National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park 

Texas

Fire Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment 

2005 
2

Fire Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment

GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

Texas 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, located 110 miles east of El Paso, Texas, needs to update 

its fire management plan to incorporate new policies and advances in fire research and 

operations. Fire management plan goals regard safety as the highest priority, then focus on 

protection of sensitive resources from fire, use of fire to accomplish resource management 

objectives, monitoring effects of fire program activities, and also require that the process be open 

and cooperative. Three alternatives are retained for analysis in this Environmental Assessment. 

The No Action Alternative allows wildland fire use over most of the park, but conservative 

decision criteria result in suppression of virtually all natural ignitions. Alternative A allows 

wildland fire use under less restrictive criteria throughout the park backcountry areas and calls 

for automatic suppression only in areas containing park developments and burnable historic 

structures. Alternative B pushes the boundaries of the managed area north to include Upper 

North McKittrick Canyon on USDA Forest Service land in the state of New Mexico. Alternative 

B, the National Park Service and environmentally preferred alternative, thus includes an active 

partnership with Lincoln National Forest Guadalupe Ranger District. Fire management strategies 

employed at Guadalupe Mountains National Park would generally result in some short-term, 

minor adverse effects but long-term beneficial effects to life and property, visitor experience, 

cultural resources, vegetation and wildlife, unique sites and wilderness, erosion and debris flow, 

and air quality. 

If you wish to comment on this environmental assessment, you may mail comments to the name 

and address below. This environmental assessment will be available for public review for 30 

days. Comments shall be received until March 7, 2005. Please note that names and addresses of 

people who comment become part of the public record. If you wish to have your name and/or 

address withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. All 

submissions from organizations and businesses, or from individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, shall be made public in their entirety. 

Direct questions and send comments to: 

Superintendent 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park 

HC 60 Box 400 

Salt Flat, TX 79847 

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service • Guadalupe Mountains National Park 
3

Executive Summary

Overview 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park needs to update its fire management plan (FMP) to 

incorporate new policies and advances in fire research and operations. FMP goals regard safety 

as the highest priority, then focus on protection of sensitive resources from fire, use of fire to 

accomplish resource management objectives, monitoring effects of fire program activities, and 

the requirement that the process be open and cooperative. Three alternatives are retained for 

analysis in the environmental assessment (EA). 

Members of the public, federal, state, and local agencies, and the National Park Service (NPS) 

identified important issues during two scoping periods. An internal scoping meeting took place 

in March 2002. On October 10, 2002, the public scoping period was announced with the 

publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for an updated Guadalupe Mountains FMP. The park jointly held four public 

meetings with neighboring Carlsbad Caverns National Park in November 2002. The parks lie 

five miles apart, display similarities in vegetation and geology, share a Fire Management Officer 

and other fire staff, and are operating on similar schedules for updating their FMPs. As 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park progressed on compliance for NEPA, federally listed 

species, and cultural resources, analyses showed an absence of significant adverse effects. Thus a 

Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2004 to produce an EA 

rather than an EIS. The level of analysis of effects is the same for both documents, the approval 

process, however is more streamlined for an EA because it discloses findings of no significant 

impacts to the environment from proposed management actions, where as an EIS discloses 

significant impacts. 

The EA is comprised of five major sections: purpose and need (that outlines major fire program 

goals and objectives), alternative actions, description of the affected environment, environmental 

consequences, and consultation and coordination. The document presents a range of fire 

management alternatives, dismisses unreasonable ones, and looks at how well the remaining 

alternatives meet the program goals. It identifies the core issues that are likely to be affected by 

fire management activities. Finally, it identifies the environmental consequences likely to result 

as the alternatives impact each issue. 

Alternatives 

The No Action Alternative (continuing the direction in the 1996 FMP) allows wildland fire use 

over most of the park, but suppression of virtually all natural ignitions continues. The 1996 FMP 

also encourages a cooperative approach with neighboring landowners, and to date collaboration 

has taken the form of long-standing (and successful) interagency suppression practices. 

Administrative considerations have tended to be the cause of “no-go” decisions for wildland fire 

use. During fire season, resource (fire crews and equipment) availability is frequently a problem. 

Needed personnel to manage wildland fire use, particularly fire use managers, are rarely 

available. No-go decisions can also result from the perceived need to give the fire-weary public a 

rest, and local fires that otherwise might benefit resources are suppressed during regionally 

active fire seasons. 
4

Alternative A allows wildland fire use under less restrictive criteria throughout the park 

backcountry areas and calls for automatic suppression only in areas containing park 

developments and burnable historic structures. Alternative A keeps program activities inside the 

park boundary. Alternative A defines a relatively small fire management unit (FMU) #1 

surrounding (1) the visitor center area and the facilities and residences south of the highway and 

(2) the developed area at Dog Canyon. This FMU applies full suppression and prescribed 

burning, limited non-fire fuels treatments, and no wildland fire use. The rest of the park 

comprises the second FMU, with protection emphasis for special features, such as historic 

properties, McKittrick Canyon, and habitats of threatened and endangered species. 

Under Alternative B (preferred), NPS and the Forest Service (USFS) co-manage fire activities on 

a 2000-acre area north of the park on the Guadalupe Ranger District of the Lincoln National 

Forest that contains the headwaters of McKittrick Canyon, an important park watershed. This 

arrangement contrasts with the No Action Alternative (continuing the direction of the 1996 

FMP), which describes a cooperative arrangement but has not resulted in joint activities beyond 

suppression. Alternative A dictates that NPS manage within its boundaries, although fire would 

be allowed to exit the park when stopping it proves too dangerous. 

Under Alternative B’s FMU #2, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, non-fire fuels treatments, and 

suppression are management options. FMU #2 extends across the north boundary to include 

portions of the McKittrick Canyon watershed that lie on Forest Service land. The park will 

cooperate with the USFS on prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and fire effects monitoring, as 

well as appropriate management response activities (refer to Appendix A for the glossary of 

FMP terms). Projects along the park’s north boundary would be expanded to include appropriate 

forest lands. Suppression will be the rule along portions of the park boundary adjacent to private 

property. 

Under Alternative B, fire use managers will be available to oversee wildland fire use at 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park whenever needed. In addition, local and regional 

administrators will tolerate higher levels of risk to property in the short term when declaring fire 

use, in order to lessen the danger in the long term of high-severity fires. Threats to life are, 

however, the first consideration in making wildland fire use decisions. As under No Action, the 

park will use non-fire means to prepare burn units and to reduce fuels around significant natural 

resources, unique sites, and cultural resources, especially flammable historic structures. 

Minimum impact management and rehabilitation practices are implemented as under No Action 

(1996 FMP). 

Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Appropriate Management Response 

Automatic suppression of all wildland fires is no longer the rule in national parks. “Appropriate 

management response” in fire operations jargon refers to specific actions taken in response to a 

wildland fire to meet protection and fire use objectives. Under all the reasonable alternatives, the 

appropriate management response is developed from analysis of the local situation, values-to-beprotected, management objectives, external concerns, and land use. Suppression or containment 

of a fire in a larger area could be appropriate management responses. The NPS would continue to 
5

suppress all human-caused (non-prescribed) fires in a manner that causes the least damage to 

resources, people, and property. All wildland fires would be monitored daily or more frequently 

in accordance with the Fire Monitoring Handbook and the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis. The 

park will continuously update information on fire size, location, behavior, smoke dispersal, 

safety conditions, and effects. 

Prescribed Fire Program 

Prescribed fires are intentionally ignited to accomplish objectives, such as restore grasslands or 

thin forests and woodlands. Burns take place in specific areas under predetermined conditions 

identified in approved burn plans. Common to the three alternatives retained for analysis is a 

schedule of prescribed burns through approximately 2009. A certified National Wildfire 

Coordinator Group Prescribed Burn Boss will supervise and appropriate levels of staffing will be 

available for each prescribed fire under all three alternatives. Fire behavior and weather will be 

monitored during all prescribed fires. The Fire Monitoring Handbook will be used as a basis for 

monitoring. The park acknowledges that multiple burns will be needed to recreate the conditions 

that allow wildland fire to play its natural role. Lessons from past burns continue to be 

incorporated into the planning for future burns. 

Non-fire Fuels Treatments 

Under all alternatives, the park may use non-fire means to reduce fuel loads and create fuel 

breaks around developments. To date, the park has used mechanical treatments around park 

infrastructure and historic buildings to reduce fuel loads. Some mechanical fuel reduction has 

also been carried out as pretreatment in prescribed burn units. There are no plans to use non-fire 

fuels treatments on a large scale. The amount of future clearing depends on the resources needing 

protection and the amount and type of surrounding vegetation. 

Minimum Impact Management 

Minimum impact management philosophy guides the selection of management response, 

especially in wilderness. Park staff will manage wildland fire use and suppression in ways that 

minimize unnecessary impacts to resources and convey the importance of this strategy to all fire 

management forces. Minimum impact management strives to minimize landscape alteration and 

disturbance to natural and cultural resources while safeguarding human lives and accomplishing 

resource-related objectives. Without compromising safety, lines will be located where they do 

the least damage, minimize tree cutting, and use natural firebreaks when possible. Staging areas 

will be placed with care. Agency resource advisors will be consulted prior to implementing 

management tactics. 

Despite the best intentions of minimum impact management, wildland fire actions often create 

the need for short-term or long-term rehabilitation. Staff will consult with specialists 

(archeologists, hydrologists, geologists, paleontologists, plant ecologists, wildlife biologists) to 

determine short- and long-term needs and to write rehabilitation plans for each fire. They then 

will implement and monitor the plans. Common rehabilitation recommendations include flush 

cutting stumps, brushing in handlines, removing all trash, installing erosion control devices, 

planting in burned areas, and felling hazardous trees. 
6

Environmental Impacts 

The Guadalupe Mountains NP inter-disciplinary team agreed on the following areas for analysis 

of the effects of the three fire program alternatives: 

Impact topic 1: Life and Property 

Fire is an effective tool for reducing hazard fuels, but it is also a threat to the public, firefighters, 

park staff, developed areas, and neighboring properties. 

Impact topic 2: Visitor Experience 

Potential restrictions on access to burning areas, road closures, and smoke can alter visitor 

experience, but the fire program also provides interpretive opportunities. 

Impact topic 3: Cultural Resources 

Fire may help reduce surrounding hazard fuels and maintain the historic scene, but historic 

structures, landscapes, and artifacts may incur fire damage. 

Impact topic 4: Vegetation 

Fire will benefit many species populations in the long term but will kill and injure some 

individual plants in the short term; prudent application of fire maintains desirable mosaic 

patterns of vegetation. 

Impact topic 5: Wildlife 

Fire will benefit many species populations in the long term but will kill and injure some 

individual animals in the short term. 

Impact topic 6: Unique Sites and Sensitive Species 

Fire could alter unique sites and affect endemic or uncommon species. 

Impact topic 7: Non-indigenous Species 

Fire may aid invasion of non-indigenous species but may also prove to be a control tool. 

Impact topic 8: Geology and Geohazards 

Removal of vegetation by fire can contribute to erosion, flooding, and damage of fossils. 

Impact topic 9: Air Quality 

Smoke from fires can be unhealthy and temporarily impact visibility. 

Fire management strategies employed at Guadalupe Mountains National Park would generally 

result in some short-term, minor adverse effects but long-term beneficial effects to life and 

property, visitor experience, cultural resources, vegetation, wildlife, unique sites and sensitive 

species, geology and geohazards, and air quality. Fire program activities may contribute to 

increased spread of non-indigenous plants, and such adverse effects would require more vigilant 

monitoring and eradication efforts. 

Cooperative fire management of North McKittrick Canyon, the NPS and environmentally 

preferred Alternative B, benefits the integrity of the McKittrick Canyon watershed in the park. 
7

Allowing typical wind-driven fires moving southwest to northeast to cross the forest boundary in 

steep, rugged terrain is safer than trying to suppress them. The Lincoln National Forest limits 

fuel treatment activities (non-fire treatments such as thinning) to areas where buildups threaten 

life, property, or high resource value areas. Fuel treatments are planned such that goals apply to 

the project area as a whole and not on a per-acre basis. 

This cooperative plan is a step toward multi-agency/owner fire management for the entire 

Guadalupe Mountains landscape sometime in the future. This alternative recognizes that 

restoring fire and using a mixture of prescribed fire and wildland fire benefits the park’s 

ecological communities. 
8

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................3

Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Elements Common to All Alternatives..................................................................................................... 4

Environmental Impacts............................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter I: Introduction................................................................................................................................11

Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................... 11

Regulations and Policies ........................................................................................................................ 13

General Management Plan and Resources Management Plan Objectives ............................................. 15

Parties to the Plan ................................................................................................................................... 16

Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 17

Environmental Issues ............................................................................................................................. 18

Chapter II: Alternatives...............................................................................................................................22

Generation of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 22

Resource Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 23

Range of Alternatives............................................................................................................................. 29

Alternatives Retained for Analysis......................................................................................................... 29

Summary of Reasonable Alternatives .................................................................................................... 39

Chapter III: Affected Environment .............................................................................................................48

Impact Topic 1 (Life and Property)........................................................................................................ 48

Impact Topic 2 (Visitor Experience)...................................................................................................... 50

Impact Topic 3 (Cultural Resources) ..................................................................................................... 50

Impact Topic 4 (Vegetation) .................................................................................................................. 51

Impact Topic 5 (Wildlife)....................................................................................................................... 60

Impact Topic 6 (Unique Sites and Sensitive Species)............................................................................ 61

Impact Topic 7 (Non-indigenous Species) ............................................................................................. 72

Impact Topic 8 (Geology and Geohazards)............................................................................................ 76

Impact Topic 9 (Air Quality).................................................................................................................. 77

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................79

Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 79

Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................................ 80

Impact Topic 1 (Life and Property)........................................................................................................ 81

Impact Topic 2 (Visitor Experience)...................................................................................................... 84

Impact Topic 3 (Cultural Resources) ..................................................................................................... 87

Impact Topic 4 (Vegetation) .................................................................................................................. 91

Impact Topic 5 (Wildlife)....................................................................................................................... 99

Impact Topic 6 (Unique Sites and Sensitive Species).......................................................................... 104

Impact Topic 7 (Non-indigenous Species) ........................................................................................... 110
9

Impact Topic 8 (Geology and Geohazards).......................................................................................... 115

Impact Topic 9 (Air Quality)................................................................................................................ 118

Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination...............................................................................................123

Preparers............................................................................................................................................... 123

List of Recipients.................................................................................................................................. 124

Chronology........................................................................................................................................... 125

Literature Cited..................................................................................................................................... 126

List of Classified Structures ................................................................................................................. 148

Desired Conditions for Historic Properties...............................................................................................148

 APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Glossary ..........................................................................................................................132

Appendix B: Issues related to fire management planning at Guadalupe Mountains National Park.....136

Appendix C: Cultural Resource Matrix................................................................................................141

Appendix D: Common and Scientific Names ......................................................................................151

Appendix E: Fire effects on dominant species in Guadalupe Mountains National Park vegetation types

......................................................................................................................................................155

LIST OF TABLES 

Table I-1. NEPA Mandatory Topics.......................................................................................................20

Table II-1. Proposed schedule of prescribed burns under 3 retained alternatives ..................................26

Table II-2. Wildland fire use decision criteria from the 1996 FMP ......................................................33

Table II-3. Go/no-go decision criteria under Alternatives A and B. ......................................................36

Table II-4. Effectiveness of Alternatives in Meeting Goals and Objectives ..........................................40

Table II-5. Impact Summary ..................................................................................................................42

Table III-1. Sensitive Plants Associated with Guadalupe Mountains National Park or the Lincoln 

National Forest Zone of Cooperation under Alternative B ............................................................66

Table III-2. Special Status Wildlife Species Associated with Guadalupe Mountains National Park or 

the Lincoln National Forest Zone of Cooperation under Alternative B .........................................70

Table C-1. Historic Context: Pre-ceramic period (paleo/archaic through AD 1000)............................144

Table C-2. Historic Context: Ceramic period to European/American contact (AD 1000 to 1850).......145

Table C-3. Historic Context: Early Anglo-Military-Butterfield Stage (1850 to 1900) ........................146

Table C-4. Historic Context: Ranching-Mining-Petroleum Exploration (1890s to 1970) ...................147

Table C-5. List of Classified Structures ...............................................................................................149

Table E-1. Rocky Mountain (Petran) Conifer Forest: Fire Ecology of Species ...................................155

Table E-2. Great Basin Conifer Woodland: Fire Ecology of Species ..................................................157

Table E-3. Madrean Evergreen Woodland: Fire Ecology of Species...................................................159

Table E-4. Interior Chaparral: Fire Ecology of Species .......................................................................161

Table E-5. Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland: Fire Ecology of Species.............................................162

Table E-6. Chihuahuan Desertscrub: Fire Ecology of Species.............................................................164

Table E-7. Interior Deciduous Forest and Woodland (riparian): Fire Ecology of Species...................166

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure I-1. Location of Guadalupe Mountains National Park ................................................................12

Figure II-1. Recorded fires at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1960-2003...................................24

Figure II-2. Prescribed burn units under three alternatives retained for analysis ...................................28

Figure II-3. Arrangement of Fire Management Units under the No Action Alternative........................31

Figure II-4. Fire Management Zones from the 1996 FMP .....................................................................32
10

Figure II-5. Two-FMU plan arrangement under Alternative A..............................................................35

Figure II-6. Fire management under Alternative B ................................................................................38

Figure III-1. Distribution of vegetation types at Guadalupe Mountains National Park..........................53

Figure III-2. Park map showing wilderness boundary............................................................................64
11

Chapter I: Introduction 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, established in 1972, covers 86,416 acres of mountain and 

desert land in Texas on the Texas-New Mexico border (Figure I-1). The park is located 110 

miles east of El Paso, Texas and 55 miles southwest of Carlsbad, New Mexico, and encompasses 

the highest and southernmost portion of the Guadalupe Mountains. Rising from the desert plain, 

this mountain mass contains portions of the Capitan Reef, the world's most extensive and 

significant Permian limestone fossil reef. The canyons within the park, particularly McKittrick 

Canyon on the northeast end, provide dramatic displays of geological sequences and contain 

relict and unusual plant communities. Of the area within the park's boundaries, 46,850 acres are 

Congressionally-designated wilderness. 

Changes in NPS policies, philosophies, and terminology, as well as new resource information, 

require that a new fire management plan (FMP) be developed. The plan guides all aspects of a 

park’s fire program. The NPS goal of FMP updates at five year intervals recognizes the 

continually changing fire context within parks. The existing plan at Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park was authorized in 1996. 

This Environmental Assessment for the 2005 FMP develops three alternatives. The first of the 

three is the No Action Alternative that would maintain the four fire management units (FMU) 

described by the 1996 FMP. The second alternative designates a small FMU around park 

developments with full suppression and prescribed burning as management options. The rest of 

the park makes up the second unit, where wildland fire use, prescribed fire, suppression, and 

non-fire fuels treatment would be tools for fire management. The third alternative would extend 

FMU #2 of the second alternative across the northern boundary to include portions of the 

McKittrick Canyon watershed that lie on Forest Service land. This alternative would be a step 

toward cooperative fire management of the Guadalupe Mountains on a landscape scale. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed action is to implement a new FMP at Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park. The approved plan will provide a framework for making fire-related decisions and 

serve as an operations manual. The document specifies and justifies fire management goals and 

objectives. Laws and policies decree some of the elements, while others have been decided by 

the parties, including the public, that have participated in the process of creating the plan. 

The proposed action is needed because the existing FMP was approved in 1996. The NPS goal of 

FMP updates at five year intervals acknowledges the rapidly changing fire context in parks—a 

new plan will help bring practices up to date with knowledge. 
12

Figure I-1. Location of Guadalupe Mountains National Park 
13

Ecologists are increasing our understanding of the role of fire in biotic communities. Fire 

scientists are learning more about fire behavior as firefighting techniques also improve. Policies 

have been rewritten to incorporate these advances as well as to respond to growing concern at 

many levels about the legacy of the fire suppression era. High-severity events are now occurring 

where historically, frequent, low-intensity fires formerly kept fuel buildup in check.

Recent experience with fires in the Guadalupes has also increased the knowledge base and needs 

to be incorporated into the new plan. Formal records and the collective memory of people within 

and surrounding the park offer insights into local fire history and behavior that assist fire 

planning. A new FMP will also incorporate increased understanding of the use and suitability of 

standard fuel models to the vegetation in the park. 

Regulations and Policies 

The NPS recognizes the occurrence as well as the absence of fire as important factors 

influencing parks. Fire management policies are set forth in section 4.5 of 2001 NPS 

Management Policies (NPS 2001) and are summarized below: 

 fire management programs will meet resource management objectives while ensuring 

protection of life and property 

 parks with vegetation capable of burning will prepare FMPs and address funding and staffing 

required by fire programs 

 fire plan development will include the NEPA compliance process and necessary 

collaborations with outside parties 

 fires in vegetation are to be classified as wildland or prescribed fires 

 wildland fires are managed according to considerations of resource values, safety, and cost 

 prescribed fires are ignited to achieve resource management goals and closely monitored to 

determine whether they successfully meet objectives 

 parks lacking approved plans must suppress all wildland fires using methods that minimize 

impacts while protecting life, property, and resource values 

 suppression in wilderness will adhere to the minimum tool concept (NPS 2001) 

Many other plans and policies direct the formulation of the FMP and the environmental analysis 

that supports it: 

 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979) – provides for the protection of 

archeological resources on public lands 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) – protects access to sites, use and 

possession of sacred objects and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional 

sites 

 Clean Air Act (as amended 1990) – includes national ambient air quality criteria; states 

that federal land managers have an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related 

values from adverse impacts 

 A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the 

Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (National 
14

Interagency Fire Center 2002) – outlines a comprehensive approach to the management 

of wildland fire, hazardous fuels, and ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation on Federal 

and adjacent State, tribal, and private forest and range lands in the United States. 

 Director’s Order 12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making (NPS 2001, revision pending) – interprets the National Environmental 

Policy Act for the NPS 

 Director’s Order 18: Wildland Fire Management: (NPS 1998) – expresses NPS fire 

policy 

 Endangered Species Act (1973) – provides for listing and protection of endangered and 

threatened species and their critical habitat; requires consultation under Section 7 if any 

listed species may be adversely affected 

 Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977) – provides for the protection of 

floodplains 

 Executive Order 11990: Wetlands Protection (1977) – provides for the protection of 

wetlands 

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972; amended as “Clean Water Act” in 1977) -

limits discharges into US waters to maintain water quality 

 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (1995) and Review and Update (National 

Interagency Fire Center 2001) – provides a common approach to wildland fire 

management for U.S. Department of Interior agencies and the USFS 

 Guadalupe Mountains National Park General Management Plan (2005) – determines 

overall management direction for the park for 15 to 20 years 

 Guadalupe Mountains National Park Resources Management Plan (NPS 1992) – sets 

natural and cultural resources management and research priorities 

 Managing Impacts of Wildland Fires on Communities and the Environment, and 

Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems—A Cohesive 

Strategy (USDOI/USDA 2002) – manages the impact of wildland fires on communities 

and the environment 

 National Fire Plan (2001) – manages the impact of wildland fires on communities and the 

environment 

 National Parks and Recreation Act (1978) – requires park management to provide 

measures for the preservation of the area’s resources, consider how development affects 

public enjoyment, identify visitor carrying capacity, and propose any changes to 

boundaries 

 National Park Service Organic Act (1916) – defines NPS management responsibilities as 

conserving scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife to provide for the enjoyment 

of future generations 

 National Environmental Policy Act (1969) – requires federal agencies to consider 

environmental values and integrate them into their proposed actions (abbreviated as 

NEPA). 

