##### ![](media/image1.png){width="0.6944444444444444in" height="0.9048611111111111in"}National Park Service 

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Coronado National Memorial**

**Arizona**

**Law Enforcement Operations Building Construction**

**Environmental Assessment**

**September 2008**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.581944444444445in" height="4.3875in"}

**Law Enforcement Operations Building Construction**

**Environmental Assessment**

**Summary**

The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to construct a Law
Enforcement Operations building at the Coronado National Memorial, a
unit of the National Park Service. Congress has made security along our
International borders a priority and is considering legislation to
increase law enforcement staff in border areas. In 2009, funding
increases are anticipated that would enable the law enforcement staff at
the Memorial to nearly triple in size. The law enforcement rangers at
the Memorial currently operate out of two small offices (approximately
200 sq. ft.) in the Headquarters building. The Headquarters building is
a remodeled 1966 era 3 bedroom house that holds offices for the
Superintendent, Law Enforcement, Maintenance, Administration and
Resource Management Divisions.

The purpose of the project is to provide a safe healthy work environment
for employees and cooperating agencies that will be functional and
efficient for Memorial law enforcement staff. The project is needed to
accomplish the following objectives:

-   Decrease response time to border incidents and allow better
    visibility of law enforcement in the area. The proposed construction
    site is located less than a mile to the international border.

-   The proposed construction site is in a previously disturbed area
    that needs to be rehabilitated. Historically used as a cattle ranch
    the land has been disturbed and is largely composed of exotic
    vegetation. The abandoned ranch buildings have recently been
    demolished. The site is currently being used as a staging area for
    the international border fence construction.

-   Place law enforcement in an area of the park that has a high level
    of illegal activity associated with the international border such as
    illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Currently a Border Patrol
    camera mounted on a tower monitors the ranch area.

-   Make the grassland area considerably safer for visitors and
    employees. The grasslands of the park are underutilized by visitors
    because there are no trails, parking or facilities in that area.
    Making the area safer through increased law enforcement presence
    would enable staff to interpret this grassland resource for the
    visitor. Once the law enforcement operations center is established
    and operational the park could move forward on a planned 1.5 mile
    handicapped accessible trail.

This Environmental Assessment evaluates two alternatives; a No Action
Alternative and an Action Alternative. The No Action alternative
describes the current condition if no Law Enforcement Operation Center
were constructed, while the action alternative addresses the
construction of a law enforcement center in the Montezuma Ranch area.

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to provide the decision-making
framework that 1) analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to meet
objectives of the proposal, 2) evaluates potential issues and impacts to
Coronado National Memorial's resources and values, and 3) identifies
mitigation measures to lessen the degree or extent of these impacts.
Resource topics included in this document because the impacts may be
greater-than-minor include view shed; visitor use and experience; and
park operations. All other resource topics have been dismissed because
the project would result in negligible or minor effects to those
resources. No major effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public scoping was conducted to assist with the development of this
document and 5 comments were received and would be addressed in this
document.

[]{.mark}

**Public Comment**

If you wish to comment on the environmental assessment, you may post
comments online at <http://parkplanning.nps.gov/> or mail comments to
Superintendent; Coronado National Memorial, 4101 East Montezuma Canyon
Rd, Hereford, AZ 85615. This environmental assessment would be on public
review for 30 days, from September 17 until October 17, 2008. It is the
practice of the NPS to make all comments, including names and addresses
of respondents who provide that information, available for public review
following the conclusion of the environmental assessment process.
Individuals may request that the NPS withhold their name and/or address
from public disclosure. If you wish to do this, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comment. Commentators using the
website can make such a request by checking the box \"keep my contact
information private.\" NPS would honor such requests to the extent
allowable by law, but you should be aware that NPS may still be required
to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information
Act. We would make all submissions from organizations, businesses, and
from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials
of organizations or businesses available for public inspection in their
entirety.

Kym Hall

Superintendent

Coronado National Memorial

4101 E. Montezuma Canyon Road

Hereford, Arizona 85615

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service •
Coronado National Memorial

This page intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

# Contents {#contents .TOC-Heading}

[PURPOSE AND NEED 1](#purpose-and-need)

[Introduction 1](#introduction)

[Background 1](#background)

[Purpose and Need 3](#__RefHeading___Toc208975040)

[Relationship to Other Plans and Policies
3](#__RefHeading___Toc208975041)

[National Park Service Mandates And Policies
6](#__RefHeading___Toc208975042)

[Interrelationship With Other Agencies And Programs
7](#__RefHeading___Toc208975043)

[U.S. Border Patrol 7](#__RefHeading___Toc208975044)

[International Boundary And Water Commission, United States And Mexico
7](#__RefHeading___Toc208975045)

[Border XXI And Border 2012 Programs 8](#__RefHeading___Toc208975046)

[Planning Considerations 8](#__RefHeading___Toc208975047)

[Adjacent Lands 8](#__RefHeading___Toc208975048)

[Internal And Public Scoping 9](#__RefHeading___Toc208975049)

[Impact Topics Retained For Further Analysis
10](#__RefHeading___Toc208975050)

[Visitor Use and Experience 10](#visitor-use-and-experience)

[Park Operations 11](#park-operations)

[Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Consideration
12](#__RefHeading___Toc208975053)

[Historic Structures 12](#historic-structures)

[Archeological Resources 13](#archeological-resources)

[Topography, Geology, and Soils 13](#topography-geology-and-soils)

[Vegetation 14](#vegetation)

[Wildlife 14](#wildlife)

[Special Status Species 15](#special-status-species)

[Water Resources 15](#water-resources)

[Wetlands 16](#wetlands)

[Floodplains 16](#floodplains)

[Paleontological Resources 16](#paleontological-resources)

[Ethnographic Resources 17](#ethnographic-resources)

[Cultural Landscapes 17](#cultural-landscapes)

[Museum Collections 17](#museum-collections)

[Air Quality 18](#air-quality)

[Soundscape Management 18](#soundscape-management)

[Lightscape Management 19](#lightscape-management)

[Socioeconomics 19](#socioeconomics)

[Prime and Unique Farmlands 20](#prime-and-unique-farmlands)

[Indian Trust Resources 20](#indian-trust-resources)

[Environmental Justice 20](#environmental-justice)

[ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 21](#alternatives-considered)

[Alternatives Carried Forward 21](#alternatives-carried-forward)

[Alternative A -- No Action 21](#alternative-a-no-action)

[Alternative B -- Construct a New Law Enforcement Operations Building
21](#alternative-b-construct-a-new-law-enforcement-operations-building)

[Mitigation Measures 23](#__RefHeading___Toc208975078)

[Alternative Summaries 24](#alternative-summaries)

[Identification of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative
26](#identification-of-the-environmentally-preferred-alternative)

[ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 28](#environmental-consequences)

[Visitor Use and Experience 31](#visitor-use-and-experience-1)

[Intensity Level Definitions 31](#intensity-level-definitions)

[Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)
31](#impacts-of-alternative-a-no-action-alternative)

[Impacts of Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)
32](#impacts-of-alternative-b-preferred-alternative)

[Park Operations 33](#park-operations-1)

[Intensity Level Definitions 33](#intensity-level-definitions-1)

[Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)
34](#impacts-of-alternative-a-no-action-alternative-1)

[Impacts of Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)
35](#impacts-of-alternative-b-preferred-alternative-1)

[CONSULTATION and COORDINATION 36](#consultation-and-coordination)

[External Scoping 36](#external-scoping)

[Internal Scoping 36](#internal-scoping)

[Environmental Assessment Review and List of Recipients
36](#environmental-assessment-review-and-list-of-recipients)

[References 43](#__RefHeading___Toc208975094)

## PURPOSE AND NEED

## 

## Introduction 

Coronado National Memorial (4,750 acres) is in Cochise County in
southeast Arizona and is located 21 miles south of Sierra Vista and 26
miles west of Bisbee on the United States--Mexico border. Coronado
National Memorial (NM) was established as an international memorial on
August 18, 1941, and as a national memorial on November 8, 1952, to
commemorate the first major European exploration of the American
Southwest. Located on the U.S.-Mexico border, the memorial is a cultural
area in a natural setting composed of semi-desert grasslands and oak
woodlands in Montezuma Canyon at the southern end of the Huachuca
Mountain Range. Coronado National Memorial shares approximately 3.3
miles of international border with Mexico.

The 2.5-year Coronado Expedition (1540--1542) probably entered the
United States via the San Pedro River Valley immediately east of the
national memorial. No physical evidence has been found to substantiate
the actual route of Coronado at the existing international boundary.
However, the important aspect of the expedition was not its actual
crossing point, but rather the international implications and the
Hispanic cultural development initiated by these events. Today the
Spanish language, Spanish and Mexican food, Spanish--Mexican influenced
architecture, and other Hispanic customs are evident in our lives, not
only in the Southwest, but throughout the nation.

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment is to examine the
environmental impacts associated with the proposal to construct a new
law enforcement operations building at Coronado National Memorial. The
new facility would be constructed in an area previously disturbed by
ranching, farming, housing, parking and most recently by staging area
activities associated with the construction of the international border
fence. This Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, regulations
of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 CFR 1508.9), and the
National Park Service Director's Order (DO)-12 (*Conservation Planning,
Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision-making*).

## 

## Background

Since the late 1990s, Coronado NM has become an increasingly popular
border crossing location for drug smugglers and undocumented immigrants.
The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) estimates that approximately 75,000 to
100,000 pounds of drugs and 55,000 undocumented immigrants enter through
Coronado N M each year (NPS 2003e). Of particular concern are impacts to
endangered species. At Coronado, illegal vehicular activity has
destroyed and damaged agave plants, the primary food resource of the
endangered lesser long-nosed bat (NPS 2003e). During a ten day period in
May of 2007, the U.S. National Park Service along with the U.S. National
Forest Service, (USFS) the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the
Border Patrol (USBP) conducted a special operation along three miles of
the border between the United States and Mexico along the Coronado
National Memorial's and Coronado National Forest's boundary. Law
enforcement officers apprehended more than 300 illegal immigrants and
seized 564 pounds of marijuana. The need for additional law enforcement
staff is critical for visitor and employee safety, as well as resource
protection.

Currently, the NPS law enforcement division at Coronado NM operates out
of a two small offices (app. 200 sq. ft.) in the headquarters building.
An operations building is needed to house staff as well as supplies,
tools, and equipment in a more efficient, location to serve quicker
response times to incidents on the border. A facility closer to the
international border would improve park operations and efficiency in
managing the diverse law enforcement needs the area demands. An upgraded
potable water system is needed as well as a larger septic system. The
design would include a parking area with a garage or shade structure to
protect vehicles and motorized equipment from the weather and from theft
or vandalism. A horse corral and dog kennels may be added if necessary
to support law enforcement needs.

Law enforcement currently uses several small storage facilities
scattered across the park in various locations. Access to supplies for
emergencies is not convenient or efficient resulting in lost
productivity for law enforcement staff, and cooperating response
agencies. Some equipment has been damaged by rodents and water.

Discussion of other alternative office arrangements by park staff
included building the law enforcement operations center within the
current headquarters development area. But there is not suitable space
for the size building and infrastructure needed for the anticipated
staff. It was considered advantageous to place the building in an area
currently disturbed and close to the border for quicker response times
to incidents.

Another option considered but dismissed was leasing office space in
nearby communities. However this option would increase response time and
there is a fear that segregating staff could lead to morale issues.

The Park currently has three housing units. A fourth unit which had
housed seasonal employees was converted to serve as the Headquarters
office in 2003. With the imminent increase in law enforcement staff a
second of the four houses at the Memorial will be temporarily converted
into office space. The park conducted an internal housing needs
assessment that concurred that three housing units are needed in the
park for law enforcement and seasonal staff. The need to retain required
law enforcement occupants in park housing is necessary for response to
incidents in the park, particularly incidents related to support of
Border Patrol and drug interdiction efforts and response to intrusion
alarms. The occupants also serve as a deterrent for illegal activity and
vandalism or theft of government property within the headquarters
complex. The temporary conversion of a second park house to office space
does not meet the objectives of the park for office space and is an
inadequate short term solution to the problem.

