Home | About Us | Recreation | MANAGEMENT | Help

File Code: 1920

May 15, 2001

Dear Friends,

I have recently approved Amendment Number 15 to the Coconino National Forest Land and Resource M

Plan. Amendment 15 creates a new Management Area for the Bellemont Shooting Facility. This

authorized by a special use permit to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AG&FD) for a public sho

which will be followed by a land exchange. This land is now identified as base-for-exchange land and w

with a land exchange between the AG&FD and the Forest Service. The direction in our Forest Plan

where “government agencies with permanent or long-term, high-investment use of Forest land will gen

required to acquire the land for such uses such as landfills, airports, and sewage facilities. Exceptions 

only when it is clearly in the overriding public interest.” (Forest Plan page 79)

In addition, I have also included a clarification of base-for-exchange direction. This portion

totally separate from the Shooting Facility portion of the Amendment. This clarification was based on d

the City of Flagstaff and Coconino County during a review of their draft Regional and Land Use Transpo

summer. Page 86 has been modified to reflect two adjustments. The first one clarifies what the word 

by adding the words local, regional and national as modifiers. The second one results from separating 

language from the base-for-exchange language, by deleting words from the first bulleted list on

an item at the end of the page. I consider both of these items to be corrections and not change in ma

direction.

The Decision Notice and Digest (the page which lists the superseded pages and a brief synopsis of cha

the essence of the Amendment. Actual changes and additions on the replacement pages are shown in 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who participated in this process through writing 

attending meetings.

Sincerely,

/s/ Jim Golden

JIM GOLDEN

Forest Supervisor

Coconino National Forest

Enclosure(s)

DECISION NOTICE

BELLEMONT SHOOTING FACILITY AND

COCONINO FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT #15

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

Peaks Ranger District

USDA Forest Service

Coconino County, Arizona

Bellemont Shooting Facility Decision Notice and FONSI Page 1 of 7

http://web.archive.org/web/20100116011957/http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2002/belle_dn.shtml 1/29/2012
I. DECISION

I have selected Alternative C for development of the Bellemont shooting facility proposed by the

Fish Department (Department). Alternative C will authorize construction of a quality shooting facility o

approximately 860 acres of Coconino National Forest (CNF) lands near Bellemont, Arizona.

all of the facilities described in Alternative C of the Environmental Assessment (EA) will be authorized b

special use permit to the Department. Alternative C also includes a decision to amend the Coconino N

Land Management Plan (LMP) by allocating 860 acres for shooting range purposes and identifying the 

available for exchange out of Forest Service ownership (base-for-exchange) to the Department. A

for construction of shooting range facilities will not be issued to the Department until the Forest formal

land exchange proposal. Additional NEPA analysis will be required for the eventual land exchange. Th

facilities would be constructed in an undetermined number of phases. Construction of the ranges wou

on funding available to the Department, demonstrated need, and user support.

Alternative C offers the same shooting opportunities, access, and operational hours/season as Alternat

modifications. Some shooting activities were moved further away from private land and one range wa

Alternative C. The length of the High Power Rifle Range would be 600 yards instead of 1,000 yards. T

Law Enforcement Range is eliminated, requiring law enforcement training to occur at the Pistol

Ranges. The maximum numbers of shooters per days is 3,268, which is more than Alternative B beca

archery stations. Approximately 55 acres of forested land would be cleared.

Access to the site would be from the frontage road south of the site. The entire 860 acres would be fe

boundary and internal fences for safety. Gates would be placed in the peripheral fence to allow

southern portion of the facility.

The range facility hours of operation in either action alternative are planned for 7:00 a.m. to sunset, se

week, year-round. However, night shoots may occur a maximum of two nights per week, and would e

p.m. Weather conditions, daylight, level of range use, or range administration may reduce the planned 

Sixteen mitigation measures are required to finalize the design and during construction phases in orde

impacts to natural resources and the human environment, including: sound, lead management, safety

cultural resources, noxious weed, and wildlife habitat concerns. See pages 63 through 64 of the Enviro

Assessment for the list. However, item 15 has been changed to reflect a substitution of equivalent mit

antelope. The following text reflects the new intent.