 National Historic Preservation Act (1966) – guides preservation of historic properties 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA 1990) – provides a 

process for museums and federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural 

items to their descendants and affiliated tribes 
15

 Reference Manual 77 (NPS 1999 and in progress) – offers comprehensive guidance to 

NPS employees responsible for managing, preserving, and protecting the natural 

resources found in National Park System units 

 Wilderness Act (1964) - outlines criteria for consideration of areas as part of National 

Wilderness Preservation System and the restrictions that apply to use and management of 

these areas 

 Wildland Fire Management, Reference Manual 18 (NPS 2002) – contains NPS wildland 

fire management requirements and procedures 

General Management Plan and Resources Management Plan 

Objectives 

Implementation of the new FMP helps the park meet some resource objectives listed in the 

Resources Management Plan (Guadalupe Mountains NP 1992). These address the perpetuation 

of native species and communities, protection of cultural resources, human safety, interpretation 

to the public, and enactment of NPS philosophies and policies. In addition, the FMP is a detailed 

program of action to carry out fire management policies and objectives. 

GMP Objectives 

Work on a new General Management Plan (GMP) was on-going while this FMP was developed. 

The October 2000 “Park Management Topic Outlines,” is a document to help outline fire 

planning considerations (among others) for the new GMP. Major headings are fire history, 

current management practices, resources at risk, desired conditions, and program needs. Fire is 

seen as a tool for natural resource management, promoting preservation and restoration of 

ecosystem function, and the draft GMP offers this direction: “To the extent possible, reintroduce 

the natural role of fire and fire regimes in the park’s ecosystem through wildland and prescribed 

fire options identified in the park’s Fire Management Plan.” 

RMP Objectives 

The following fire-related objectives from the Guadalupe Mountains National Park Resources 

Management Plan (RMP—1992) integrate legislative mandates with NPS policy: 

 Ensure the preservation and health of endangered and park endemic species. 

 Reintroduce the natural role of fire in park ecosystems to the maximum extent possible. 

 Manipulate terrain and vegetative cover in order to restore natural conditions on lands altered 

by human activity. 

Fire may be utilized as a resource management tool to meet other objectives of the Resources 

Management Plan:

 Re-establish native plants and animals upon their original range. 

 Perpetuate native animal life for its essential role in natural ecosystems. 

 Manipulate population numbers of exotic plant and animal species, up to and including total 

eradication, whenever such species threaten protection or interpretation of park resources. 
16

USDA Forest Service (USFS) 

The 1986 land management plan for the Lincoln National Forest currently permits the activities 

of suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and non-fire treatments proposed for the upper 

North McKittrick Canyon watershed under Alternative B, as described in Chapter II. Wildland 

fire use, however, is restricted to 1,000 acres per event. Approval of this EA and selection of 

Alternative B (Cooperative Watershed Plan) will expand the allowable wildland fire use acreage. 

Parties to the Plan 

The proposed plan is the result of work by seven broad groups of people. 

 Inter-Disciplinary Team (IDT): The IDT is composed primarily of individuals from the park 

and NPS who are ultimately responsible for carrying out the plan that results from this EA. 

The team included expertise in natural and cultural resources, fire operations, park 

administration, and visitor services. The Guadalupe team also included a partner from the 

University of Arizona who served as overall editor for the plan and EA. 

 USDA Forest Service: The Guadalupe Ranger District of the Lincoln National Forest, the 

park’s neighbor to the north. 

 Other Federal Agency Cooperators: A Biological Assessment was prepared and submitted to 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Ecological Services in Albuquerque on 

1-27-2004. The park had initially consulted with both Texas and New Mexico USFWS 

Ecological Services Field Offices, and the New Mexico office became the designated lead for 

generating the Biological Opinion pertaining to Mexican spotted owl issues. 

 State Natural Resources Agencies: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (9-18-03) and New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish (2-13-04) were also consulted about species requiring 

consideration as the park plans for fire activities. 

 Texas Historical Commission: A Cultural Resources Component that summarizes cultural 

resources concerns and protection measures relative to the park fire program was submitted 

to the Texas Historical Commission/State Historic Preservation Office on 12-28-2004. 

 Tribal Governments: The public scoping newsletter was sent to: 

o Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Anadarko OK 

o Comanche Tribe, Lawton OK 

o Fort Sill Apache Tribe, Apache OK 

o Hopi Tribe, Kykotsmovi AZ 

o Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Dulce NM 

o Kiowa Tribe, Carnegie OK 

o Mescalero Apache Tribe, Mescalero NM 

o Pueblo of Isleta, Isleta NM 

o Pueblo of Zia, Zia Pueblo NM 

o Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni NM 

o San Carlos Apache Tribe, San Carlos AZ 

o White Mountain Apache Tribe, White River AZ 

o Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (Tigua), El Paso TX 
17

 Interested Public: Public scoping (described in detail in Chapter II) took place during fall 

2002. Public comment favored implementation of the alternative selected as environmentally 

preferred in this EA. 

Goals and Objectives 

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed the following goals and objectives (bulleted) for the 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park fire program. 

Protect people and property as the highest priority. 

 Provide for the safety of visitors, firefighters, and staff. 

 Directly protect real and personal property from the effects of fire. 

 Reduce fuels with prescribed fire and thinning in places where wildland fire is a threat to 

people and property. 

 Implement programs to prevent unplanned human-caused ignitions and reduce human-caused 

wildland fires. 

 Strive to meet health and safety standards that relate to fire, particularly for air quality and 

on-the-job safety (for example, OSHA regulations). 

Protect park natural and cultural resources from undesirable effects of fire and suppression. 

 Reduce fuels with prescribed fire and thinning in places where fire would adversely affect 

park resources. 

 Employ minimum impact suppression tactics, particularly in wilderness or other sensitive 

areas. 

 Keep fire out of sensitive areas. 

Suppress unwanted fire. 

 Ensure park is adequately prepared to suppress unwanted wildland fire. 

 Automatically suppress human-caused fire. 

 Prevent unwanted fire from spreading onto neighboring government and private lands. 

Allow fire to assume its natural role in park ecosystems with justification. 

 Determine fire-related data needs relative to natural resources. 

 In particular, attempt to determine (1) range of natural variation related to fire (in time, space, 

and intensity), (2) role of fire, and (3) fire effects on species in Chihuahuan Desert and 

Guadalupe Mountains ecosystems. 

 Search for scientific results relative to data needs and apply to fire program. 

 Promote research in the park relative to data needs and apply results to fire program. 

 Tap the experience of individuals familiar with fire in the Guadalupe Mountains. 

 Monitor fire effects and incorporate results into fire program. 

 Determine desired conditions before allowing or introducing fire. 

Use wildland and prescribed fire for resource management purposes. 

 Return fire to fire-dependent ecosystems. 

 Specify and aim for desired conditions. 
18

 Keep fire use within the natural range of variation (in time, space, and intensity). 

 Reduce fuels in places where fire would adversely affect resources. 

 Look for opportunities to use fire to restore and maintain cultural landscapes. 

Manage fire cooperatively with neighboring agencies and private land owners as well as other 

stakeholders. 

 Maintain open lines of communication. 

 Collaboratively plan and implement fire operations. 

 Enter cooperative agreements covering fire-related activities. 

 Jointly conduct fire research programs. 

 Jointly deliver consistent messages about fire prevention and management. 

Coordinate fire activities with all park divisions and the public. 

 Openly communicate about fire activities with all park divisions. 

 Incorporate appropriate fire management tasks into all park divisions. 

 Keep the public informed about park fire operations, taking advantage of interpretive 

opportunities when presented. 

Environmental Issues 

Specialists in the NPS and the University of Arizona on the IDT identified issues and concerns 

affecting the proposed actions. NEPA also requires consideration of a specific list of mandatory 

topics. Table I-1 contains those topics and the IDT’s assessment of how they apply to Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park. Appendix B is a list of issues compiled by the IDT at its March 12-13, 

2002 meeting with the help of the NPS Intermountain Region environmental screening form. 

After putting together the extensive list contained in Appendix B, the IDT and other parties to 

the plan named above distilled these issues into the list of impact topics and issue statements that 

follows. 

Impact topic 1 

Life and Property 

Fire is an effective tool for reducing hazard fuels, but it is also a threat to the public, firefighters, 

park staff, developed areas, and neighboring properties. 

Impact topic 2 

Visitor Experience 

Potential restrictions on access to burning areas, road closures, and smoke can alter visitor 

experience; but the fire program also provides interpretive opportunities. 

Impact topic 3 

Cultural Resources 

Fire may help reduce surrounding hazard fuels and maintain the historic scene, but historic 

structures, landscapes, and artifacts may incur fire damage. 
19

Impact topic 4 

Vegetation 

Fire will benefit many species populations in the long term but will kill and injure some 

individual plants in the short term; prudent application of fire maintains the mosaic pattern of 

vegetation. 

Impact topic 5 

Wildlife 

Fire will benefit many species populations in the long term but will kill and injure some 

individual animals in the short term. 

Impact topic 6 

Unique Sites and Sensitive Species 

Fire could alter unique sites and affect endemic or uncommon species. 

Impact topic 7 

Non-indigenous Species 

Fire may aid invasion of non-indigenous species but may also prove to be a control tool. 

Impact topic 8 

Geology and Geohazards 

Removal of vegetation by fire can contribute to erosion, flooding, and damage of fossils. 

Impact topic 9 

Air Quality 

Smoke from fires can be unhealthy and temporarily impact visibility. 
20

Table I-1. NEPA Mandatory Topics 

 

Category How Addressed 

 

Plans and Policies Relevant plans and policies are listed above in Chapter I. 

 

Energy Requirements 

and Conservation 

Vehicle use to support fire management activities consumes fuel. A 

return to more natural fire processes saves resources consumed in 

fighting fire. Because energy consumption is not a factor that affects 

selection of fire management strategies, the impact topic was 

dismissed from further consideration. 

 

Consumption of 

Natural or Depletable 

Resources, and 

Conservation Potential 

Fire and fire management activities consume renewable natural 

resources such as vegetation and water and non-renewable vehicle 

fuel. Consumption of vegetation is discussed under all impact topics. 

Because consumption of other resources is not a factor that affects 

selection of fire management strategies, the rest of this impact topic 

was dismissed from further consideration. 

 

Urban Quality Guadalupe Mountains National Park is located in a rural area. 

Therefore, this impact topic was dismissed from further consideration. 

Socially or 

Economically 

Disadvantaged 

Populations 

Fire management actions must consider impacts to humans (Goal 1). 

There are no impacts predicted to fall predominantly upon 

disadvantaged populations. Guadalupe Mountains National Park is 

located in a sparsely populated rural area. Therefore, this impact topic 

was dismissed. 

 

Wetlands and 

Floodplains 

NPS is required to address effects of fire management actions on these 

floodplains (E.O. 11988). Fire can alter hydrologic processes which 

may increase erosion and flooding potential; this possibility is 

addressed under several natural resources impact topics in this EA: 

vegetation (4), wildlife (5), unique sites and sensitive species (6), and 

geology and geohazards (8). 

 

Prime and Unique 

Agricultural Lands 

These lands are not found within the park, per USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, therefore, this topic was dismissed 

from further consideration. 

 

Federally Listed 

Species 

The park has consulted with the USFWS on a new FMP, prepared a 

Biological Assessment that analyzes effects primarily on Mexican 

spotted owl. In this EA, under impact topic (6) (unique sites and 
21

sensitive species), Chapter III provides background and Chapter IV 

summarizes the BA’s analysis. 

 

Important Cultural 

Resources 

These features fall under the cultural resources impact topic (3) in this 

EA. The park has produced a cultural resources matrix analyzing 

cultural issues. In this EA Chapter III provides background and 

Chapter IV summarizes the CRC’s analysis; the matrix is attached to 

this EA as Appendix C. Thirteen affiliated tribes have been informed 

about the FMP. 

 

Ecologically Critical 

Areas 

Such areas are addressed under impact topic (6) (unique sites and 

sensitive species) in this EA. 

 

Public Health and 

Safety 

These highest priority concerns are addressed under the life and 

property impact topic (1) in this EA. 

 

Sacred Sites This area is addressed under the cultural resources impact topic (3) in 

this EA. 

 

Indian Trust Resources There are no Indian Trust Resources at Guadalupe Mountains National 

Park; therefore, this topic was dismissed from further consideration in 

this EA. 

 
22

Chapter II: Alternatives 

This chapter describes the alternatives for fire management planning at Guadalupe Mountains 

selected for analysis in this EA. Each alternative proposes a different mixture of fire 

management techniques in the park, as well as mechanical methods to reduce hazard fuels in 

developed areas. A detailed description of the impacts of each alternative follows in Chapter IV, 

Environmental Consequences. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires analysis of a no action alternative, in 

this case a continuation of the current fire management program. This program includes 

mechanical fuel removal, prescribed fire, wildland fire use for resource benefits, and appropriate 

management response strategies (suppression). It has been in effect since 1996. Since that time, 

prescribed and wildland fire have been used in the interior of the park, but because of fire 

program constraints, burning for fuel reduction and resource benefit has not been allowed outside 

the park’s core area. This has resulted in continued heavy fuel accumulations along the park 

boundary in certain areas. In addition, the park’s fire program requires alignment with the 

National Fire Plan and the 2001 Federal Fire Policy. 

Generation of Alternatives 

The action alternatives considered in this EA were developed using park staff expertise; 

comments and concerns expressed by the public; existing park plans; NPS Policies; the National 

Fire Plan and Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy; input from federal, state, and local 

agencies; and input from cooperators from the University of Arizona, School of Natural 

Resources. 

Members of the public, the NPS, and federal, state, and local agencies identified important issues 

during two scoping periods. An internal scoping meeting took place in March 2002. On October 

10, 2002, the public scoping period was announced with the publication in the Federal Register 

of a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for an updated Guadalupe 

Mountains FMP. The park jointly held four public meetings with neighboring Carlsbad Caverns 

National Park in November 2002. The parks lie five miles apart, display similarities in vegetation 

and geology, share a Fire Management Officer and other fire staff, and are operating on similar 

schedules for updating their FMPs. Meeting dates and attendance (signed in) were as follows: 

November 18, El Paso, TX: 2 

November 19, Dell City, TX: 5 

November 20, Queen, NM: 17 

November 21, Carlsbad, NM: 18 

At these meetings, ample staff from the park were on hand to discuss the alternatives and issues 

presented in this document. Written comments expressed support for (1) returning fire to the 

landscape and (2) working cooperatively with neighbors to manage fire. As the park progressed 

on compliance for NEPA, federally listed species, and cultural resources, analyses showed an 

absence of significant adverse effects. Thus a Notice of Intent was filed on December 17, 2004 to 
23

produce an EA rather than an EIS. The level of analysis of effects is the same for both 

documents, the approval process, however is more streamlined for an EA because it discloses 

findings of no significant impacts to the environment from proposed management actions, where 

as an EIS discloses significant impacts. 

Resource Analysis 

Chapter III describes the environmental context for the alternatives introduced in this chapter. 

Fire history, fire ecology, and prescribed burn program results are summarized below. This 

background is needed to understand why the park has a fire program and also why managers 

would now like to accommodate more fire than before. 

Fire History and Ecology 

Fire studies at Guadalupe Mountains National Park and elsewhere in the Guadalupe Mountains 

suggest fire may have been a regular event prior to the 20th century. Data show that the 

frequency, extent, and severity of presettlement fires varied among vegetation types. Small fires 

burned in mixed coniferous forest in the Guadalupes on average every 5 years from 1554-1842 

(Ahlstrand 1981). Alan Taylor and students from the University of Pennsylvania are currently 

studying changes in forest structure and composition. Preliminary data indicate that the 

elimination of fire in 1922 is coincident with an increase in forest density and basal area as well 

as a compositional shift from fire tolerant species (i.e., southwestern white pine and ponderosa 

pine) to fire intolerant species (i.e., Douglas fir). 

Fire history in lower elevation communities is less clear. Piñon-juniper woodland follows a fire 

regime of irregular, stand-replacing fires of patchy extent. A frequency of 10-30 years is known 

to keep piñon-juniper woodlands more open and grassy (Wright 1990), with stand replacement 

and regrowth requiring as much as 300 years (Paysen et al. 2000). Fire in desert scrub and desert 

grassland is thought to be an irregular event, dependent on years of higher precipitation when 

fine fuels necessary to carry fire are produced. An average fire return interval of at most 10-15 

years is suggested for desert grassland (Ahlstrand 1982; Kittams 1972; McClaran and Van 

Devender, eds., 1995). 

Burn Program 

Managers at the park recognized the effects of fire exclusion and fire suppression in the early 

1970s. With the approval of the 1985 full-spectrum FMP, that allowed fire as a management 

tool, the park began re-establishing fire as one of the natural processes maintaining park 

ecosystems. They also recognized that carefully placed fires could reduce fuels built up around 

valuable cultural and natural resources and help protect them from destructive wildland fires. 

Since 1979, the park has carried out 13 prescribed burns covering roughly 7600 acres. 

Fire managers have also embraced the idea of letting naturally ignited fires burn if they meet 

predetermined conditions and are predicted to fulfill park objectives. Such situations are now 

called wildland fire use. A candidate ignition must meet both environmental and administrative 

requirements to avoid suppression. Managers exercise extreme caution when deciding not to 

suppress fires, and very little territory has actually burned under wildland fire use at Guadalupe 

Mountains. Since 1974, 22 lightning ignitions have met the criteria for wildland fire use, burning 
24

approximately 35 acres in all. No potentially large fire has been allowed to burn under wildland 

fire use. 

Figure II-1 maps the fires recorded at the park, including both wildland fires and prescribed 

burns. 

Figure II-1. Recorded fires at Guadalupe Mountains National Park, 1960-2003 
25

Elements Common to All Alternatives 

Appropriate Management Response 

Automatic suppression of all wildland fires is no longer the rule in national parks. “Appropriate 

management response” in fire operations jargon refers to specific actions taken in response to a 

wildland fire to meet protection and fire use objectives. Under all the reasonable alternatives, the 

appropriate management response is developed from analysis of the local situation, values-to-beprotected, management objectives, external concerns, and land use. Suppression or containment 

of a fire in a larger area could be appropriate management responses. The NPS would continue to 

suppress all human-caused (non-prescribed) fires in a manner that causes the least damage to 

resources, people, and property. All wildland fires would be monitored daily or more frequently 

in accordance with the Fire Monitoring Handbook and the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis. The 

park will continuously update information on fire size, location, behavior, smoke dispersal, 

safety conditions, and effects. 

Prescribed Fire Program 

Prescribed fires are intentionally ignited to accomplish objectives, such as restore grasslands or 

thin forests or woodlands. Burns take place in specific areas under predetermined conditions 

identified in approved burn plans. Common to the three alternatives retained for analysis is a 

schedule of prescribed burns through approximately 2009 (Table II-1 and Figure II-2). 

Conditions of burn units and expected effects are discussed in Chapters III and IV, respectively. 

A certified Prescribed Burn Boss will supervise and appropriate levels of staffing will be 

available for each prescribed fire under all three alternatives. Fire behavior and weather will be 

monitored during all prescribed fires. While the Fire Monitoring Handbook (NPS 2003) will be 

used as a basis for monitoring a Fire Monitoring Plan will be developed for the park. The park 

acknowledges that multiple burns will be needed to recreate the conditions that allow wildland 

fire to play its natural role. Lessons from past burns continue to be incorporated into the planning 

for future burns. 
26

Table II-1. Proposed schedule of prescribed burns under 3 retained alternatives National Fire Danger Rating System Fuel Models: C = Open pine stands with grass and understory with brush and shrubs adding little to the fuel loading G = Dense conifer stands with overmature overstory with heavy dead tree debris L = Perennial grasslands with shrubs and trees occupying less than one-third of the area T = Shrub-grass combinations where shrubs occupy at least one-third of the site, burn easily, and are not dense egrasses and forbs Burn unit name Year 

Proposed 

Target Acres 

Fuel Models Purpose of project 

Prescribed burn units (also eligible for wildland fire use) Lamar FY05 1110 L maintain species composition, remove “dead and dow

resources, allow low-intensity fire in canyon bottom 

Foothills FY05 6111 L reduce juniper encroachment (but not eliminate); incrBowl 2nd Entry & Frijole Ridge 

FY06 951 C-386 ac 

G-565 ac 

reduce fuel loads in a mature forested area, allow for 

Bush Mountain FY07 1888 C-944 ac 

G-944 ac 

thin overstocked Douglas-fir, reduce competition, enhremaining trees (let them get bigger) 

Hunter FY08 833 T maintain species composition, remove “dead and dow

resources, allow low-intensity fire in canyon bottom 

McKittrick VC FY09 1118 T maintain species composition, remove “dead and dow

resources, allow low-intensity fire in canyon bottom 

South McKittrick FY10 2453 C-817 ac 

G-818 ac 

T-818 ac 

thin overstocked Douglas-fir, reduce competition, enhremaining trees (let them get bigger) 

PX Flat FY11 7236 G-2419 ac 

L-4817 ac 

part of the area burned in the Marcus fire; maintain pisavanna 

Pine Springs VC FY12 135 L reduce fuels around structures, remove mistletoe infe
27

Burn unit name Year 

Proposed 

Target Acres 

Fuel Models Purpose of project 

Pine Springs Canyon 

FY12 5324 G-2662 ac 

L-2662 ac 

maintenance burn after fires in the lower areas in the terraces should slow down fire; south-facing slopes w

Dog Canyon FY14 3632 L clean up understory, restore to condition class 1 North McKittrick (w/USFS) 

FY15 2344 T maintain species composition, remove “dead and dow

resources, allow low-intensity fire in canyon bottom 

Wildland fire use only: Devil’s Den and N McKittrick RNAs 

na 1586 C-793 

T-793 

maintain species composition, remove “dead and dowresources, allow low-intensity fire in canyon bottom 

South McKittrick RNA 

na 3087 C-1029 

G-1029 

T-1029 

thin overstocked Douglas-fir, reduce competition, enhremaining trees (let them get bigger) 
28

Figure II-2. Fuels management units within the boundary of Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park retained for analysis for the three alternatives. Units are labeled with their 

name and scheduled treatment year. Legend lists units and size of targeted treatment area. 
29

Non-fire Fuels Treatments 

Under all alternatives, the park may use non-fire means to reduce fuel loads and create fuel 

breaks around developments. To date, the park has used mechanical treatments around park 

infrastructure and historic buildings to reduce fuel loads. Some mechanical fuel reduction has 

also been carried out as pretreatment in prescribed burn units. There are no plans to use non-fire 

fuels treatments on a large scale. The amount of future clearing depends on the resources needing 

protection and the amount and type of surrounding vegetation. 

Minimum Impact Management 

Minimum impact management philosophy guides the selection of management response, 

especially in wilderness. Park staff will manage wildland fire use and suppression in ways that 

minimize unnecessary impacts to resources and convey the importance of this strategy to all fire 

management forces. Minimum impact management strives to minimize landscape alteration and 

disturbance to natural and cultural resources while safeguarding human lives and accomplishing 

resource-related objectives. Without compromising safety, lines will be located where they do 

the least damage, minimize tree cutting, and use natural firebreaks when possible. Staging areas 

will be placed with care. Agency resource advisors will be consulted prior to implementing 

management tactics. 

Despite the best intentions of minimum impact management, wildland fire actions often create 

the need for short-term or long-term rehabilitation. Staff will consult with specialists 

(archeologists, hydrologists, geologists, paleontologists, plant ecologists, wildlife biologists) to 

determine short- and long-term needs and to write rehabilitation plans for each fire, then will 

implement and monitor the plans. Common rehabilitation recommendations include flush cutting 

stumps, brushing in handlines, removing all trash, installing erosion control devices, contour 

felling of dead trees, lop and scatter, revegetating burned areas, and felling hazardous trees. 

Range of Alternatives 

The alternatives represent different ways of managing fire at Guadalupe Mountains National 

Park that are predicted to have different outcomes. Key distinctions among the alternatives 

involve arrangement of FMUs, overall planning area boundary, and conditions for wildland fire 

use. FMUs are areas of the park governed by distinct management strategies. Boundaries are 

clear, and procedures are laid out in detail for each FMU. 