The Coronado National Memorial General Management Plan (GMP) dated
January 2004 addresses the educational and interpretive need for a trail
in the grasslands. The GMP states "A loop trail would be developed in
the grasslands south of the main road." The GMP identifies the Montezuma
Ranch buildings that are non-historic would be removed and the area
returned to native grasslands. The authors of the GMP could not have
imagined the increase in illegal activity associated with the border
that would necessitate the increase in staff. The buildings would be
camouflaged by topography and through color of buildings and
construction materials. The exotic vegetation would be removed and
native plants and contours would be used in landscaping the area.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975040 .anchor}Purpose and Need

The purpose of this proposal is to provide a safe and healthy work
environment for employees and cooperating agencies that would be
functional and efficient for Memorial law enforcement staff in
compliance with the goals and objectives of current plans and policies.

The project is needed to accomplish the following objectives:

-   Decrease response time to border incidents and allow better
    visibility of law enforcement in the area.

-   The proposed construction site is in a previously disturbed area
    that needs to be rehabilitated. Historically used as a cattle ranch
    the land has been disturbed and is largely composed of exotic
    vegetation. The abandoned ranch buildings have recently been
    demolished. The site is currently being used as a staging area for
    the international border fence construction.

-   Place law enforcement in an area of the park that has a high level
    of illegal activity associated with the international border such as
    illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Currently a Border Patrol
    camera mounted on a tower monitors the ranch area.

-   Make the grassland area considerably safer for visitors and
    employees. The grasslands of the park are underutilized by visitors
    because there are no trails, parking or facilities in that area.
    Making the area safer through increased law enforcement presence
    would enable staff to interpret this grassland resource for the
    visitor.

-   Meet federal and state requirements for a safe healthy work
    environment for employees and cooperating agencies.

-   Consolidate divisional equipment and materials storage into one
    building within the park.

-   Ensure the site for the new law enforcement building minimizes
    impacts to park resources and would not result in impairment or
    unacceptable impacts to these resources.

-   The facility would follow NPS guidelines for energy sustainability
    and efficiency.

The flow of undocumented immigrants and drug smugglers has had
substantial impacts on the landscape of the Memorial. If these impacts
are not halted, many park resources at Coronado NM would continue to be
severely degraded. Some resources, such as endangered species, cannot be
replaced once they are gone. Of particular concern are impacts to
threatened or endangered species such as the lesser long-nosed bat and
the Mexican spotted owl. Other species of concern include the Mexican
long-tongued bat, the logger head shrike, and the barking frog.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975041 .anchor}Relationship to Other Plans and
Policies

The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the *2006
National Park Service Management Policies (NPS 2006)* which states that
major Memorial facilities within park boundaries should be located so as
to minimize impacts to park resources. The proposed site of the new
operations facility was identified to minimize harm to all park
resources.

Natural Resource Management: The National Park Service would preserve
the natural resources, processes, systems, and values of units of the
national park system in an unimpaired condition, to perpetuate their
inherent integrity and to provide present and future generations with
the opportunity to enjoy them (NPS 2006, sec. 4).

Cultural Resource Management: The National Park Service would preserve
and foster appreciation of the cultural resources in its custody, and it
would demonstrate its respect for the people traditionally associated
with those resources, through appropriate programs of research,
planning, and stewardship (NPS 2006, sec. 5).

Visitor Use: The Service may allow other visitor uses that do not meet
all the above criteria if they are appropriate to the purpose for which
the Memorial was established and they can be sustained without causing
unacceptable impacts to Memorial resources or values. For the purposes
of these policies, unacceptable impacts are that which, individually or
cumulatively, would be inconsistent with a Memorial's purposes or
values, or impede the attainment of a park's desired conditions for
natural and cultural resources as identified through the park's planning
process, or create an unsafe or unhealthy environment for visitors or
employees, or diminish opportunities for current or future generations
to enjoy, learn about, or be inspired by park resources or values, or

reasonably interfere with park programs or activities, or an appropriate
use, or

the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape
maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or commemorative
locations within the park, or

NPS concessionaire or contractor operations or services. (NPS 2006, 8.2)

Visitor Safety: While recognizing that there are limitations on its
capability to totally eliminate all hazards, the National Park Service
and its concessionaires, contractors, and cooperators would seek to
provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. The
service would work cooperatively with other federal, tribal, state, and
local agencies, organizations, and individuals to carry out this
responsibility. The service would strive to identify recognizable
threats to the safety and health of persons and to the protection of
property by applying nationally accepted codes, standards, engineering
principles, and other NPS policies. When practicable, and consistent
with congressionally designated purposes and mandates, the service would
reduce or remove known hazards and apply other appropriate measures,
including closures, guarding, signing, or other forms of education. In
doing so, the Service's preferred actions would be those that have the
least impact on park resources and values (NPS 2006, sec. 8.2.5.1).

Law Enforcement Program: The objectives of the NPS law enforcement
program are (1) the prevention of criminal activities through resource
education, public safety efforts, and deterrence; and (2) the detection
and investigation of criminal activity and the apprehension and
successful prosecution of criminal violators. In carrying out the law
enforcement program, the Park Service would make reasonable efforts to
provide for the protection, safety, and security of park visitors,
employees, concessionaires, and public and private property, and to
protect the natural and cultural resources entrusted to its care (NPS
2006, sec. 8.3.1).

Human Health and Safety: The saving of human life would take precedence
over all other management actions. The National Park Service would seek
to provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees.
The Park Service would strive to identify recognizable threats to the
safety and health of persons and to the protection of property. Where
practicable and not detrimental to NPS mandates to preserve park
resources, known hazards would be reduced or removed. Where it would be
inconsistent with congressionally designated purposes and mandates or
where otherwise not practicable to make physical changes, efforts would
be made to provide for personal safety and health through other
controls, including closures, guarding, signing, or other forms of
education. The Park Service recognizes that the environment being
preserved is a visitor attraction but that it also may be potentially
hazardous (NPS 2006, 8.2.5.1).

2006 Housing Management Plan: The Park currently has three housing
units. A fourth unit which had housed seasonal employees was converted
to office space for Resource Management division, law enforcement,
administration and the Superintendent's office. With the recent increase
in law enforcement staff a second of the four houses will be converted
temporarily to office space. Although none of the housing units is
classified as a historic structure, they were all constructed during the
Mission 66 era and will be repaired or restructured in ways which will
retain their original integrity or allow reversion to their original
state if necessary. With the presence of Deer Mice in the park, there is
a remote chance of exposure to Hantavirus which the park attempts to
prevent with occupant education, cleaning methods, rodent deterrence and
other prevention methods. The park conducted an internal housing needs
assessment in 1998. It certified the need for two permanent law
enforcement, required occupant, single-family units and one resource
manager required occupancy unit for fire suppression support. The park
concurs that three housing units are needed, however, two would be used
as single-family units for required occupancy law enforcement positions
and a third would be utilized as shared housing for seasonal, volunteer,
detailees, crews and other types of temporary staff.

The memorial justifies the existing housing and the need to retain
required law enforcement occupants as necessity for response to
incidents in the park, particularly incidents related to support of
Border Patrol and drug interdiction efforts and response to intrusion
alarms. The occupants also serve as a deterrent for illegal activity and
vandalism or theft of government property within the headquarters
complex.

###  {#section-2 .Std-heading-5}

### General Management Plan {#general-management-plan .Std-heading-5}

A Memorial's general management plan provides a vision and policy
guidance for the preservation of park resources, visitor use and
experience, the types and general intensities of development, visitor
carrying capacities, and opportunities to address management issues
internal and external to the Memorial. It also identifies connections
among the various park programs and provides a policy framework for more
site-specific planning.

Coronado National Memorial's *Final General Management Plan /
Environmental Impact Statement* was released in January 2004 and lists
the following issues facing the Memorial:

Due to the location of the memorial on the U.S.-Mexican border, illegal
trafficking in drugs and people adversely affects both resources and
visitor experiences.

The memorial contains superlative views of the San Pedro River Valley in
the United States and Mexico, and these views represent an important
part of the visitor experience. To carry out the memorial's purpose, the
surrounding cultural landscape is important.

-   The visitor center/headquarters building, the maintenance
    facilities, and staff housing are inadequate, and NPS managers must
    decide what facilities are necessary for future visitor experiences
    and resource protection.

One of the goals common to all action alternatives defined in the *Final
General Management Plan, 2004* is to "eliminate cross-border illegal
activities and provide a sufficient law enforcement presence to deter
such activities." The plan also states that "the memorial would continue
to seek equipment necessary to accomplish this task."

Appropriate Use

Sections 1.4 and 1.5 of *Management Policies* (2006) direct that the
National Park Service must ensure that park uses that are allowed would
not cause impairment of, or unacceptable impacts on, park resources and
values. A new form of park use may be allowed within a park only after a
determination has been made in the professional judgment of the park
manager that it will not result in unacceptable impacts.

Section 8.1.2 of *Management Policies* (2006), *Process for Determining
Appropriate Uses*, provides evaluation factors for determining
appropriate uses. All proposals for park uses are evaluated for:

-   consistency with applicable laws, executive orders, regulations, and
    policies;

-   consistency with existing plans for public use and resource
    management;

-   actual and potential effects on park resources and values;

-   total costs to the service; and

-   whether the public interest will be served.

Park managers must continually monitor all park uses to prevent
unanticipated and unacceptable impacts. If unanticipated and
unacceptable impacts emerge, the park manager must engage in a
thoughtful, deliberate process to further manage or constrain the use,
or discontinue it. More information on the definition of unacceptable
impacts as cited in §1.4.7.1 of *Management Policies* (2006) can be
found in the *Environmental Consequences* chapter.

An office building is a common and vital structure in most park units.
Proper location, sizing, as well as construction materials and methods
would ensure that unacceptable impacts to park resources and values
would not occur. The proposed law enforcement operation building is
consistent with the park's general management plan and other related
park plans. With this in mind, the NPS finds that construction and use
of an law enforcement operation building is an acceptable use at
Coronado National Memorial.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975042 .anchor}National Park Service Mandates
And Policies

### Organic Act {#organic-act .Std-heading-5}

The NPS Organic Act of 1916 directs the U.S. Department of the Interior
and the National Park Service to manage units of the national park
system "to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and
the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in
such manner and by such means as would leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations" (16 USC 1). The Redwood National Park
Expansion Act of 1978 reiterates this mandate by stating that the
National Park Service must conduct its actions in a manner that would
ensure no "derogation of the values and purposes for which these various
areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be
directly and specifically provided by Congress" (16 USC 1 a-1).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975043 .anchor}Interrelationship With Other
Agencies And Programs

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975044 .anchor}U.S. Border Patrol

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which became part of
U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 1, 2003, has the
responsibility to regulate and control immigration into the United
States. The function of the U.S. Border Patrol is to apprehend or remove
undocumented immigrants who enter or remain illegally in the United
States. USBP activities are administered under the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection. The mission of the Border Patrol is to protect the
U.S. boundaries through the detection and prevention of smuggling and
illegal entry of undocumented immigrants into the United States. Over
90% of USBP operations and activities occur within 50 miles of the
border. With the increase in illegal drug trafficking, the Border Patrol
has also assumed the major federal responsibility for illegal drug
interdiction (INS 2002).

On April 1, 2008, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), exercised his authority to waive 30 environmental laws and
regulations to allow the expedited construction of a pedestrian and
vehicle fencing along the Arizona border (INS 2008). The purpose of the
project is to "... in the most expeditious manner possible build the
infrastructure necessary to deter and prevent illegal entry on our
southwestern border, including pedestrian and vehicle fencing, roads,
and virtual detection technology." (INS 2008).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975045 .anchor}International Boundary And Water
Commission, United States And Mexico

The mission of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is
to apply the rights and obligations that the governments of the United
States and Mexico assume under the numerous boundary and water treaties
and related agreements, and to do so in a way that benefits the social
and economic welfare of people on both sides of the boundary and
improves relations between the two countries (IBWC 2003b).

Wherever treaty provisions call for joint action or joint agreement by
the two governments, such matters are handled by or through the U.S.
Department of State and the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Relations
(IBWC 2003b).

The U.S.-Mexico land boundary extends for 674 miles and is marked on the
ground by 276 permanent monuments. The monuments are maintained jointly
by the commission under a 1944 Water Treaty, which extended the
commission's jurisdiction to the land boundary between the two countries
(IBWC 2003b).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975049 .anchor}Internal And Public Scoping

Scoping is a process to identify the resources that may be affected by a
project proposal, and to explore possible alternative ways of achieving
the proposal while minimizing adverse impacts. Coronado National
Memorial conducted both internal scoping with appropriate National Park
Service staff and external scoping with the public and
interested/affected groups and agencies.

