United States Department of Agriculture

Record of Decision

New Special-Use Permits for Recreation 

Residences on the Safford Ranger 

District

Coronado National Forest

Graham County, Arizona

Forest Service

Coronado

National Forest

Safford

Ranger District

MB-R3-05-12

March 2015
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because of all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
RECORD OF DECISION

New Special-use Permits

for Occupancy of Recreation Residences

Safford Ranger District

Coronado National Forest

Graham County, Arizona

1.0 Introduction

The Coronado National Forest (NF) proposes to issue new special-use permits (SUPs) to the 

owners of 88 recreation residences on the Safford Ranger District (District). This administrative 

action would authorize continued occupancy and use of the residences as specified in the terms 

and conditions of individual permits. Approval of the proposed action would not change the use 

of the residences nor would it authorize the addition of structures or other improvements. New 

permits would expire 20 years from their most recent expiration date, which was December 31, 

2008.1

Two recreation residence tracts, Old Columbine and Turkey Flat, are located in the Pinaleño 

Mountains, which cover more than 300 square miles in southeastern Arizona (see Figure 1).

There are 14 recreation residences on 25 acres on the Old Columbine tract, for which the legal 

description is “protracted Section 29, unsurveyed Township 8 South, Range 24 East.” The 

Turkey Flat tract has 74 residence lots on 52 acres in protracted Sections 19 and 20, unsurveyed 

Township 9 South, Range 25 East. Relative locations of the Coronado NF and the tracts are 

shown in Figure 2. 

The Piñaleno Mountains rise from semi-desert grasslands to a sub-alpine forest. This mountain 

range includes the greatest cross-section of ecological communities in the Southwest. It is home 

to numerous endemic or rare wildlife and plant species, including the endangered Mount Graham 

red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus grahamensis) and the threatened Mexican spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis lucida), both of which are protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.

The Western Apache people refer to the Pinaleño Mountains as Dził Nchaa Si’an, or “big-seated 

mountain,” given the appearance of the mountains’ multiple peaks. Dził Nchaa Si’an is 

recognized under Section 101(d) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as a 

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) of the Western Apache people, and it is eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

1 Interim permits have been issued periodically while the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the 

proposal was being completed.

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 3

 
2015 Record of Decision

Figure 1. Location of the Coronado National Forest and its Districts in southeastern Arizona.

4 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

Figure 2. Relative locations of Old Columbine and Turkey Flat recreation residence tracts on 

the Coronado National Forest, Safford Ranger District.

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 5
2015 Record of Decision

2.0 Decision and Rationale

A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the proposed action is documented in a 

Final EIS (FEIS) that was released for public inspection concurrently with the release of a draft 

record of decision (draft ROD) on September 16, 2014. This initiated the Predicisional 

Administrative Review (Objection) process per 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. No objections 

were filed during the review period (see Section 4.4).

This final ROD documents my selection of an alternative for approval and provides the rationale 

on which my selection is based. I have weighed the results of a comparative analysis of the 

potential environmental and social effects of the proposed action and three alternatives, all of 

which are disclosed in the FEIS; consideration of public input during all steps in the NEPA 

review process; and the best available scientific and commercial data and information. 

I am selecting Alternative 2, the proposed action, for approval. 

This authorizes new SUPs to be issued for each recreation residence on the Old Columbine and 

Turkey Flat tracts. The term of each SUP will be 20 years, beginning on December 31, 2008–the 

date on which all residence permits last expired. Permit holders will be required to abide by all 

terms and conditions expressed in their individual SUPs, including an annual operation and 

maintenance (O&M) plan that will accompany each permit.

Before the proposed action is implemented, each recreation residence will be inspected by Forest 

Service staff to confirm that the permit holder has complied to date with the terms and conditions 

of his/her interim permit [Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, Chapter 41.23a (3)]. If so, a 

new SUP will be granted.

2.1 Mitigation and Related Requirements 

An operation and maintenance (O&M) plan conveyed with each new SUP will include the 

mitigation measures listed below. These measures were identified by Forest resource specialists 

and heritage program staff, and approved by former Forest Supervisor, Jeanine Derby, following 

several years of consultation and dialogue with the White Mountain and San Carlos Apache 

Tribes regarding ways to minimize effects on a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), Dził Nchaa 

Si’an. Future homeowner compliance with O&M requirements will help mitigate the effects on 

the TCP that the Apache associate with the presence and continued occupancy of recreation 

residences on Mt. Graham.

Along with restrictions on modifications of residences and the prohibition of certain activities 

listed below, each new SUP will contain specific information intended to raise homeowner 

awareness of the value and significance of the TCP in the culture and history of the Western 

Apache people. This will include acknowledgement of the Forest Service’s general trust 

responsibility toward American Indian tribes; that Federal law requires the agency to consider the 

potential adverse effects of projects on historic properties; and that, within the limits of Federal 

law, the agency will continue to provide for American Indian access to sacred sites.