Alternatives Retained for Analysis 

No Action Alternative (Existing Plan): 

The existing (1996) FMP uses four FMUs, defined by their distinctive topographic and plantcommunity characteristics. The 1996 plan dictates that the causes of all fires will be determined 

to make proper management decisions. The NPS will suppress all unplanned human-caused fires 

in a manner that causes the least damage to resources, people, and property. Figure II-3 is a map 

that defines the four FMUs of the 1996 plan. FMU #1 encompasses the McKittrick Canyon 

drainage including the “The Bowl.” Also included in the FMU are the Devils Den and North 

McKittrick Canyon Research Natural Areas and North McKittrick Canyon on the Lincoln 

National Forest. FMU #2 comprises the Eastern Escarpment and Pine Springs Canyon and the 
30

Delaware Basin. FMU #3 includes the entire west side of the park below the escarpment, 

including the new addition. FMU #4 covers Dog Canyon and West Dog Canyon at the north end 

of the park. 

Three fire management zones overlay the FMUs (Figure II-4). These three zones allow 

wilderness and non-wilderness fire use, modified suppression, and prescribed fires. Wildland fire 

use for resource benefit (formerly called prescribed natural fire) is an option when lightning fires 

coincidentally meet objectives defined by park managers. Unplanned ignitions by humans are 

not allowed to burn in any FMU. The wildland fire use zone includes the entire wilderness area 

and extends west to include the non-wilderness portion of the park on the west side. Wildland 

fire use and prescribed fire are available as resource management tools, as is mechanical fuel 

reduction when consistent with minimum tool guidelines for equipment use in designated 

wilderness (NPS 2001). The superintendent is authorized to make exceptions for motorized 

equipment when determined necessary to insure the public safety or protect park resources. In 

this zone, natural (lightning) ignitions will be designated wildland fire use if in compliance with 

the prescription parameters. Prescriptions must consider the likelihood of fire escape from the 

unit, threats to human life and property, facilities, cultural resources, sensitive species, or other 

important resources. 

Table II-2 is the wildland fire use decision matrix under No Action; all questions must be 

answered “yes” to permit a natural ignition to burn and more specific prescription conditions 

must be met: 

 No more than three other wildland fire use fires may be burning within the park 

 Energy release component less than 66 (within wilderness) or 17 (outside wilderness) 

 Burning Index less than 40 

 A Haynes Index of 5 or 6, indicating atmospheric stability and minimal fire growth potential 

Under the decision guidelines (Table II-2) and prescription parameters spelled out in the 1996 

FMP, the park has declared 22 lightning ignitions wildland fire use; these fires burned a total of 

35 acres (in an 86,416-acre park).
31

Figure II-3. Arrangement of Fire Management Units under the No Action Alternative 

 Park Boundary 

I – McKittrick 

II – East 

Escarpment 

III – West Side 

IV – Dog Canyon 
32

Figure II-4. Fire Management Zones from the 1996 FMP 
33

Table II-2. Wildland fire use decision criteria from the 1996 FMP 

Must answer YES to all criteria to reach a GO decision. 

Any NO answers result in a NO-GO decision and declaration of a wildland fire. Once declared, 

the fire cannot be reverted to wildland fire use. 

 

Decision Criteria Questions 

 

Ignition Is it a natural source? Is location within wildland fire use zone? 

Management Objectives Are resource objectives being met? 

Size Is the current and expected size known? Is there no potential for 

escape from MMA (maximum management area)? 

Fuels Are live fuel moistures within prescription? 

Weather Are drought indicators acceptable (1000-hr TLFM*, Palmer 

drought index)? 

Topography [Conditions acceptable?] 

Resource Availability Are local, regional or national resources available? 

Personnel Safety [Conditions acceptable?] 

Public Safety [Conditions acceptable?] 

Environmental Constraints Are smoke dispersal, direction acceptable? 

Political Constraints Is it within policy or approved FMP? 

*TLFM = time-lag fuel moisture. 1000-hr TLFM is a measure of moisture content of fuel 

diameters ≥3 inches and expressed as the percent moisture relative to dry weight. 
34

The Alternative Suppression Zone includes the non-wilderness portions of the park on the 

Eastern Escarpment and Coyote Peak and Upper Dog Canyon on the north end (Figure II-4). 

This zone allows prescribed fire and appropriate management response. 

Any prescribed fire that escapes the predetermined boundaries or otherwise no longer meets 

prescription will be declared a wildland fire if the initial holding actions are not successful. In 

this zone, a declared wildland fire will receive an initial assessment and the appropriate 

management response will be determined. 

The Control Suppression Zone represents the remainder of the park (Figure II-4 ). This zone 

occurs as nine separate units encompassing significant cultural or administrative resources 

susceptible to fire. These include the Frijole Ranch, Williams Ranch House, Pinery Butterfield 

Stage ruins, McKittrick Canyon visitor center, Pine Springs campground, Dog Canyon Ranger 

Station complex, Ship on the Desert, Pine Top administrative patrol cabin, and the Park 

Headquarters/Visitor Center in Pine Springs Canyon. In this zone, prescribed fire and mechanical 

fuel reduction are management tools for the purposes of fuel reduction or vegetation 

management. All unplanned ignitions with the potential to enter this zone will be suppressed. 

Two-FMU Plan (Alternative A) 

This alternative defines a relatively small FMU #1 surrounding (1) the visitor center area and the 

facilities and residences south of the highway and (2) the developments at Dog Canyon (Figure 

II-5). This FMU applies full suppression and prescribed burning. The rest of the park comprises 

the second FMU, with protection and suppression emphasis for special features, such as historic 

properties, McKittrick Canyon, and habitats of threatened and endangered species. In FMU #2, 

wildland fire use, prescribed fire, suppression, and the elements common to all alternatives are 

management options. This alternative recognizes that restoring fire and using a mixture of 

prescribed fire and wildland fire use benefits park ecological communities. Fires would be 

suppressed at the park boundary. 

Administrative considerations have tended to be the cause of “no go” decisions for wildland fire 

use. During fire season, resource (fire crews and equipment) availability is frequently a problem. 

Needed personnel to manage wildland fire use, particularly fire use managers, are rarely 

available. No-go decisions can also result from the perceived need to give the fire-weary public a 

rest, and local fires that otherwise might benefit resources are suppressed during regionally 

active fire seasons. 
35

Figure II-5. Two-FMU plan arrangement under Alternative A. 

Pine Springs and Dog Canyon areas are delineated as FMU #1, and the rest of the park comprises 

FMU #2. 

 
36

Table II-3 proposes a new set of decision criteria that may result in more wildland fire use under 

Alternative A. Under the assumption of Alternative A, fire use managers will be available to 

oversee wildland fire use at Guadalupe Mountains National Park whenever needed. In addition, 

local and regional administrators will tolerate higher levels of risk to property in the short term 

when declaring fire use, in order to lessen the danger in the long term of high-severity fires. 

Threats to life retain the highest priority when making decisions. As under No Action, the park 

will use non-fire means to reduce fuels around significant natural resources, unique sites, and 

cultural resources, especially flammable historic structures. Minimum impact management and 

rehabilitation practices are implemented as under No Action (1996 FMP). 

Table II-3. Go/no-go decision criteria under Alternatives A and B. 

Must answer YES to all criteria to reach a GO decision. 

Any NO answers result in a NO-GO decision and declaration of a wildland fire. Once declared, 

the fire cannot be reverted to wildland fire use. 

 

Decision Criteria Questions 

 

Ignition Is it a natural source? 

Is the location within the fire management unit permitting wildland fire 

use? 

Management Objectives Are resource objectives being met? Are potential effects on natural and 

cultural resources within the acceptable range of effects and variability? 

Size Is the current and expected size known? Would an escape or the 

potential for escape from the maximum management area be acceptable? 

Fuels Are live fuel moistures within prescription? 

Weather Are local forecasts and drought indicators (1000-hr TLFM, Palmer 

drought index) acceptable? 

Topography Is the terrain accessible and safe for crews to work in locations for 

potential holding actions along the maximum management area 

boundary? 

Resource Availability Are local, regional or national resources available? 

Safety of Life and Property Can the threats to firefighters, staff, visitors, residents, neighbors, 

associated property, and infrastructure be minimized? 

Environmental Constraints Are smoke dispersal and direction acceptable? 

Political Constraints Is managing this fire for wildland fire use compliant with current policy, 

moratoriums, political constraints, funding and efficiency issues? 
37

Preferred Alternative (Alternative B) 

This alternative is a variation on the two-unit plan that extends backcountry FMU #2 beyond the 

north boundary to include portions of the McKittrick Canyon watershed that lie on Forest 

Service land (Figure II-6). Ideally, the park will cooperate with the Forest Service on prescribed 

fire, wildland fire use, fire effects monitoring, as well as appropriate management response 

activities. Suppression will be the rule along portions of the park boundary adjacent to private 

property. 

The area proposed for joint fire activities on Forest Service lands has been called the Zone of 

Cooperation (ZOC). Guadalupe Mountains National Park and the Lincoln National Forest will 

co-manage fire on about 2,000 acres of USFS land in Upper North McKittrick Canyon under 

Alternative B (see Figure II-6). This land north of the park boundary contains the headwaters of 

an important park watershed. As outlined in the Lincoln National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, the ZOC lies in the southwest corner of the South Guadalupe Management 

Area (3A), also designated as the Guadalupe Escarpment Wilderness Study Area (USDA Forest 

Service 1986) and is managed as wilderness. Timber harvesting, mineral extraction, and oil and 

gas leasing are excluded activities. An 827-acre parcel included in the ZOC has been 

recommended for designation as the Upper McKittrick Research Natural Area (RNA). As an 

RNA, it is the site of dispersed, non-motorized recreation compatible with research. The 

district’s website describes it as “the perfect place for seekers of solitude.” Its inclusion makes 

the management of fire safer, cheaper, and more likely to mimic natural patterns. This 

cooperative plan is a step toward multi-agency/owner fire management for the entire Guadalupe 

Mountains landscape sometime in the future. 

 

Cooperative fire management of Upper North McKittrick benefits the integrity of the lower 

watershed in the park. Allowing typical wind-driven fires moving southwest to northeast to cross 

the forest boundary in steep, rugged terrain is safer than trying to suppress them. Wildland fire 

use decision criteria, prescription parameters, and suppression tactics relative to sensitive 

resources remain the same under Alternative B as for Alternative A. Minimum impact 

management and rehabilitation follow guidelines proposed under No Action. The Lincoln 

National Forest limits fuel treatment activities (non-fire treatments such as thinning) to areas 

where buildups threaten life, property, or high resource value areas. Fuel treatments are planned 

such that goals apply to the project area as a whole and not on a per-acre basis.
38

Figure II-6. Fire management under Alternative B. Hatched area north of the boundary is 

upper North McKittrick Canyon on the Lincoln National Forest. 
39

Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 

Total Suppression 

In today’s more enlightened climate relative to fire, this option might seem extreme. However, 

the park’s concern about (1) safety of visitors (particularly backcountry campers) and staff, (2) 

historic structures and landscape features, and (3) spread of fire to neighboring properties make 

total suppression a legitimate consideration. 

Reason for dismissal: Fire is clearly needed to restore some park plant communities to health and 

renew wildlife habitat. The park staff has the experience needed to allow fires to burn safely. It is 

NPS policy to restore fire into ecosystems where it previously occurred naturally. 

Full Wildland Fire Use for Resource Benefit 

Concern about the long-term health of plant communities puts the other extreme option on the 

table. If the park’s forests, woodlands, and grasslands are to move back to their “natural” state, it 

could be argued that all fires should be allowed to burn. Because the preservation of life and 

property is the priority for fire management operations, the plan under this alternative would 

protect individual features and structures with small buffer zones and otherwise permit fires to 

burn unless conditions were unsafe or fire behavior is outside of prescriptions. 

Reason for dismissal: Administrative considerations decrease the attractiveness of this 

alternative. Appropriate decision making on a case-by-case basis would be prohibitively 

complicated and time-consuming. Moreover, decision makers would always need to be present 

to decide whether to fight fires burning very close to places that require protection. In inhabited 

areas there would be no safety margin for sudden changes in fire conditions. 

Summary of Reasonable Alternatives 

Table II-4 summarizes important features of each retained alternative described above and the 

degree to which these alternatives meet FMP purpose, need, goals, and objectives. Table II-5 

reviews impacts of alternatives over the nine issue areas. Each of the retained alternatives 

contains a different mixture of the same elements: suppression, prescribed fire, and wildland fire 

use for resource benefit. There is no way to specify exactly how much of each strategy would 

apply if any one of the alternatives were selected, because the “amount” of each fire form 

depends on weather and chance ignitions. We can speculate that No Action-Alternative A (TwoFMU Plan) and Alternative B (Cooperative Watershed), in that order, move from causing the 

fewest short-term, direct adverse effects and fewest long-term direct and indirect benefits to 

causing the most short-term, direct adverse effects and most long-term benefits. Impacts are 

analyzed in detail in Chapter IV. 

The environmentally preferable alternative is defined as “the alternative that will promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act’s Section 

101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and 

physical environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances 

historic, cultural, and natural resources” (Council on Environmental Quality 1981).
40

Table II-4. Effectiveness of Alternatives in Meeting Goals and Objectives 

No Action 1996 Plan 

Alternative A Two FMU Plan 

Alternative B Cooperative 

Major Features Four FMUs with three fire 

management zones - a central zone that allows wildland fire use and prescribed fire under certain conditions, surrounded by a second suppression zone. The third zone encompasses sensitive resources and structures and calls for suppression to protect these features. 

A small FMU encompassing developed areas and allows prescribed burns but not wildland fire use for fuel reduction. The backcountry FMU allows prescribed fire and wildland fire use out to park boundaries. The park would cooperate with park neighbors on fire management actions. 

Adaptation obackcountry out to includMcKittrick CForest Servicbe managed area. 

Goals and Objectives 1. Protect life and property. 

Effective; reducing threats to life and property is the highest priority. 

Effective; reducing threats to life and property is the highest priority. 

Effective; redand property priority. 

2. Protect park resources from undesirable effects of fire. 

Effective in the short term. Effective in the short and long 

term. 

Most effectivlong term. 

3. Suppress unwanted fire. 

Effective in the short term, but future fires may become too hot to handle as fuels build up. 

Effective. Effective. 

4. Allow fire to assume its natural role in park ecosystems with justification. 

Somewhat effective, given conservative wildland fire use for much of the park. 

More effective, given wildland fire use over most of the park under relaxed decision criteria. 

Effective, givover most of adjoining Fo
41

No Action 1996 Plan 

Alternative A Two FMU Plan 

Alternative B Cooperative 

5. Use wildland fire use and prescribed fire for resource management purposes. 

Least effective in applying fire for maintaining fire-influenced historic scenes and patterns of succession. 

Effective. Allows fire over most of the area up to park boundaries for management purposes. 

Most effectivfire’s landscareinforcing hnatural patter

6. Manage fire cooperatively with neighboring agencies and private landowners. 

Moderately effective, as it specifies some collaboration with the Forest Service. 

Least effective. Insulates the park from surrounding lands by limiting cross-boundary use of fire. 

Most effectivcooperation wagencies and 

7. Coordinate fire activities with all park divisions and the public. 

Effective Effective Effective 
42

Table II-5. Impact Summary No Action 1996 Plan 

Alternative A Two FMU Plan 

Alternative B Cooperative Watershed 

1. Life and Property: Issues—Fire is an effective tool for reducing hazard fuels, but it also is a threat to the public, firefighters, park s

neighboring properties. Plan overview—Safety is the highest-level consideration. The FMP dictates actions for contingencies when life 

threatened.

No Action places firefighters at risk more often than A and B. With more suppression than A and B, No Action minimizes short-term, adverse impacts to life and property such as the Visitor Center and Pratt Cabin; such impacts would be minor or negligible in intensity. Long-term potential for moderate, adverse impacts to firefighter and public safety and property during periods of severe fire conditions. 

With increased wildland fire use under Alternative A, short-term, adverse impacts to public safety and property would be minor with appropriate protective measures. Minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to life and property would accrue as management objectives are met. Stopping fire at the boundary could increase risks associated with air attack. 

Short-term, adverse impaproperty would be minor protective measures undelong-term, beneficial impon both NPS and Forest Sas management objective

2. Visitor Experience: Issues—Potential restrictions on access to burning areas, road closures, and smoke can inconvenience visitors

provides interpretive opportunities. Plan overview— Prescribed burning limits severe fires that create considerable inconveniences. Th

occasion to inform visitors of the role of fire in ecosystems. Impacts would be adverse but short-term and minor and during severe fire conditions would likely also apply to destinations on the Lincoln National Forest. Wilderness suppression activities could allow noisy equipment. No Action can result in the most extensive fuel buildups that can feed future high-severity fires. Charred landscapes from such fires may be long-term, moderate, adverse effects. Fires can be interpretive opportunities, and communication is the key mitigation technique. 

Effects of Alternative A would also be adverse but short-term and minor, similar to No Action. The park would see greater wildland fire use and less suppression, decreasing the need to temporarily compromise wilderness through the use of mechanized tools and over-flights. However, stopping fires at boundaries could require occasional, concentrated suppression efforts. Over time, the risk of future high-severity fires is lessened as more of the park experiences wildland fire use and long-term, adverse effects become minor. 

Effects of Alternative B aA—adverse in the short-tnot requiring control at thprevailing winds tend to pvisitor experience by bouis reduced. The risk of lonis further reduced under Awildland fire use treats mshowing potential to spreallowed to burn. 
43

No Action 1996 Plan 

Alternative A Two FMU Plan 

Alternative B Cooperative Watershed 

3. Cultural Resources: Issues—Historic structures, landscapes, and artifacts may incur fire damage. Plan overview—Prescribed burn

thinning will reduce fuel buildup near structures and sites. Fire will be kept away from the most sensitive areas. 

Minor, cumulative, adverse, short-term impacts from successive suppression actions accrue under No Action. Loss of site-concealing vegetation; cracking and flaking of stone or concrete foundations; alteration of landscapes; and burning of flammable resources, including structures are direct effects. Erosion and damage of integrity of resources on the ground after suppression-related disturbance is the main indirect effect. Greatest potential, with continued suppression, for moderate adverse impacts to cultural resources in the longterm, particularly damage to flammable historic structures. 

For Alternative A, minor direct and indirect adverse impacts to cultural resources would occur as described for No Action, with long-term benefits to cultural resources from reduction in fuel loads in and around sensitive areas throughout the park. Potential for damage to wooden structures decreases, and cumulative impacts to cultural resources from repeated suppression activities would decrease in relation to the No Action alternative. 

Minor direct and indirect described under No Actioterm benefits under Alterreduction in fuel loads in throughout the park and ractivity along the north bto Lincoln National Foresjoint fuels treatment projeto cultural resources from activities would decrease Action alternative. 

4. Vegetation: Issues—Fire will benefit many species populations in the long term but will kill and injure some individual plants; largmosaic pattern of vegetation. Plan overview— Fire thins crowded stands and promotes sprouting and germination of many plant speciallows for more control over fire timing, location, and effects and may reduce the threat of large-scale fires.Under No Action, potential for moderate, long-term adverse impacts to landscape-scale vegetation patterns accrues as suppression continues, particularly in the park high country. The park would continue to progress from “natural” fire regime to “suppression” landscape. Lack of fire will continue to maintain shrublands where grasslands once occurred, and create dense thickets out of historically open woodlands. 

The existing fuel buildups in the high country will remain difficult to alleviate and adverse impacts may still occur but likely on a smaller scale, compared with No Action. Greater wildland fire use under Alternative A reduces the likelihood of high-severity, landscape altering events. Overall, Alternative A has a moderate, beneficial impact in the long-term. 

Under Alternative B, advsmallest scale, relative to The alternative potentiallamount of fire meeting prlandscapes. Fires showing north boundary would noOverall, Alternative B haimpact in the long-term. 
44

No Action 1996 Plan 

Alternative A Two FMU Plan 

Alternative B Cooperative Watershed 

5. Wildlife: Issues—Fire will benefit many species populations in the long term but will kill and injure some individual animals in the 

overview—Wildlife benefits from fire-renewed habitat. Conditions for prescribed fire and wildland fire use promote low to moderate-in

maintain mosaics of burned and unburned habitat.

Continued suppression of most fires under No Action would minimize minor, short-term, direct adverse impacts to animals. Prescribed fire, thinning, wildland fire, and suppression actions could cause small changes to populations through loss of individual animals. The potential for longterm adverse impacts to particular species with continued habitat degradation and threats of highseverity fires during periods of severe fire conditions would be moderate. Moderate adverse cumulative impacts resulting from successive suppression actions are expected. 

With more fire use under Alternative A, greater short-term, adverse impacts to individual animals are expected in relation to No Action. Fires will consume stumps, logs, and snags that may be nesting and foraging sites for woodpeckers, small owls, and small mammals, but fire also creates more of such sites. Managing for burn mosaics keeps such impacts minor. Re-sprouting of shrubs after burns provides new forage for browsers. Short-term adverse impacts to particular species would be minor to moderate with appropriate protective measures. The long-term threat of highseverity fires would subside with park-wide application of prescribed fire and wildland fire use. Particular species would benefit as management objectives are met. 

The effects of Alternative Alternative A, and the effZOC would be similar to the park. The long-term thresources from high-sevedecrease as management 

met, reducing the opportufrom neighboring Forest fires that meet prescriptioNorth McKittrick watershlikelihood of high-severitadverse indirect effects (eon aquatic animals downs

6. Unique Sites and Sensitive Species: Issues—Fire could alter unique sites and affect endemic or uncommon species. Plan overview—managed to minimize impacts. Fire promotes plant germination and renews habitat for many wildlife species.Continued suppression under No Action would result in minor, short-term, direct adverse impacts to unique sites and sensitive species. Prescribed and wildland fire could result in increased sediment loads in streams and springs and small changes to populations of sensitive species. Prescribed fire should lead to major, indirect, long-term beneficial effects. The potential for long-term adverse impacts to fire-sensitive species with continued habitat degradation and threats of high-severity fires during periods of severe fire conditions would be moderate. Moderate adverse impacts resulting from successive suppression actions are expected. 

With more fire use under Alternative A, greater short-term, adverse impacts to individual plants and animals are expected in relation to No Action. Fires will consume nesting and foraging sites for woodpeckers, small owls and mammals, but fire also creates more of such sites. Managing for burn mosaics keeps such impacts minor. Resprouting of shrubs after burns provides new forage for browsers. Short-term adverse impacts would be minor with appropriate protective measures. The long-term threat of high-severity fires would subside with park-wide application of prescribed fire and wildland fire use. Particular species would benefit as management objectives are met. 

The effects of Alternative Alternative A, and the effwithin the ZOC would be experienced within the pato the park’s resources frofurther decrease as managZOC are met, reducing thencroachment from neighland. Wildland fire use in McKittrick watershed dechigh-severity fires that caeffects (erosion and sedimplants and animals downslong-term are greater than 
45

No Action 1996 Plan 

Alternative A Two FMU Plan 

Alternative B Cooperative Watershed 

7. Non-indigenous Species: Issues—Fire may aid invasion of non-indigenous species but also may serve to be a control tool. Plan ove

species respond positively to renewing effects of fire. Research can increase understanding of fire effects to non-indigenous species.

No Action is predicted to have minor, short-term, adverse effects with the most use of suppression. Suppression disturbances potentially prepare more areas for colonization by exotics in the short-term; high-severity fires from fuels buildup potentially prepare large areas for colonization over the longterm with moderate adverse effects. Prescribed fires reduce fuels but often target developed areas where exotics may be poised to spread. The occurrence of exotics is highly localized in the park and the mitigation measures (surveys and removal of undesirable species) would be applied in all instances where feasible. 

Alternative A is predicted to have minor to moderate, short-term, adverse effects. The potential for exotic plant spread exists from both allowing fires to burn, thus clearing areas for colonization, and from disturbing the ground during suppression actions, but less so than under No Action. The occurrence of exotics is highly localized in the park and mitigation measures would be applied in all instances where feasible. Less reliance on suppression compared to the No Action Alternative reduces the long-term adverse effects. 

Alternative B is predicted term, adverse effects. Thesuppression disturbance, wildland fire use, and prethe north boundary. The ohighly localized in the pameasures would be appliefeasible. Long-term effecAlternative A. 