15. Repair of approximately 3.5 miles of allotment and Forest boundary fence located west of FR171 a

north and west sides of the West Bellemont Pasture within the Maxwell Springs Grazing Allotment. Re

includes the removal of an unneeded four-strand barbed wire fence surrounding Drowned Timber tank 

modification of fence lines to meet Coconino LMP standards.

After the facility is built, there are ten additional management mitigation measures for sound,

safety, and livestock movement across the facility. See page 65 of the Environmental Assessment.

II. RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION

The main reason I am choosing to implement Alternative C with only one modification for antelope mit

this alternative best addresses the noise issue while meeting the purpose and need of the project. Mit

measures are part of the project design and implementation (refer to the EA, Appendix A, pages 63 th

realize that some comments indicated a desire to have the 1000-foot High Power Rifle Range instead o

range. In order to ameliorate the sound effect issue associated with adjacent private lands, I believe t

range is more appropriate.

The public comments on the EA were generally in favor of this project. The concerns that people ident

reviewing the EA focused on the project’s design and operation, such as site contamination, noise, hou

different types of ranges (indoor air rifle or expansion of sporting clay), or adding/restricting types of

used, availability of camping on site, adherence to County ordinances (paving, fire protection, lighting, 

future closure of nearby cinder pits to shooting after facility is constructed, safety issues concerning

group event accommodations, or antelope mitigation adequacy.

Site contamination and noise were both considered in the EA and no new information has been presen

effects described in the EA. The mitigation measures for site contamination and noise will be

estimated effects are within those described in the EA.

Bellemont Shooting Facility Decision Notice and FONSI Page 2 of 7

http://web.archive.org/web/20100116011957/http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2002/belle_dn.shtml 1/29/2012
There are future opportunities to modify the shooting facility operations, such as hours of operation, ad

types of ranges (indoor air rifle), expanding the sporting clays, or adding/restricting types of

Forest Service will control general operations through administration of a special use authorization(s). 

“quiet time” nationally recognized through the NRA Range Source Book and it is 10 pm till 7 am for sho

time I am planning to stay within those time frames. It is possible that in the future, while the

under special use authorization, these hours may be reduced. This is the first time that some one has 

new range (indoor air rifle). As the facility is built, there will be opportunities for revisiting facility desi

relationship to demand. At this time the user demand has not identified for this type of range. Expan

Sporting Clay Range from 8 positions to 16 can be considered at a later date depending on demand an

the planned 8 positions. Types of ammunition will be limited for safety reasons (confinement of projec

not include .50 caliber ammunition at this time. It is possible that after the construction of safety berm

and the testing of those structures that .50 caliber ammunition may be allowed.

Comments on wanting and not wanting to have camping available on the site were received on

campground facilities will be provided, however campground development may be considered in the fu

on demand. Any proposed campground development on National Forest land would have it’

analysis. Construction of the shooting facility may provide opportunities for campground development 

private lands.

Adherence to County ordinances for design and operational features such as paving, fire protection, lig

signage will be part of the special use authorization.

Future closure of nearby cinder pits to shooting after facility is constructed is discussed on page 60 of t

these pits will have separate NEPA analysis. On February 15, the Riordan Pit Rehabilitation Decision N

known as the Isabelle or A-1 Cinder Pit) was signed. In that decision, the pit was closed to shooting.

Facility design specifically avoided the prairie dog colony to avoid potential impacts to the black

endangered mammal dependant on prairie dogs, in addition to potential health problems for humans. 

health concerns can be addressed by dusting burrows with flea powder or management actions by the 

and Fish Department, the agency with jurisdiction of prairie dogs.