During Forest Service consultation with Western Apache leaders, heritage staff learned that the 

Tribes believe that residents have previously not complied with specific mitigation measures in 

their SUPs. Therefore, the following items will be emphasized in each new SUP:

6 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

• Color standards that apply to all cabins, trim, roofs, and other structures 

• Design standards to ensure that improvements integrate well with the natural setting

• Constraints on public access to the residence tracts

• Fire-prevention measures

• Domestic animal restrictions, e.g., a requirement that they be kept inside homes or on 

leashes not to exceed 6 feet in length

• Restrictions on human activities that may adversely affect wildlife breeding and foraging

• Notification to homeowners that in the event of a wildland fire, the Forest Service does 

not have a responsibility to protect recreation residences.

Each SUP/O&M plan will prohibit the following activities:

• Expanding structures and constructing room additions

• Planting non-native vegetation

• Diverting or retaining stream water flow

• Ground-disturbing activities without case-by-case District Ranger approval

• Attaching swings, yard lights, signs, electric or other wires, and other materials to

vegetation in a harmful manner

• Constructing outdoor fire-pits and sports courts

• Outdoor storage of building materials, recreation vehicles, television antennas, sports 

equipment, picnic tables, lawn chairs, etc.

• Driving off-road or parking outside designated parking areas. It is permissible to park 

up to 30 feet off National Forest System roads that access the residences.

• Constructing gates, fences, or walls

• On-site burning or burial of trash

• Creating unreasonable or excessive noise. 

At 36 CFR 261.10 i, 261.10 j, the Forest Service has established general noise 

guidelines for recreation sites and national forests that include quiet hours at 

developed sites from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Finally, recreation residences and associated structures must be compliant with direction provided 

in the most recent (October 2012) “Architectural Guidelines for Recreation Residences on the 

Coronado National Forest” (project record, item # 198). A copy of the guidelines report is 

available at the Safford Ranger District Office and at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Tucson, 

Arizona.

2.2 Responsiveness of Alternative 2 to Purpose of and Need for Action

By issuing new SUPs to 88 owners of recreation residences, the Forest will fully respond to the 

need for new permits to replace those that expired in 2008. The proposed action will achieve the 

purpose of adhering to the Forest Service policy of continuing recreation residence use when it is 

consistent with the Forest Plan and continuing to work in partnership with permit holders to 

maximize public recreational benefits [Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2347.1 (USDA-FS, 2006b) 

and USDA-FS, 1986, pp. 9, 41 and 59].

2.3 Responsiveness of Alternative 2 to Issues 

Issues and concerns expressed by the public during the NEPA review focused on the potential for 

occupancy of recreation residences to adversely affect Federally listed (ESA) species (Mt. 

Graham red squirrel and Mexican spotted owl) and the integrity of a TCP, Dził Nchaa Si’an (see 

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 7
2015 Record of Decision

Section 4.2 below). The new permits would not authorize any change in use of the residences in 

the surrounding area or their structure. Therefore, effects on the two species and TCP from future 

recreational use of the residences would be the same as those occuring today under current

conditions. There would be no net change in effects to these specific resources about which 

issues were raised.

3.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action

In addition to the proposed action, Alternative 2, the following three alternatives were analyzed in 

detail in the EIS.

3.1 Alternative 1: No Action 

No action is included as an alternative to the proposed action, in accordance with the 

requirements of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR Part 1502.14(d). 

No action is generally intended to provide a baseline against which the impacts of action 

alternatives may be compared.

In addition to providing an environmental baseline, the no-action alternative evaluated by this 

NEPA review would deny new SUPs for both recreation residence tracts. As specified in FSM

2721.23(e)(2)(b), after a decision is made to terminate recreation residence permits, homeowners 

shall be allowed to occupy the residences for 10 years from the date of notification of nonrenewal. For the purpose of the EIS analysis of no action, the Forest Service assumed that all 

recreation residence holders would continue to occupy their residences for the full 10-year permit 

period.

According to the terms and conditions of each 10-year permit, owners will have a reasonable 

timeframe to remove structures and/or improvements and to restore each site to natural 

conditions, at their expense. The process of removal may take up to five years. Thus, all 

structures and improvements on a tract should be gone within 15 years, if the no-action 

alternative is selected for implementation. Before residences are removed, a site-specific NEPA 

review of proposed restoration plans will be completed.

General improvements on recreation residence tracts include small cabins, decks, patios, 

outbuildings, permanent grills, and other stationary improvements; pumps; overhead wiring; 

propane gas tanks; water tanks; and concrete foundations. As part of the removal process, permit 

holders will be required to secure wells with welded steel caps, pump and fill septic tanks and 

vault toilets with dirt, and fill pit toilets with dirt. Pipelines, underground wiring, sewage 

distribution boxes, and drain fields are permitted to remain. Each site and associated use area will 

be contoured to the original landscape and planted with a native seed mix.