8. Geology and Geohazards: Issues—Removal of vegetation by fire can contribute to erosion, flooding, and damage of fossils. Plan o

can be managed to limit impacts to sensitive resources. The erosion and sedimentation are natural processes associated with fire.

Fire management-related impacts to geology and geohazards would be adverse but short-term and minor to moderate in intensity under No Action. No change to existing conditions is expected in the short-term. Potential continues for moderate, shortterm, adverse impacts to soil stability and flood potential during periods of severe fire conditions followed by monsoon-like rainfall events. Potential in the long-term for moderate, adverse impacts to geology and from geohazards, accrues as suppression continues, fuels build, and the likelihood of high-severity fire increases. 

Alternative A is similar to No Action and would also result in minor to moderate short-term adverse effects. However, over the long-term soil stability becomes less threatened as the potential for future high-severity wildland fire is reduced. Greater wildland fire use would lessen the adverse effects in the long-term by reducing fuel loads and connectivity throughout the park and therefore reduce erosion of mineral soil potentially exposed by high-intensity fires. 

Alternative B, which migthe park to Forest Service McKittrick Canyon, also to moderate, short-term, amanagement actions in thwatershed will affect dowshort-term, but would furadverse effects of future wgeological features and frlong-term. 
46

No Action 1996 Plan 

Alternative A Two FMU Plan 

Alternative B Cooperative Watershed 

9. Air Quality: Issues—Smoke from fires can be unhealthy and impact visibility. Plan overview—Prescribed burns that reduce fuels a

conditions that comply with regulations and minimize potential for unhealthy air.

No Action minimizes short-term, adverse impacts to air quality and visual values through the active suppression of most fires. Impacts to air quality during prescribed burns and wildland fire use would be minor in intensity with required mitigation to meet state air quality standards. With increasing fuel loads, potential grows for moderate adverse impacts to air quality during severe fire conditions in the long-term. The park’s use of fire as a tool for meeting resource objectives has a cumulative effect on the airshed in combination with all other activities in the region producing airborne particulates. 

Under Alternative A, greater use of fire for resource management may result in more smoke being released for any given period and short-term, minor, adverse impacts. Fire prescriptions would be required to meet air quality standards. Over the long-term, air quality and visual values benefit from reduced fuels and decreased potential for high-severity wildfires that produce large quantities of smoke. 

Alternative B would have Alternative A, with greateminor, adverse impacts wwildland fire use and presPrescribed and wildland fin the long-term increase fuels and fuel connectivitlikelihood that a fire will generating event. 
47

NEPA Sections 101 and 102 

The goals characterizing the environmentally preferable condition are described in Section 101 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA Section 101 states that “....it is the 

continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to ...(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans 

safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the 

widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, 

or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which 

supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population 

and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s 

amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable resources.” 

Using the above discussion as a guide, the environmentally preferred alternative is Alternative B, 

the Cooperative Watershed Plan. Alternative B does the best job of balancing natural and 

cultural resource management needs with safety concerns and involves the most interagency 

coordination. No Action, likely the alternative putting the least amount of fire on the landscape, 

results in the greatest amount of fuel buildup and the greatest likelihood of high-severity fire. 

Such fire would leave the land in questionable condition for future generations, be aesthetically 

unpleasant, and potentially harm important historic, cultural, and natural resources. Alternative A 

lies between Alternative B and No Action (but closer to Alternative B) in fulfilling the 

requirements of NEPA section 101. This document presents the analysis to justify selection of 

Alternative B in accordance with the guidelines set forth in NEPA Section 102, which outline the 

obligations of all agencies of the Federal Government in regard to environmental protection. 

Mitigation Measures 

Under all alternatives the park will undertake reasonable efforts to minimize and mitigate the 

negative effects of the fire program. Proposed measures for doing so appear in the analysis in 

Chapter IV. In general, under the safety impact topic, mitigation consists primarily of public 

education/notification and reduction of hazardous fuels. Visitor experience concerns are also 

mitigated through public education and notification. Mitigating impacts on cultural and natural 

resources is accomplished through pre-fire surveys, reduction of fuels around sensitive sites, 

avoiding sites and harmful suppression tactics wherever possible, and using resource advisors 

during fire activities. 
48

Chapter III: Affected Environment 

This chapter provides information about the park environment necessary to understand the 

effects of the alternatives presented in Chapter IV. Appendix D lists the scientific names for 

plant and animal species mentioned in several sections of this chapter. 

Lincoln National Forest land in upper North McKittrick Canyon has been designated a Zone of 

Cooperation (ZOC) where the forest and park will jointly manage fire. The extent of the ZOC 

and rationale for inclusion was introduced in Chapter I. An 827-acre parcel included in the ZOC 

has been recommended for designation as the Upper McKittrick Research Natural Area (RNA). 

The information contained in this section comes from interviews with Lincoln National Forest 

District Ranger Jamie Kingsbury, Fire Ecologist Chad Stewart, and District Biologist Larry Paul, 

as well as the Lincoln National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986), amendments, and other 

documents. 

ZOC information is presented at the end of each impact topic section below. 

Impact Topic 1 (Life and Property) 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park is located in Culberson and Hudspeth counties, Texas, east 

of El Paso, and southwest of Carlsbad, New Mexico (see Figure I-1). The park’s northern 

boundary is also the Texas-New Mexico state line. A mixture of private and government lands 

border the park. Public lands on the New Mexico side include holdings of the Forest Service, 

Lincoln National Forest-Guadalupe Ranger District; DOI BLM, Las Cruces and Roswell districts 

(Carlsbad Resource Area); and the state of New Mexico. Public lands adjacent to the park in 

Texas are primarily school and General Land Office lands, i.e., State land. Some private land 

borders the park in New Mexico. In Texas, except for several subdivided parcels, mostly large 

ranches lie next to the park. Several rights-of-way and pipelines cross the park. 

There are 8.5 miles of paved road and 21.5 miles of graded and primitive road to provide access 

within the park. There are 89 miles of formally designated and signed trails, seven trailheads, 

two developed campgrounds, ten backcountry campgrounds, and seven picnic areas. Developed 

areas are located at: (1) Pine Springs Headquarters/Visitor Center, maintenance and housing 

area, (2) McKittrick Canyon Visitor Center, (3) Dog Canyon, and (4) Frijole Ranch. Facilities 

located at these developed sites comprise a significant component of the visitor facilities in the 

park. Several historic structures are also found throughout the park, as discussed under Impact 3 

(Cultural Resources). 

The steep and rugged terrain, limited surface water, limited access routes, frequent high winds, 

and confined canyon bottoms all combine to create hazardous situations under extreme fire 

behavior. Many of the more popular visitor use areas are in locations with heavy accumulations 

of fuel and difficult access. In addition, some of the park's trails and high visitor use areas are in 

canyon bottoms that could be dangerous under certain conditions. The park's most heavily 

visited area, McKittrick Canyon, has both a canyon bottom trail and heavy accumulations of fuel 

within the canyon and on the slopes above it. 
49

The lightning associated with summer thunderstorms is the primary agent causing the start of 

natural fires. Summer storms are often fast moving and localized, with the period of rainfall of 

short duration and usually accompanied by high winds, thunder, and lightning. The natural fire 

season does not coincide with the spring and fall periods of highest visitation. 

In 2002 trail counters detected the following numbers of people at Pine Springs, Frijole Ranch, 

McKittrick Canyon, and Dog Canyon: 

January 1,505 

February 1,634 

March 5,351 

April 3,710 

May 4,119 

June 3,916 

July 3,097 

August 2,049 

September 2,369 

October 5,119 

November 3,803 

December 1,697 

Peaks in March and October coincide with college spring breaks and McKittrick fall color, 

respectively. 

ZOC Life and Property: Upper North McKittrick Canyon is rugged, steep country that is 

lightly used for recreation and grazed under a single lease. Hunters will enter the area, but users 

are mostly occasional cavers who must obtain permits to explore gated caves. A grazing 

permittee’s 17,311-acre allotment lies in Management Area 3A, mostly outside of the ZOC. 

Currently, the entire Guadalupe Ranger District is under “expanded suppression with the option 

to manage as prescribed fire [wildland fire use, in current terminology].” Lincoln National Forest 

staff are currently amending a policy that lifts the 1000-acre limit on wildland fire use. 

For any wildland fire use situation, under Alternative B, NPS and the Forest Service will bring in 

fire use teams when available. The Forest Service will continue to suppress fires in upper North 

McKittrick until it is apparent that not doing so will result in the fire becoming a serious threat. 

In Ponderosa pine, the suppression point is crown fire over 40% of the trees. The Guadalupe 

Ranger District Fire Ecologist is developing thresholds for other vegetation types. Fences and 

signs are the main developments requiring protection from fire. 

The Forest Plan directs maintaining fuel breaks and constructing additional fuel breaks as needed 

for protection of life and property. 
50

Impact Topic 2 (Visitor Experience) 

The park averages over 200,000 visitors each year. Visitor activities include hiking (both day 

hiking and overnight backpacking), camping, nature study, photography, and horseback riding. 

May through August is the peak season park wide; however, smaller peaks occur during spring 

semester break, during the autumn colors, and other holidays. Much of the park’s backcountry, 

especially McKittrick Canyon and Guadalupe Peak, can be visited on day hikes and these two 

areas receive a high percentage of the park’s annual visitation. McKittrick Canyon, in particular, 

experiences heavy visitation in October and November, when the autumn colors draw 1,600-

2,000 people per weekend. Overnight backcountry use in the park is relatively small in relation 

to annual visitation, approximately 3,000 backpackers per year. 

Staff notify visitors to Guadalupe Mountains National Park of fire management activities that 

might affect their experience. The park’s public information office and incident fire information 

personnel distribute information through press releases, special notices and other 

communications, as needed, to inform other agencies, communities and individuals of fire 

management activities. For some fire management activities, visitors are provided information at 

the Visitor Center, while signs are used to inform visitors along major thoroughfares, including 

roads and trails. Staff at the Visitor Center post information on cautions, closures, and 

restrictions, as needed, and are available to answer questions and provide interpretation regarding 

fire management activities and their purposes. All backpackers receiving permits are advised by 

park staff at the Visitor Center of fire danger conditions, and backcountry staff keep backcountry 

visitors informed of fire danger, locations, and progress. Overall, the park’s goal is to minimize 

the impact of fire activities on visitor experience and promote public safety. 

ZOC Visitor Experience: The Forest Service manages upper North McKittrick Canyon as 

wilderness used primarily by dispersed visitors and cavers. All caves require permits for entry, 

and processing time is at least two weeks. Maintaining scenic values and quiet are high priorities. 

A Management Area 3A goal (USDA Forest Service 1986 p. 112) includes providing “ . . . 

interpretive services to enhance understanding and appreciation of the area’s special features.” 

There are no developed campgrounds in the Guadalupe Ranger District, but camping is allowed 

in most areas. The Camp Wilderness Ridge (easy) hiking trail along the northern boundary of 

the ZOC connects with the park’s (more difficult) Permian Reef Geology Trail. 

Impact Topic 3 (Cultural Resources) 

For many centuries, the remote Guadalupe backcountry was the domain of the Ndé (Mescalero 

Apache). In the 1880s, the Guadalupe Mountains became the last stronghold for Apache chief 

Victorio, whose last battle with the legendary “Buffalo Soldiers” of the 9th and 10th Cavalry 

Regiments occurred not far to the south. Ranching played a prominent role in the history of the 

area, as did the Butterfield Overland Mail Stage that ran through Guadalupe Pass from 

September 1858 to August 1859. Wallace Pratt purchased approximately 5,000 acres of 

McKittrick Canyon in the 1930s. Pratt was a petroleum geologist whose love for the beauty of 

the place moved him to donate the property to the NPS in 1959 for all to enjoy. 
51

As a result of these activities, numerous historic structures exist in the park. These structures are 

located primarily at (1) Frijole Ranch, (2) Pratt Cabin and the Hunter Line Cabin in McKittrick 

Canyon, (3) Ship on the Desert, (4) the Pinery (an old station of the Butterfield Stage route), and 

(5) Williams Ranch. In addition, there are several other historic structures scattered around the 

park. All of these structures are included in the List of Classified Structures (LCS) for the park 

(Table C-5, Appendix C). The LCS for the park lists a total of 19 buildings of the 34 classified 

structures in the park. In addition, more than 400 archeological sites have been identified in the 

park, including burned rock hearths, midden rings and mounds, lithic and ceramic scatters, rock 

shelters, caves and pictographs. 

The Pinery, the structures at Frijole Ranch, and those at Pratt Cabin in McKittrick Canyon are 

included on the National Register of Historic Places. Also, 27 of the recorded archeological sites 

are presently listed in the National Register of Historic Places, as the McKittrick Canyon 

Archeological District. The Butterfield Stage route itself and the Wallace Pratt residence (Ship 

on the Desert) have been determined as eligible for listing in the National Register, but additional 

documentation is needed to promote them to National Register status. Management emphasis for 

these resources is on preservation, protection, and interpretation of cultural resources and their 

settings. An NPS team from the Archeological Sites Hazardous Fuels Assessment Program 

(ASHFAP) conducted an assessment of fuel types found at various cultural resource sites. Their 

report provides suggestions on how to mitigate the effects of fire at these sites (NPS 1998). 

ZOC Cultural Resources: For Management Area 3A, the primary cultural resources of concern 

are features associated with caves. Forest Plan prescriptions direct managers to evaluate cultural 

resource sites found during other activities, to protect sites, and generally to comply with the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

Impact Topic 4 (Vegetation) 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park lies in an area of exceptionally high relief created by an 

uplifting of a portion of the Capitan Reef to form an extensive V-shaped plateau. The elevations 

in the 86,416-acre park vary widely, ranging from a little over 3,650 feet to 8,749 feet on 

Guadalupe Peak, the highest point in Texas. On the desert floor the terrain is relatively level. In 

contrast, the topography of the escarpment is extreme, with its steep talus slopes, precipitous 

cliffs, decomposing rock ledges and deep canyons. The vegetation communities display all the 

diversity that would be expected in a landscape of such character. Visitors to Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park might find themselves in desertscrub, grasslands, chaparral, woodlands, 

and coniferous forest, depending on the elevation, exposure, and topography where they are 

standing. Striking desert succulents, canyon fall color, and high country conifers are all part of 

the park’s appeal. Park records identify more than 1,000 species of plants in the park, with 22 as 

plant species of special concern; 17 of these 22 are endemic to the Guadalupe Mountains. 

Endemic plants are also a special feature of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Unique taxa 

occur (1) in nooks on limestone cliffs and ledges, (2) in high-elevation forested canyon bottoms, 

and (3) along streams at lower elevation (Northington and Burgess 1979). Impact topic 6 

(Unique Sites and Sensitive Species) introduces protected plants (with official status) within the 

park. 
52

In the Guadalupe Mountains, the lowest elevations receive about 9 inches of rain per year (PX 

Well/elevation 3,867 feet), at the Visitor Center (elevation 5,734 feet) the annual average is 

18.31 inches, and higher elevations (Bowl/elevation 8,118 feet) receive over 25 inches. The 

elevational moisture gradient is paralleled by a vegetation gradient. As elevation increases, the 

desertscrub community surrounding the Guadalupe Mountains becomes progressively replaced 

by less drought-tolerant species, until at the highest elevations a mixed conifer forest is attained 

(see Figure III-1). 
53

Figure III-1. Distribution of vegetation types at Guadalupe Mountains National Park 
54

Research by Ahlstrand (1981) shows that fire has historically been an active and recurring force 

in the Guadalupe Mountains coniferous forest. Tree rings within the park record regular fires over 

the 500-year period from A.D. 1496 to 1980, with fire occurrence in at least 71 of the years. Fires 

occurred at an average interval of 17 years through the late 1800s. From this period through 1922, 

the fire frequency decreased to an average of one every 30 years. This decline in frequency 

closely parallels the development of the ranching industry in the region and the subsequent 

reduction of fine carrier fuels (grasses and forbs). Fire scars from the trees sampled indicate that 

fires burning in 1808, 1830, 1842, 1857, and 1879 burned an average minimum area of 5.2 square 

kilometers (1,298 acres), and that these fires were low intensity and lasted for several days. 

Prehistorically, the pattern of fire may have fluctuated—either through climate change or direct 

use of fire by early indigenous peoples—but the presence of regular fire has never waned. 

Consequently, it is assumed that the landscape in this mountain range is strongly influenced by 

fire, and the plants are adapted to or even dependent upon disturbances created by periodic fires. 

With the arrival of Euro-Americans into the area, the patterns of fire changed dramatically, mostly 

from grazing and intense fire suppression activities in the 20th century. Some forest habitats have 

become denser, and more prone to high-severity, stand-replacing fires. For the purposes of fire 

management planning, seven vegetation types have been defined. These types correspond with 

Brown-Lowe-Pase biomes as summarized most recently in Brown (1994—Univ. of Utah Press 

reprinting of Biotic Communities of the Southwest). Figure III-1 shows the distribution of these 

vegetation types in the park. Appendix D provides scientific names for the common names used 

in the text. 

The following discussion assigns a fire regime condition class to each of the plant community 

types. Condition classes are defined as follows (Schmidt et al. 2002): 

Condition class I: Fire regimes are within a historical range, and the risk of losing key 

ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact 

and functioning within a historical range. Fires burning in class I lands pose little risk to the 

ecosystem and have positive effects to biodiversity, soil productivity, and hydrologic processes. 

Typical management replicates the historical fire regime through periodic application of 

prescribed fire or through wildland fire use. 

Condition class II: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The 

risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from 

historical frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This results 

in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape 

patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historical range. 

Wildland fires burning in class II lands can have moderately negative impacts to species 

composition, soil conditions, and hydrological processes. Typical management requires moderate 

levels of restoration treatment, such as a combination of prescribed fire with mechanical 

treatment. 

Condition class III: Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The 

risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical 

frequencies by multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the 
55

following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been 

significantly altered from their historical range. Wildland fires burning in class III lands may 

eliminate desired ecosystem components, exacerbate the spread of unwanted non-native species, 

and result in dramatically different ecological effects compared to reference conditions. Typical 

management requires high levels of restoration treatment, such as mechanical treatments, before 

fire can be used to restore desired ecosystem function. Intensive efforts, which may include 

seeding, herbicide application, biomass removal, and other types of rehabilitation, are required for 

class III lands. 

Rocky Mountain (Petran) Conifer Forest (122.3 in Brown) 

Conifer forest grows in the highest areas of the Guadalupe Mountains, primarily on north-facing 

aspects and in canyon bottoms at elevations above 5,610 feet. The coniferous forest associations 

occur in The Bowl, but notable stands occur throughout the higher elevations near Bush 

Mountain, Blue Ridge, and the McKittrick Canyon drainage. 

Common species: Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Colorado pinyon pine, 

Gambel oak, chinkapin oak, Knowlton hophornbeam, bigtooth maple, quaking aspen, Utah 

serviceberry. 

This structural vegetation type has the following characteristics: 

 Present structure: This vegetation type is overmature to mature with a decadent component. 

The overstory is primarily Douglas-fir, which is more abundant and dominant than 

historically. There is a high stocking density of small trees (<3 in dbh), and ladder fuels are 

building up. Recent insect damage is apparent in Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. Quaking 

aspen is diminishing within the Douglas-fir. Research indicates this area was historically 

dominated by ponderosa pine, southwestern white pine, Gambel oak stands, and 

hophornbeam. 

 Condition class: III or II to III. Assessment is based on departure from fire return interval and 

composition. Historic fire return interval was 5-30 years (Ahlstrand 1981). However, the last 

major fires occurred in 1922 and 1990. The long interval is likely due to intense grazing, not 

suppression. 

 Condition on recent burns: From the 1990 fire, the current condition of burned areas is an 

early seral stage characterized by exposed soil, some grass, some annual forbs, some woody 

shrubs, some juniper-oak shrub, and mescalero gooseberry. There has been little recruitment. 

Pines have not made it to maturity; sprouts are not surviving. There is a poor mosaic of 

variability because approximately 75% of the burn area was high severity. 

 Fuel model: Mostly 10 (timber- litter and understory). 

 Insect/disease: Insect damage in Douglas-fir became apparent in 2000 due to prolonged 

drought and high stocking. Most ponderosa pine has mistletoe at a low infestation level. Insect 

damage is currently low, but has the potential to spread. 

 Problem invasives in type: No problem at present. 

Great Basin Conifer Woodland (122.4 in Brown) 

Pinyon and juniper woodlands are found at the lower slopes of both Upper Dog and West Dog 

Canyons, occurring on all aspects at elevations from 6,270 to 6,765 feet. 
56

Common species: Colorado pinyon pine, one-seed juniper, alligator juniper, Rocky Mountain 

juniper, gray oak, smallseed sacahuista, sotol, blue grama, hairy grama, black grama, sand 

dropseed 

 Present structure: This vegetation type is dominated by Colorado pinyon pine, one-seed 

juniper, and, to a lesser extent, alligator juniper. The general structure is an open canopy 

woodland savanna with fine-stemmed needlegrass. There is higher tree cover (>35%) and 

lower grass cover than expected historically. Most of this vegetation type burned patchily in 

1994. 

 Condition class: High II. Assessment is based on a 5-30 year desired fire interval based on 

the assumption that historically these areas were much less woody and more grassy. 

 Condition on recent burns: This area has not burned for 10 years despite lack of grazing 

pressure. In some areas, soil is gone due to intense grazing in the past. Past fires were hot 

and fast, but brief. There is currently less tree cover in burned areas than in unburned areas. 

Grass relative abundance is about the same as unburned areas. No data is available on tree 

recruitment. 

 Fuel model: 2 (timber- grass and understory). 

 Insect/disease: No evidence of problems. 

 Problem invasives in type: Exotic grasses are present around historic cattle tanks, but are not 

widespread. 

Madrean Evergreen Woodland (123.3 in Brown) 

Madrean woodland is so named due to its affinities with the vegetation of the Sierra Madre 

Occidental in Mexico. These woodlands are found mainly in McKittrick and Pine Spring canyons 

and around the visitor center at the base of the escarpment. 

Common species: gray oak, sandpaper oak, chinkapin oak, scrub oak, alligator juniper, Texas 

madrone, catclaw mimosa, sideoats grama, blue grama, hairy grama, Englemann prickly-pear 

 Present structure: This vegetation type is dominated by gray oak, alligator juniper, Texas 

madrone, and ponderosa pine. There is a dense shrub component (gray oak, catclaw mimosa, 

sotol, and New Mexico agave) and a relatively large number of large-diameter gray oaks. The 

understory was probably less dense historically. Heavy mistletoe is present in some oak areas 

due to the high oak density, especially near high visitor use areas and the park housing area. A 

1993 fire burned a large portion of this vegetation type. 

 Condition class: II. Large Texas madrones and gray oaks with fire scars indicate that lowintensity, understory fires occurred here in the past. Historic fire interval was probably 10-30 

years (Abbott 1998). 

 Condition on recent burns: The 1993 fire resulted in the death of all large madrones at 

Juniper Spring, and a prescribed burn in the mouth and lower reaches of McKittrick Canyon 

in 1997 killed a few mature madrones, probably due to an unnaturally high level of understory 

buildup in both of these areas. A few fires were patchy, leaving the overstory mostly 

unchanged (except for some large trees killed in intense burn areas) while reducing mimosa 

and sotol. Scrub oak and yuccas are recovering. Wildlife is keeping new madrones from 

surviving due to browsing. Oaks seem to be returning in shrub form rather than tree form at 

present. 
57

 Fuel model: Mostly 6 (dormant brush, hardwood slash), some 2 (timber- grass and 

understory). 

 Insect/disease: Mistletoe is present in dense oak groves, probably at a higher than natural 

level of parasitism. Flat-headed wood borers were attracted to scorched pinyon pine after the 

1993 fire in some areas. These insects probably killed scorched, but living, trees. 