Very large group event accommodations are not currently considered in the design. There are opportu

future to discuss Coconino County needs for very large group needs either on this site or on other Fore

lands.

I have adjusted the antelope mitigation slightly from item 15 on page 64 in the EA. Please refer to the

description of the new mitigation item under the Decision heading. Environmental effects of off

involving removal of ponderosa pine invasion from grasslands are discussed in the EA (page 44 throug

action is consistent with our Forest Plan.

III. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING

The Department, in cooperation with the CNF, issued a scoping document in March of 1996 that propo

construction of a public shooting facility on the CNF either near Bellemont or Cochrane Hill. The docum

that the Department would exchange lands with the Forest Service to acquire title to the land needed f

range facility. It also specified a need for interim special use authorization(s), to allow construction to 

to completion of the exchange. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process was initiated by 

this scoping document to the public. The NEPA process was put on hold in October of 1996, until it wa

that a land exchange between the Department and the Forest Service was feasible. When the NEPA pr

in September 1998, additional opportunity for public comment, specifically on the Bellemont site, was 

CNF through a new scoping document. The community raised four primary issues during the

noise/sound, property values, public health hazards, and public safety. Attached is Appendix C to the 

Response to Comments on the EA.

We received 193 comments on the EA for this project. Many were in favor of a shooting facility located 

Arizona, while many folks identified the preferred Alternative B as their choice. Alternative C was iden

favorite of some people. A few individuals repeated concerns with sound and contamination effects.

few new concerns voiced concerning the hours of operation, the building of an indoor air rifle facility, t

environmental effects from clearing trees, the appropriateness of using Forest Service land for a shoot

doubling the Sporting Clay range to 16 positions, obliteration of prairie dogs for health and safety reas

providing camping and RV accommodations. A County Supervisor indicated concerns that specific

Bellemont Shooting Facility Decision Notice and FONSI Page 3 of 7

http://web.archive.org/web/20100116011957/http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2002/belle_dn.shtml 1/29/2012
construction/development features be consistent with county ordinances. In addition, she was concern

making sure there were no camping or RV accommodations at the site. A few people encouraged the 

to close cinder pits in the vicinity to shooting after the Bellemont facility is established. There were fou

wanted the no action alternative.

IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

The Department began discussions with the CNF and local shooting and archery groups in 1995 to find 

location for a public shooting range facility. The CNF, the Department, and a committee made up of re

from various shooting groups and law enforcement agencies evaluated 21 potential sites primarily

Forest System land. There were three locations identified as the most suitable, Bellemont, Cochrane H

Prairie. The Department shooting range consultant and the Forest Service further evaluated the sites 

that Bellemont was the most feasible location, which became the proposed site.

The No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and two action alternatives (Alternatives B and C) were

Both action alternatives involve the construction, maintenance, and operation of a public shooting facil

860-acre parcel at Bellemont, Arizona.

Alternative A

The No-Action Alternative would have no shooting facility built at Bellemont or any other site at this tim

and other non-designated shooting sites throughout the CNF would likely continue to be used.

Alternative B

Alternative B represents the Department’s desired facility. Range facilities would include Sight

Pistol, Target Archery, Field Archery, Silhouette, 1,000-yard High Power Rifle, Action Shooting, Law En

Sporting Clays Ranges. A caretaker’s residence, storage buildings, parking areas, restrooms, and wate

also be developed. At full build-out, it is estimated that a maximum capacity of 1,050 shooters could b

accommodated at the shooting facility at any one point in time. The maximum numbers of

estimated at 2,968. Approximately 76 acres of forested land would be cleared for the facilities.

The mitigation requirements, access, and hours of operation are the same as Alternative C.

V. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI)

After an analysis process and EA document is complete, we must document that there are not significa

human environment from the chosen alternative. If significant effects are found, or are not known, th

Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. Significance is defined in the paragraphs below. As eac

addressed it becomes evident that this project is suitable for an EA and there is a finding of no significa

this decision.