After sites are restored, access to the Old Columbine and Turkey Flat tracts will be gated by the 

Forest to prevent future motorized access. Vegetation will be allowed to repopulate the road beds. 

At present, no specific use for the decommissioned tracts is proposed. However, the area would 

continue to be open to visitors for dispersed recreational use, as it is at present.

Pursuant to the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, P.L. 100-696, Section 605(c), “If ... 

termination, modification or nonrenewal of special use authorizations ... are prescribed, the 

United States Forest Service shall, with the cooperation and approval of the holders of these 

8 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

special use authorizations, develop a relocation plan for such individuals and entities.” 

Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 may require the Forest to allow relocation of up to 88

recreation residences, which in turn would require the potential development of residence tracts in 

other areas of the Forest. 

3.2 Alternative 3: Issue Turkey Flat Permits Only

Implementation of Alternative 3 would authorize new SUPs for 74 recreation residences at the 

Turkey Flat tract only. Each new SUP term would extend 20 years, from January 1, 2009, through 

December 31, 2028. Permit holders would be required to abide by all terms and conditions 

expressed in their respective SUPs and an annual O&M plan. Prior to new SUPs being issued, 

each recreation residence would be inspected by the Forest Service to confirm that the permit 

holder is compliant with the terms and conditions of his/her interim permit [FSH 2709.11, 41.23a 

(3)]. If so, a new SUP will be granted.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would deny new permits for 14 recreation residences within the 

Old Columbine tract. Instead, Old Columbine permit holders would be issued an SUP that 

authorizes 10 years of occupancy, after which all improvements would be removed at the expense 

of homeowners [FSM 2721.23a (10)]. Removal activities at Old Columbine would be the same as 

those described for alternative 1 (no action).

Pursuant to the Arizona Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, P.L. 100-696, Section 605(c), “If ... 

termination, modification or nonrenewal of special use authorizations ... are prescribed, the 

United States Forest Service shall, with the cooperation and approval of the holders of these 

special use authorizations, develop a relocation plan for such individuals and entities.” 

Therefore, implementation of this alternative may require relocation of up to 14 Old Columbine

residences, which in turn would require the potential development of residence tracts in other 

areas of the Forest.

3.3 Alternative 4: Issue Old Columbine Permits Only

Implementation of alternative 4 would authorize new SUPs for 14 recreation residences at the Old 

Columbine tract only. Each new SUP term would extend 20 years, from January 1, 2009, through 

December 31, 2028. Permit holders would be required to abide by all terms and conditions 

expressed in their respective SUPs and an annual O&M plan. Prior to new permits being issued, 

each recreation residence would be inspected by special-uses program staff to confirm that the 

permit holder is compliant with the terms and conditions of his/her interim permit [FSH 2709.11, 

41.23a (3)]. If so, a new SUP will be granted.

Implementation of Alternative 4 would deny new permits for 74 recreation residences within the 

Turkey Flat tract. Instead, Turkey Flat permit holders would be issued an SUP that authorizes 10 

years of occupancy, after which all improvements would be removed at the expense of the 

homeowners [FSM 2721.23a (10)]. Removal activities at Turkey Flat would be the same as those 

described for alternative 1 (no action).

Pursuant to the Arizona Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, P.L. 100-696, Section 605(c), “If ... 

termination, modification or nonrenewal of special use authorizations ... are prescribed, the 

United States Forest Service shall, with the cooperation and approval of the holders of these 

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 9
2015 Record of Decision

special use authorizations, develop a relocation plan for such individuals and entities.” 

Therefore, implementation of this alternative may require relocation of up to74 Turkey Flat

residences, which in turn would require the potential development of residence tracts in other 

areas of the Forest.

3.4 Environmentally Preferrable Alternative 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies are required to identify an

environmentally preferrable alternative [40 CFR 1505.2(b)] from among those evaluated in an 

EIS. This is expected to be the alternative that would have the least impact on the biological and 

physical components of the environment, and offer the best protection, preservation, and

conservation of historic, cultural, and natural resources (“Forty Most Asked Question Concerning 

Council on Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations”, 46 Federal 

Register 18026). 

After weighing the short-term impacts against the long-term benefits of the proposed action, I

find that the environmentally preferrable alternative for this NEPA review is Alternative 2, the 

proposed action. Implementation of Alternative 2 would balance the benefits of continued use of 

the residences for public recreation with the need to conserve Mt. Graham red squirrel and 

Mexican spotted owl habitat on the residence tracts as well as maintain the physical integrity and 

cultural value of the Western Apache TCP, Dził Nchaa Si’an. 