 Problem invasives in type: Limited exotic grasses are present along roads and disturbed 

areas, but are not widespread in this vegetation type. Some Russian thistle invaded following 

the fires and has persisted. Known patches of horehound were set back for several years after 

the 1993 fire and have not returned to pre-fire levels. 

Interior Chaparral (133.3 in Brown) 

Shrub-dominated communities inhabit the western escarpment sides and canyons of the 

Guadalupe Mountains and are prevalent on the south-facing slopes of McKittrick and Pine Spring 

canyons. While forming a brushy land cover, this chaparral lacks the volatility and denseness of 

some interior (Arizona) chaparral. Brown (1994) describes a “Coahuilan” chaparral subgroup that 

occurs in Mexico, southern New Mexico, and Texas that is highly analogous to Arizona 

chaparral, as is Dick-Peddie’s (1993) “montane scrub” vegetation. These types share many 

species with the park, but the absence of manzanita and presence of grasses create a distinctive 

formation. 

Common species: hairy mountain-mahogany, desert buckbrush, gray oak, scrub oak, sotol, blue 

grama, bush muhly, sand dropseed. 

 Present structure: This vegetation type is dominated by sotol, desert buckbrush, hairy 

mountain-mahogany, scrub oak, and blue grama, with occasional individual faxon yucca and 

alligator juniper plants. There is more shrub cover (~70%) than grass cover (~30%). Areas 

burned in a 1993 fire were reduced to rock and bare soil, but shrubs came back from basal 

sprouting. Combined fires in 1990, 1993, and 1994 burned about 50% of this vegetation type, 

mostly in the northern and eastern parts of the park. 

 Condition class: I. The species composition is normal, but the fire interval is longer than 

natural. Historic fire interval was probably 30-60 years (Wright 1990; Payson et al. 2000). 

 Condition on recent burns: This vegetation type is very resilient. Areas that burned in the 

1990s have mostly recovered. Burned areas have lower shrub cover and shrub height than 

unburned areas, but shrub density and grass cover are about equal. 

 Fuel model: 6 (dormant brush, hardwood slash). 

 Insect/disease: No evidence of problems. 

 Problem invasives in type: Exotic sheep graze here. The extent of non-indigenous grass 

invasion is unknown, but suspected to be minor. 

[Chihuahuan] Semidesert Grassland (143.1 in Brown) 

Desert grassland is most prominent on alluvial fans or bajadas at the base of the escarpment, or on 

the lower slopes that extend toward the desert. 

Common species: blue grama, hairy grama, black grama, bush muhly, cottontop, alkali sacaton, 

honey mesquite, Mormon tea, catclaw acacia, sotol, lechuguilla, ocotillo, soaptree yucca, Spanish 

dagger, encroaching redberry juniper. 
58

 Present structure: This vegetation type is dominated by invasive woody perennials, 

especially redberry juniper and soaptree yucca. Annual herbaceous forbs and cacti are present 

to a lesser extent. There are about 10 dominant species of native grasses, including blue 

grama, three-awn, hairy grama, cane bluestem, alkali sacaton, and sand dropseed. Although 

the current vegetation structure is about 70% grass cover and 30% perennial shrubs, there are 

probably more shrubs than historically present because there is less shrub cover in areas that 

have burned frequently. Furthermore, in 1903 and 1940, prairie dog towns were noted in this 

vegetation type. At present, the area is too woody for prairie dogs. 

 Condition class: II. The historic fire frequency was probably 5-10 years. 

 Condition on recent burns: The 1993 Pine Fire burned a large extent of this vegetation type. 

Some was also burned during the 1997 McKittrick Canyon burn. The fires knocked back 

catclaw mimosa, reduced desert succulents in size but not quantity, and reinvigorated grass 

growth. Annual herbaceous plant diversity increased immediately following the fires, but 

then tapered off. There is presently little visible difference between the 1997 prescribed 

burned and unburned areas. 

 Fuel model: 2 (timber- grass and understory). 

 Insect/disease: None noted. 

 Problem invasives in type: Russian thistle, wooly mullein, Malta star thistle, and horehound 

all readily invade disturbed areas, including burned areas. 

Chihuahuan Desertscrub (153.2 in Brown) 

Considerable portions of the region below the west and east escarpments are dominated by 

microphyllous shrubs. Creosotebush-dominated associations occur on the upper and middle 

bajada west of the Guadalupe Mountains; pink quartz sand dunes, gypsum dunes, and the bolsons 

all support somewhat distinct plant communities. 

Common species: creosotebush, honey mesquite, fourwing saltbush, ocotillo, mariola, tarbush, 

tobosagrass, alkali sacaton, prickly-pear, cholla, kingcup cactus, banana yucca, fluffgrass, bush 

muhly, black grama. 

 Present structure: This vegetation type is dominated by prickly pear, cholla, kingcup cactus, 

sotol, creosotebush, mesquite, yucca, whitethorn acacia, viscid acacia, ocotillo, lechuguilla, 

mariola, javelina bush, range ratany, and crucifixion thorn. Black grama, hairy grama, and 

sand dropseed are also present. The overall structure is characterized by 50% rock and bare 

ground, 20-40% shrub cover, and 10% or less grass cover. There was probably much greater 

grass cover prior to heavy grazing, but it may be impossible to replace grasses because the soil 

is gone. 

 Condition class: II. Grasses are greatly reduced from natural levels. Very infrequent fires are 

likely. 

 Condition on recent burns: No recent burns because fire does not carry in this vegetation 

type. Lightning strikes will burn, for example, a single sotol. 

 Fuel model: No model is assigned to this type because of too little and discontinuous fuels. 

The closest fuel model is 2 (timber- grass and understory), but fuel in this vegetation type is 

too discontinuous to fit. 

 Insect/disease: None noted. 
59

 Problem invasives in type: Exotic sheep. 

Interior Deciduous Forest and Woodland 

Broadleaved deciduous trees grow primarily at springs and in streambeds at low elevations of the 

region and become the dominant growth form on stream terraces and in canyonheads above 4,920 

feet. Deciduous woodland dominants change with location. 

Common species: Rio Grande cottonwood and black willows can occur primarily outside 

canyons, with little walnut inside the canyons, but as the stream gradient increases, Knowlton 

hophornbeam and velvet ash replace these species and are themselves replaced by bigtooth maple, 

chinkapin oak, and Texas madrone, especially on upper terraces, around springs, and in canyon 

heads. McKittrick Canyon provides the best example of this biotic community. 

Other species: western soapberry, alligator juniper, and ponderosa pine 

 Present structure: This vegetation type is dominated by bigtooth maple, ash, madrone, 

chinkapin oak, black willow, western soapberry, and little walnut. There is a fairly 

continuous overstory and the understory is denser than the normal historic level. Redberry 

juniper is becoming established in the understory. Riparian grasses, such as saltgrass, are also 

present. 

 Condition class: II, due to over dense understory. Historically, there were probably low 

intensity fires at intervals synchronized with surrounding vegetation types. Fires covered 

small areas and stand replacing fires were infrequent. 

 Condition on recent burns: This vegetation type was burned in the 1993 Pine Fire and the 

1997 McKittrick Canyon burn. The Pine Fire burned this vegetation type at two springs, 

having a stand-replacing effect at one spring and minimal effects at the other. The McKittrick 

Canyon burn had minimal effects on this vegetation type; the understory returned to pre-fire 

density quickly. 

 Fuel model: Variable, some 2 (timber- grass and understory), some 6 (dormant brush, 

hardwood slash), some 3 (tall grass). 

 Insect/disease: None noted. 

 Problem invasives in type: None observed. 

ZOC Vegetation: 

The Forest Service classifies most of Management Area 3A as pinyon-juniper woodland with an 

understory of grasses, shrubs, and succulents (Great Basin Conifer Woodland, above). Upper 

North McKittrick contains canyon-bottom riparian vegetation composed of species also found in 

the park (Interior Deciduous Forest and Woodland, above). The proposed Research Natural Area 

encompasses a mountain mahogany shrub community that occurs between 6,600 and 7,200 feet 

elevation. According to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988), the RNA designation for 

this area “emphasizes” natural processes, protects natural features, and preserves examples of 

natural ecosystems in an unmodified condition for research and educational purposes. 

In amending the Forest Plan to allow naturally ignited fires to grow to a size greater than 1,000 

acres, the Forest Service acknowledges the role of fire in shaping the Guadalupe Mountains 
60

landscapes. Currently, fires will be suppressed when the value of threatened resources exceeds the 

cost of suppression. Managers are interested in maintaining the mix of higher elevation 

woodlands and lower elevation grasslands and shrublands; to avoid vegetation type conversion, 

crown fires that spread to more than 40% of a stand of ponderosa pine will be suppressed. 

Currently, removal of fine fuels by grazing may limit spread of ground fires, which alters the 

structure and composition of the vegetation over time. The Forest Plan calls for protecting and 

enhancing riparian habitat. 

Impact Topic 5 (Wildlife) 

Wildlife 

From the Chihuahuan desert to the coniferous forest, the mountain's diverse ecosystems are 

habitat to a diverse array of animal species (Appendix D provides scientific names for the 

common names used in the text). The diversity of faunal species in the park is further accentuated 

by the overlap in this area of several biotic regions: Rocky Mountain, Madrean, Chihuahuan 

Desert, and Great Plains. Numerous species reach their limits of distribution in the Guadalupe 

Mountains area. The Guadalupe Mountains uniqueness in this respect is one reason the park was 

established. 

The Guadalupe Mountains are home to 60 species of mammals. Some, such as mountain lion, 

bobcat, and black bear are reclusive, while mule deer are very common and often seen. The park 

also hosts an elk herd introduced in the 1920s by J. C. Hunter (whose lands later became part of 

the park), from populations in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Merriam’s elk had previously 

been hunted out of the Guadalupes and the rest of its range in the southwestern U.S. Smaller 

mammals include coyotes, black-tailed jackrabbits, desert cottontails, ringtails, and gray foxes. 

Rock squirrels are common throughout the park, and the Mexican vole is endemic to the higher 

elevations. Several species of bats may be observed at dusk, including the Brazilian free-tail bat 

and the pallid bat. 

A diverse array of bird species use the park (303 in all) and over 95 species breed here. Many are 

found nowhere else in Texas and are more common elsewhere in North America. Others are more 

easily found to the south, and occur here at the northern extent of their range. The desert lowlands 

are home to several species of sparrows, verdin, the roadrunner, and the cactus wren, to name a 

few. Bird species commonly seen in the middle elevations in the park are the canyon towhee, 

rufous-crowned sparrow, juniper titmouse, western scrub jay, and scaled quail. In summer the 

Scott’s oriole, Say’s phoebe, white-throated swifts, and turkey vultures are commonly present. 

The high country forests of Douglas-fir and western white and ponderosa pine provide an entirely 

different habitat for birds such as mountain chickadee, Steller’s jay, red-breasted nuthatch, pygmy 

nuthatch, red crossbill, and hairy woodpecker. Birdwatchers who come to the park hope to see 

rare magnificent and blue-throated hummingbirds and Montezuma quail. 

The park hosts 46 reptiles, and 9 amphibians. Several lizard species are a common sight in the 

park, particularly the southwestern fence lizard, the Chihuahuan spotted whiptail, Hernandez’s 

short-horned lizard, and Big Bend tree lizard. The western diamond-backed rattlesnake, striped 

whipsnake, and mountain patch-nosed snake are also common. The more common amphibians in 

the park include the Rio Grande leopard frog, Couch's spadefoot, and red-spotted toad. 
61

Changes in fire regime as discussed under Vegetation, above, are thought to have had profound 

effects on the natural diversity, abundance, and distribution of wildlife in the park. In addition, the 

fire suppression activities themselves can affect wildlife through direct disturbance of animals and 

habitats. 

ZOC Wildlife: 

Forest visitors may encounter turkeys, deer, elk, coyotes, mountain lions, raccoons, squirrels, 

bobcats, skunks, badgers, and porcupines. 

The Forest Service manages for “indicator species” whose presence is related to intact ecosystem 

structure and function. The Lincoln National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986) lists the 

following pairs of indicator animal species and plant communities/vegetation structural 

components: 

Meadowlark: Grama Galleta Grassland (open weedy grassland) 

Rufous crowned sparrow: Desert Shrub (brushy mountain slopes) 

Mule deer: Woodland (scrubby cover, browse species present, closed landscape) 

Plain titmouse: Woodland (trees with natural cavities) 

Pygmy nuthatch: Ponderosa Pine (snags and large trees) 

Elk: Mixed Conifer (conifer forest, mountain meadows, and areas with little or no grazing) 

Mexican vole: Mixed Conifer (mesic mountain meadows) 

Hairy woodpecker: Aspen (aspen snags and mature aspen) 

Red squirrel: Englemann spruce (mixed conifer forest with interlocking crowns and trees of conebearing age) 

Mule deer, juniper (plain) titmouse, pygmy nuthatch, elk, and Mexican vole are species most 

likely to be found in the ZOC. 

Impact Topic 6 (Unique Sites and Sensitive Species) 

The U.S. Congress set aside Guadalupe Mountains National Park to preserve “outstanding 

geological values together with scenic and other natural values of great significance.” Geological 

resources are discussed under Impact Topic 8; the “other natural values” of concern appear below. 

McKittrick Canyon 

McKittrick Canyon sits along the eastern side of the Guadalupe Mountains along the New 

Mexico-Texas border, and forms the cornerstone of what has become Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park. Within the towering walls exists an environment of diversity and contrast, one that 

has been termed “the most beautiful spot in Texas.” The canyon cuts a 2,000-foot deep chasm 

through the Permian limestone of the escarpment and contains a small, discontinuous, spring-fed 

stream. This perennial water, and the shade and cooler temperatures created by the sheltering 

canyon, sustains a riparian ecosystem apparent for its contrast with the surrounding Chihuahuan 

desert beyond. The canyon is also noted for the assemblage of species that occur within its 
62

confines, representing such distinct life zones as the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, and the 

northern hardwood forests. 

McKittrick Canyon also stands out for its long human history, perhaps due to the perennial water 

found here. The McKittrick Canyon Archeological District preserves the heritage of human use 

and occupation of this unique oasis in the desert. According to archeological evidence unearthed 

in and near the canyon, the earliest inhabitants occupied the area over 12,000 years ago. Much 

later in history, the Mescalero Apaches inhabited the canyon. In more recent history, Wallace E. 

Pratt, a young geologist captivated by the beauty and geology of the canyon, built a cabin in 

1931-32 at the confluence of North and South McKittrick. Built only of stone and wood, the cabin 

served as his part-time home and summer retreat. 

Riparian Habitat 

At least 90 taxa of aquatic invertebrates have been found in McKittrick Canyon (Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park 1996), which supports fish and amphibians not found elsewhere in the 

park. An abundance of grasses and flowering forbs also find a home here, including the rare 

Chaplin’s Columbine. This small plant with its delicate yellow flower can be found adjacent to 

the creek or growing along seeps in the canyon walls. Tree species are also found along the creek, 

such as bigtooth maple and velvet ash. From late October to early November the foliage of these 

trees turns to brilliant reds, oranges, and yellows, creating a scene unusual in this part of Texas 

and drawing thousands of visitors to the canyon each year. 

Springs 

A number of springs, mostly near the base of the south end of the escarpment, are habitat for 

water-loving plants, important sustainers of wildlife, and popular sites for visitors. Visitors to 

Frijole Ranch can easily reach Smith and Manzanita springs via the Smith Spring trail. 

Springflows tend to be sensitive to vegetation dynamics; removing vegetation can free up water 

and increase flows, but intact canopies of plants occurring around springs help keep spring areas 

from drying out. 

Benchmark for the Middle Permian 

The strata that define the international standard for the Middle Permian (geologic) period are 

located in Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The Middle Permian benchmark is composed of 

three stratotype sections in three locations—Getaway Ledge, Stratotype Canyon, and Nipple Hill. 

Research Natural Areas 

Three areas in the park have been nominated for designation as Research Natural Areas due to 

their unique natural features, condition and scientific interest. These areas are (1) Devil's Den 

Canyon, (2) Upper South McKittrick Canyon (above Hunter Line Cabin), and (3) The Middle 

Fork of North McKittrick Canyon. The park manages these areas as closed to all use except 

authorized research. Wildland fire use can be permitted in these areas. 

Wilderness 

Approximately 46,850 acres in Guadalupe Mountains National Park is designated wilderness. The 

area is generally defined by the Frijole Ridge escarpment on the east and the foothills of the 

Brokeoff Mountains on the west, extending south just beyond El Capitan Peak (see Figure III-2). 
63

Elevations within the wilderness range from 4,000 feet to approximately 8,600 feet near the 

summit of Guadalupe Peak. In addition to designated wilderness, much of the remaining park 

backcountry is managed as wilderness. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness as “an area where the earth and its community of 

life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” The Act 

states that except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the 

area for the purpose of the Act, including health and safety emergencies, there shall be no 

permanent or temporary road, no use of motor vehicles or motorized equipment, no landing of 

aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any 

Wilderness area. The Act contains a special provision for the use of aircraft when necessary to 

control fire. NPS Management Policies direct that fire management activities in wilderness areas 

conform to the basic purposes of wilderness; actions taken to suppress wildland fires in 

wilderness areas must use the minimum tool concept to protect natural and cultural features and to 

minimize the lasting impacts of the suppression actions. 
64

Figure III-2. Park map showing wilderness boundary 
65

Special-Status Plants 

A number of Federal and State-listed plant species occur within Guadalupe Mountains National 

Park. There are no species currently listed as Federal threatened or endangered, and only one 

species as threatened by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). There are a number 

of USFWS species of concern—this is an informal designation for species in need of concentrated 

conservation actions, depending on the status of the population and the type and degree of threats. 

An inventory of the plants listed, proposed for listing, and recognized as requiring special 

consideration follows in Table III-1. The plants considered most at risk in the event of a highintensity fire are discussed below. 

Guadalupe fescue 

This species is a candidate for listing as threatened or endangered. Guadalupe fescue is a loosely 

tufted perennial grass 17 to 32 inches tall with slender stems and rough leaves curving upward 

from a rhizomatous base. The 1931 type locality for Guadalupe fescue is in South McKittrick 

Canyon near Pratt Cabin, where it was recorded from “shaded moist slopes” along the creek at 

6,500 feet elevation (Aiken et al. 1996). The grass has not been documented in the park since a 

1952 collection by Hubert Nixon and is thought to be extirpated in the Guadalupe Mountains. It is 

considered highly palatable to grazers, and grazing pressure prior to the establishment of the park 

in 1972 may have led to its disappearance (Desert Botanical Garden 1999). Currently the only 

known population in the United States occurs in the Chisos Mountains of Big Bend National 

Park. It is not known whether fire would potentially benefit this species’ habitat. Plants are often 

found scattered in patches in the dense understory of pine-oak-juniper woodlands. 

Guadalupe mescal bean 

Guadalupe mescal bean is an evergreen shrub restricted to sandy, gypseous soils in the Guadalupe 

Mountains of Texas and New Mexico (Sivinski 1999). Its habitat is Chihuahuan desertscrub and 

juniper savanna between 5,260 and 6,650 feet elevation. It has no status with USFWS, but is 

protected by the Forest Service and states of Texas and New Mexico. 

Guadalupe violet 

The Guadalupe violet was discovered in the park in 1987 in a limestone crevice on the eastern lip 

of the mountain (Powell and Wauer 1990). The plant is an herbaceous perennial that grows to 6 to 

12 inches. It is thought to be a relict from wetter times and is currently only known from the park. 

It is a Federal species of concern and considered critically imperiled in the state of Texas. 

Chisos agave, gypsum wild buckwheat, paper spine cactus and Guadalupe Mountains aster are all 

rare plants that have been documented in the Guadalupe Mountains region but not in the park. 
66

Table III-1. Sensitive Plants Associated with Guadalupe Mountains National Park or the 

Lincoln National Forest Zone of Cooperation under Alternative B 

Common 

Name 

Scientific Name Statusa Habitat 

Species occurring on rocky ledges or in other areas relatively protected from fire: 

Chaplin’s 

golden 

columbine 

Aquilegia 

chrysantha var.

chaplinei 

USFS, S1, SOC-NM Wet, limestone crevices and gravel 

alluvium—areas where moisture causes 

fire to lay down 

Gypsum 

milkvetch 

Astragalus 

gypsodes 

S2, SOC-NM Gypseous soils in Chihuahuan desert 

scrub—sites where fire doesn’t carry 

because of widely spaced vegetation 

Payson’s 

hiddenflower 

Cryptantha paysonii (regional endemic) Rocky limestone slopes 

Guadalupe 

rabbitbrush 

Chrysothamnus 

nauseosa var.

texensis 

SOC-F, USFS, S1 In crevices on faces of limestone cliffs and 

huge boulders; seen after 1990 Frijole and 

1993 Pine Fires around Smith Spring 

Guadalupe 

pincushion 

cactus 

Escobaria 

guadalupensis 

SOC-F, USFS, S1 Limestone crevices and rocky soils in open 

woodland; park staff have seen similarly 

sized hedgehog cacti survive fires 

McKittrick 

pennyroyal 

Hedeoma 

apiculatum

SOC-F, USFS, S2 

(DL), SOC-NM 

Limestone cliff crevices, bottoms and 

slopes of several drainages; no changes to 

study plot population size observed after 

1990 Frijole Fire 

Burgess’ 

broomsage 

Lepidospartum 

burgessii 

SOC-F, S1, E-NM Stabilized gypsum dunes –sites where fire 

doesn’t carry because of widely spaced 

vegetation 

Cardinal 

penstemon 

Penstemon 

cardinalis ssp.

Regalis 

USFS, S2, SOC-NM Limestone ledges and gravel alluvium; 

plant observed in burned over gravel areas 

after 1993 Pine Fire 

Fiveflower 

rockdaisy 

Perityle 

quinqueflora 

SOC-NM Limestone cliffs and canyon bottoms–sites 

where fire doesn’t carry because of widely 

spaced vegetation 

Guadalupe 

milkwort 

Polygala rimulicola 

var. rimulicola 

SOC-NM Limestone cliffs and canyon bottoms 

Warnock's 

ragwort 

Senecio warnockii (regional endemic) Known from one location in the park; 

restricted to gypsum 
67

Common 

Name 

Scientific Name Statusa Habitat 

Sparseflower 

jewelflower 

Streptanthus 

sparsiflorus 

SOC-F, S2, SOCNM Gravel alluvium and limestone ledges in 

canyon bottoms; regeneration observed 

after the 1993 Pine Fire in Pine Springs and 

Smith Canyon draws 

Guadalupe 

valerian 

Valeriana texana S3, SOC-NM More mesic crevices in limestone cliffs and 

ledges above 6,000 feet—sites where fire 

doesn’t carry because of widely spaced 

vegetation 

Mat leastdaisy Chaetopappa 

hersheyi 

SOC-F Limestone cliff crevices where fire 

wouldn’t carry on the surface, but where 

intense fire in overstory could shower 

down embers 

Species whose entire known population might be affected by a high-intensity fire: 

Guadalupe 

mescal bean 

Sophora gypsophila 

var. guadalupensis 

USFS, S1, SOC-NM Mostly restricted to a gypsum outcrop in a 

single drainage near the north edge of the 

park, west of Dog Canyon; population 

survived the 1994 Marcus Fire 

Guadalupe 

violet 

Viola guadalupensis SOC-F, S1 Limestone crevice on east side of 

mountains; plants would be threatened 

directly by fire or indirectly by habitat 

change if two Douglas-firs immediately 

adjacent burned 

Likely fire-adapted species occurring in fire-prone habitats: 

Glass 

Mountain 

coralroot 

Hexalectris nitida SOC-F, USFS, ENM 

Oak humus in well-drained, gravelly areas.