Internal scoping was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of
professionals on March 28, 2008. Interdisciplinary team members met to
discuss the purpose and need for the project; various alternatives;
potential environmental impacts; past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects that may have cumulative effects; and possible
mitigation measures. Over the course of the project, team members
conducted additional meetings to view and evaluate the proposed site for
the new operations facilities.

External scoping was initiated with the distribution of a scoping letter
to inform the public of the proposal to construct a new operations
building, and to generate input on the preparation of this Environmental
Assessment. The scoping letter dated May 1, 2008 was mailed to 98
addresses including landowners adjacent to the Memorial, various federal
and state agencies, affiliated Native American tribes, local governments
and local news agencies.

During the 30-day scoping period, four public responses were received.
No Native American tribes responded to the proposal. More information
regarding scoping can be found in *Comments and Coordination*.

Table 1 Affiliated Tribes of Coronado National Memorial

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Terry Enos,         | Clinton Patteua,      | Jeff Houser,          |
| Chairperson         | President             | Chairperson           |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Ak-Chin Indian      | Fort McDowell         | Fort Sill Apache      |
| Community           | Mohave-Apache         | Tribe of Oklahoma     |
|                     |                       |                       |
| 42507 W. Peters and | Indian Community      | Route 2, Box 121      |
| Nail Road           |                       |                       |
|                     | P.O. Box 17779        | Apache, OK 73006      |
| Maricopa, AZ 85239  |                       |                       |
|                     | Fountain Hills, AZ    |                       |
|                     | 85268                 |                       |
+=====================+=======================+=======================+
| Richard Enos,       | Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma | Wayne Taylor, Jr.,    |
| Governor            | -- Director           | Chairman              |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Gila River Indian   | Cultural Preservation | Hopi Tribe            |
| Community           | Office Hopi Tribe     |                       |
|                     |                       | P.O. Box 123          |
| P.O. Box 97         | P.O. Box 123          |                       |
|                     |                       | Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039  |
| Sacaton, AZ 85247   | Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039  |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Sara Misquez,       | Robert F. Valencia,   | Joni Ramos, President |
| President           | Chairman              |                       |
|                     |                       | Salt River Pima --    |
| Mescalero Apache    | Pascua Yaqui Tribe of | Maricopa Indian       |
| Tribe               | Arizona               | Community             |
|                     |                       |                       |
| P.O. Box 227        | 7474 S. Camino De     | 10005 East Osborn     |
|                     | Oeste                 | Road                  |
| Mescalero, NM 74354 |                       |                       |
|                     | Tucson, AZ 85746      | Scottsdale, AZ 85256  |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Kathleen Wesley --  | Edward Manual,        | Vivian Burdette,      |
| Kitcheyan,          | Chairman              | Chairperson           |
| Chairperson         |                       |                       |
|                     | Tohono O'odham Nation | Tonto Apache Tribe    |
| San Carlos Apache   |                       |                       |
| Tribe               | P.O. Box 837          | Tonto Reservation #30 |
|                     |                       |                       |
| Tribal Planning     | Sells, AZ 85634       | Payson, AZ 85541      |
| Office              |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| P.O. Box O          |                       |                       |
|                     |                       |                       |
| San Carlos, AZ      |                       |                       |
| 85550               |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Dallas Massey, Sr., | Jamie Fullmer,        | Arlen Quetawki,       |
| Chairperson         | Chairman              | Governor              |
|                     |                       |                       |
| White Mountain      | Yavapai-Apache Tribe  | Pueblo of Zuni        |
| Apache Tribe        |                       |                       |
|                     | 2400 West Datsi       | Zuni, NM 87327        |
| P.O. Box 700        |                       |                       |
|                     | Camp Verde, AZ 86322  |                       |
| Whiteriver, AZ      |                       |                       |
| 85941               |                       |                       |
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975050 .anchor}Impact Topics Retained For
Further Analysis

Impact topics for this project have been identified on the basis of
federal laws, regulations, and orders; National Park Service *2006
Management* *Policies*; and National Park Service knowledge of resources
at Coronado National Memorial. Impact topics that are carried forward
for further analysis in this Environmental Assessment are listed below
along with the reasons why the impact topic is further analyzed. For
each of these topics, the following text also describes the existing
setting or baseline conditions (i.e. affected environment) within the
project area. This information would be used to analyze impacts against
the current conditions of the project area in the *Environmental
Consequences* chapter.

### Visitor Use and Experience

According to *2006 Management Policies*, the enjoyment of park resources
and values by people is part of the fundamental purpose of all park
units (NPS 2006). The National Park Service is committed to providing
appropriate, high quality opportunities for visitors to enjoy the parks,
and would maintain within the parks an atmosphere that is open,
inviting, and accessible to every segment of society. Further, the
National Park Service would provide opportunities for forms of enjoyment
that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and
cultural resources found in the parks. The National Park Service *2006
Management Policies* also state that scenic views and visual resources
are considered highly valued associated characteristics that the
National Park Service should strive to protect *(NPS 2006)*.

Each year approximately 91,095 visitors come to Coronado National
Memorial. These figures are based on a three-year average taken during
calendar years 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Visitors come to Coronado National Memorial to learn about the history
associated with the site, enjoy the outdoor recreational opportunities,
hiking, birding, caving, bicycling, or simply to marvel at the
spectacular views from Montezuma Pass. First time visitors normally
spend 30 minutes to two hours experiencing the park. Generally, weekends
draw a higher number of visitors, than weekday visits.

During a typical year, June through September is the period of lowest
visitation while January through May is the period of highest
visitation. An estimated 60% of park visitors come from all 50 states
and foreign countries, while local visitors within thirty miles of the
Memorial, account for the remaining 40% of all visits to the park.

Because the proposed project would improve visitor safety and services,
and impact the view shed the topic of visitor use and experience has
been carried forward for further analysis.

### Park Operations 

[]{.mark}

The law enforcement operation facility for the Memorial is currently
located in two small office spaces of a remodeled three bedroom, one
bath Mission 66 era house. The building is shared by the Chief of
Maintenance, Administrative Officer, the Superintendent, two part-time
Resource Specialist, Chief Ranger, Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer
and park rangers. The park explored leasing a building but found no
suitable facilities within the vicinity of the Memorial. Storage
facilities for the law enforcement division is scattered throughout the
Memorial. Memorial operations are sometimes inefficient due to the lack
of convenient storage space. Some storage facilities are subject to
water and rodent damage resulting in a loss of materials.

The construction of a new operations and utility building would have a
measurable effect on the Memorial's staff and how/where they conduct
their work. For this reason, the topic of park operations has been
carried forward for further analysis in this document.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975053 .anchor}Impact Topics Dismissed From
Further Consideration

Some impact topics have been dismissed from further consideration, as
listed below. During internal scoping, the park's interdisciplinary team
conducted a preliminary analysis of resources to determine the context,
duration, and intensity of effects that the proposal may have on those
resources. If the magnitude of effects was determined to be at the
negligible or minor level, there is no potential for significant impact
and further impact analysis is unnecessary, therefore the resource is
dismissed as an impact topic. If however, during internal scoping and
further investigation, resource effects still remain unknown, or are
more at the minor to moderate level of intensity, and the potential for
significant impacts is likely, then the analysis of that resource as an
impact topic is carried forward.

For purposes of this section, an impact of negligible intensity is one
that is "at the lowest levels of detection, barely perceptible, and not
measurable." An impact of minor intensity is one that is "measurable or
perceptible, but is slight, localized, and would result in a limited
alteration or a limited area." The rationale for dismissing these
specific topics is stated for each resource.

### Historic Structures 

The term "historic structures" refers to both historic and prehistoric
structures, which are defined as constructions that shelter any form of
human habitation or activity. According to the National Park Service's
2006 Management Policies, the National Park Service would provide for
the long-term preservation of, public access to, and appreciation of the
features, materials, and qualities contributing to the significance of
cultural resources (NPS 2006).

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended in
1992 (16 USC 470 *et seq.*); the National Park Service's Director's
Order 28 *Cultural Resource Management Guideline*; and National Park
Service *2006 Management Policies* (NPS 2006) require the consideration
of impacts on historic properties that are listed on or eligible to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The National
Register is the nation's inventory of historic places and the national
repository of documentation on property types and their significance.
The above-mentioned policies and regulations require federal agencies to
coordinate consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers
regarding the potential effects to properties listed on or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places.

The National Park Service, as steward of many of America\'s most
important cultural resources, is charged to preserve historic properties
for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Management
decisions and activities throughout the National Park System must
reflect awareness of the irreplaceable nature of these resources. The
National Park Service would protect and manage cultural resources in its
custody through effective research, planning, and stewardship and in
accordance with the policies and principles contained in the *2006
Management Policies* and the appropriate Director's Orders. Because
there would be no direct impacts as a result of the proposed action, the
topic of historic structures and buildings was dismissed from further
consideration.

### Archeological Resources 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended in
1992 (16 USC 470 *et seq.*); the National Park Service's Director's
Order 28 *Cultural Resource Management Guideline*; and National Park
Service *2006 Management Policies* (NPS 2006) require the consideration
of impacts on historic properties that are listed on or eligible to be
listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The National
Register is the nation's inventory of historic places and the national
repository of documentation on property types and their significance.
The above-mentioned policies and regulations require federal agencies to
coordinate consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers
regarding the potential effects to properties listed on or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places.

The National Park Service, as steward of many of America\'s most
important cultural resources, is charged to preserve historic properties
for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Management
decisions and activities throughout the National Park System must
reflect awareness of the irreplaceable nature of these resources. The
National Park Service would protect and manage cultural resources in its
custody through effective research, planning, and stewardship and in
accordance with the policies and principles contained in the *2006
Management Policies* and the appropriate Director's Orders.

*Coronado National Memorial*. The Western Archeological and Conservation
Center surveyed the project area for archeological resources during
December 2002. No archeological resources were found in the project
area; therefore, this topic was dismissed from further consideration.

### 

### Topography, Geology, and Soils

According to the National Park Service's *2006 Management Policies*, the
National Park Service would preserve and protect geologic resources and
features from adverse effects of human activity, while allowing natural
processes to continue (NPS 2006). These policies also state that the
National Park Service would strive to understand and preserve the soil
resources of park units and to prevent, to the extent possible, the
unnatural erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil, or
its contamination of other resources.

The proposed construction of a new operations building with septic
system would be located in an area of the Memorial that does not contain
significant topographic or geologic features. The general location for
the facility has been previously disturbed by historic farming,
ranching, equipment and materials storage, vehicle parking, and other
recent activities such as a construction staging area. Additional soil
disturbance and compaction would result from construction activities
including the digging of the septic system. Application of mitigation
measures would reduce these impacts.

Given that there are no significant topographic or geologic features in
the project area, and that the area has been previously disturbed, the
proposed actions would result in negligible, temporary effects to
topography, geology, and soils. Because these effects are minor or less
in degree, this topic has been dismissed from further analysis in this
document.

### Vegetation 

According to the National Park Service's *2006 Management Policies*, the
National Park Service strives to maintain all components and processes
of naturally evolving park unit ecosystems, including the natural
abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of plants *(NPS 2006)*.
The existing vegetation in the project area is dominated by Lehmann's
lovegrass a non-native invasive grass. The area was formerly disturbed
by agricultural and dude ranch operations. Currently the vegetation has
been displaced by the location and operation of a construction staging
area for the international boundary fence.

Vegetation would be displaced, disturbed, and/or compacted in the areas
of construction particularly in the footprint of the new building and
parking area. Vegetation on the septic field would be removed during
installation. Approximately less than two acres would be disturbed from
construction activities. Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated and
rehabilitated following construction with native species. The removal
and/or disturbance of vegetation in the project area is expected to
result in negligible to minor beneficial impact to vegetation because of
the replacement of invasive exotic species with native species. Because
these effects are minor or less in degree, this topic has been dismissed
from further analysis in this document.

### Wildlife 

According to the National Park Service's *2006 Management Policies*, the
National Park Service strives to maintain all components and processes
of naturally evolving park unit ecosystems, including the natural
abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of animals *(NPS 2006)*.
Wildlife commonly found in the Memorial includes: coyotes, cougar, black
bear, cottontail rabbits, bats, mice, and numerous species of birds and
reptiles (Cockrum, et. a. 1979; Swann et. a. 2000; Petryszn and Alberti
n.d.; plus unpublished memorial observations). The project area is
disturbed by humans and wildlife have adapted to the presence of human
activities.