Alternative 2 is environmentally preferred over Alternative 1 (no action), even though the latter

would have a long-term legacy of restoration of red squirrel habitat through natural succession on 

25 acres at Old Columbine. In the short-term, public recreation opportunities would decrease 

dramatically upon the removal of 88 residences. Further, if Alternative 1 is implemented, 

relocation of up to 88 residences may be necessary in response to AICA direction. As noted 

above, the AICA requires that “If ... termination, modification or nonrenewal of special use 

authorizations... are prescribed, the United States Forest Service shall, with the cooperation and 

approval of the holders of these special use authorizations, develop a relocation plan for such 

individuals and entities.” Ground disturbance for access roads and recreation home construction, 

among other residence-tract-development activities, have the potential to adversely affect natural 

resources, especially protected wildlife populations, habitat, and vegetation.

Implementation of Alternatives 3 and 4 would achieve a similar but lesser balance between 

recreational opportunities and wildlife conservation as Alternative 2 (loss of 14 residences and 74 

residences, respectively). However, both would be less environmentally preferable than 

Alternative 2 because of the potential need for future Forest Service actions in response to 

direction in the AICA. This means that if either Alternative 3 or 4 is implemented, relocation of

14 and 74 residences, respectively, may occur at one or more new and different locations on the 

Forest. For these reasons, none of the three alternatives to the proposed action would be 

environmentally preferrable to the proposed action.

10 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

4.0 Public Involvement 

4.1 Notice of the Proposed Action

The proposed action was first announced to the public in July 2005, when the project was listed in 

a Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on the forest public website. Since that time, the project 

has been listed on each quarterly update of the SOPA. 

The scope of the NEPA review was based, in part, on input that was provided in written and oral 

comments that responded to a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (NOI). The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) published the NOI in the Federal Register on March 9, 2006 (project 

record, item #5). Concurrently, the NOI and a scoping notice were distributed to stakeholders and 

interested parties by postal mail and electronic mail (email). The NOI was sent to 154 

stakeholders, including the general public, agencies, government officials, and various 

organizations (project record, item #8). On March 24, 2006, a government-to-government 

scoping letter was sent to 31 tribal leaders among 12 Indian Nations with historic ties to southeast 

Arizona (project record, item #7). 

Two public open-houses were held during the scoping period: one in Tucson, Arizona, on March 

27, 2006, that had 27 attendees (project record, item #60) and the other in Safford, Arizona, on 

March 28, 2006, that had 48 attendees (project record, item #64). Scoping comments were 

accepted at both meetings.

4.2 Scoping

Public comments received during scoping were reviewed by Forest resource specialists, who are 

identified in chapter 4 of the FEIS. They were catalogued by resource and/or issue and 

determined to either be relevant to the impacts analysis or beyond the scope of this environmental 

review2 (project record, items #8 through 11; #13 through 59; #61 through 63; #65 through 167; 

#172). Each specialist subsequently developed an approach to analyze potential impacts related to 

resource-relevant issues.

Ninety-eight (98) parties offered comments in various formats (email, U.S. mail, telephone, 

person-to-person) during the scoping period. Ninety-three (93) comment letters expressed 

advocacy for the proposed actions, and two letters included requests to be placed on the mailing 

list for the NEPA review.

One comment letter expressed concern for potential adverse impacts to the Mt. Graham red 

squirrel, citing several factors of concern (project record, item #172), which were considered and 

addressed in the EIS by the District wildlife biologist.

One comment letter was received from among the Native American Tribes and Nations who were 

contacted (project record, item #68). The former Chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe 

commented that the continued existence of the recreation residences in itself was an adverse 

2 Those that (1) expressed concern about an issue that had already been decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or 

another higher-level decision; (2) were unrelated to the decision to be made; (3) were conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence; (4) expressed an opinion of advocacy or opposition; or (5) were so general that a 

meaningful issue could not be discerned.

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 11

 
2015 Record of Decision

effect on the TCP, Dził Nchaa Si’an (project record, item #68). This concern was considered and 

addressed in the EIS by the Forest heritage program leader, who, with the former Forest 

Supervisor, consulted with Tribes and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to 

develop mitigation to help minimize adverse effects to the TCP.

The remaining comment letter expressed opposition to the Forest Service recreation residence 

program, in general, and recommended that all permits for recreation residences be discontinued 

nationwide. This comment was considered to be outside the scope of the review and was not 

addressed in the impacts analysis in chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Issues Identified During Scoping

Potential Effects on the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel 

Background 

The Mt. Graham red squirrel (MGRS) is one of 25 subspecies of red squirrels in North America. 

Its habitat is coniferous forest, especially old-growth spruce-fir, Douglas-fir, and mixed conifer. 

The only known remaining population of MGRS is within the upper elevations of the Pinaleño 

Mountains. The decrease in available MGRS habitat here is a legacy of past logging activity. 