Chisos 

coralroot 

Hexalectris revoluta S1 Humus in oak groves along rocky 

creekbeds in mountain canyons 

Biennial 

woolywhite 

Hymenopappus 

biennis 

S2 Rocky soils in grasslands and open 

woodlands above 6,000 feet; thrived after 

1990 Frijole fire and not seen as dense 

since 2-3 years post-fire 

Strong 

bladderpod 

Lesquerella valida S1 Open slopes; hasn’t been seen in recent 

years 
68

Common 

Name 

Scientific Name Statusa Habitat 

Trans Pecos 

beargrass 

Nolina arenicola SOC-F, S2 Sand dune areas and shrublands on steep 

limestone slopes; observed to resprout after 

moderate-intensity fire 

Culberson 

County 

skullcap 

Scutellaria laevis SOC-F, S1 Mountain slopes and along arroyos, 3,900 

feet to 6,000 feet 

Rare species once found in the park but no longer known from the park: 

Guadalupe 

fescue 

Festuca ligulata C-F, S1 Pine-oak-juniper woodlands 

McKittrick's 

snowberry 

Symphoricarpos 

guadalupensis 

SOC-F, SH Understory component in Ponderosa pineDouglas fir forests; collected once then 

never seen again 

 

Rare species known from the region but not found at the park to date: 

Chisos agave Agave 

glomeruliflora 

SOC-F, S1, USFS Chihuahuan desert grassland slopes in W. 

TX; hybrid origin—reported by Gentry 

(1982) in the Guadalupe Mtns; could be 

affected by high-intensity fire 

Gypsum wildbuckwheat 

Eriogonum 

gypsophilum 

T-F Known only from three locations in Eddy 

Co., New Mexico; restricted to soils that 

are almost pure gypsum 

Paper spine Sclerocactus 

papyracanthus 

SOC-F, S1 Gypsum flats 

Guadalupe 

Mountains 

aster 

*Symphyotrichum 

laeve var. geyeri 

S1 Limestone soils along streams and wooded 

canyons above 5,000 feet, limited 

distribution 

*name (Aster laevis var. guadalupensis) updated according to National Plant Data Center (plants.usda.gov 2003) 

a Status: 

T-F=Federal Threatened 

C-F=Candidate for listing as Federal Threatened or Endangered 

SOC-F= Federal Species of Concern 

SOC-NM = New Mexico Species of Concern 

USFS=USDA Forest Service, Region 3 sensitive 

E-NM= New Mexico Endangered 

T-NM= New Mexico Threatened 

DL = De-listed 

Rank (State): 

S1=less than 6 occurrences known in State; critically imperiled in State; especially vulnerable to extirpation 
69

S2=6-20 known occurrences in State; imperiled in the state because of rarity; very vulnerable to extirpation 

S3=21-100 known occurrences in State; either rare or uncommon in State; vulnerable to extirpation 

SH= historical in Texas; not verified within the past 50 years but suspected to be extant 

Sources: 

Agency Status of NM Rare Plants. New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 

Nmrareplants.unm.edu/nmrptc/agency.htm (no date found). 

A List of the Rare Plants of Texas, January 2002 edition. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 

Federal Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and Species of Concern in New Mexico. 

May 2003 revision. 

Federally Listed as Threatened and Endangered Species of Texas. June 24, 2003. 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant and Animal Species List dated July 21, 1999. 

Special-Status Animals 

Table III-2 presents special status (federal and state) animal species known to be, or potentially 

could be, present in Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The following species have federal 

status and were treated in the Biological Assessment prepared for USFWS: 

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)

Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 

Northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis)

Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) 

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 

Only the Mexican spotted owl (MSO) is fully developed in the Biological Assessment because it 

alone received a “likely to adversely affect” determination relative to fire program activities at the 

park. The range-wide 1990 population estimate for the southwestern United States was 2,160 

birds. MSO has declined because of habitat loss and alteration. It is extremely rare and local in 

Texas. Harvest of old-growth timber stands, even-aged timber harvest systems, and wildland fires 

have contributed to loss of habitat. In Texas, MSO have been seen in or near Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park, and on property of The Nature Conservancy in the Davis Mountains of 

Jeff Davis County. The owls have never been found in any other mountain ranges in Texas. 
70

Table III-2. Special Status Wildlife Species Associated with Guadalupe Mountains National 

Park or the Lincoln National Forest Zone of Cooperation under Alternative B 

Common 

Name Species Name Statusa Habitat 

 

Species that require special consideration relative to fire activities: 

Mexican 

spotted owl 

Strix occidentalis lucida T-F, T-T, 

USFS 

Mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and 

pinyon-juniper; steep slopes and 

canyons with rocky cliffs between 

5,300 feet and 6,500 feet; rare, 

breeder 

Species that may require consideration relative to fire activities: 

Northern 

goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis SOC-F, USFS Inhabits mature forest; occasional 

spring or fall visitor to the park 

Western 

burrowing 

owl 

Athene cunicularia 

hypugea 

SOC-F Grasslands/shrublands, often use the 

burrows of prairie dogs and other 

burrowing animals; rare; occurs in 

only burnable part of the salt flat area 

(NW corner); more frequent fire 

would likely create more habitat 

Yellowbilled cuckoo 

Coccyzus americanus C-F, USFS Records from 1991 and 1996 in 

mouth of McKittrick Canyon 

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat 

Corynorhinus townsendii SOC-F Roosts in caves and mine shafts 

where it may be sensitive to smoke 

Black-tailed 

prairie dog 

Cynomys ludovicianus C-F Historically present but currently 

absent from NW corner salt flat area; 

more frequent fire would likely create 

more habitat 

Black-footed 

ferret 

Mustela nigripes E-F, E-TX Associated with black-tailed prairie 

dog towns 

Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii USFS, T-NM Prefers dense, low, shrubby 

vegetation in riparian areas 

Likely fire-adapted species using fire-prone habitats:

Limestone 

tiger beetle 

Cicindela politula 

petrophila 

SOC-F Limestone outcrops and crevices 
71

Common 

Name Species Name Statusa Habitat 

Ferruginous 

hawk 

Buteo regalis SOC-TX, 

SOC-NM, 

USFS 

Low-lying areas in desertscrub and 

desert grassland; transient 

American 

peregrine 

falcon 

Falco peregrinus anatum SOC-F, E-TX, 

USFS 

Canyons and rocky terrain, nests in 

cliffs; rare, breeder; recently removed 

from endangered species list 

Texas horned 

lizard 

Phrynosoma cornutum SOC-F, T-TX Desertscrub and desert grassland, near 

populations of harvester ant; common 

Hernandez’s 

short-horned 

lizard

Phrynosoma hernandesi 

hernandesi 

T-TX Forested areas and semiarid plains at 

higher elevations; common 

Guadalupe 

southern 

pocket 

gopher 

Thomomys umbrinus 

guadalupensis 

SOC-F, TNM, USFS Montane and valley areas in shallow 

rocky soils, often associated with 

lechuguilla (Agave lechuguilla); 

uncommon 

Black bear Ursus americanus T-TX Remote mountainous areas or thickets 

along watercourses; uncommon 

Rare species known from the region but not found at the park to date:

Southwestern 

willow 

flycatcher 

Empidonax trailii 

extimus 

E-F, E-TX, ENM No valid records; likely prefers more 

densely vegetated riparian habitat 

than present at park 

Northern 

aplomado 

falcon 

Falco femoralis 

septentriolnalis 

E-F, E-TX, ENM If species recovers, might use park’s 

west-side grasslands 

a Status: 

E-F=Federal Endangered 

T-F=Federal Threatened 

C-F=Candidate for listing as Federal Threatened or Endangered 

SOC-F= Federal Species of Concern 

SOC-NM = New Mexico Species of Concern 

SOC-TX = Texas Species of Concern 

USFS=USDA Forest Service, Region 3 sensitive 

E-NM= New Mexico Endangered 

T-NM= New Mexico Threatened 

E-TX= Texas Endangered 

T-TX= Texas Threatened 

Sources: 

Federal Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and Species of Concern in New Mexico. 

May 2003 revision. 
72

Federally Listed as Threatened and Endangered Species of Texas. June 24, 2003. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. www.tpwd.state.tx.us 

Federal Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species and Species of Concern in New Mexico. 

May 2003 revision. 

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant and Animal Species List dated July 21, 1999. 

ZOC Unique Sites and Sensitive Species: In managing the Guadalupe Ranger District as 

wilderness, the Forest Service is particularly interested in protecting limestone caves, the RNA, 

and Mexican spotted owl. Caves will be managed as wild, but gated according to their unique 

content and hazards to cavers. 

The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986—Table 14) lists 12 sensitive plant species in 

Management Area 3A (brackets denote common named used by USFS): 

 Mat least daisy [Hershey’s cliff daisy] (Chaetopappa hersheyi) 

 Guadalupe rabbitbrush [rubber rabbitbrush] (Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. texensis) 

 Lee’s pincushion cactus (Coryphantha sneedii var. leei)

 Sneed’s pincushion cactus (Coryphantha sneedii var. sneedii) 

 Guadalupe pincushion cactus [Guadalupe mountain foxtail cactus] (Escobaria guadalupensis)

in the Guadalupe Mountains (Baker and Johnson 2000) 

 McKittrick pennyroyal (Hedeoma apiculatum) 

 Guadalupe milkwort [Steyermark's milkwort] (Polygala rimulicola) 

 Summa sage (Salvia summa) 

 Guadalupe mescal bean (Sophora gypsophila var. guadalupensis) 

 Lyreleaf jewelflower (Streptanthus carinatus)

 Sparseflower jewelflower [Guadalupe jewelflower] (Streptanthus sparsiflorus) 

 Guadalupe valerian [Texas tobacco root] (Valeriana texana)

Four plants from the above list were not included in Table III-1 (Sensitive Plants of Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park). Baker and Johnson (2000) assign both Coryphantha sneedii varieties 

to the genus Escobaria. Their work shows that the Coryphantha sneedii in Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park is actually Escobaria guadalupensis, which is listed in Table III-1. Streptanthus 

carinatus was initially thought to be rarer than it actually is. Salvia summa is considered rare, but 

found in sufficient numbers and widely distributed enough to persist (Worthington 1999). 

North of the park boundary Mexican spotted owl pairs have been found in canyon habitat and 

vegetation structure similar to the park (Larry Paul, Lincoln National Forest Guadalupe Ranger 

District Biologist, personal communication).

Impact Topic 7 (Non-indigenous Species) 

Table III-3 lists 50 non-indigenous plant species for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. In 

addition, non-indigenous animals inhabit the park, including deliberate introductions of elk and 
73

rainbow trout. These imports from elsewhere can have species, community-level, or ecosystemlevel effects, by (1) significantly altering natural processes such as fire regimes, nutrient cycling, 

hydrology, or successional patterns, (2) by altering species composition and reducing populations 

of native species, or (3) through hybridization with native species. Some species are disruptive if 

they affect localized resources such as archeological features or scenic qualities on a broad scale. 

Most non-indigenous plant species enter the park from nearby infested areas by vegetative 

growth, by windblown seed, or being carried by birds, mammals, or people (and their vehicles). 

Barbary sheep (Ammotragus lervia), escaped from a game ranch in the Sacramento Mountains to 

the north in the late 1950s, fill the niche formerly occupied by native bighorns (Ovis canadensis).

There are the non-indigenous but historically meaningful rainbow trout put in McKittrick Creek 

by Judge Hunter. Elk now inhabiting the park were brought in from Rocky Mountain populations 

after native elk were extirpated. 

Table III-3. Non-indigenous Plant Species at Guadalupe Mountains National Park 

(3-13-02 list) 

 

Common Name Scientific Name Family 

Trees 

Salt cedar* ** Tamarix ramosissima Tamaricaceae 

French tamarisk* ** Tamarix gallica 

Chinese elm Ulmus pumila Ulmaceae 

Grasses and Forbs 

Bishop’s weed Ammi visnaga Apiaceae 

Wild celery Apium graveolens Apiaceae 

Wild oat Avena fatua Poaceae 

Japanese brome Bromus japonicus Poaceae 

Cheatgrass Bromus tectorum Poaceae 

Rescuegrass Bromus unioloides Poaceae 

Desert Bird-of-paradise Caesalpinia gilliesii Fabaceae 

Malta starthistle* Centaurea melitensis Asteraceae 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis Convolvulaceae 

Shining tickseed Corispermum nitidum Chenopodiaceae 

Bermuda grass* Cynodon dactylon Poaceae 

Flixweed tansymustard Descurainia sophia Brassicaceae 

Barnyardgrass Echinochloa crus-galli Poaceae 

Mediterranean lovegrass Eragrostis barrelieri Poaceae 

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis Poaceae 

Spreading lovegrass Eragrostis pectinacea Poaceae 

Eragrostis pectinacea var. miserrima Poaceae 

Filaree Erodium cicutarium Geraniaceae 

Common horehound* Marrubium vulgare Lamiaceae 
74

 

Common Name Scientific Name Family 

Black medic Medicago lupulina Fabaceae 

Alfalfa Medicago sativa Fabaceae 

White sweetclover Melilotus albus Fabaceae 

Spearmint Mentha spicata Lamiaceae 

Blue panicum Panicum antidotale Poaceae 

Broomcorn millet Panicum miliaceum Poaceae 

African rue* Peganum harmala Rutaceae 

Buckhorn plantain Plantago lanceolata Plantaginaceae 

Broadleaf plantain Plantago major Plantaginaceae 

Annual bluegrass Poa annua Poaceae 

Rabbitfoot grass Polypogon monspeliensis Poaceae 

Bluebunch wheatgrass Pseudoroegneria spicata Poaceae 

Watercress Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Brassicaceae 

Asian tumbleweed** Salsola collina Chenopodiaceae 

Russian thistle** Salsola tragus Chenopodiaceae 

Yellow bristlegrass Setaria glauca Poaceae 

Green bristlegrass Setaria viridis Poaceae 

Forked catchfly Silene gallica Caryophyllaceae 

Prickly sowthistle Sonchus asper Asteraceae 

Common sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus Asteraceae 

Johnson grass* Sorghum halepense Poaceae 

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale Asteraceae 

Salsify Tragopogon dubius Asteraceae 

Oyster-root Tragopogon porrifolius Asteraceae 

Spike burgrass Tragus berterorianus Asteraceae 

Puncture vine* Tribulus terrestris Zygophyllaceae 

Wheat Triticum aestivum Poaceae 

Woolly mullein** Verbascum thapsus Scrophulariaceae 

Spiny cocklebur** Xanthium spinosum Asteraceae 

* target species of the NPS Chihuahuan Desert Exotic Plant Management Team 

**target species of park eradication efforts
75

The NPS Chihuahuan Desert Exotic Plant Management Team has identified 7 species of 

particular concern whose biology is reviewed below. Information for all but African rue comes 

from Guertin and Halvorson (2003), an in-depth review of NPS-selected exotics completed for 

southern Arizona parks that contain many of the same exotic species found in the Guadalupes. 

Park staff also supplemented the list with park specific information. 

 Malta starthistle is an Old World winter annual (sometimes biennial) whose seeds germinate 

with fall rains. Seeds are dispersed short distances by wind and longer distances via 

movements of humans, animals, water, and soil. Vehicles transport seeds on tires, facilitating 

distribution along roadsides. The plant is mainly found along roads at Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park but has recently been found along trails, presumably from seed transported in 

boot treads. Research is needed regarding effects of fire on this species; experimental 

herbicide treatments are underway. 

 Bermuda grass is a long-lived perennial that reproduces via rhizomes (below ground), stolons 

(above ground), and seeds. It is wind-pollinated, and seeds disperse via water and soil 

movement, machinery, and human activities. They can pass through animals and stay viable. 

It lives in open sites that experience disturbance and also low-lying, moist areas. Rhizomes 

can resprout after topkill. At this time Bermuda grass is restricted to Frijole Ranch and is not 

viewed as potentially spreading (or controlled) by fire management activities. 

 Horehound is a drought-tolerant Old World perennial that reproduces by seeds. It may be selffertile. Spiny, hooked seeds attach easily to animal fur and human clothing; they also spread 

by water and vehicles. Horehound establishes on infertile soils and is often the first colonizer 

in eroded areas. At the park it occupies old home- or ranch-sites and stockpens. The Frijole 

Ranch area is a hotbed of horehound production. 

 African rue is an Old World perennial that reproduces primarily by seeds but can produce new 

shoots when severed (CA Department of Fish and Game 2003). Seeds fall near parent plants 

and are spread by water, humans, machinery, and animal feet, fur, and feathers. It does well 

along dry roadsides and on degraded rangelands and can tolerate saline conditions. It dies 

back in winter and has a long, deep taproot. There is one patch of African rue at the park—

half of the area is a mixture of rue and grasses, and the other half is a mixture of rue and 

creosote bush. Fuel loads at this location are too low to carry fire. Herbicide treatments are 

underway. 

 Perennial Johnson grass reproduces via seeds and rhizomes that produce plants more quickly 

than seeds. It withstands high levels of desiccation and other adverse conditions, and heat (up 

to 90o F) increases sprouting. Seeds drop near parents and can be spread by wind and water, 

ingestion by birds and cattle, as contaminants in grain and hay, and by farm equipment. It 

prefers depressions, roadsides, riparian areas, and cultivated fields. Johnson grass invades 

native grasslands after flooding. Its size, fast-growing sprouts, and dense patches help it 

outcompete smaller natives. Johnson grass occurs in roadside ditches, near the Dog Canyon 

horse corral, and by the Pine Springs maintenance area. The park would be unlikely to burn in 

these places since they are close to developments. 

 
76

 Salt cedar and French tamarisk have been planted for erosion control and windbreaks and 

began invading riparian areas in the Southwest in the late 1800s. The trees spread via prolific 

seed production, resprouting, and layering. Disturbance is not a prerequisite for colonization. 

A few trees were present along roads and old ranch areas. They have been removed and 

successfully treated, however, the western addition to the park is geographically close to 

several thickets of salt cedar in the Dell Valley. 

 Puncture vine is a prostrate, mat-forming summer annual. Seedlings emerge with early spring 

moisture flushes and do best in dry, sandy, uncompacted soil. It self-pollinates and likes 

barren areas and hot summers. Seeds are burrs that easily stick to animals, humans, and tires. 

Puncture vine populations can explode over a short time thanks to long-term viability of seeds 

in soil. The plant occurs in the park near the maintenance yard and housing areas. 

Park staff are also actively eradicating the species described below (Guertin and Halvorson 2003): 

 Asian tumbleweed and Russian thistle are warm-season annuals that reproduce by seed and 

occupy disturbed areas. They are wind pollinated, and seeds disperse when the wind breaks 

off mature plants at the base and rolls them across the landscape. Plants tolerate hot, very dry 

conditions. Tumbleweeds inhabit a large area by the Butterfield Station interpretive stop car 

park. The populations wax and wane with rainfall. Park staff will be trying removal of 

seedlings to control plants at the Dog Canyon horse corral. 

 Woolly mullein is an herbaceous biennial or annual that invades open disturbed areas, 

wetlands, and meadows. Seeds germinate with summer rains, and likelihood of survival to a 

second year increases with earlier germination. Tiny seeds are viable for decades; they slip 

below the soil surface and are brought back with disturbance. The plant generally disappears 

as bare areas become vegetated. In the park, mullein is found in Dog Canyon, in the Bowl, 

and along roadsides. It seems to show up any place horses can get to. 

 Spiny cocklebur invades open areas such as roadsides, pastures, meadows, and disturbed 

places. This annual is common along waterways and moist areas. Burs hitchhike on humans 

and animals and can float. Germination occurs with summer rains. Cocklebur occurs only 

around the housing area. 

ZOC Non-indigenous Species: Non-indigenous species are not a concern at this time in the 

Guadalupe Ranger District. The Forest Plan prohibits “...introduction of exotic or non-indigenous 

wildlife species onto the forest unless appropriate studies and experience indicate minimal 

impacts on indigenous and native species.” 

Impact Topic 8 (Geology and Geohazards) 

The Guadalupe Mountains are world-renowned for their geology. Geologists assign the 

Guadalupe Mountains to Trans-Pecos Texas, a mixed-age, mixed-origin basin-and-range complex 

studied extensively due to its association with the energy-rich Permian Basin (Brand and Jacka 

1979). The Guadalupe Mountains are a highly dissected and eastward tilted plateau, extending 
77

approximately 10 miles into Texas from the New Mexico border and forming a wedge that comes 

to a point at El Capitan Peak. El Capitan is an exposed remnant of a marine fossil reef formed 

about 250 million years ago. At that time a vast tropical ocean covered portions of present-day 

Texas and New Mexico. Over millions of years, the calcareous skeletons of marine organisms, 

along with lime precipitated from the seawater, built up to form the 400-mile-long, horseshoeshaped Capitan Reef. The ancient reef complex now towers above the Chihuahuan Desert in the 

Guadalupe Mountains in a general northeast trend, and forms the escarpment on the eastern side 

of the wedge. The western side of the wedge, composed of the Brokeoff Mountains, exhibits a 

northwesterly trend. Extensive bajadas have developed along the western foothills where streams 

have deposited material in gently sloping fans. 

Park elevations range from 3,650 feet to 8,749 feet on Guadalupe Peak, the highest point in 

Texas. Desert floor terrain is relatively level. In contrast, the topography of the escarpment is 

severe. Steep talus slopes, sheer cliffs, decomposing rock ledges, and long side canyons hamper 

access to the park’s high country. There are 32 known caves in the park, as well. 

Most of the water sources of the Guadalupe Mountains originate in the higher mountains that rim 

the upper region and appear as springs and seeps at the base of the escarpment. Springs and 

tributaries between mountain peaks and ridges are few. Water resources in the park are rare, with 

only nine permanent springs identified, although numerous intermittent springs and seeps exist. 

Streams cut across rock layers, allowing the ground waters to drain into the canyons. Surface 

waters tend not to collect, and streams are intermittent due to the permeability of the substrata. In 

general, drainage is rapid in the mountains, slow in the basins, and absent in the bolsons. Flash 

floods are frequent after intense summer storms. 

Upland soils are mostly light reddish brown to brown clay loams, clays, and sands over reddish, 

loamy to clayey, calcareous, gypsic or saline subsoils. These include many areas of shallow soils 

and rocklands. Sizeable areas of deep sands exist. Soils differ considerably as a function of both 

elevation and aspect in the Guadalupe Mountains. As elevation increases, more leaching of 

CaCO3 is evident; soils also become more clayey, contain more organic matter, and show 

decreased percent base saturation. Soils on north aspects, compared to south aspects, exhibit 

similar trends. 

The fossil reef and associated sedimentary layers contain a rich assemblage of Permian period 

fossils. Sponges, fusilinids, brachiopods, and ammonoids are among the many fossils found there. 

For many species, this is the type locality of that fossil and it is known from few if any other 

places. The biggest threat from fire to these resources is fire suppression activities. 

ZOC Geology and Geohazards: Like the park, the Lincoln National Forest lands included under 

Alternative B are characterized by very steep slopes, with caves also a prominent geologic 

feature. 

Impact Topic 9 (Air Quality) 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park was designated as a Class I airshed by the 1977 amendments 

to the Clean Air Act (Public Law 95-217). Air quality of the Guadalupe Mountains region has 
78

historically been excellent; visibility at Guadalupe Mountains averages 80 miles and can exceed 

155 miles on the clearest days. Dust, particularly during the spring windy season, decreases 

visibility, and pollution from sources in the region’s metropolitan areas, power plants, and 

smelters is increasing. Haze has reduced visibility at times to less than 50 miles and presently 

maximum visibility only occurs one percent of the time, with a fifty percent reduction fifty 

percent of the time. The net effect has been a measurable reduction in visibility, which is of 

paramount importance to visitor appreciation of the mountain and its environs. Smoke 

management is a factor in fire planning, but in general, smoke dispersion is excellent. 

As specified by Section 118 of the Clean Air Act, (42 USC 7418), amended in 1992, NPS fire 

management activities that result in the discharge of air pollutants (e.g., smoke, carbon monoxide, 

and other pollutants from fires) are subject to, and must comply with, all applicable Federal, state, 

interstate, and local air pollution control requirements. Guadalupe Mountains National Park is 

required to obtain necessary permits for prescribed fires, comply with the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) both inside and outside unit boundaries, and protect visibility 

according to its congressionally mandated Class I area status. Air quality monitoring at 

Guadalupe Mountains has been ongoing since 1987 and currently the NPS operates a sampling 

station at Signal Peak, with 24-hour sampling analyzing particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxide, and heavy metals. Baseline ozone data was collected from 1987 to 1992. 