The location of the proposed operations facility is in a previously
disturbed area of the Memorial that contains no surface water, minimal
native vegetation, and is generally flat with no major geologic
features. The presence of humans, human-related activities, and
structures have removed or displaced some native wildlife habitat in the
project area. Some smaller wildlife species such as rodents, reptiles,
and amphibians and their habitat may be displaced or eliminated during
construction of the new operations and utility facility and septic
field. Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated and rehabilitated following
construction which would result in a minor beneficial impact to the
wildlife and wildlife habitat in the immediate area of construction.

During construction, noise would also increase which may disturb
wildlife in the general area. Construction-related noise would be
temporary, and existing sound conditions would resume following
construction activities. Because the effects to wildlife and wildlife
habitat from the proposed project are minor or less in degree, this
topic has been dismissed from further analysis in this document.

### Special Status Species

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires examination of impacts on
all federally-listed threatened, endangered, and candidate species.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires all federal agencies to
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or designated
representative) to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried
out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or critical habitats. In addition, the *2006 Management
Policies* and Director's Order 77 *Natural Resources Management
Guidelines* require the National Park Service to examine the impacts on
federal candidate species, as well as state-listed threatened,
endangered, candidate, rare, declining, and sensitive species *(NPS
2006)*. For the purposes of this analysis, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and was contacted during the scoping for this project.

[]{.mark}

Loggerhead shrike is a species of concern resident in the grasslands of
the Memorial. The shrike is in decline across its range. The grassland
at the Memorial is dominated by the exotic grass lehmann's lovegrass
which could have a negative effect on the prey species of the shrike.
The effects on the shrike in the construction area would be negative
during construction and beneficial by restoring native vegetation.
[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

Due to a lack of suitable habitat in the vicinity of the project area
the Memorial staff has concluded there is no effect to federally listed
species. Therefore, the topic of threatened and endangered species was
dismissed from further analysis.

### Water Resources

National Park Service policies require protection of water quality
consistent with the Clean Water Act. The purpose of the Clean Water Act
is to \"restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation\'s waters\". To enact this goal, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has been charged with evaluating federal actions that
result in potential degradation of waters of the United States and
issuing permits for actions consistent with the Clean Water Act. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also has responsibility for
oversight and review of permits and actions, which affect waters of the
United States.

The proposed project area does not contain surface waters, and is mostly
dry, except for periodic sheet flow during storm events. Water quality,
water quantity, and drinking water are not expected to be affected by
the project. To further assist with erosion and water quality, disturbed
areas would be revegetated and recontoured following construction. The
Memorial has a water right to 10 acre-ft per year in the San Pedro
Basin. This is equal to an annual total of 3,258,300 gallons. Because
the project results in negligible effects to water resources, this topic
has been dismissed from further consideration.

### Wetlands 

For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands
means \"those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.\"

Executive Order 11990 *Protection of Wetlands* requires federal agencies
to avoid, where possible, adversely impacting wetlands. Further, Section
404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to prohibit or regulate, through a permitting process, discharge or
dredged or fill material or excavation within waters of the United
States. National Park Service policies for wetlands as stated in *2006
Management Policies* and Director's Order 77-1 *Wetlands Protection*,
strive to prevent the loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve
and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. In accordance
with DO 77-1 *Wetlands Protection*, proposed actions that have the
potential to adversely impact wetlands must be addressed in a Statement
of Findings for wetlands.

No wetlands are located in the project area; therefore, a Statement of
Findings for wetlands would not be prepared, and the impact topic of
wetlands has been dismissed.

### Floodplains 

Executive Order 11988 *Floodplain Management* requires all federal
agencies to avoid construction within the 100-year floodplain unless no
other practicable alternative exists. The National Park Service under
*2006 Management Policies* and Director's Order 77-2 *Floodplain
Management* would strive to preserve floodplain values and minimize
hazardous floodplain conditions. According to Director's Order 77-2
*Floodplain Management*, certain construction within a 100-year
floodplain requires preparation of a Statement of Findings for
floodplains.

The project area for the new operations and utility facility is not
located within a 100-year floodplain. Therefore a Statement of Findings
for floodplains would not be prepared, and the topic of floodplains has
been dismissed.

### Paleontological Resources

According to *2006 Management Policies*, paleontological resources
(fossils), including both organic and mineralized remains in body or
trace form, would be protected, preserved, and managed for public
education, interpretation, and scientific research *(NPS 2006)*. No
paleontological resources have been identified in the project area.
Therefore, there are no impacts to paleontological resources as a result
of this proposal and they would be dismissed from further assessment.

### Ethnographic Resources

Per the National Park Service's Director's Order 28 *Cultural Resource
Management*, ethnographic resources are defined as any site, structure,
object, landscape, or natural resource feature assigned traditional
legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance in the cultural
system of a group traditionally associated with it. According to DO-28
and Executive Order 13007 on sacred sites, the National Park Service
should try to preserve and protect ethnographic resources.

Ethnographic resources are not known to exist in the proposed project
area. In addition, Native American tribes traditionally associated with
the Memorial were apprised of the proposed project in a letter dated May
1, 2008 and no responses were received from these tribes. Therefore,
this topic has been dismissed from further consideration.

[]{.mark}

### Cultural Landscapes

According to the National Park Service's Director's Order 28 *Cultural
Resource Management Guideline*, a cultural landscape is a reflection of
human adaptation and use of natural resources, and is often expressed in
the way land is organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use,
systems of circulation, and the types of structures that are built.
Although a cultural landscape inventory has not been conducted for the
Memorial, the features within the general project area including the
ranch are disturbed areas and are not likely to contribute to a
significant cultural landscape.

A cultural landscape inventory was completed for Montezuma Ranch in
1999. The investigation concluded that while the ranch was of local
significance, it has severe integrity problems and is not eligible for
listing on the national register as a historic landscape. Therefore, no
further inventory has been planned. The entire memorial view shed is
scheduled for inventory (impacts to viewshed are discussed under the
"Visitor Experience" impact topic).

At Coronado NM cultural landscapes are important in carrying out the
memorial's purpose, particularly as related to preserving the views of
Mexico and the United States, which provide the setting for
contemplating Francisco Vásquez de Coronado's expedition. Because the
views are so important, they are addressed in this document under
"Visitor Use, Understanding, and Appreciation," rather than under
"Cultural Landscapes." Aside from these important viewsheds, no official
cultural landscapes exist at Coronado National Memorial that would be
impacted by any of the alternatives proposed for this project.

### Museum Collections 

According to Director's Order 24 *Museum Collections,* the National Park
Service requires the consideration of impacts on museum collections
(historic artifacts, natural specimens, and archival and manuscript
material), and provides further policy guidance, standards, and
requirements for preserving, protecting, documenting, and providing
access to, and use of, National Park Service museum collections.

Museum collections would not be impacted by this proposal and the topic
of museum collections has been dismissed from further consideration.

### Air Quality 

The Clean Air Act of 1963 (42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.*) was established to
promote the public health and welfare by protecting and enhancing the
nation's air quality. The act establishes specific programs that provide
special protection for air resources and air quality related values
associated with National Park Service units. Section 118 of the Clean
Air Act requires a park unit to meet all federal, state, and local air
pollution standards. Coronado National Memorial is designated as a Class
II air quality area under the Clean Air Act. A Class II designation
indicates the maximum allowable increase in concentrations of pollutants
over baseline concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter as
specified in Section 163 of the Clean Air Act. Further, the Clean Air
Act provides that the federal land manager has an affirmative
responsibility to protect air quality related values (including
visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources,
and visitor health) from adverse pollution impacts (EPA 2000).

Construction activities such as hauling materials and operating heavy
equipment could result in temporary increases of vehicle exhaust,
emissions, and fugitive dust in the general project area. Mitigation
measures such as wetting the area would decrease the impacts on air
quality. Any exhaust, emissions, and fugitive dust generated from
construction activities would be temporary and localized, and would
likely dissipate rapidly because air stagnation at Coronado National
Memorial is rare. Overall, the project could result in a negligible
degradation of local air quality, and such effects would be temporary,
lasting only as long as construction. The Class II air quality
designation for Coronado National Memorial would not be affected by the
proposal. Therefore, air quality has been dismissed as an impact topic.

### Soundscape Management 

In accordance with *2006 Management Policies* and Director's Order 47
*Sound Preservation and Noise Management*, an important component of the
National Park Service's mission is the preservation of natural
soundscapes associated with national park units *(NPS 2006)*. Natural
soundscapes exist in the absence of human-caused sound. The natural
ambient soundscape is the aggregate of all the natural sounds that occur
in park units, together with the physical capacity for transmitting
natural sounds. Natural sounds occur within and beyond the range of
sounds that humans can perceive and can be transmitted through air,
water, or solid materials. The frequencies, magnitudes, and durations of
human-caused sound considered acceptable varies among National Park
Service units as well as potentially throughout each park unit, being
generally greater in developed areas and less in undeveloped areas.

Existing sounds in this area are most often generated from vehicular
traffic (employees entering/leaving the area), people, some wildlife
such as birds, and wind. Sound generated by the long-term operation of
the operations facility may include climate controls such as heating or
air conditioning units and people using the building. Because the area
already contains man-made noises, the long-term operation of the
building is not expected to appreciably increase the noise levels in the
general area.

During construction, human-caused sounds would likely increase due to
construction activities, equipment, vehicular traffic, and construction
crews. Any sounds generated from construction would be temporary,
lasting only as long as the construction activity is generating the
sounds, and would have a negligible to minor adverse impact on visitors
and employees. Therefore, the topic of soundscape management has been
dismissed as an impact topic.

### Lightscape Management 

In accordance with *2006 Management Policies*, the National Park Service
strives to preserve natural ambient landscapes, which are natural
resources and values that exist in the absence of human caused light
*(NPS 2006)*. Coronado National Memorial strives to limit the use of
artificial outdoor lighting to that which is necessary for basic safety
requirements. The Memorial also strives to ensure that all outdoor
lighting is shielded to the maximum extent possible, to keep light on
the intended subject and out of the night sky.

The proposed action may incorporate minimal exterior lighting on the
operations and utility facility, but the lighting would be directed
toward the intended subject with appropriate shielding mechanisms, and
would be placed in only those areas where lighting is needed for safety
reasons. The amount and extent of exterior lighting would have
negligible effects on the existing outside lighting or natural night sky
of the area; therefore, this topic has been dismissed.

### Socioeconomics

The proposed action would neither change local and regional land use nor
appreciably impact local business or other agencies. Communities near
Coronado National Memorial could experience benefits from increased
tourism if visitors felt safer visiting the Memorials. Visitation at
Coronado has remained relatively stable during 1997 to 2005, fluctuating
slightly. The Memorial experienced a decline in visitation in 2006 due
to a flood that closed the Memorial. The average visitation over the
last 10 years, from 1997 to 2006 is 86,348.

Drug smugglers would experience negative socioeconomic impacts due to
decreased revenue from smuggling activities. However, because this is an
illegal activity, it is not evaluated in this document.

Implementation of the proposed action could provide a negligible
beneficial impact to the economies of nearby Palominos, Arizona, minimal
increases in employment opportunities for the construction workforce and
revenues for local businesses and governments generated from these
additional construction activities and workers. Any increase in
workforce and revenue, however, would be temporary and negligible,
lasting only as long as construction. Because the impacts to the
socioeconomic environment would be negligible, this topic has been
dismissed.

### Prime and Unique Farmlands 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended, requires federal
agencies to consider adverse effects to prime and unique farmlands that
would result in the conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses.
Prime or unique farmland is classified by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture\'s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and is
defined as soil that particularly produces general crops such as common
foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique farmland produces specialty
crops such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. There are no prime or unique
farmlands in the project area. Therefore, the topic of prime and unique
farmlands has been dismissed.

[]{.mark}

### Indian Trust Resources 

Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to Indian
trust resources from a proposed project or action by the Department of
Interior agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents.
The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legally enforceable
fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal
lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to
carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian
and Alaska Native tribes.