More recent declines have resulted from drought, insect infestation, and uncharacteristic highintensity wildland fire.

The MGRS was believed to have become extinct during the 1950s. This was discounted when a 

small population of red squirrels was "rediscovered" on Mt. Graham in the 1970s. The subspecies 

was added to the Federal ESA endangered list in 1987 by the FWS after the 1986 population was 

estimated to be less than 400. 

Human presence at the recreation residences at both tracts and, in fact, all recreation sites on Mt. 

Graham, increases the probability that individual squirrels may be accidentally injured or killed. 

Vehicles, domestic animals, and wildland fire all pose threats to the squirrel and its habitat. 

Suppression of wildland fire, which is the typical response to ignitions in MGRS habitat, 

compounds threats to the squirrel, because protection of private property is favored over 

management of wildland fire for resource benefits. If fire suppression is continued on and near 

the tracts, it will continue to impede the return of a frequent, low-intensity, natural fire to the 

ecosystem.

The 14 recreation residences at Old Columbine are all located within MGRS habitat. They were 

built and occupied seasonally for about 30 years prior to the MGRS being considered extinct. 

Recreational use of the Old Columbine tract is small in scale, and occupancy of the residences 

has not been directly correlated with the MGRS population decline. However, from the 

perspective of some members of the public, the continued presence of the residences at Old 

Columbine impedes the eventual restoration of approximately 25 acres of Forest to historic 

vegetation conditions, which are expected to be suitable as MGRS habitat. In perspective with the 

potentially suitable MGRS habitat on Mt. Graham, which is estimated to be between 17,000 to 

27,000 acres, the acres at Old Columbine, when restored, would add an increment of 0.01 percent 

of squirrel habitat on the mountain.

To address issues related to the MGRS and its habitat at Old Columbine, an alternative to issue 

new permits for 74 residences at only the Turkey Flat tract is evaluated in the FEIS. The no-action

12 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

alternative, whereby all recreation residence SUPs would be terminated after a 10-year 

transitional period, also offers potential restoration of MGRS habitat at Old Columbine.

Presence of the Mt. Graham International Observatory

Twenty-five years ago, the Forest issued a special-use permit to the University of Arizona 

(University) authorizing the construction and operation of telescopes and related facilities on Mt. 

Graham (the Mt. Graham International Observatory or MGIO). Prior to the realization of this

project, the potential decline of the MGRS was already the subject of public interest.

In July 1988, the FWS issued a biological opinion (BO) addressing the potential effects of a 

preferred alternative for the MGIO, in which it concluded that the MGRS is "extremely 

vulnerable to extinction" and that construction of the telescopes was likely to jeopardize its 

continued existence (USDI-FWS, 1988). As part of the BO, the FWS proposed three "reasonable 

and prudent alternatives” (RPAs) to the proposed action that would allow the project to proceed 

while providing a specific degree of protection to the red squirrel. 

Significant public controversy followed. As a consequence, Congress passed the Arizona-Idaho 

Conservation Act of 1988 (AICA; project record, item #196), which, among other things, altered 

the requirements of the RPAs in the BO. Section 602 (a) of the AICA declared that the 

requirements of Section 7 of the ESA were satisfied with regard to the terms and conditions of 

RPA 3 and allowed the Forest to issue an SUP for the first three telescopes, necessary support 

facilities, and an access road to the MGIO site.

In the 1988 BO, RPA 3 recommended that the SUPs not be issued upon their expiration. AICA 

Section 605(a) changed the content of RPA 3. The AICA stated that the permits "shall continue 

subject to the terms and conditions of the authorizations, for the duration of the term specified in 

each authorization. Prior to the termination, non-renewal or modification of those special use 

authorizations, a biological study to determine the effects of such special uses authorizations upon 

the Mt. Graham red squirrel and other threatened and endangered species would be conducted. 

The biological study would include public involvement and consultation with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service.” 

Scientific research and field studies related to the MGRS, its habitat, and the Mt. Graham 

ecosystem have been ongoing since the passage of the AICA. In 2007, the Safford District 

Biologist prepared a Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BAE) of the potential effects of 

issuing new SUPs on the MGRS and its habitat. Conclusions were disclosed in chapter 3 of the 

FEIS. The BAE was submitted to FWS on January 24, 2007, as required for formal ESA, Section 

7 consultation. The FWS issued a BO regarding the proposed action on August 18, 2008 

(appendix C of the FEIS), in which it assigns “take” for two Mt. Graham red squirrels. According 

to the BO, “...this level of take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species."

Potential Effects on Traditional Cultural Property, Dził Nchaa Si’an

The Forest Service has a trust responsibility toward American Indian tribes. Legislation and 

Executive Orders mandate that the agency consider the effects of proposed actions on historic 

properties, ensure American Indian access to sacred sites, and protect the physical integrity of 

such sites wherever possible. 

