 4. This project is in compliance with section 106 of the NHPA, 

as amended, and with Section 101 (b)(4) of the NHPA

9. There are no foreseeable significant adverse impacts upon any 

threatened or endangered species or their habitat. Biological 

assessments and evaluations were completed for this project, and the 

USFWS concurred in a letter received on September 22, 2010.

10.Additional laws and regulations were considered. The actions 

implemented by this decision do not threaten a violation of federal, state, 

or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the 

environment. This action is consistent with the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests Plan, except for the lack of explicit direction to manage 

river segments found suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System. The Forest Plan will be amended through this 

decision to provide full Forest Plan consistency. 

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS

National Forest Management Act (16 USC §§ 1600-1614). The forest plan 

was adopted on August 1987 and has been amended many times. The Blue 

River and KP Creek suitability study is consistent with the forest plan’s long-term 

goals and objectives, forestwide standards and guidelines, including the forest 

plan direction to study the mainstem of the Blue River (EA at page 3). 

Management Indicator Species, migratory birds, and Forest Service sensitive 

species are addressed in the EA at pages 58-67. There will be no impacts to 

aquatic and semi-aquatic sensitive species, and possible beneficial effects (EA at 

pates 64-65). As part of this decision the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests 

Plan is being amended to include Forest Handbook direction at 1909.12 (82.5) to 

manage river segments found suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). ESA section 7(a)(1) directs Federal agencies 

to utilize their authorities to carry out affirmative conservation programs that 

would recover endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 402.01). This 

decision is consistent with this direction and, once completed, would result in 

greater protection for threatened loach minnow, helping meet the objectives of 

the 1991 Recovery Plan. And will allow for future establishment of new recovery 

populations of threatened spikedace and Chircahua leopard frog. Informal 

consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was completed on 

September 22, 2010. 
10

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In accordance with section 

101(d)(6)(B) of the NHPA, Native American tribes with traditional ties to 

southeastern Arizona were sent the scoping letter for the Blue River Native Fish 

Restoration Project in July 2010. No negative comments were received. 

Because the proposed action involves no ground disturbance or modifications to 

existing structures, it does not have the potential to affect archaeological sites or 

historic buildings or objects.

Clean Water Act. Water quality impacts are not expected under this decision

(EA at pages 56-58), which has no ground-disturbing components. 

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Birds). There are no identified effects on 

migratory birds or Birds of Conservation Concern. 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice). This decision does not 

impose disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations (EA at pages 94-95).
11

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities 

Non-significant Forest Plan Amendment

This amendment decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 

“Optional Appeal Procedures Available During the Planning Rule Transition 

Period “. A written notice of appeal must be filed within 45 days, with the appeal 

period beginning the day after the day of publication of the Legal Notice in the 

White Mountain Independent newspaper as provided for in Section 8(b)(1). The 

appeal must be filed in duplicate (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, or 

express delivery) with the Reviewing Officer. There is no requirement to have 

submitted previous comments in order to file an appeal. Written appeals must be 

submitted to:

Corbin Newman, Regional Forester,

333 Broadway SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

Appeals may be faxed to the Reviewing Officer at 505-842-3173. The office 

business hours for those submitting hand-delivered appeals are 8:00 AM to 4:30 

PM, Monday through Friday excluding holidays. Electronic appeals must be 

submitted in a format such as an email message, Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), plain text 

(.txt), rich text format (.rtf), and Word (.doc) to appeals-southwestern-regionaloffice@fs.fed.us. The appeal must have an identifiable name attached or 

verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature may serve as 

verification on electronic appeals. Names and addresses of appellants will 

become part of the public record. Appeals must conform to the requirements of 

Section 9 of the procedures. A copy of the Optional Appeal procedures may be 

found online at:

 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/includes/PlanAppealProceduresDuringTransition.pdf

Suitability determinations in this document are a preliminary administrative 

recommendation and not a final agency action. Thus, they are not appealable. 

The Forest Plan amendment is appealable.

DECISION IMPLEMENTATION DATE

Implementation of the Plan amendment decision shall not occur for 7 calendar 

days following publication of the legal notice of the decision. Requests for stays 

of implementation must be submitted in writing as required in Section 10 of the 

Optional Appeal Procedures.