There are no Indian trust resources at Coronado National Memorial. The
lands comprising the Memorial are not held in trust by the Secretary of
the Interior for the benefit of Indians due to their status as Indians.
Therefore, the project would have no effects on Indian trust resources,
and this topic was dismissed as an impact topic.

### 

### Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 *General Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low‑Income Populations* requires all federal
agencies to incorporate environmental justice into their missions by
identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs and policies on
minorities and low‑income populations and communities. Because the new
operations and utility facility would be available for use by all
Memorial staff regardless of race or income, and the construction
workforces would not be hired based on their race or income, the
proposed action would not have disproportionate health or environmental
effects on minorities or low‑income populations or communities.
Therefore, environmental justice has been dismissed as an impact topic
in this document.

Wilderness

In accordance with NPS Management Policies, areas of potential
wilderness are managed as if they were designated wilderness, and
efforts are made to eliminate those conditions that preclude wilderness
designation. No wilderness areas exist within Coronado National
Memorial; therefore wilderness has been dismissed as an impact topic.

Adjacent Lands

No Native American lands border Coronado National Memorial.

*Coronado National Forest*. Coronado National Forest borders the
memorial to the west and north, and covers 1,780,000 acres in
southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico. Elevations range from
3,000 feet to 10,720 feet in 12 mountain ranges or "sky islands" that
rise from the desert floor and support biologically diverse plant
communities (USFS 2003). This area of the national forest includes the
Huachuca Mountains, which forms the memorial's northern and western
boundaries, with elevations from about 5,400 to 9,500 feet.

*Mexico*. No developed communities or infrastructures, such as highways
or towns, exist immediately south of Coronado's international border.

*State and Private Lands*. A section of state land lies to the east of
the memorial, and a dirt road enters the memorial from this parcel. The
road is closed at the north end where it enters a paved road because
this route was used often for vehicles smuggling drugs into the United
States or escaping to Mexico. Because of this, the Border Patrol built a
short section of vehicle barrier on private land east of the memorial's
boundary (B. Alberti, NPS, pers. comm., P. Steinholtz, URS, Dec. 30,
2002).

The remaining land surrounding the memorial north and south of the state
land consists primarily of privately owned residential and agricultural
lands, with a few commercial parcels (NPS 2002d).

# **ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED**

During March of 2008, an interdisciplinary team of National Park Service
employees met for the purpose of developing project alternatives. This
meeting resulted in the definition of project objectives as described in
the *Purpose and Need* and a list of alternatives that could potentially
meet these objectives.

A total of one action alternative and the No Action Alternative were
originally identified for this project. The action alternative and the
No Action Alternative are carried forward for further evaluation in this
Environmental Assessment. A summary table comparing alternative
components is presented at the end of this chapter.

## Alternatives Carried Forward

### Alternative A -- No Action 

Under this alternative, the operations building would not be
constructed. If the facility is not constructed, the law enforcement
staff would need to be relocated to another employee three bedroom
house. Because there are no known adequate facilities for rent in the
adjacent communities, the No Action alternative would result in a lack
of efficiency. The rangers' offices, supplies and emergency equipment
would be disseminated across the Memorial. Supplies and equipment would
continue to be stored in temporary sheds. Should the No-Action
Alternative be selected, the National Park Service would lose more
Memorial housing for personnel. The converted office would also be
inadequate, inefficient office space and would result in no new storage
facilities. The loss of another Memorial house would leave the Memorial
with only one dorm housing unit and one permanent employee house. This
is not a safe situation for after hour response for a single ranger
waiting for backup from rangers responding from outside the Memorial.

### 

### Alternative B -- Construct a New Law Enforcement Operations Building 

This alternative consists of constructing a new Law Enforcement
Operations facility located in a previously disturbed area of the
Memorial and close to the International border. This general area has
been disturbed by historic farming, eight dilapidated buildings related
to a ranch, outdoor storage, vehicle traffic, utility lines and most
recently a staging area for international border fence construction. The
area also currently supports a Border Patrol camera tower. The following
text further describes the components of Alternative B:

-   **Building Features** -- The operation facility would include
    workstations, squad room, search and rescue cache, EMT/First Aid
    room, conference room, toilets/showers, law enforcement supply and
    equipment storage, kitchenette/break room and interview room. Colors
    for the exterior of the building would be chosen to camouflage the
    building within the view shed. The building is approximately 2400
    square feet and is designed to meet projected space needs for the
    next 20 years. The building would be ADA accessible. The building
    design would incorporate solar power and other sustainable features.
    A perimeter security fence would be installed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Septic Field** -- The new septic field would be approximately
    20x40ft and have a 1000 gallon tank. Total area disturbed by the
    septic field, pipes and buried tank is approximately 800ft^2^.
    Remaining surface structures would be a manhole frame and cover
    approximately three feet in diameter. The soil surface disturbance
    of areas adjacent to the leach field and septic tank would be
    minimized. Suitable soil to a depth of 3" in the excavation area
    would be stockpiled along the side of the trench separately from
    trench material for replacement over the trench following
    construction. All mitigation measures would be followed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Utilities** - The building would be served by existing utilities
    located near the site, including water, electric, and propane.
    Connecting these existing utilities to the operations and utility
    facility would likely entail excavation and placement of additional
    underground piping/wiring to connect with these utilities. A new
    transformer would be added. The current water system would be
    expanded. Phone service and IT cables would be upgraded to the site.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Parking** - The site of the new facility is located near an
    existing parking area and roads that are currently used by employees
    and the Border Patrol. Open and covered parking would be provided.
    It would have a paved surface. The covered vehicle bays would be an
    approximately 400 sq.ft. area. Parking for 6-10 ATV may also be
    necessary and may be added in the future. Three 8' x 20' shipping
    containers would be placed in the parking lot to be used by the
    Border Patrol.

-   **Horse Corral and Dog Kennels** -- The site would be designed to
    provide areas designated for horse corrals. Currently the Border
    Patrol uses horses to patrol in the Memorial and there is a need for
    temporary holding areas while the horses rest. The dog kennels would
    be used for working dogs (drug dogs) and as temporary holding pens
    for stray animals. The horse corrals and dog kennels may be added in
    the future but immediate plans are on hold for these facilities.

-   **Helicopter Landing Zone** - An unimproved helicopter landing zone
    would be designated in the area surrounding the Law Enforcement
    Operation Center. If funds are available the site would be hardened.
    The area would would be cleared and leveled and lit when necessary.

-   **Trail** - A loop trail in the grasslands would be designed as a
    handicapped accessible trail. Currently the Memorial does not have
    any ADA trails nor does the Memorial have a trail in the grasslands
    of the Memorial. The one mile trail was proposed in the Coronado
    National Memorial's *General Management Plan*. The trail would be
    constructed after the Operational Center has proven effective at
    reducing the illegal activity in the area.

-   **Revegetation** -- The existing vegetation in the project area has
    been heavily disturbed and contains a number of exotic species. All
    areas disturbed by construction of the new facility would be
    revegetated and recontoured to the style of the native landscape.
    Native vegetation, rocks, or other natural features would be used,
    as appropriate.

-   **Construction Staging** -- To implement this alternative, an area
    near the new facility would be used for construction staging,
    material stockpiling, and equipment storage. This area would likely
    be located in a previously disturbed area, away from visitor use
    areas.

> This alternative is based on preliminary information available at the
> time of this writing. Specific distances, areas, and layouts used to
> describe the alternative are only estimates and could change during
> final site design. If changes during final site design are
> inconsistent with intent and effects of the selected alternative, then
> additional compliance would be completed, as appropriate.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975078 .anchor}**Mitigation Measures**

The following mitigation measures have been developed to minimize the
degree and/or severity of adverse effects, and would be implemented
during construction of the action alternative, as needed:

-   To minimize the amount of ground disturbance, staging and
    stockpiling areas would be located in previously disturbed sites,
    away from visitor use areas to the extent possible. All staging and
    stockpiling areas would be returned to pre-construction conditions
    following construction.

-   Construction zones would be identified and fenced with construction
    tape, snow fencing, or some similar material prior to any
    construction activity. The fencing would define the construction
    zone and confine activity to the minimum area required for
    construction. All protection measures would be clearly stated in the
    construction specifications and workers would be instructed to avoid
    conducting activities beyond the construction zone as defined by the
    construction zone fencing.

-   Revegetation and recontouring of disturbed areas would take place
    following construction, and would be designed to minimize the visual
    intrusion of the structure and enhance native species composition.
    Revegetation efforts would use native species and materials. All
    disturbed areas would be rehabilitated to reduce soil exposure. Weed
    control methods would be implemented to minimize the introduction of
    noxious weeds.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Because disturbed soils are susceptible to erosion until
    revegetation takes place, standard erosion control measures such as
    silt fences and/or sand bags would be used to minimize any potential
    soil erosion.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Fugitive dust generated by construction would be controlled by
    spraying water on the construction site, if necessary.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To reduce noise and emissions, construction equipment would not be
    permitted to idle for long periods of time.

-   To minimize possible petrochemical leaks from construction
    equipment, the contractor would regularly monitor and check
    construction equipment to identify and repair any leaks.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Construction workers and supervisors would be informed about special
    status species. Contract provisions would require the cessation of
    construction activities if a species were discovered in the project
    area, until Memorial staff re-evaluates the project. This would
    allow modification of the contract for any protection measures
    determined necessary to protect the discovery.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Should construction unearth previously undiscovered cultural
    resources, work would be stopped in the area of any discovery and
    the Memorial would consult with the Arizona State Historic
    Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation, as necessary, according to §36 CFR 800.13, Post
    *Review Discoveries*. In the unlikely event that human remains are
    discovered during construction, provisions outlined in the Native
    American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) would be
    followed.

-   The National Park Service would ensure that all contractors and
    subcontractors are informed of the penalties for illegally
    collecting artifacts or intentionally damaging archeological sites
    or historic properties. Contractors and subcontractors would also be
    instructed on procedures to follow in case previously unknown
    paleontological or archeological resources are uncovered during
    construction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Construction workers and supervisors would be informed about the
    special sensitivity of Memorial's values, regulations, and
    appropriate housekeeping.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   According to *2006 Management Policies*, the National Park Service
    would strive to construct facilities with sustainable designs and
    systems to minimize potential environmental impacts. Development
    would not compete with or dominate Memorial's features, or interfere
    with natural processes, such as the seasonal migration of wildlife
    or hydrologic activity associated with wetlands. To the extent
    possible, the design and management of facilities would emphasize
    environmental sensitivity in construction, use of nontoxic
    materials, resource conservation, recycling, and integration of
    visitors with natural and cultural settings. The National Park
    Service also reduces energy costs, eliminates waste, and conserves
    energy resources by using energy-efficient and cost-effective
    technology. Energy efficiency would be incorporated into the
    decision-making process during the design and acquisition of
    buildings, facilities, and transportation systems that emphasize the
    use of renewable energy sources.

**Alternatives Considered and Dismissed**

The following three alternatives were considered for project
implementation, but were ultimately dismissed from further analysis.
Reasons for their dismissal are provided in the following alternative
descriptions.

-   **Utilizing Other Existing Space --** This alternative consisted of
    finding other spaces to use within the memorial, without having to
    construct a new building. But ultimately this alternative was
    dismissed because of its long term negative impact to the
    availability of park housing. Therefore, the alternative of
    utilizing other spaces within the monument was eliminated because
    the alternative would not meet the project's objectives.

-   **Leasing Office Space Off the Park -** Finding office space outside
    the memorial to use as a law enforcement operations center was
    considered but eliminated because ranger positions are directly
    related to providing safety and environmental protection and their
    services are required on-site. Another consideration is that the
    Memorial is located in a rural area where appropriate office space
    would be difficult if not impossible to find. Therefore, finding
    space outside the monument would not be feasible.

-   **Alternative Locations for a New Administration Building --**
    Another location that was considered for the Law Enforcement
    Operation Center was in the current Headquarters area. The camp area
    would have been sacrificed, which contains two camper trailers for
    researchers and staff and a volunteer trailer pad. However the
    location of the law enforcement office locations away from the
    border and the loss of this housing was considered to be a long term
    negative impact. Another negative factor is the area is not large
    enough to contain the required building and support structures. This
    alternative was dismissed from further consideration because of the
    negative impact to park operations and the size of the location.