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 13
2015 Record of Decision

During the NEPA review, the chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe expressed the 

Tribe’s perspective that the ongoing presence of the residences continues the damage to and 

desecration of the Western Apache sacred mountain. The Tribe considers the presence of 

recreation residences and public uses of Dził Nchaa Si’an as negatively affecting its longstanding and ongoing historical, cultural, religious, and spiritual importance to the Western 

Apache. 

Dził Nchaa Si’an is associated with Western Apache oral history and tradition and plays a vital 

role in Western Apache lifeways and continued tribal well-being. Dził Nchaa Si’an is home to 

mountain spirits, a source of natural resources and traditional medicine for ceremonial uses, a 

place of prayer, and a source of power to Western Apache people. The area within the Forest 

boundary has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a 

TCP, but the sacred character of the mountain range is more extensive to the Apache people, as it 

encompasses all landforms, minerals, plants, and waters associated with or flowing from Dził 

Nchaa Si’an.

Individuals, families, and guests at recreation residences are often not aware of the mountain’s 

role in Western Apache history and culture. The Western Apache considers any effects that the 

residences have on the natural wildlife, soils, vegetation, and streams as detrimental to the sacred 

site. Further, the presence of the residences affects land and fire management because it increases 

the importance of suppressing wildland fires that may otherwise play a natural role in achieving 

resource management objectives and promoting ecosystem function. The Forest’s response to 

wildland fires has predominantly focused on the protection of private property rather than on the 

restoration of ecosystem functions or the protection and expansion of the habitat of endangered 

species.

To help mitigate the effects of the presence and use of recreation residences on the TCP, the 

Forest heritage program leader worked closely with leaders of the White Mountain and San 

Carlos Apache Tribes to develop stipulations and requirements for inclusion into each newly 

issued SUP. These are reported earlier in the FEIS and in Section 2.1 of this draft ROD under the 

heading, Mitigation and Related Requirements.

4.3 Review of Draft EIS

In accordance with Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, chapters 23.2 and 23.3, the public was 

offered a 45-day period to review a draft of this EIS. The EPA published a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) of the draft EIS for public review in the Federal Register on December 5, 2008 (project 

record, item #184), and copies of the draft EIS were distributed to Federal, state and local 

agencies and other parties who offered comments during the scoping period (project record, items 

#180 through 183; and #185 through 187). Public comments about the draft EIS (project record, 

items #189 through 192; and #194) were reviewed by Forest Service resource specialists and me 

prior to our making minor revisions to the FEIS. Comments are reproduced in their entirety in 

appendix D of the FEIS and Forest Service responses to comments are provided in appendix E.

4.4 Predecisional Administrative Review (Objection) Process

As the Responsible Official, I issued a draft Record of Decision with the FEIS. The EPA 

published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIS in the Federal Register on September 

12, 2014. The documents were uploaded to the Forest public website 

14 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

(http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=10919) concurrent with publication of 

a Legal Notice of its availability in the Arizona Daily Star newspaper on September 15, 2014. In 

addition to the publication of the NOA and Legal Notice, notification of the availability of the 

FEIS and draft ROD was sent to 265 parties, including those that commented on the Draft EIS or 

otherwise expressed interest in the action. Sixty-two hard copies of the documents were also sent 

to those that requested them.

The draft ROD was subject to a Forest Service Predecisional Administrative Review (Objection) 

Process [36 CFR 218 (Subparts A and B)], which became effective on March 27, 2013. In 

accordance with 218 regulations, a 45-day public review of the draft ROD was offered. Only 

those parties who submitted timely, specific written comments during a designated opportunity 

for comment could have filed an objection (see 36 CFR 218.5). The Objection Reviewing Officer 

received no objections during the predecisional administrative review process.

5.0 Findings Required by Other Laws

I find that implementation of Alternative 2, including the mitigation described above, is consistent 

with environmental laws and regulations applicable to each resource area. Detailed discussions of 

findings required by laws and regulations other than NEPA are provided in the FEIS, Chapter 3, 

pp. 57 to 198, and its appendices. The following sections summarize these findings.

5.1 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and Forest Plan Direction 

The National Forest Management Act requires projects to be designed in accordance with 

direction in the Coronado Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA-FS 

1986, as amended), which establishes Forest-wide goals and objectives, standards and guidelines

and management-area (MA)-specific goals, standards and guidelines. Projects and activity 

decisions must demonstrate and explicitly document consistency and compliance with Forestwide standards, MA-specific standards, and monitoring plan requirements.

Direction for allocation and management of land for specific uses and activities on the Coronado 

NF, including the recreation residence program, is provided in the current Forest Plan. The 

Safford recreation residences are located in management areas (MAs) 3A and 3B. Applicable 

standards and guidelines, both Forest-wide and MA-specific, are referenced in chapter 3 of the 

FEIS under the heading “Affected Environment.”