My decision to implement Alternative C does not have a significant effect on the environment. Environm

analysis is documented in Chapter 3 of the EA.

Context. This project is a site-specific action that by itself does not have international, national, region

statewide importance. The discussion of the significance criteria that follows applies to Alternative C a

context of local importance in the area associated with the Bellemont area.

Intensity. The following discussion is organized around the Ten Significance Criteria described in the N

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40CFR 1508.27).

These paragraphs describe how the action effects the ‘human environment’. The human environment 

interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of th

that environment. This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to requi

of an environmental impact statement.

1. The analysis considered both beneficial and adverse effects. Chapter 3 of the EA contains a comple

effects. Through proper design of the shooting facilities and operational controls, adverse effects can b

mitigated.

2. There are no known adverse impacts to public safety. The intended action will not affect public hea

Bellemont Shooting Facility Decision Notice and FONSI Page 4 of 7

http://web.archive.org/web/20100116011957/http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2002/belle_dn.shtml 1/29/2012
3. No unique characteristics of the geography, such as cultural resources and wetlands, will be advers

cultural resources survey and clearance was completed, and all cultural resources will be avoided and 

There are no wetlands impacted by the shooting range facilities.

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial.

The effects of the project are limited to the Bellemont area. While some people have disagreed with m

implement Alternative C, no person has provided evidence that the environmental effects of the shooti

been wrongly predicted; therefore the effects described are not likely to be controversial. The EA Appe

comments received.

5. The degree of possible effects on the human environment are not highly uncertain, nor are there un

unknown risks involved. Effects are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA and there are none that have a h

uncertainty or unknown risks.

6. Site specific actions found as part of this decision do not set a precedent for future actions, which m

significant effects, nor does this represent a decision in principle about a future consideration.

implement Alternative C does not establish any future precedent for other actions that may have a sig

While the Forest Service has administrative control over this area, any new future actions will be

the NEPA process and will stand on their own as to the environmental effects and project feasibility. T

design indicates the full build out of ranges for this facility. Additional ranges or major design changes 

be evaluated through the NEPA process. The land exchange decision will have it’s own NEPA process w

involvement.

7. These actions are not related to other actions that, when combined, will have significant impacts.

effects are documented in Chapter 3 of the EA. There is not a significant cumulative effect to the envi

the economy of the Flagstaff region or the Nation, from implementing Alternative C.

8. This decision will not contribute to the loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or histori

There are no known unique scientific characteristics on this site. A cultural resources survey and clear

completed, and all cultural or historic resources will be avoided and protected.

9. This decision will not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species of plants or animals

for the management of these species. Chapter 3.5 of the EA describes threatened or endangered spec

Bellemont area. There are no adverse affects to threatened or endangered species nor is any critical h

designated for this area. .

10. This decision does not violate or threaten to violate Federal, State, or local laws, or requirements i

protection of the environment. The Decision complies with relevant laws, including but not limited to t

the Clean Air act as amended; Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 11990; the Safe Drinking Water 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended; the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1

American Religious Act; the National Forest Management Act of 1976; Migratory Bird Act of 1985, and 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Decision also complies with Arizona State laws regarding natura

protection, including but not limited to water quality, as well as County and City resource protection m

I find that implementing Alternative C does not constitute a major Federal action that would significant

quality of the human environment in either context or intensity. I have made this determination after 

both positive and negative effects, as well as direct, indirect and cumulative effects of this action and f

future actions.

I have found that the context of the environmental impacts of this decision is limited to the local area a

significant. I have also determined that the severity of these impacts is not significant.

VI. EFFECTIVE DATE AND IMPLEMENTATION

This decision will not be implemented sooner than five business days following the close of the appeal 

established in the Notice of Decision in the Arizona Daily Sun. If an appeal is filed, the Forest Plan pag

not be implemented sooner than 15 calendar days following a final decision on the appeal.

VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW

Bellemont Shooting Facility Decision Notice and FONSI Page 5 of 7

http://web.archive.org/web/20100116011957/http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2002/belle_dn.shtml 1/29/2012
The decision to issue a special use authorization for the building and operation of the Bellemont Shooti

to make a non-significant Forest Plan Amendment is subject to administrative review pursuant to

215 a written notice of appeal must be filed with Regional Forester within 45 days of the date that a no

decision is published in the Arizona Daily Sun. A notice of appeal must be fully consistent with the req

in 36 CFR 215. At a minimum a written notice of appeal must include the following:

• State that your appeal is filed pursuant to 36 CFR 215.

• Provide your name, address and telephone number.

• Identify this Decision Notice by its title.

• Identify the decision or decisions you wish reviewed.

State the reasons for your objections, including issues of fact, law, regulation, or policy, and if ap

specifically state how the decision violates law, regulation, or policy.

•

• Identify the specific change or changes in the decision that you seek.

A notice of appeal may include a request for stay to keep the decision from being implemented. 

stay should provide the following information:

•

• A description of the specific actions to be stopped by the stay.

Specific reasons why the stay should be granted. This should contain sufficient detail to permit t

Officer to evaluate and rule upon the stay request. At a minimum you should discuss the specifi

effects of implementation upon you; harmful site-specific impacts or effect on resources in the a

the activity or activities to be stopped; and how the cited effects and impacts would prevent a m

decision on the merits of the appeal.

•

Appeals must be filed with the Regional Forester, Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway S. E., Alb

Mexico 87102, Attention: Appeals Contact Person.

•

For further information, contact Ken Jacobs at the Mormon Lake Ranger District, 4373 South Lake Mar

Flagstaff, AZ 86001, phone 520-214-2464; email: kajacobs@fs.fed.us.

/s/ Jim Golden

JIM GOLDEN May 15, 2001

Forest Supervisor

Coconino National Forest

COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST PLAN

DIGEST

FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT #15

May 2001

Forest Plan amendments are numbered consecutively. Check the last transmittal to see if this amendm

sequence. If it is not please contact the Supervisor's Office, Land management Planning to obtain the 

amendment.

Page Number Superseded New

(Number of Sheets)

Bellemont Shooting Facility Decision Notice and FONSI Page 6 of 7

http://web.archive.org/web/20100116011957/http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2002/belle_dn.shtml 1/29/2012
i through ii 1 1

85 through 86 1 1

115 throgh 116 1 1

119 through 120 1 1

137 through 140 2 2

157 through 160 2 2

206-59 through 206-60 1

233 through 234 1 1

237 through 238 1 1

Digest:

ii Page ii adds Management Area 30 to the Table of Contents

85 - 86 Page 86 has been modified to reflect two adjustments. The first one

public meant, be adding the words local, regional and national as modifiers. The second one results fr

acquisition language from the base-for-exchange language, by deleting words from the first

and adding an item at the end of the page.

115 - 116 Page 116 updates MA 3 acreages

119 - 120 Page 119 updates MA 3 acreages

137 - 140 Pages 138 and 139 updates MA 4 acreages

157 - 160 Page 158 and 159 updates MA 9 acreages

206-59 206-60 Are new pages for MA 30 identifying the management direction for this new MA.

233 - 234 Pages 233 and 234 have updates to Appendix B reflecting the new MA 30 and 

added with Amendment 12

237 - 238 Page 237 is Appendix D that has updated acreages resulting from the creation 

the Bellemont Shooting Facility and corrects a figures misprinted in Amendment 12.

/s/ Jim Golden

JIM GOLDEN

Forest Supervisor

Return to NEPA EFOIA page

Bellemont Shooting Facility Decision Notice and FONSI Page 7 of 7

http://web.archive.org/web/20100116011957/http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coconino/nepa/2002/belle_dn.shtml 1/29/2012