## Alternative Summaries

Table 1 summarizes the major components of Alternatives A and B, and
compares the ability of these alternatives to meet the project
objectives (the objectives for this project are identified in the
*Purpose and Need* chapter). As shown in the following table,
Alternative B meets each of the objectives identified for this project,
while the No Action Alternative does not address all of the objectives.

Table 1 -- Alternatives Summary and Project Objectives

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Alternative A -- No Action**      **Alternative B -- New
                                      Administration Building**

  A law enforcement operation         A new law enforcement operations
  building and support structures     building and support structures
  would not be constructed. Response  would be constructed in close
  times to border incidents would not proximity to the international
  be decreased. The abandoned ranch   border. All employee offices and
  area would still need to be         equipment storage would be
  restored with native vegetation.    consolidated into the new building.
  The law enforcement staff would not Connected actions include utility
  be stationed in the area of the     connections, construction staging
  highest level of illegal activity   areas, parking area, horse stable,
  at the park. The grassland area     dog kennel, helicopter landing area
  would remain a more dangerous       and visitor grassland trail and
  location for visitors and           trailhead parking. The disturbed
  employees. The grasslands of the    ranch area would be revegetated and
  park will remain underutilized by   restored with native plant
  visitors because there will be no   material.
  trails, parking or facilities in    
  that area. The park will improvise  
  office space by converting a park   
  house. There will not be            
  consolidated storage for law        
  enforcement equipment at the park.  
  The converted house does not meet   
  current NPS guidelines for energy   
  sustainability and efficiency.      

  **Meets Project Objectives?**       **Meets Project Objectives?**

  No. Continuing the existing         Yes. Constructing a new law
  conditions would not provide for a  enforcement operations building
  work area that meets current health would provide for a consolidated
  and safety recommendations. This    employee work area that meets
  alternative does not provide a      current health and safety
  consolidated location for the       recommendations. The new building
  memorial law enforcement staff nor  would be located in the area of
  does it locate them in the area of  highest illegal activity in the
  highest illegal activity in the     park. This alternative minimizes
  park. This alternative does not     environmental impacts to the extent
  provide for a consolidated storage  possible, and would not result in
  facility for law enforcement        unacceptable impacts or impairment
  equipment. This alternative does    to any park resources.
  meet the objective for minimizing   
  impacts to park resources because   
  no construction would be required.  
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Table 2 summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts for
Alternatives A and B. Only those impact topics that have been carried
forward for further analysis are included in this table. The
*Environmental Consequences* chapter provides a more detailed
explanation of these impacts.

Table 2 -- Environmental Impact Summary by Alternative

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Impact       **Alternative A -- No        **Alternative B -- Preferred
  Topic**        Action**                     Alternative**
  -------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------
  **Visitor Use  No change in existing        Moderate beneficial effects
  and            conditions. Minor adverse    from having private offices,
  Experience**   impacts in the future from   consolidated storage for law
                 the lack of consolidated law enforcement personnel.
                 enforcement center closer to Improved potable water system
                 the international border.    and septic system.

  **Memorial     Moderate adverse as there    Moderate beneficial effects
  Operations**   would be no place for law    from improved efficiency
                 enforcement staff offices    gained by having facilities
                 and storage. Supplies would  located near the international
                 end up scattered in small    border and consolidated supply
                 locations across the         and equipment storage.
                 Memorial or in a rented      
                 storage space with no work   
                 space provided.              
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Identification of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the
criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), which guides the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ
provides direction that "\[t\]he environmentally preferable alternative
is the alternative that would promote the national environmental policy
as expressed in NEPA's Section 101:

-   fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the
    environment for succeeding generations;

-   assure for all generations safe, healthful, productive, and
    esthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

-   attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment
    without degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable
    and unintended consequences;

-   preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our
    national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment
    that supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

-   achieve a balance between population and resource use that would
    permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's
    amenities; and

-   enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum
    attainable recycling of depletable resources.

Alternative A, No Action, only minimally meets the above six evaluation
factors because the Memorial would not have adequate office space for
the law enforcement staff and supplies and would result in
inefficiencies and loss of productivity for Memorial staff. There would
be no facility for first aid for visitors, the water supply would not be
upgraded, and the septic system would not be improved. While it
minimizes potential impacts to Memorial resources, it does not achieve a
balance between these resources and the health and safety of Memorial
staff and visitors.

Alternative B is the environmentally preferred alternative because it
best addresses these six evaluation factors. Alternative B, *Construct a
New Operations and Utility Building*, would provide a working
environment for Memorial staff that meets health and safety
recommendations, while minimizing environmental impacts to the extent
possible. The previously disturbed area would be rehabilitated and
revegetated with native species. Visitor health and safety would be
improved by providing a law enforcement presence in a critical area of
the Memorial. The potable water system would be upgraded and sewage
disposal capacity would be increased and improved. The efficiency of
Memorial operations would be improved.

No new information came forward from public scoping or consultation with
other agencies to necessitate the development of any new alternatives,
other than those described and evaluated in this document. Because it
meets the Purpose and Need for the project, the project objectives, and
is the environmentally preferred alternative, Alternative B is also
recommended as the National Park Service Preferred Alternative. For the
remainder of the document, Alternative B would be referred to as the
Preferred Alternative.

# ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter analyzes the potential environmental consequences, or
impacts, that would occur as a result of implementing the proposed
project. Topics analyzed in this chapter include paleontological
resources, visitor use and experience, and Memorial operations. Direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects, as well as impairment are analyzed for
each resource topic carried forward. Potential impacts are described in
terms of type, context, duration, and intensity. General definitions are
defined as follows, while more specific impact thresholds are given for
each resource at the beginning of each resource section.

-   ***Type*** describes the classification of the impact as either
    beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect:

> \-[Beneficial]{.underline}: A positive change in the condition or
> appearance of the resource or a change that moves the resource toward
> a desired condition.
>
> \-[Adverse]{.underline}: A change that moves the resource away from a
> desired condition or detracts from its appearance or condition.
>
> \-[Direct]{.underline}: An effect that is caused by an action and
> occurs in the same time and place.
>
> \-[Indirect]{.underline}: An effect that is caused by an action but is
> later in time or farther removed in distance, but is still reasonably
> foreseeable.

-   ***Context*** describes the area or location in which the impact
    would occur. Are the effects site-specific, local, regional, or even
    broader?

-   ***Duration*** describes the length of time an effect would occur,
    either short-term or long-term:

> \-[Short-term]{.underline} impacts generally last only during
> construction, and the resources resume their pre-construction
> conditions following construction.
>
> \-[Long-term]{.underline} impacts last beyond the construction period,
> and the resources may not resume their pre-construction conditions for
> a longer period of time following construction.

-   ***Intensity*** describes the degree, level, or strength of an
    impact. For this analysis, intensity has been categorized into
    negligible, minor, moderate, and major. Because definitions of
    intensity vary by resource topic, intensity definitions are provided
    separately for each impact topic analyzed in this Environmental
    Assessment.

    **Cumulative Effects**

    The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which
    implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321
    et seq.), require assessment of cumulative impacts in the
    decision‑making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are
    defined as \"the impact on the environment which results from the
    incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,
    and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
    (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions\"
    (40 CFR 1508.7). Cumulative impacts are considered for both the No
    Action and Preferred Alternatives.

    Cumulative impacts were determined by combining the impacts of the
    Preferred Alternative with other past, present, and reasonably
    foreseeable future actions. Therefore, it was necessary to identify
    other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects at Coronado
    National Memorial and, if applicable, the surrounding region. The
    geographic scope for this analysis includes elements mostly within
    the Memorial's boundaries, while the temporal scope includes
    projects within a range of approximately ten years. Given this, the
    following projects were identified for the purpose of conducting the
    cumulative effects analysis, listed from past to future:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Grassland restoration --** Efforts are ongoing to restore the
    Montezuma Ranch area of abandoned farmland. Preliminary plans are to
    reduce non-native vegetation and construct an interpretive trail.
    Interpretation would include Coronado's expedition, the
    International border and the ecology of the area.

-   **Exotic plant removal --** There are a number of exotic plants in
    the grasslands. Efforts to eradicate and eliminate these populations
    are ongoing.

-   **International Boundary Fence --** A pedestrian and vehicle barrier
    fence delineating Mexico and the United States boundary is currently
    being constructed by the Department of Homeland Security.

**Impairment**

National Park Service's Management Policies, 2006 require analysis of
potential effects to determine whether or not actions would impair
Memorial resources (NPS 2006). The fundamental purpose of the national
park system, established by the Organic Act and reaffirmed by the
General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a mandate to conserve
Memorial resources and values. National Park Service managers must
always seek ways to avoid, or to minimize to the greatest degree
practicable, adversely impacting Memorial resources and values. However,
the laws do give the National Park Service managers discretion to allow
impacts to Memorial resources and values when necessary and appropriate
to fulfill the purposes of a Memorial, as long as the impact does not
constitute impairment of the affected resources and values.

Although Congress has given the National Park Service the management
discretion to allow certain impacts within Memorials, that discretion is
limited by the statutory requirement that the National Park Service must
leave Memorial resources and values unimpaired, unless a particular law
directly and specifically provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment
is an impact that, in the professional judgment of the responsible
National Park Service manager, would harm the integrity of Memorial
resources or values. An impact to any Memorial resource or value may
constitute an impairment, but an impact would be more likely to
constitute an impairment to the extent that it has a major or severe
adverse effect upon a resource or value whose conservation is:

1.  necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
    establishing legislation or proclamation of the Memorial;

2.  key to the natural or cultural integrity of the Memorial; or

3.  identified as a goal in the Memorial's general management plan or
    other relevant National Park Service planning documents.

Impairment may result from National Park Service activities in managing
the Memorial, visitor activities, or activities undertaken by
concessionaires, contractors, and others operating in the Memorial. A
determination on impairment is made in the Conclusion section for each
of the resource topics carried forward in this chapter.

## Unacceptable Impacts

The impact threshold at which impairment occurs is not always readily
apparent. Therefore, the Park Service applies a standard that offers
greater assurance that impairment will not occur by avoiding
unacceptable impacts. These are impacts that fall short of impairment,
but are still not acceptable within a particular park's environment.
Park managers must not allow uses that would cause unacceptable impacts;
they must evaluate existing or proposed uses and determine whether the
associated impacts on park resources and values are acceptable.

Virtually every form of human activity that takes place within a park
has some degree of effect on park resources or values, but that does not
mean the impact is unacceptable or that a particular use must be
disallowed. Therefore, for the purposes of these policies, unacceptable
impacts are impacts that, individually or cumulatively, would

-   be inconsistent with a park's purposes or values, or

-   impede the attainment of a park's desired future conditions for
    > natural and cultural resources as identified through the park's
    > planning process, or

-   create an unsafe or unhealthful environment for visitors or
    > employees, or

-   diminish opportunities for current or future generations to enjoy,
    > learn about, or be inspired by park resources or values, or

-   unreasonably interfere with

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   park programs or activities, or

-   an appropriate use, or

-   the atmosphere of peace and tranquility, or the natural soundscape
    > maintained in wilderness and natural, historic, or commemorative
    > locations within the park.

-   NPS concessioner or contractor operations or services. (NPS 2006)

In accordance with *Management Policies*, park managers must not allow
uses that would cause unacceptable impacts to park resources. To
determine if unacceptable impact could occur to the resources and values
of Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, the impacts of proposed
actions in this environmental assessment were evaluated based on the
above criteria. A determination on unacceptable impacts is made in the
*Conclusion* section for each of the physical resource topics carried
forward in this chapter.

## Visitor Use and Experience

### Intensity Level Definitions

Current scientific theory indicates the Coronado Expedition (1540--1542)
entered the United States via the San Pedro River Valley immediately
east of the national memorial. No physical evidence has been found to
substantiate the actual route of Coronado at the existing international
boundary. However, the important aspect of the expedition was not its
actual crossing point, but rather the international implications and the
Hispanic cultural development initiated by these events. The methodology
used for assessing impacts to visitor use and experience is based on how
a new operations facility would affect the visitor, particularly with
regards to the visitors' safety. This analysis would also focus on how
visitor health and safety would be affected. The thresholds for this
impact assessment are as follows:

**Negligible:** Visitors would not be affected or changes in visitor use
and/or expe­rience would be below or at the level of detection. Any
effects would be short-term. The visitor would not likely be aware of
the effects associated with the alterna­tive.