Forest plan standards and guidelines for the Old Columbine and Turkey Flat tracts include the 

following statements (USDA-FS, 1986, p. 59):

“Recreation residences, with the exception of those on tenure in the Santa Catalina Mountains 

and Madera Canyon, will be maintained unless and until a determination has been made that 

the site involved is needed for a higher priority public purpose.”

“Prior to the termination, non-renewal or modification of the special use permits for the 

Arizona Bible School Organization Camp and the Columbine Summer Home Tract located in 

the Pinaleño Mountains, the effect of these special use authorizations on the Mt. Graham red 

squirrel and other threatened or endangered species will be determined.”

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 15
2015 Record of Decision

The Forest Planner reviewed the proposed action for NFMA compliance and found that it is 

consistent with Forest Plan direction. No Forest Plan amendments are necessary.

5.2 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Regional Forester (Region 3) Sensitive Species

Forest Management Indicator Species

Chapter 3 of the FEIS reports potential effects of the proposed action and alternatives on species 

and habitat protected under the authority of the ESA and species listed by the Regional Forester, 

Region 3, as “sensitive” (FSS). As mentioned in the discussion of issues previously in this ROD,

the Safford District Biologist prepared a BAE of the proposed action, which found that issuing 

new SUPs “may affect, and would likely adversely affect” the Mount Graham red squirrel; “may 

affect, would not likely to adversely affect” the Mexican spotted owl and the Apache trout; and 

would have “no effect” on MSO designated critical habitat. It also reported that the proposed 

action may incidentally affect individuals of Region 3 FSS and Forest management indicator 

species, but would not lead to a loss of population viability or a trend toward Federal listing for 

any of them.

The FWS concurred with Forest Service determinations in a BO issued on August 18, 2008. In it, 

the FWS assigned “incidental take” for two (2) Mt. Graham red squirrels (one “harm” and one 

“harass”), and stated that “...this level of take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species.”

Applicable to incidental take of the MGRS, the FWS issued a BO on April 30, 2012, regarding

continued implementation of the Forest Plan. In it, the FWS stated that “under the terms of 

section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the 

agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act, provided that such taking is 

in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.” 

After consultation had been considered completed in 2008, the threatened Gila trout was 

introduced back into Ash and Frye Creeks in the Piñaleno Mountains as part of a multi-agency 

effort to restore native species to the fishery. The Forest updated the BAE to include the potential 

effects on the Gila trout, finding that the proposed action "may affect, but would not likely 

adversely affect" the species. This updated determination was submitted to FWS on December 

16, 2010. The Forest Service received concurrence on this in a letter dated May 6, 2011. All FWS 

concurrences and the BO are included in an appendix to the FEIS and filed in the administrative 

record of this NEPA review.

5.3 Clean Water Act (CWA)

An Intergovernmental Agreement between the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

(ADEQ) and the Forest Service is the basis for managing non-point-source pollution and

maintaining the quality of water resources on the Forest. It provides guidance related to the 

planning, application, and monitoring of best management practices (BMPs) as the primary 

means to control non-point source water pollution. The proposed action would require residence 

occupants to abide by all ADEQ requirements that protect the quality and integrity of surface 

waters on residence tracts and to implement BMPs where they are warranted.

5.4 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 

Preservation of American Antiquities Act of 1906

16 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

The Forest heritage program leader consulted with Tribes having traditional ties to and interests in

the project area and southeastern Arizona, and the Arizona SHPO about the potential effects of 

the proposed action on historic and Tribal resources and interestes. A finding of “no adverse 

effect” was made, and the SHPO concurred with this finding on May 5, 2008. Concurrence is 

provided in an appendix to the FEIS and filed in the administrative record of this NEPA review.

5.5 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

This Act provides for the maintenance of “access to sites ... freedom to worship through 

ceremonials and traditional rites.” My decision allows for continued access to sacred sites and 

special places by American Indians and does not abridge any rights they have to continue to

“worship.”

5.6 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

The RFRA (40 USC Section 2000bb) re-established Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding the 

free exercise of religion under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [See 

Navajo Nation v. USFS, 535 F.3d 1058, 9th Cir. (2008).] My decision does not impose a 

substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as defined under the applicable case law. 

5.7 Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988, P.L. 100-696 (AICA)

Section 605 of the AICA sets forth procedures and analyes required if the SUPs will be renewed 

or if they will be terminated, modified, or not renewed. Because my decision is to renew the 

recreation residence permits, it is compliant with the requirements set forth in the AICA. 