ZOC Air Quality: The Forest Plan dictates that management activities will result in air quality 

equal to or better than that required by the applicable federal, state, and local standards or 

regulations. The USFS will monitor air quality at the minimum level necessary to comply with 

the Clean Air Act. 
79

Chapter IV: Environmental Consequences 

The new fire management program is predicted to have positive environmental consequences. 

The nature of fire, however, does not allow us to guarantee that there will not be negative effects. 

In general, this document argues that negative effects in the short-term may be necessary to 

achieve benefits over the long-term. 

This chapter evaluates the three alternatives retained for consideration in Chapter II. 

Methodology 

This EA analyzes three alternatives that apply different mixtures of the same elements: wildland 

fire use, suppression, prescribed burning, and non-fire treatments such as mechanical thinning. 

The framers of these alternatives envision No Action to result in the most suppression and highest 

risk of future conflagrations. Alternative A automatically suppresses only in FMU #1 areas 

(visitor centers, housing, and offices), leaving most of the park able to accept wildland fire use 

that can help reduce the incidence of future large-scale fires. Alternative B includes comanagement of fire by NPS and the Lincoln National Forest of the upper North McKittrick 

Canyon watershed. Including this parcel in the FMP benefits the entire watershed, since the health 

of the upper reaches affects the lower portions. Fire projects in upper North McKittrick Canyon 

might slow spread of fire from the Lincoln to the park; fires may move up or down canyon 

depending on the wind. 

There is no way to predict with absolute certainty what will actually happen, but each alternative 

could conceivably have a very similar outcome. To date, few fires have met the “go” of the go/nogo criteria and prescriptions that allow wildland fire use. The safest management response under a 

suppression situation might call for letting fires burn to natural boundaries rather than controlling 

them locally, and the results might be indistinguishable from wildland fire use in the same area. 

The same schedule of prescribed burning within the park would apply to all three alternatives. 

Thus, it is possible that the actual program outcome could be the same mixture of wildland fire 

and prescribed fire/thinning for all three alternatives, with the expansion onto the Lincoln 

National Forest in Alternative B as the only major difference. 

In order to conduct this chapter’s analysis it is assumed that there will be wildland fire use in 

increasing amounts and suppression in decreasing amounts looking across the range of No 

Action-Alternative A-Alternative B. The amount of prescribed fire could be the same for No 

Action and Alternative A, with increased burning on Forest Service land in upper North 

McKittrick Canyon under Alternative B. 

Under NEPA, environmental consequences of alternatives are defined in terms of: 

 context (are effects site-specific, local, or regional?) 

 intensity (are effects negligible, minor, moderate, major, or constituting impairment?) 

 duration (are effects short term or long term?) 

 timing (do the effects vary with the timing of alternative actions?) 
80

Analysis also includes direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of plan alternatives and their 

elements. Finally, measures to minimize or mitigate potential environmental effects of 

alternatives are presented. The analyses are based on the literature and experience of NPS 

professionals and others knowledgeable about the park and the issues. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative effect as “the effect on the 

environment that results from the incremental effect of the action(s) when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) undertakes such action.” (40 CFR § 1508.7) Assessment of cumulative effects is based 

on a scenario for the park developed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). It includes: 

 beetle kills over large wooded areas of the park 

 helicopter activities for rabies control program 

 ongoing exotic plant colonization and management activities over the tenure of the FMP 

 ongoing education programs over the tenure of the FMP 

 ongoing weathering and exposure of cultural resources 

 ongoing increase in cover and density of woody species 

 past and future prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and non-fire treatments at the park 

 past and future suppression activities at the park 

 wildland and prescribed fire and thinning on Forest Service land in the Guadalupe Mountains 

over the tenure of the FMP 

 grazing, hunting, and other activities on the Forest Service Zone of Cooperation 

 other fire activities in the region over the tenure of the FMP (Bureau of Land Management, 

Carlsbad Caverns National Park, state lands, and private lands) 

Impairment 

The analysis predicts whether alternatives will result in impairment. The NPS is required by law 

to guarantee that resources are passed on to future generations “unimpaired.” Thus, NPS is 

prohibited from taking any action that would or would likely impair the integrity of a resource or 

value essential to the purpose or identity of the park. NPS-specific “impairment” language 

appears for each impact topic. In this EA, the professional judgment of staff, relevant studies, and 

public input are the basis for impairment determinations. Impairment determinations are made 

only for natural and cultural resource topics. 

Appendices 

Appendices to this chapter include a cultural resources matrix (Appendix C) prepared as part of 

the Cultural Resources Component for evaluation by the Texas Historical Commission (the State 

Historic Preservation Office). A summary of fire effects on vegetation (Appendix E) is also 

included. These documents address impacts to (1) cultural resources and (2) dominant plant 

species, respectively. Appendix D lists scientific names for plants and animals discussed in this 

EA. 
81

Impact Topic 1 (Life and Property) 

Fire is an effective tool for reducing hazard fuels, but it is also a threat to the public, firefighters, 

park staff, and developed areas. 

The first and foremost objective for fire management is the protection of life, property, and 

resources from the unacceptable effects of wildland or prescribed fire. Life and property 

encompasses park staff, firefighters, and visitors as well as park developments and personal 

property of everyone concerned. Life and property on neighboring lands are also of concern. 

Protecting the safety of hikers and firefighters and the integrity of cultural sites and developed 

areas are the chief concerns at the park. 

The alternatives represent strategies ranging from maximum suppression in the short-term that 

comes with continued high-severity fire danger from accumulated fuels to more fire sooner with 

less danger later. In the high country, heavy fuels (brush and mixed conifers), wind, and steep 

slopes pose serious threats to firefighters. Prescribed burning and thinning as specified by the 

multi-year fuels treatment schedule (see Table II-1) contribute to reducing threats to safety and 

impacts to park developed areas and resources under all alternatives. An effective evacuation plan 

is crucial to guaranteeing visitor safety in the event of a large fire. Because major fires at 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park are generally fast moving, wind-driven events, they 

generally last a few days at most. 

Alternative B provides the best protection of life and property in the long-term. 

Life and Property Intensity and Duration of Effects Defined 

Negligible: The impact is at the lowest levels of detection—no injuries or property damage. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial. 

Short-term: Within the duration of a specific fire program activity (for example prescribed 

burn or suppression action). 

Long-term: Beyond the duration of a specific fire program activity. 

Assessment Methodology 

Assessment of effects of alternatives on life and property is based on experiences to date in the 

park. Fuel reduction programs have been successful at preventing damage and loss; people 

management practices during fire operations have circumvented injury and loss of life. 
82

No Action Alternative 

Impact Analysis 

Under the 1996 FMP, the threat of impacts to life and property peaks in the late spring; impacts 

are immediate when there is a fire. Fire location matters—fires of similar size and intensity in 

different locations pose very different threats to life and property. Fire intensity (related to risks to 

life and property) is a function of condition class—vegetation in condition class III potentially 

burns the most intensely (see page 54 for definitions). Prescribed burning and thinning would 

reduce intensity of future fires in the same place. The direct effects of the No Action alternative 

cause negligible to minor impacts to visitor and staff safety and property in the short-term 

(especially to firefighters) but cause the most impacts in the long-term because of increasing 

threat of high-severity wildland fires. Because the most suppression is predicted for this 

alternative, risks to fire crews are highest. Prescribed burning and thinning would reduce the 

intensity of future fires in the same place. The indirect effect of the alternative is a heightened risk 

of flood/mass transport events after a big fire. Suppression actions in allowed wildland fire use 

situations increase long-term threats to life and property from high-severity wildland fire. 

Mitigation actions are: Public education and notification; onsite protective measures to minimize 

the public’s exposure; preparation or update of current cooperative agreements for fire 

suppression on neighboring lands; mechanical hazard fuel reduction; construction of fire breaks 

around sites; evacuation plans. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on life and property include concerns within the park only for No Action and 

Alternative A. Based on the list of related activities appearing at the beginning of this chapter, the 

cumulative effects analysis finds: 

 Ongoing education programs can potentially avoid injury to people in the park during fire 

operations and have a minor beneficial effect. 

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fuel treatments in the park would 

reduce fuels and lower risk of wildland fire, having a moderate beneficial effect. 

 Ongoing fire suppression activities can have a moderate adverse effect on life and property. 

 Ongoing increases in woody plant species cover and density would increase fuels and risk of 

wildland fire, having a minor negative effect. 

 Wildland fire on Forest Service land in the Guadalupes over the tenure of the plan may move 

into the park and reduce fuels to lower risks of negative effects from future fires (negligible to 

minor beneficial effect, because winds usually send fire the other direction). 

Cumulative effects on life and property are predicted to be minor—other activities are likely to 

change threats to life and property very little. Except for beetle kills, elements of the cumulative 

scenario—anti-rabies helicopter activities, exotic plant management, and other agency fuel 

treatment activities contribute to improving “life and property.” 

Conclusion 

This alternative, continuing under the direction of the 1996 FMP, may place firefighters at risk 

more often than Alternative A and B. Otherwise, with maximum suppression, No Action 

minimizes short-term, adverse impacts to the public, staff, and property; such impacts would be 
83

minor or negligible in intensity. In the long-term, there is a potential for moderate adverse impacts 

to firefighter and public safety and property during periods of severe fire conditions. Under this 

alternative, life and property concerns would be handled under the practices dictated by the 1996 

FMP. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

The timing/context of Alternative A, which calls for greater wildland fire use, is the same as the 

No Action Alternative. The intensity and duration of effects are similar to No Action Alternative, 

though threats are reduced with increased wildland fire use. The direct effects are a potential 

increase in minor, direct, adverse impacts to life and property with increased use of fire. Longterm threats to safety and property will be reduced as wildland fire use and prescribed fire 

management objectives are met. The highest threat would be to firefighters along the north 

boundary of the park, since Alternative A proposes that fire activities be contained within park 

boundaries. The indirect effects of post-fire flood/mass transport event risks are reduced with 

more wildland fire use—low-to-moderate-intensity events with mosaic burning patterns. 

The mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

With increased wildland fire use, short-term, adverse impacts to public safety and property would 

be minor with appropriate protective measures. Minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to life and 

property would accrue as management objectives are met. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

The timing/context of Alternative B is similar to the No Action Alternative except context 

expands with inclusion of upper North McKittrick Canyon. As the upper North McKittrick 

landscape is treated by fire, likelihood of fires spreading from the ZOC to the park decreases. The 

duration and intensity of effects is similar to Alternative A with prescribed burning and wildland 

fire use extending to upper North McKittrick, thus reducing potential for high-severity future fires 

there. The direct effects are similar to Alternative A with prescribed burning and wildland fire use 

extending to upper North McKittrick, thus reducing potential for future major direct effects in that 

area. The indirect effects are also similar to Alternative A, though threats to McKittrick Canyon 

subside further with inclusion of the upper watershed. 

The mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative, but extend to the Zone of 

Cooperation. 
84

Conclusion 

Short-term, adverse impacts to public safety and property would be minor with appropriate 

protective measures. Moderate, long-term, beneficial impacts to life and property would accrue as 

management objectives are met. 

Impact Topic 2 (Visitor Experience) 

Potential restrictions on access to burning areas, road closures, and smoke can alter visitor 

experience; but the fire program also provides interpretive opportunities. 

Fire program activities will affect the experience of visitors. Campground, trail, and road closures 

can restrict access to the active fire zone, and park staff close the backcountry during suppression 

actions. Smoke may temporarily degrade spectacular views that are part of the park’s attraction. 

Interpretation of fire events adds to the visitor experience and helps build acceptance of fire as a 

necessary ecological agent on the landscape. 

During fire activities, park staff attempt to reduce impacts on visitors but above all, to promote 

public safety. The park’s public information office and incident fire information personnel 

distribute press releases and special notices to inform other agencies, communities, and 

individuals of fire management activities. Staff at the Visitor Center post information on cautions, 

closures, and restrictions, as needed, and are available to answer questions and provide 

interpretation regarding fire management activities and their purposes. Signs are used to inform 

visitors along roads and trails. All backpackers receiving permits are advised by park staff at the 

Visitor Center of fire danger conditions, and backcountry staff keep backcountry visitors 

informed of fire danger, locations, and progress. 

For each alternative under consideration, prescribed burning is a major component. Wildland fire 

use plays a greater role for Alternatives A and B than for No Action. Because natural ignitions 

must meet burn prescriptions and safety-related criteria, the effects of wildland fire use on visitor 

convenience are not expected to differ from those resulting from prescribed burns during the 

actual events. Park officials can plan specifically for prescribed burns, while they must have a 

plan in place for accommodating visitors during unpredictable suppression and wildland fire use 

activities. Visitors will be subject to less helicopter disruption with wildland fire use and 

prescribed burning than with suppression. Visitors are exposed to fewer hazards in the long-term 

from high-severity fires. 

Visitor Experience Intensity of Effects Defined 

Negligible: The impact on visitor experience is at the lowest levels of detection. 

Minor: The impact is slight but detectable, and would affect few visitors. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent, and would affect many visitors. 

Major: The impact is widespread or locally unavoidable and would affect most visitors. 
85

Short-term: Within the duration of a specific fire program activity (for example, prescribed 

burn or suppression action). 

Long-term: Beyond the duration of a specific fire program activity. 

Assessment Methodology 

Staff considered past experience with visitors during fire events and general knowledge of visitor 

patterns and expectations to determine impacts. 

No Action Alternative 

Impact Analysis 

Prescribed burning in spring coincides with the peak of visitor season which may affect visitor 

access to certain areas and or zones in the park.The greatest risk of fire, though, is in late spring, 

which is also a popular time for visitors. The intensity and duration would vary with each fire. 

Mandatory suppression over most of the park should shorten fire duration, causing any 

restrictions to be short-term. Burned areas might continue to disappoint visitors. Suppression and 

mitigation should minimize direct effects. Indirect effects include the memory of past fires, which 

may discourage visitation. In addition, visitor inconvenience could result from post-fire 

restoration activities. 

Mitigation actions are to: Inform visitors about fire activities via newspaper, radio, and internet, at 

the visitor center, other frontcountry contact locations, and throughout the park; inform visitors of 

alternative destinations in the region; provide interpretation and visitor education during fire 

activities; minimize fire size and intensity; coordinate burns with adjacent and nearby land 

managers to minimize cumulative impacts in the region. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on visitor experience include concerns within the park and surrounding 

recreation areas of the Lincoln National Forest. Based on the list of related activities appearing at 

the beginning of this chapter, the cumulative effects analysis finds: 

 Helicopter activities for the rabies control program will add minor adverse impacts on visitor 

experience, considering visitors seek out the park for “remote” wilderness experiences. 

 Ongoing education programs can turn possible disappointment with fire program 

inconveniences into opportunities to learn, thus having a minor to moderate beneficial effect. 

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fuel treatments in the park would 

reduce fuels and lower risk of wildland fire, having a moderate beneficial effect. 

 Wildland fire on USFS land in the Guadalupes over the tenure of the plan may make the area 

a less desirable destination and have a minor negative effect on visitor experience and tourism 

and at the same time reduce fuels to lower risks of negative effects from future fires (a 

moderate beneficial effect). 

The presence of smoke, helicopter overflights, as well as campground, trail, and road closures 

during suppression actions, prescribed burns, and wildland fire use events are minor, short-term 

adverse effects on visitor experience. Because no major park projects that might inconvenience 
86

visitors are scheduled during the FMP tenure, cumulative impacts to visitor experience will 

accrue from actions on nearby lands, particularly the Lincoln National Forest. 

Fire activities on neighboring lands may compound inconveniences of the fire program for 

visitors but effects will be minor and short-term due to the speed at which fires move across 

Guadalupe Mountains landscapes. 

Conclusion 

Fire-management-related impacts to visitor experience would be adverse but short-term and 

minor under the No Action Alternative. Because of suppression activities, wildland fire use, and 

prescribed burning, visitors might be subjected to cooking restrictions in campgrounds, closed 

sections of trails, or smoke-clouded views. Potential for short-term adverse impacts to visitor 

convenience would continue during periods of severe fire conditions and would likely also apply 

to alternate destinations on the Lincoln National Forest. Depending on the dangers presented by 

fires, restrictions on wilderness overflight and mechanized tool use might be relaxed. Because this 

alternative results in the most suppression activity, it also can result in the most extensive fuel 

buildups that can feed future high-severity fires. Severely charred landscapes from such fires may 

be long-term moderately adverse effects to visitor experience. Under No Action, fire events can 

continue to serve as interpretive opportunities, and communication is the key mitigation 

technique. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

Greater wildland fire use for resource benefits would result in unpredictable periods of 

inconvenience due to more fire. The duration and frequency of visitor use restrictions would 

decrease over time due to reduction in fuel load. The direct effects are minor adverse impacts to 

visitor convenience under mitigation (for example, air attack disturbance and altered wilderness 

experiences) while the indirect effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Mitigation actions are similar to the No Action Alternative with increased emphasis on benefits of 

wildland fire use through communication with the public. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are similar to the No Action Alternative but a greater allowance for fire will 

create more minor adverse experiences for visitors in the short-term. 

Conclusion 

Effects of Alternative A on visitor experience would also be adverse but short-term and minor, 

similar to No Action. Under this alternative, the park would experience greater wildland fire use 

and less suppression. This difference would decrease the need to temporarily compromise 

wilderness through the use of mechanized tools and overflights. However, stopping fires at 

boundaries could require occasional, concentrated suppression efforts. Over time, the risk of 

future high-severity fires is lessened as more of the park experiences wildland fire use, and longterm adverse effects become minor. 
87

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

The timing and context of Alternative B is similar to Alternative A with more unpredictable 

periods of inconvenience. The duration/intensity is also similar to Alternative A with the least 

inconvenience to visitors in the long-term. Direct effects are similar to Alternative A with lower 

fire risks over time with hazard fuel reduction and the indirect effects are the same as the No 

Action Alternative. 

Mitigation actions are the same as Alternative A. 

Cumulative Effects 

Similar to No Action plus acceptance of fire in upper North McKittrick adds possible new 

inconvenience to visitors looking for alternative destinations. 

Conclusion 

Effects of Alternative B are similar to Alternative A—adverse in the short-term, but minor. With 

fires not requiring control at the north boundary (where prevailing winds tend to push them), 

disruption of visitor experience by boundary suppression actions is reduced. The risk of long-term 

high-severity fires is further reduced under Alternative B. More wildland fire use treats more 

acres because fires that are headed onto the Lincoln National Forest can be allowed to burn. 

Impact Topic 3 (Cultural Resources) 

Historic structures, landscapes, and artifacts may incur fire damage, while fire may help reduce 

surrounding hazard fuels, uncover new sites, and maintain the historic scene. 

Cultural resources are subject to adverse effects that primarily result from exposure to flames, 

heat, and smoke as well as ground disturbance from suppression activities or post-fire erosion 

(Jones and Euler 1986; Lentz et al. 1996; Traylor et al. 1990). These effects are not generally 

reversible; historic wooden structures do not “grow back” after a fire to become what they were 

before, and disturbed lithic and ceramic scatters do not rearrange themselves into their original 

positions. Thus it is important that the fire program be designed to avoid impacts to cultural 

resources. 

The literature primarily contains analyses conducted after wildland fires and a few experimental 

studies conducted as part of prescribed burns; it is not surprising that intensity of impacts 

increases with temperature and duration of the fire. Lentz et al. (1996), in their study of impacts to 

archeological resources following the Henry Fire in New Mexico, recorded substantial fire effects 

on artifacts under all fire intensities. The recorded damage to artifacts was as deep as 20 cm 

subsurface. Fuel loading was the critical variable in the severity of these effects. 

Appendix C is the cultural resource matrix prepared for the section 106/SHPO approval process. 

The element’s cultural resources matrix identifies resources, risks from fire program activities, 

and mitigation measures. The cultural resource matrix contains analysis drawn partly from the 

NPS ASHFAP report. This report makes specific recommendations for: Ship-on-the-Desert 
88

Research Center and landscape, Pratt Lodge and landscape, Hunter Line Cabin, McKittrick 

Canyon alcove, ring middens, Frijole Ranch and landscape, Pine Springs Stage Station, Williams 

Ranch and landscape, Pine Springs Creek ring middens, Bowl Cabin, the old Butterfield Stage 

trace, and three other archeological sites. Though approximately 3% of the park has been 

inventoried, sites without description are highly likely to fall into matrix categories. Priorities 

include minimizing ground-disturbing suppression activities and removing fuel loads to reduce 

effects of fire on known archeological resources and historic properties. In the long term, it is 

believed that cultural resources may benefit from the reduced risk of high-severity wildland fire, 

which has a much greater potential to compromise the integrity of such resources. 

The No Action alternative may offer the best short-term protection from direct impacts of fire 

because it calls for the most suppression, but it also holds most potential for suppression damage. 

Alternative B would bring the best long-term protection by reducing fuel loads and the likelihood 

of widespread fires as well as not necessarily requiring suppression of wildland fires on the north 

boundaries. Fuel reduction efforts contribute to reducing impacts to historic structures under all 

alternatives. Likewise, the presence of and knowledge shared by resource experts during fire 

operations will help limit damage to cultural resources. 

Cultural Resources Intensity of Effects Defined 

Negligible: Impacts would be barely perceptible changes in significant characteristics of a 

historic property, archeological sites, and cultural landscapes. 

Minor: Impacts would be perceptible and noticeable, but would remain localized and 

confined to a single element or significant characteristic of a historic property, 

archeological site, or cultural landscape (such as a single archeological site 

containing low data potential within a larger archeological district or a single 

contributing element of a larger historic district). 

Moderate: Impacts would be sufficient to cause a noticeable but not substantial change in 

significant characteristics of a historic property, archeological sites, and cultural 

landscapes. 

Major: Impacts would result in substantial and highly noticeable changes in significant 

characteristics of a historic property, archeological sites, and cultural landscapes. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is key to the 

cultural integrity of the park or identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Duration of impacts to cultural resources from fire activities is not usually considered under the 

National Historic Preservation Act. Most direct effects to resources are permanent. 
89

Assessment Methodology 

The cultural resources matrix (Appendix C) is the basis for the analysis. This matrix describes the 

resources, risks, and treatments to minimize impacts, and was developed by management, fire, 

natural resource, and cultural resource staff of Guadalupe Mountains National Park, the NPS 

Southern Arizona Office, and the NPS Western Archeological Conservation Center. 

No Action 

Impact Analysis 

While suppressing fires helps reduce the risk of burning historic structures, suppression activities 

can significantly damage archeological sites. Impacts to cultural resources can be minimized by 

timing prescribed burns to avoid peak (late spring) fire danger when fires would burn hottest and 

may cause most damage. The impact duration is relevant in cases where fire clears vegetation 

formerly obscuring cultural resources. Time for vegetation recovery will vary with intensity of 

fire. Fire has a minor potential for short-term, direct, adverse impacts due to mitigation activities. 

There are possible greater direct effects of ground-disturbing suppression activities under this 

alternative than the “action” alternatives. Under this alternative with the most suppression, the 

indirect effects are minor impacts due to expected erosion and vegetation loss. Risk of adverse 

impacts from high-severity fire continues. For example, a high severity fire in upper North 

McKittrick Canyon could lead to the washout of Pratt Cabin due to a large flood. 

Mitigation actions are to: Locate and identify sites vulnerable to fire effects; mechanically reduce 

hazardous fuel; construct fire breaks around sites; use minimum impact suppression techniques; 

and ensure the presence of resource experts during fire operations. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on cultural resources include concerns within the park only for No Action and 

Alternative A. Based on the list of related activities appearing at the beginning of this chapter, the 

cumulative effects analysis finds: 

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fire treatments at the park may 

cause minor adverse effects, but surveys help minimize those effects. 

 Ongoing weathering and exposure of archeological sites cause minor adverse effects. 

 Line-digging for ongoing fire suppression activities can have a moderate adverse effect on 

cultural resources. 