**Minor:** Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be detectable,
although the changes would be slight and likely short-term. The visitor
would be aware of the effects associated with the alterna­tive, but the
effects would be slight.

**Moderate:** Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be readily
apparent and likely long-term. The visitor would be aware of the effects
associated with the alterna­tive, and would likely be able to express an
opinion about the changes.

**Major:** Changes in visitor use and/or experience would be readily
apparent and have substantial long-term consequences. The visitor would
be aware of the effects associated with the alternative, and would
likely express a strong opinion about the changes.

### Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

The No Action Alternative would result in a lack of efficiency in
providing visitor services due to the lack of an operations building
that would be located close to the International border and consolidate
supplies and equipment. The loss of efficiency could result in fewer
visitor use areas and increased response time in reaching supplies and
equipment. There would be a continued health and safety risk to visitors
due to the lack of a private first aid station, especially during the
summer months when temperatures frequently exceed 100 degrees. Without
construction of an operations building, there would be moderate, adverse
impacts to visitors.

[Cumulative Effects]{.underline}: Under this alternative there would be
moderate adverse cumulative effects of not building an operation
facility at the Memorial. There would be increased response time for
rangers to reach border incidents. There would be a lack of efficiency
in the delivery of visitor and staff safety that would result in a
reduced visitor experience. The lack of a first aid station would have
adverse effects for visitors requiring minor treatments at the Memorial.
There are a large number of illegal migrants (estimated to be 300+ per
day) passing through the Memorial. Many of the illegal migrants require
minor first aid for dehydration, cuts and scraps. Currently first aid
must be administered in a public area visible to visitors and other
staff.

If the Operations center is not constructed, equipment would be spread
throughout the Memorial in various locations. The security of the law
enforcement equipment and supplies could be compromised. Another less
evident factor would be the effect on employee morale and ability to
recruit and retain employees with an inadequate office facility. Without
sufficient office space, storage for supplies and fitness equipment
recruiting top notch rangers would be difficult. Retention of rangers
along the Mexico Border is currently a difficult, expensive and time
consuming duty that could be made more difficult with an inadequate
facility.

[Conclusion]{.underline}: The No Action Alternative would result in
primarily moderate and adverse effects to visitor use and experience
because there would be no private first aid station, and the
productivity and efficiency of the law enforcement staff could be
reduced without an appropriate facility in a central location. There is
a threat to staff and visitors from longer response times for emergency
situations. This alternative may have moderate, long-term, adverse
effect on visitor experience due to the continued lack of a first aid
station and the potential of reduced visitor services. Cumulatively,
this alternative would have a moderate effect on visitor use and
experience when considered with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.

### Impacts of Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

[]{.mark}

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in the building
of a law enforcement operation facility at Coronado National Memorial
resulting in improved access and efficiency and delivery of visitor
services. Storage of law enforcement supplies and equipment would be
consolidated in one location. Rodent damage to supplies and equipment
would be eliminated. There would be a private first aid station for
visitors and illegal migrants. The potable water and septic systems
would be enlarged and upgraded.

Minor, temporary, adverse impacts to visitor use and experience could
result during construction activities. The project area is being used as
a construction staging area and is currently closed to visitors. However
the future interpretive trail would allow access and improved visitor
experience and satisfaction in the grasslands. Visitors could be
inconvenienced by construction traffic and noise. The new facility would
result in minor, adverse impacts to the visuals of the area. The
facility would be located in an area of previous disturbance and a
Border Patrol camera tower.

Impacts from the construction of a new operations building are expected
to be moderate, beneficial and long-term due to improved efficiency of
law enforcement staff leading to increased visitor and staff safety.

[Cumulative Effects]{.underline}: Any construction activities have the
potential to adversely affect visitor use and experience. These impacts
are expected to be negligible and short-term. Moderate, beneficial
impacts could result from the availability of a first aid station at the
unit. There would be long-term improvements to the efficiency and
delivery of visitor services by having staff, equipment and supplies
located in one, convenient, on-site building. Locating the Law
Enforcement Operations building closer to the border would decrease
response time to border incidents. Considering these past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions, the minor to moderate beneficial
effects of constructing the new operation center would have a moderate
cumulative benefit to the overall visitor use and experience at the
Memorial.

[Conclusion]{.underline}: Under the Preferred Alternative, the
construction of a new facility would have a moderate beneficial effect
on visitor use and experience. Construction disturbances (noise, dust,
traffic) would have a minor, temporary adverse effect to visitor use and
experience. The visual changes to the area from construction of a new
building would have a minor effect on visitor experience because the
facility would be located in a disturbed area of the Memorial that
currently supports a camera tower. The buildings and facilities would be
oriented in a manner to make them less visible to the visitor. The color
selection would be limited to earth tones that would assist in
camouflaging the structures. Cumulatively, this alternative would have a
moderate beneficial effect to visitor use and experience because
ultimately this project combined with other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions would benefit a number of visitor
resources.

## 

## Park Operations

### Intensity Level Definitions

Implementation of a project can affect the operations of a Memorial such
as the number of employees needed; the type of duties that need to be
conducted; when/who would conduct these duties; how activities should be
conducted; and administrative procedures. For the purpose of this
analysis, the human health and safety of Memorial employees is also
evaluated. The methodology used to assess potential changes to Memorial
operations is defined as follows:

**Negligible**: Memorial operations would not be affected or the effect
would be at or below the lower levels of detection, and would not have
an appreciable effect on Memorial operations.

**Minor:** The effect would be detectable, but would be of a magnitude
that would not have an appreciable adverse or beneficial effect on
Memorial operations. If mitigation were needed to offset adverse
effects, it would be relatively simple and successful.

**Moderate:** The effects would be readily apparent and would result in
a substantial adverse or beneficial change in Memorial operations in a
manner noticeable to staff and the public. Mitigation measures would
probably be necessary to offset adverse effects and would likely be
successful.

**Major:** The effects would be readily apparent and would result in a
substantial adverse or beneficial change in Memorial operations in a
manner noticeable to staff and the public, and be markedly different
from existing operations. Mitigation measures to offset adverse effects
would be needed, could be expensive, and their success could not be
guaranteed.

### Impacts of Alternative A (No Action Alternative)

The No Action Alternative would mean that the Memorial would not have a
consolidated operations facility. Since there are no other known
facilities that would meet the needs of the increased law enforcement
staff, visitor services could be disrupted and reduced. There would be a
lack of storage for emergency services supplies and equipment. If the
Operations center is not constructed law enforcement equipment and
supplies would be spread over the Memorial in various locations. The
security of the equipment could be compromised. There would be reduced
security for law enforcement vehicles if not parked in a locked yard.
Law enforcement staff currently work out of two small offices (app. 200
sq. ft.) and most store supplies and equipment in inadequate facilities.
Additional costs would be incurred to renovate an existing residence at
the Memorial that would not meet the Memorials' needs for office space
nor storage. There would also be additional costs linked to lowered
productivity and lack of convenient storage of supplies and law
enforcement equipment. Another less apparent factor would be the effect
on employee morale and ability to recruit and retain employees if there
are inadequate office facilities. Without sufficient office space,
storage for supplies and fitness equipment recruiting top notch rangers
would be difficult. Impacts would be moderate, adverse and long-term.
There would be increased time for rangers to respond to border
incidents.

[Cumulative Effects]{.underline}: Any project that occurs in the
Memorial has an effect on Memorial operations; therefore, most of the
actions listed in the cumulative scenario in the introduction of this
chapter would have some degree of effect on employees and Memorial
operations. Under this alternative, there would be a loss of efficiency
and productivity in Memorial operations associated with visitor services
and safety. However, Memorial operations would not appreciably change
when considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future actions.

[Conclusion]{.underline}: The No Action Alternative would have a
moderate, detrimental effect on Memorial operations due to the loss of
productivity and efficiency in providing visitor services. There would
be a lack of storage in a convenient location for emergency equipment
and supplies. The safety concerns in the grassland area of the Memorial
would prevent the construction of the ADA trail. Cumulatively, these
effects would have a moderate impact to Memorial operations when
considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions.

### Impacts of Alternative B (Preferred Alternative)

[]{.mark}

The construction of a new operations facility under this alternative
would provide a convenient, on-site location for interdivisional
equipment and storage. Visitor emergency equipment and supplies would be
securely stored in a rodent free environment. Productivity and
efficiency of providing visitor services and border related incident
response would be improved. Visitors and illegal immigrants would have
access to a private, first aid station. The potable water and septic
system would be improved and capacity increased to accommodate future
needs. The new building would provide secure parking for Memorial
vehicles. These impacts would have moderate beneficial and long-term
effects on the productivity and efficiency of Memorial operations.

[Cumulative Effects]{.underline}: As described under Alternative A, any
project that occurs in the Memorial has an effect on Memorial
operations; therefore, most of the actions listed in the cumulative
scenario in the introduction of this chapter would have some degree of
effect on employees and Memorial operations. Memorial operations
associated with the current and future use of the new facility would be
improved to a moderate degree, which would cumulatively have a moderate
beneficial impact to Memorial operations when considered with other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

[Conclusion]{.underline}: Construction of a new operations facility
under the Preferred Alternative would have a moderate beneficial impact
on employees at the Memorial because the new building would rectify
inefficiencies associated with the existing storage facilities. First
aid assistance for visitors would be available. There would be improved
productivity of the law enforcement staff in providing visitor services
and border security. Cumulatively, the improvements associated with this
alternative would have a moderate beneficial effect on Memorial
operations when considered with other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions.

# CONSULTATION and COORDINATION

## External Scoping 

External (public) scoping was conducted to inform various agencies and
the public about the proposal to construct a new operations facility at
Coronado National Memorial and to generate input on the preparation of
this Environmental Assessment.

External scoping was initiated with the distribution of a scoping letter
to inform the public of the proposal to construct a new operations
building, and to generate input on the preparation of this Environmental
Assessment. The scoping letter dated May 1, 2008 was mailed to
approximately 100 addresses including landowners adjacent to the
Memorial, various federal and state agencies, affiliated Native American
tribes, local governments, and local news agencies. Information on the
environmental assessment was also posted on the National Park Service
website. The public was given 30 days to comment on the project
beginning May 31, 2008.

During the 30-day scoping period, four responses were received from the
public. Included in the responding agencies were Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, International Boundary and Water Commission,
Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona Trailblazers
Hiking Club. All the responses were favorable and addressed specific
requirements of their organization prior to construction.

None of the Memorial's fifteen affiliated Native American tribes
responded to the scoping letter.

## []{.mark}

## Internal Scoping 

Internal scoping was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of
professionals from Coronado National Memorial. Interdisciplinary team
members met on March 28, 2008 to discuss the purpose and need for the
project; various alternatives; potential environmental impacts; past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that may have cumulative
effects; and possible mitigation measures. The team also gathered
background information and discussed public outreach for the project.
Over the course of the project, team members have conducted individual
site visits to view and evaluate the proposed construction site, and
discussed the impact analyses associated with this assessment. The
results of the March 2008 meeting are documented in this Environmental
Assessment.

## Environmental Assessment Review and List of Recipients

The Environmental Assessment would be released for public review on
September 22, 2008. To inform the public of the availability of the
Environmental Assessment, the National Park Service would publish and
distribute a letter and a press release to various agencies, tribes, and
members of the public on the National Memorial's mailing list, as well
as place an ad in the local newspaper. Copies of the Environmental
Assessment would be provided to interested individuals, upon request.
Copies of the document would also be available for review at the
Memorial's visitor center and on the internet at
[www.nps.gov/coro](http://www.nps.gov/coro) and
<http://parkplanning.nps.gov/>.

The Environmental Assessment is subject to a 30-day public comment
period ending October 20, 2008. During this time the public is
encouraged to post comments online at <http://parkplanning.nps.gov/> or
mail comments to Superintendent; Coronado National Memorial. Following
the close of the comment period, all public comments would be reviewed
and analyzed, prior to the release of a decision document. The National
Park Service would issue responses to substantive comments received
during the public comment period, and would make appropriate changes to
the Environmental Assessment, as needed.