5.8 Executive Order 13007 - Indian Sacred Sites

This Order specifies that Federal land management agencies “shall, to the extent practicable, 

permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with essential agency functions, (1) accommodate 

access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, and (2) avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites.” This Order is based on a 

“government-to-government” relationship between agencies and tribal government. Governmentto-government consultations about this project have been ongoing since 2007. The proposed 

action does not change American Indian access to their sacred sites or the physical integrity of 

such sites.

5.9 Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to determine whether or not their proposed 

action would result in disproportionate adverse health and/or environmental effects on minority 

and low-income populations. I have determined that the proposed issuance of recreation residence 

permits will not cause environmental justice impacts.

6.0 Postdecisional Administrative Review (Appeal) Process for 

Occupancy or Use of National Forest System Lands and 

Resources

It is my determination that information disclosed in the FEIS and filed in the administrative 

record of the NEPA review supports my reasoned choice of action. Implementing the selected 

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 17
2015 Record of Decision

alternative (the proposed action, Alternative 2) will cause no unacceptable individual and 

cumulative impacts to natural and societal resources. There are no adverse environmental effects 

that cannot be avoided, and there will be no irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources associated with the selected alternative. 

This ROD is subject to a Postdecisional Administrative Review (Appeal) Process (36 CFR 214), 

which became effective on June 5, 2013. In accordance with 214 regulations, a 45-day appeal

period will be offered. Only holders, operators, and solicited applicants may appeal this decision

which involves written instruments authorizing the occupancy or use of National Forest System 

lands and resources (36 CFR 214.1). These parties include the Turkey Flat and Old Columbine 

Recreation Residence SUP holders (36 CFR 214.4 (c)(i)). 

Turkey Flat and Old Columbine Recreation Residence SUP holders may appeal this authorization

and will be promptly provided written notification of this decision (36 CFR 214.6(a)). The appeal 

must be filed with the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the date of this decision (36 

CFR 214.9).

At minimum,an appeal must include the content requirements specified at 36 CFR 214.8:

General requirements for the contents of an appeal. All appeals must include:

1. The appellant's name, mailing address, daytime telephone number, and email address, if 

any;

2. A brief description of the decision being appealed, including the name and title of the 

Responsible Official and the date of the decision;

3. The title or type and, if applicable, identification number for the written authorization and 

the date of application for or issuance of the written authorization, if applicable;

4. A statement of how the appellant is adversely affected by the decision being appealed;

5. A statement of the relevant facts underlying the decision being appealed;

6. A discussion of issues raised by the decision being appealed, including identification of 

any laws, regulations, or policies that were allegedly violated in reaching the decision 

being appealed;

7. A statement as to whether and how the appellant has attempted to resolve the issues under 

appeal with the Responsible Official and the date and outcome of those efforts;

8. A statement of the relief sought;

9. Any documents and other information upon which the appellant relies; and

10. The appellant's signature and the date.

Specific requirements for the contents of an appeal. In addition to the general requirements in 

§214.8(a), the following specific requirements must be included in an appeal, where applicable:

1. A request for an oral presentation under §214.16; and

2. A request for a stay under §214.13.

Appeals may be submitted by U.S. mail to “Appeal Deciding Officer, Safford Recreation 

Residences EIS”, USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 333 Broadway SE, Albuquerque, 

NM 87102. They may also be sent by facsimile to (505) 842-3173 to the attention of “Appeal

18 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest
2015 Record of Decision

Deciding Officer, Safford Recreation Residences EIS”. Hand-carried appeals should be delivered 

to the the Albuquerque address between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding Federal holidays.

Electronically mailed appeals (emails) should be directed to “appeals-southwestern-regionaloffice@fs.fed.us” with “Appeal Deciding Officer, Safford Recreation Residences EIS” in the 

subject line. Appeals may be submitted within the text of an email message, or as plain text (.txt),

portable document format (.pdf), rich text format (.rtf), or Microsoft Word (.docx). In cases where 

no identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification of identity will be 

required.

7.0 Implementation of the Proposed Action

No objections were filed during the predecisional administrative review process, therefore 

consistant with 36 CFR 218.12 (c), a decision may be signed by the Responsible Official and 

implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of 

the objection filing period (October 29, 2014)). The proposed action may be implemented 

immediately upon this final ROD being signed.

8.0 Contact Information

For additional information concerning this ROD and the Forest Service NEPA and permittee 

appeals processes, contact:

Mr. Kent Ellett

District Ranger

Coronado National Forest 

Safford Ranger District

711 14th Avenue, Suite D

Safford, AZ 85546

(928) 428-4150

kellett@fs.fed.us

Ms. Margaret Van Gilder

Southwestern Region Administrative Review Coordinator

333 Broadway SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 842-3223

mvangilder@fs.fed.us

New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest 19
2015 Record of Decision

Signature of Responsible Official

JIM UPCHURCH DATE

FOREST SUPERVISOR

CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST

20 New Special Use Permits, Recreation Residences, Safford RD, Coronado National Forest