### Preparers {#preparers .Std-heading-5}

**National Park Service**

Nancy Keohane, Natural Resource Specialist

Danielle Foster, Natural Resource Program Manager

Kym Hall, Superintendent

Matt Stoffolano, Chief Ranger

Denise Shultz, Chief of Interpretation

Carlos Herrera, Facility Manager

Teresa Frederick, Wildlife Biologist

### Agencies, Organizations, And Businesses Notified About The Document {#agencies-organizations-and-businesses-notified-about-the-document .Std-heading-5}

**FEDERAL AGENCIES**

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge

Department of Interior

Department of Justice

Federal Communications Commission

International Boundary and Water Commission

Marine Corps Air Station

National Biological Survey

National Park Service

State Department, United States/Mexico

Border Affairs

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Border Patrol

U.S. Customs Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. Geological Survey

**INDIAN TRIBES**

Ak-Chin Indian Community

Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian

Community

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma

Gila River Indian Community

Hopi Tribe

Mescalero Apache Tribe

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona

Pueblo of Zuni

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

San Carlos Apache

Tohono O'odham Nation

Tonto Apache

White Mountain Apache

Yavapi-Apache Tribe

**STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES**

Arizona Department of Agriculture

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Arizona Department of Tourism

Arizona Department of Transportation

Arizona Ecological Services

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona State Clearinghouse

Arizona State Historic Preservation Office

Arizona State Parks

Department of Disease Control

**BUSINESSES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND**

**UNIVERSITIES**

Ajo Auto Wrecking

Ajo Copper News

Ajo District Chamber of Commerce

Alto Golfo Biosphere Reserve

Argonne National Laboratory

Arizona Cattle Growers Association

Arizona Daily Star

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

Arizona Historical Society

Arizona Nature Conservancy

Arizona People for the USA

Arizona Public Service Company

Arizona Republic

Arizona State Museum

Arizona Trails Association

Arizona Wildlife Federation

Arizona/Mexico Commission

Arizona-Mexico Border Health Foundation

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum

Audubon Society, Tucson Chapter

Benson Chamber of Commerce

Bisbee Chamber of Commerce

Bisbee News/Bisbee Now

Border Research Institute

Bowling Green State University

Capital Media Services

Center for Biological Diversity

Cholla Bay Sportsmans Club

Cochise County Board of Supervisors

Cochise County Planning and Zoning

Department

Cochise Sunday

College of Agricultural and Home Economics

Colorado State University

Commission on Arizona Environment

Copper Queen Library

Creative Expression

D2 Chriopterology

Dames & Moore

Defenders of Wildlife

Douglas Chamber of Commerce

Douglas Daily Dispatch

Drylands Institute

Ecological Consulting and Research

Elderly Program

Five Star Weekly/Mountain View News

Fort Huachuca Library

Friends of the Huachuca Mountains

Friends of the San Pedro River

Gilbert Tribune

Green Valley News and Sun

Health Department/MCH

Hereford Natural Resources Conservation

District

Huachuca Audubon Society

Huachuca Hiking Club

IMADES, Reyes y Aguascalientes esq.

INE SEMARNAP

Institute for Sustainable Development

Intercultural Center for the Study of Deserts

and Oceans

International Sonoran Desert Alliance

K101-FM

Kaibab Forest Products Company

KDAP

KHIL

KKYZ

KNXN-AM

La Leche League

Man and the Biosphere Program

Mediation and Public Management, Inc.

National Parks and Conservation Association

Natural Resource Conservation Service

New Mexico Highlands University

Northern Arizona University

Northwestern University

Pearce-Sunsites Chamber of Commerce

Phillips Publishing, Inc.

Pima Association of Governments

Pima County Parks and Recreation

Pima Trails Association

PRONATURA

Radiation Measurements Facility

Ramsey Canyon Preserve

Rocky Point Research Group

Rocky Point Times

Round River Conservation Studies

San Pedro NCR

San Pedro Valley News

Secretaria de Fomento Alturismo

Servi-Services

Sierra Club, Tucson Chapter

Sierra Vista Chamber of Commerce

Sierra Vista Convention and Visitors Bureau

Sierra Vista Garden Club

Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review

Sierra Vista Public Library

Sierra Vista Public Schools

Sky Island Alliance

Sonoran Arthropod Studies Institute

Sonoran Institute

Southeastern Arizona Bird Observatory

Southeastern Arizona Government

Organization

Southeastern Bird Observatory

Southern Arizona Trails Resource Guide

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity

Southwest Parks and Monuments Association

TCI of Southern Arizona

The Arizona Daily Star

The Arizona Range News

The Arizona Republic

The Bisbee Observer

The Economic and Environment Association

The Institute of Cultural Affairs

The Nature Conservancy

The Runner

The Sonoran Institute

The Sunsiter

The Tucson Weekly

The Wilderness Society

The Wildlands Project

The Wildlife Society

Thunder Mountain Trekkers

Tombstone Chamber of Commerce

Tombstone Tumbleweed

Tribune Newspapers

Tucson Audubon Society

Tucson Citizen

Tucson Public Library, Ajo Branch

University of Arizona

University of California

University of Canberra

URS Corporation

USGS-Sonoran Desert Field Station

Western Archeological and Conservation

Center

Western Arizona HEC

Wouldcox Chamber of Commerce and

Agriculture

Yuma County Chamber of Commerce

**INDIVIDUALS**

A complete list is on file with the National Park Service Intermountain
Region, Denver.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc208975094 .anchor}References

1993 "Arizona Native Plant Program."

Arizona Game and Fish Department

1954 *The Mammals of the Huachuca Mountains, Southeastern Arizona*, by
D. F. Hoffmeister and W. W.

Goodpaster. Illustrated Biology Monograph 24. Phoenix, AZ.

2003 Arizona's Natural Heritage Program Website. Available at:
\<http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/species_concern.shtml

Border XXI Trilateral Committee

1997 "Border XXI II Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona. February 11-12."
Proceedings.

Bowers, J.

Cockrum, E. L., C. H. Lowe, S. M. Russell, D. Danforth, T. B. Johnson,
and Y. Petryszyn

1979 *Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna of Coronado National Memorial*.
Tucson, AZ. University of Arizona,

Cooperative National Park Research Studies Unit. Technical report 5.

Council on Environmental Quality

1997 "Council on Environmental Quality Guidance on NEPA Analyses for
Transboundary Impacts."

Available at \< http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/transguide.html\>.

1996 "Agave Palmeri on Fort Huachuca: Five Years of Research on Natural
History and Response to

Fire." Report to Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security

1999 *Draft Environmental Baseline Document in Support of the
Supplemental Programmatic Environmental*

*Impact Statement for INS and JTF-6 Activities Along the U.S./Mexico
Border.* Vol. 4, *Arizona*

*Land Border Study.* Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort
Worth District. March.

2001 *Final Report Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for INS and JTF-6*

*Activities.* Prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth
District. June.

2002 *Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for U.S. Border
Patrol Activities within the*

*Border Areas of the Tucson and Yuma Sectors, Arizona.* Washington, D.C.
October.

International Boundary and Water Commission

2003a "Joint Projects of the United States and Mexico Constructed
through the International Boundary

and Water Commission." Available at
\<http://www.ibwc.state.gov/LANDBOUN/

land_boundary.htm\>

2003b "The International Boundary and Water Commission, Its Mission,
Organization and Procedures

for Solution of Boundary and Water Problems." Available at
\<http://www.ibwc.state.gov/

About_Us/about_us.html\>.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1988 *Management Policies 1998*. Washington, D.C.

1990 "Report on the 1989 Visitor Use Survey, Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument," Denver Service

Center, Western Team Branch of Planning.

1993 *Floodplain Management Guideline.*

1997b *Natural and Cultural Resources Management Plan, Coronado National
Memorial.* Coronado National Memorial, AZ.

1998 *Cultural Resource Management Guideline.* Washington, D.C.
Available at \<http://www.cr.nps.gov/

history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm\>.

2000a "Bird Sightings at Coronado National Memorial." Access on the
Internet July 2002 at

\<www.nps.gov.coro/birdcolr.htm\>.

2000b *Livestock Management Plan, Including Livestock Management
Guidelines, Environmental Assessment,*

*Joe's Spring Allotment Management Plan, and Montezuma Allotment
Management Plan:*

*Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona.* Hereford, AZ.

2002a Coronado National Memorial Web site. Available at
\<http://www.nps.gov/coro/index.htm\>.

2002d *Coronado National Memorial General Management Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement.*

Cochise County, AZ.

2002e *Procedural Manual #77-2, Floodplain Management.* Washington, D.C.
October.

2003e "Biological Evaluation, International Boundary Vehicle Barrier,
Coronado National Memorial."

February.

2003f Comments from internal review of "Vehicle Barrier at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument and

Coronado National Memorial" Environmental Assessment.

2006 *Management Policies 2006*, Washington, D.C.

2007 "InsideNPS Headlines" June 6, 2007, Available at \<
[http://inside.nps.gov](http://inside.nps.gov/) \> Border Operation
Results in Numerous Arrests, Drug Seizures

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

2000 *Soil Survey of Coronado National Memorial*, by D. W. Denny and C.
R. Peacock. Technical report

63\. Prepared for the National Park Service.

Parfitt, B. D., and C. M. Christy

1992 "Coronado National Memorial Plant Checklist: A Synonymized List of
the Vascular Plants."

Report prepared for the National Park Service, Southern Arizona Office,
Phoenix, AZ.

Petryszyn, Y., and B. Alberti

n.d. "Bat Survey, Monitoring, and Activity at Agaves at Coronado
National Memorial." Draft report in

preparation for the National Park Service.

1991 *Plant Ecology and Vegetation Mapping at Coronado National
Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona*.

Technical report 41. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Cooperative
National Park Resources

Studies Unit.

Sky Islands Alliance

n.d. Available at \<http://www.skyislandalliance.org/sia/\>.

South San Pedro Valley Area Plan Citizen Planning Committee, Cochise
County Planning and Management

Information Systems Staff, Cochise County Planning Commission, and
Cochise County Board of Supervisors

2001 *Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan.*

1993 "A Checklist of the Birds of Coronado National Memorial, Arizona."
Available at

\<http://www.nps.gov/coro/birdlist.htm\>.

Swann, D. E., B. N. Alberti, and C. R. Schwalbe

2001 "Inventory and Recommendations for Long-term Monitoring of Reptiles
and Amphibians at

Coronado National Memorial, Arizona." Report prepared for the National
Park Service, Southern

Arizona Office, by University of Arizona, Cooperative National Park
Resources Studies Unit.

Swann, D. E., C. R. Schwalbe, A. J. Kuenzi, and B. Alberti

2000 "An Inventory of the Terrestrial Mammals of Coronado National
Memorial, Cochise County,

Arizona." Report prepared for the National Park Service, Southern
Arizona Office, by University of

Arizona, Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit.

The Nature Conservancy

2003a "El Pinacate Biosphere/Gran Desierto del Altar Biosphere Reserve."
Available at \<http://nature.

org/misc/art5567.html\>.

2003b "Parks in Peril." Available at \< http://nature.org/misc/\>.

Toolin, L. J.

1980 *The Flora of Ramsey Canyon*. Tucson, AZ: The Arizona Nature
Conservancy.

University of Arizona

2001 "Improving Wildlife Habitat." Available at
\<http://rangelandswest.org/az/tips/tipswildlife.html\>.

Soil Conservation Service, Phoenix, AZ.

1979 *Soil Survey of Santa Cruz and Parts of Cochise and Pima Counties,
Arizona*, by M. L. Richardson, S.

D. Clemmons, and J. C. Walker.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1996 *Draft Environmental Justice Guideline.* Washington, DC.

2003 "New U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Program: Border 2012."
Available at \<http://www.epa.

gov/usmexicoborder/\>.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior

1995a "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Revisions
for Proposed Designation

of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl." *Federal Register* 60:
12728--30.

1995b *Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Recovery Plan*. Prepared by Arizona
Ecological Services State Office.

Phoenix, AZ.

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

1986 Coronado National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan.
Tucson, AZ.

2003 "Coronado National Forest." Available at
\<http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/\>.

U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior

1999 *Hydrogeologic Investigations of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of
the Upper San Pedro Basin, Cochise*

*County, Southeast Arizona,* by D. R. Pool and A. L. Coes. Water
Resource Investigations Report 99-

4197\.

2003 "Butterflies of North America." Available at:
\<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/

distr/lepid/bflyusa/usa/771.htm\>.

Wallmo, O.C.

1955 "Vegetation of the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona." *American Midland
Naturalist* 54:466--80.

Weigand, Thane. Chief Ranger. Coronado National Memorial. January 29,
2003 --- E-mail correspondence.