 Ongoing increases in woody plant cover increase fuels and make burns hotter which may 

cause minor adverse effects. 

 Large, high severity fires in the Guadalupe Mountains that reach the park and ZOC may add 

moderate adverse effects. 

Repeated backcountry fires have likely already compromised fire-intolerant artifacts. Other 

actions (road, utility, trail, and septic work) in the cumulative scenario require careful surveying 

and mitigation of cultural resources impacts. Minor to moderate cumulative effects on the totality 

of archeological resources are expected from repeated suppression actions. 
90

Conclusion 

Minor direct and indirect adverse impacts to cultural resources would occur, with no changes to 

the existing FMP direction. Minor to moderate cumulative impacts resulting from successive 

suppression actions are expected. Exposure of sites or artifacts through removal of concealing 

vegetation; cracking and flaking of stone or concrete foundations; alteration of landscapes; and 

burning of flammable resources, including structures, are examples of direct effect. Erosion and 

damage to integrity of resources on the ground after suppression-related disturbance is the main 

predicted indirect effect. This alternative holds the greatest potential, with its continued 

suppression over most of the park, for moderate adverse impacts to cultural resources in the longterm, particularly damage to flammable historic structures. 

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of cultural resources under this alternative. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

Alternative A is similar to the No Action Alternative with timing of wildland fire use for resource 

benefits an important factor in intensity. Duration and intensity are the same as the No Action 

Alternative. Minor direct effects are predicted because of mitigation measures that protect sites 

from flames and ground disturbance. Water drops and the potential for retardant drops could be 

expected, however, known sensitive cultural sites would be avoided except as the last resort to 

save the resource. There are long-term benefits to cultural resources from reduction in fuel loads 

in and around sites. Potential for adverse indirect effects (mostly erosion) decreases over time 

with reduction in fuel load. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are similar to the No Action Alternative, except fewer impacts from 

suppression activities. These activities allow fuel to build up, which threatens historic structures 

and archeological sites. 

Conclusion 

Minor direct and indirect adverse impacts to cultural resources would occur as described above, 

with long-term benefits to cultural resources from reduction in fuel loads in and around sensitive 

areas throughout the park. Potential for damage to wooden structures decreases, and cumulative 

impacts to cultural resources from repeated suppression activities would decrease in relation to 

the No Action alternative. 

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 
91

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of cultural resources under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Alternative B is similar to Alternative A with timing less important as fuels are reduced. The 

duration and intensity is the same as the No Action Alternative. The direct effects are similar to 

Alternative A with the smallest potential for disturbance as a result of suppression actions. 

Alternative B has the greatest potential for reduced suppression activities in the future. The 

indirect effects are similar to Alternative A with the greatest potential for fuel load reduction. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are similar to Alternative A, except Alternative B has the fewest impacts 

from suppression activities. The Zone of Cooperation is also included. 

Conclusion 

Minor direct and indirect adverse impacts to cultural resources would occur as described under 

No Action, with the greatest long-term benefits under Alternative B to cultural resources from the 

reduction in fuel loads in and around sensitive areas throughout the park and reduced suppression 

activity along the north boundary. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources from repeated 

suppression activities would decrease in relation to the No Action alternative. 

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of cultural resources under this alternative. 

Impact Topic 4 (Vegetation) 

In the mid-1970s, awareness grew nationwide of negative effects of exclusion of fire in 

ecosystems. Gary Ahlstrand (1981) worked in the Guadalupe Mountains and concluded that 150 

years of intense use by humans had increased densities of woody plants at the expense of grasses. 

Grazing from the late 1800s through the mid 1900s decreased grass cover that carried fire; direct 

fire suppression following cessation of grazing allowed grasses to increase while woody species 

persisted. Forest, woodland, shrubland, and grassland communities were all perceived as changed 

by grazing and fire suppression. Guadalupe Mountains National Park began a prescribed fire 

program in 1979 aimed at reducing fuel loads, restoring vegetation communities, and learning 

about the effects of fire. 
92

Plant Communities

Rocky Mountain (Petran) Conifer Forest (122.3 in Brown 1994) 

Fire effects on species: Table E-1 in Appendix E 

Ahlstrand (1981) dated fire scars from 49 southwestern white pine stems. His data showed that 

fires occurred in the study area, all the high-country mixed-conifer forest in the park, during at 

least 71 of the years between 1496 and 1980. The mean fire return interval, considering all fires in 

the study area between 1554 and 1842, was 4.7 years. Ahlstrand suggests that a 5-15 year fire 

return interval in the mixed conifer forest would open up thickets of Douglas-fir and ponderosa 

pine. These thickets developed in the absence of fire for most of the 20th century, likely aided by 

seeds trampled down to mineral soil by the hooves of grazing livestock before the park was 

established. Higher frequency of fire would also favor ponderosa pine and southwestern white 

pine over Douglas-fir. 

The IDT expects that fires should reduce the stocking density of Douglas-fir, reducing 

competition and dead and downed fuels. Wildland fires should burn at lower intensity than the 

1990 Frijole fire. This vegetation type should move toward fuel models 2 and 9. Fires should also 

improve the federally listed Mexican spotted owl habitat. Cumulative effects of burning 

repeatedly should include restoring the mosaic of conifers and hardwoods and enhancing the 

resilience of the forest to ecosystem disturbances such as fire, drought, and insects. 

Great Basin Conifer Woodland (122.4 in Brown) 

Fire effects on species: Table E-2 in Appendix E 

Great Basin, or pinyon-juniper woodland, shifts between woodland or grassland dominance 

depending on fire frequency, moisture conditions, grazing, competition, and insect infestations 

that reduce vigor. At Guadalupe Mountains, it is likely this formation is grassier in the absence of 

grazing. With grassiness comes more frequent lightning fires and vice versa, as woody species are 

knocked back. A vegetation type conversion to Plains and Great Basin Grassland (Brown 1994—

142.1) might result with continuing short fire return intervals. Mean fire interval in the 

Sacramento Mountains in pinyon-juniper habitat was 28 years with a range of 10-49 (Kaufmann 

et al. 1998). Models for southwestern Colorado and northern Arizona estimate 300 years from 

stand-replacing fire (leaving bare ground and skeleton forest) to mature pinyon-juniper woodland; 

observations in Utah found junipers well developed 85-90 years post-fire (Paysen et al. 2000). 

At the park, the dominant junipers—one-seed and alligator—respond differently to fire, with the 

former a non-sprouter that is highly susceptible, and the latter a sprouter that is difficult to kill 

with fire. However, once mature, it takes years for alligator juniper to regain previous coverage 

and grasses are able to compete in the meantime. 

The IDT expects fires to result in less tree cover and more grass. The fuel model is not expected 

to change. The cumulative effects of burning repeatedly should result in vigorous, healthy 

vegetation being maintained and the juniper overstory remaining at a natural level.

 
93

Madrean Evergreen Woodland (123.3 in Brown) 

Fire effects on species: Table E-3 in Appendix E 

Oaks dominate this woodland type. Although the subject of few fire ecology studies, Madrean 

oak woodlands are thought to be shaped by fire (Caprio and Zwolinski 1995; Ffolliott and Bennett 

1996; Abbott 1998). A woodland-grassland dynamic potentially exists in these systems, as in the 

pinyon-juniper woodland. As the canopies of woody species grow denser, herbaceous production 

decreases and with it the fuel to carry fire. More open canopies allow more understory growth, 

more fine fuels buildup, and more frequent fire. Abbott (1998) suggests minimal return interval of 

10-30 years for southeastern Arizona oak woodlands based on conservative estimates of fire 

frequency for neighboring coniferous forest and grasslands. 

Ffolliott and Bennett (1996) examined oaks after the 1988 Peak fire in Sonora, Mexico and 

neighboring Coronado National Memorial in southeastern Arizona. While Abbott (1998) cautions 

against generalizing from single-fire studies, Ffolliett and Bennett’s work showed that fire 

intensity had everything to do with the post-fire response of individual trees. Fifty percent of oak 

trees on the low-intensity site showed no visible damage, while over 80% of oaks in the highintensity area were root-killed. 

Texas madrone is sensitive to fire, though fire-scarred individuals are visible in the park. Frequent 

low-intensity fire keeps trees pruned and out of reach of browsers. While it seems to survive and 

re-sprout after higher-intensity fires, wildlife ruthlessly browse new growth. Beautiful madrone 

trees are part of the park’s charm, and their loss via fire would be noticed, a local long-term 

adverse impact. 

The IDT expects fires to reduce the chance of mature overstory mortality and maintain high plant 

diversity and health, while reducing understory (shrub) density and increasing grass cover. The 

result should be a fuel model mosaic with more 2, less 6. This area would be managed with a 

longer burn interval than other vegetation types. The cumulative effects of burning repeatedly 

should keep redberry juniper at low levels and further reduce overstory mortality. 

Interior Chaparral (133.3 in Brown) 

Fire effects on species: Table E-4 in Appendix E 

Chaparral vegetation experiences stand-replacing fires at intervals measured in decades (Wright 

1990; Paysen et al. 2000). The buildup of litter and dry conditions promote fire, vegetation 

recovery takes at least 10 to 15 years, and the next fire follows when litter and dryness once again 

team up (Wright 1990). While chaparral tends to replace chaparral after fire, species composition 

can change depending on post-fire seedbank composition. 

The IDT expects fire to reduce fuel load, reduce shrub stature (but not shrub composition), and 

possibly slightly increase grass cover. However, if fires occur too frequently, there will be less 

shrub cover than desired and invasive species can invade. 

Chihuahuan Semi-desert Grassland (143.1 in Brown) 

Fire effects on species: Table E-5 in Appendix E 

Most researchers conclude that grazing and lack of fire in semi-desert grasslands encourage 

shrubs at the expense of grass (Wright and Bailey 1982). Paysen et al. (2000) caution that while 
94

fire can be used to accomplish objectives in grassy desert shrublands, it may also contribute to 

loss of desirable species. Ahlstrand (1982), working in “mountain shrub” vegetation at Carlsbad 

Caverns (that greatly overlaps in species composition with this type for Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park), suggested burning in this community every 10-15 years would shift it towards 

grasslands; absence of fire would shift it towards shrublands. 

The IDT expects that fires will improve habitat for black-tailed prairie dogs, pronghorn, and 

burrowing owls while improving grass health. Fires should move this vegetation class to 

condition class I by reducing woody plants and promoting grass. The fuel model will not change. 

The cumulative effects of burning repeatedly should keep redberry junipers small and improve 

grassland bird diversity. 

Chihuahuan Desertscrub (153.2 in Brown) 

Fire effects on species: Table E-6 in Appendix E 

Chihuahuan desertscrub occupies the lowlands of the park. Nicknamed the “asbestos formation” 

by park fire staff, stands of widely spaced, small-leaved shrubs on bajadas and flats have 

difficulty carrying fire. Dunes and bolsons host some fire-tolerant species. While these areas may 

have been grassier before grazing, it is not a goal of the park to reverse the trend, nor is there 

evidence that fire could do so. However, invading grasses may someday change the present nofire regime. 

The IDT does not expect this vegetation type to burn. 

Interior Deciduous Forest and Woodland (no number assigned by Brown 1994) 

Fire effects on species: Table E-7 in Appendix E 

Fires occur in this wet type when conditions are right for them to move from neighboring 

communities. At the park, fires have been observed to jump springs. Fire return might 

synchronize with adjacent grassy communities (see Kaib 1996), but the natural breaks present in 

wetter, rockier canyon bottoms would limit the extent of fires. McKittrick Canyon is the key 

representative of this community type; a major fire through McKittrick would dramatically alter 

its character. 

The IDT expects fires to reduce understory, shrub cover, and dead and downed fuels. The 

cumulative effects of burning repeatedly could potentially improve habitat for seed-eating birds 

and increase habitat diversity for wildlife generally. Repeated fires should also have a beneficial 

effect on protecting cultural resources (i.e., historic structures) and contribute to reducing 

transmission of shelf fungus between deciduous trees. 

Landscape Effects 

Concern about larger-scale vegetation patterns on the landscape comes from a mixture of sources. 

Visitors and other stakeholders expect the park to look a certain way, based on what they have 

seen in person or even in photographs. Such expectations lead to the desire for the landscape to 

remain static. There may be constituencies that desire park landscapes to look like they did during 

important historical events, yet returning fire as an ecosystem maintenance agent is desirable. 
95

The fire program at Guadalupe Mountains National Park intends to have landscape-level effects 

on vegetation while maintaining mosaics. Opening up high country woodlands is a priority. Lack 

of fire in the system is allowing Douglas-fir to form dense thickets at the expense of ponderosa 

pine and southwestern white pine. Closure of the canopy and buildup of fuels with this shift 

increases the likelihood of high-severity fires. Education is needed to ease objections of visitors 

used to “deep woods.” Fire becomes an interpretive opportunity. Wildland fire use (under predetermined conditions) and prescribed burning helps the park bring desired change in stages—

maintaining mosaics and avoiding large-scale, high-intensity events. 

Beetle kills are happening on a landscape-level scale; drought makes trees susceptible in 

overstocked areas. Regular fire helps prevent outbreaks, since thinner stands are less stressed, but 

wildland fire also spreads easily in killed areas. Beetle kills are taking place in ponderosa pine on 

the Dog Canyon side of McKittrick and in Douglas-fir on north-facing slopes of South McKittrick 

above Hunter Line Cabin and the top of McKittrick Ridge near McKittrick Campground. 

Mistletoe also spreads more easily in dense stands. 

Some vegetation types at the park naturally experience stand-replacing fires. In a park managed 

for its scenic beauty, large-scale stand replacement is not desirable. With these events also come 

unpredictable amounts of flooding and erosion. Given fuel loads that may currently lie outside the 

natural range of variability in some areas, it is not clear what new equilibrium situations would 

look like. Thus it is desirable to control the application of fire in the interior chaparral areas 

(particularly slopes within McKittrick Canyon) to avoid large-scale stand replacement, while still 

allowing much needed burning to take place. 

Park managers will also be taking care to prevent fire from taking out canyon-bottom riparian 

areas (Brown 1994—interior deciduous forest and woodland). These places are historically not 

particularly fire prone due to the presence of plentiful moisture, but drought conditions combined 

with adjacent slopes covered with chaparral overdue for fire, place such woodlands at risk. The 

noticeable loss of McKittrick Canyon trees, highly regarded throughout the region for their 

displays of fall color, would constitute a moderate impact. 

The distribution of vegetation on the landscape naturally changes over time with gradual 

processes like erosion or climate change. Disturbance events, like fires and floods, also rearrange 

vegetation. Stand-replacing fires (such as occurs naturally in shrublands and grasslands and 

unnaturally in southwestern woodlands) can create dramatic changes in scenery. Large intense 

fires can remove vegetation from large expanses of landscape, potentially erasing mosaic patterns 

and causing conversions from one vegetation type to another (for example, from shrubland to 

grassland). Exceptionally heavy fuel accumulations in park high-country areas are currently 

capable of sustaining large, high-intensity and high-severity fires that cause landscape-level 

alteration. Alternatives A and B, which increase wildland fire use over No Action, would 

somewhat reduce the potential for landscape-altering events. 
96

Vegetation Intensity and Duration of Effects Defined 

Negligible: An action that could affect individuals of a species, with no measurable or 

perceptible change to populations. Impacts would be barely perceptible changes to 

landscape features. 

Minor: An action that could cause a change to populations, but the change would be small 

and, if measurable, would be a small and localized effect and not decrease or 

increase the species diversity of the park. Impacts would remain localized and 

confined to a single element or significant characteristic of a landscape such as a 

particular plant community over a small area. 

Moderate: An action that could cause a change to populations and communities that increases 

or decreases species diversity in the park. The change would be a localized effect 

and not be considered a threat to the long-term survivability of the species in 

question. Impacts would be sufficient to cause a noticeable but not substantial 

change in landscape features such as alteration of a particular plant community in 

several localized areas. 

Major: An action that could decrease the species diversity of the park, be considered a 

threat to the long-term survivability of populations in question, and/or eliminate 

the population of a species that is locally endemic or considered key to the natural 

integrity of the park. Also, an action would be considered a threat if it would 

decrease species diversity or population numbers of particular species. Impacts 

would result in substantial and highly noticeable changes in landscape features, 

such as complete loss of vegetation over a widespread area. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Short-term: A return to the pre-event range of variability in distribution and abundance of 

species and arrangement of vegetation on the landscape within the natural fire 

interval of the affected habitat. 

Long-term: No return to pre-event range of variability in distribution and abundance of species 

and arrangement of vegetation on the landscape within the natural fire interval of 

the affected habitat. 

Assessment Methodology 

Impacts of the fire program on vegetation have been developed from research and monitoring 

results within the park, the literature, and the experiences of staff and outside experts. 
97

No Action 

Impact Analysis 

The No Action Alternative would see spring and fall burns affecting vegetation with a prescribed 

fire program and limited fire use. In addition, there would be suppression actions during the 

traditional late-spring through summer fire season. Impacts on plants would be less severe in nondrought years. Actions would be restricted to the park. In regard to intensity and duration, the No 

Action Alternative could lead to high-severity fire with moderate, long-lasting landscape-level 

changes (vegetation type conversions) due to the potential for suppression and fuel buildup. 

Immediate direct effects are avoided with suppression in exchange for buildup of risk as fuels 

accumulate. Maximum suppression will minimize short-term adverse direct effects (death and 

injury) to plants, but suppression activities (ground disturbance) can locally affect vegetation. 

Prescribed fire mosaics preserve unburned areas as seed sources for plants. The No Action 

Alternative is the least effective at moving vegetation to a desired condition; only minor indirect 

benefits from wildland fire use and prescribed burning are predicted. The indirect effect of a highseverity wildland fire threat continues. 

High-severity fire would cause moderate effects on the distribution of vegetation on the 

landscape. Prescriptions for wildland fire use and prescribed burns would be written to lessen 

direct landscape effects. The high-severity fire would cause moderate indirect effects on 

vegetation that in turn would affect wildlife. Erosion and sedimentation could follow highintensity fires that remove significant amounts of vegetation. 

Mitigation actions include prescribed burning and mechanical treatments that will render areas 

less susceptible to landscape-altering, high-severity fires. Prescribed burning helps preserve 

vegetation mosaics. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on vegetation include concerns within and beyond the park to areas that are 

sources of colonization for park plants. Based on the list of related activities appearing at the 

beginning of this chapter, the cumulative effect analysis finds: 

 Grazing on the Lincoln National Forest Zone of Cooperation may have minor adverse effects 

on the ability of wildland fire use and prescribed burns to meet vegetation goals under 

Alternative B 

 Insect outbreaks may have moderate adverse effects on wildlife habitat 

 Fire events in the same location at higher than historical frequency could shift plants to 

different habitats 

 Ongoing increases in woody plant cover increase fuels, make burns hotter, increase fire 

tolerant species, and decrease fire-intolerant species, having moderate adverse effects on 

distribution of vegetation on the landscape 

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fire treatments at the park would 

cause moderate beneficial effects on landscape-scale vegetation patterns 

 High severity fires in the Guadalupe Mountains that reach the park and ZOC may add 

moderate adverse effects 

 Insect outbreaks may have moderate adverse effects on landscape-scale vegetation patterns 
98

 Large-scale fires on neighboring lands could reduce available seed sources for recolonization 

after fires at the park deplete populations of plants 

 Fire events in the same location at higher than historical frequency could shift plant 

communities towards non-historical states 

The combination of the cumulative impacts listed above with suppression actions, prescribed 

burns, and wildland fire use events would have a moderate adverse effect on vegetation. 

Conclusion 

The park would continue to progress from a “natural” fire regime to “suppression” landscape with 

minimized adverse direct effects in the short-term. Lack of fire would continue to maintain 

shrublands where grasslands once occurred and create dense thickets out of historically open 

woodlands. Numerous factors could influence the outcome of prescribed or wildland fire in the 

park but overall fires are likely to burn hotter than they did historically because of increased fuels 

from more dead material, and from denser vegetation. Potential for moderate, long-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation exists due to continued suppression, particularly in the park high country. 

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of vegetation under this alternative. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

In regard to the timing and context, more wildland fire use would be expected to bring more fire 

during the natural fire season with actions restricted to the park. More wildland fire use would 

also treat more of the park and avert high-intensity events with moderate, long-term benefits. The 

increase in wildland fire use under Alternative A would be expected to result in minor to 

moderate short-term adverse direct effects instead of a major adverse effect of high-intensity fires 

caused by hazardous fuel buildups. In turn, an increase in shade tolerate species is expected. 

Alternative A would also have moderate indirect landscape effects. 

The mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

Greater wildland fire use under Alternative A reduces the likelihood of high-severity, landscape 

altering events. The existing fuel buildups in the high country will remain difficult to alleviate and 

adverse impacts may still occur but likely on a smaller scale, compared with the No Action 

Alternative. Overall, Alternative A has a moderate, beneficial impact in the long-term. 
99

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of vegetation under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

More wildland fire use is expected to bring more fire during the natural fire season. As the upper 

North McKittrick landscape is treated by fire, the likelihood of fires spreading from the ZOC to 

the park decreases. Duration and intensity of effects is similar to Alternative A. The inclusion of 

wildland fire use and prescribed burning in upper North McKittrick averts effects and helps to 

avoid high-intensity, long-lasting effects throughout the watershed. Direct effects are similar to 

Alternative A. The likelihood of fires entering the park along the Forest Service boundary will 

lessen as more burning takes place in the Zone of Cooperation. The indirect effects are similar to 

Alternative A. The inclusion of the entire McKittrick Canyon watershed would be expected to 

bring moderate indirect effects to the upper canyon as well as the rest of the park. 

The mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative, but also include the Zone of 

Cooperation. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B potentially offers the greatest amount of fire meeting prescription over the park 

landscapes. Fires that may cross the north boundary would not have to be suppressed. Overall, 

Alternative B has a moderate, beneficial impact in the long-term. 

Because there would be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of vegetation under this alternative. 

Impact Topic 5 (Wildlife)

It is known from the literature that most fires potentially injure or kill animals, and large, intense 

fires are certainly dangerous to animals caught in their path (Bendell 1974; Singer and Schullery 

1989). However, direct mortality from fire is generally considered to be minor (Ganey, Block, 

and Boucher 1996), with season of burn having a significant impact on mortality levels (Kruse 

and Piehl 1986; Lehman and Allendorf 1989; Robbins and Myers 1992). For example, burning 

during nesting season appears to be the most detrimental to bird and small mammal populations 

(Erwin and Stasiak 1979). 
100

Habitat effects can have more bearing on wildlife populations than direct mortality of individuals 

(Singer et al. 1989; Vales and Peek 1996). Fires influence animal species indirectly due to habitat 

modification, changes in food supply, or changes in abundance of competitors and/or predators 

(Rotenberry et al. 1995; Finch et al. 1997). A review by Finch et al. (1997) points out that 

reproductive success may be reduced in the first postfire year because of food reductions from 

spring fires. Thus, changes in vegetative structure and composition have interlinking effects on 

the related faunal species. 

Fires can impact birds positively or negatively, depending on the season, patchiness, severity of 

burning, and the particular behavior strategy of the species involved (Kruse and Piehl 1986; 

Lehman and Allendorf 1989; Robbins and Myers 1992). However, direct mortality due to fire is 

considered minor for most bird species. Numerous studies have determined that burning during 

nesting season appears to be most detrimental to ground-nesting populations (Grange 1948; Erwin 

and Stasiak 1979; Kruse and Peihl 1986; Svedarsky et al. 1986). Nesting success was attributed in 

part to areas skipped by the fire as it burned in a mosaic pattern (Kruse and Piehl 1986). Patchy 

burns also favor species that require perches and cover above the ground (Bock and Bock 1990). 

In forested areas, fire effects on birds depend largely on fire severity. Species nesting in the 

canopy could be injured by intense surface fire and crown fire. At Guadalupe Mountains this kind 

of fire behavior might be expected just before the onset of the monsoon season around the first of 

July. 

Fires favor raptors by reducing cover and exposing prey. Dodd (1988) noted that the northern 

harrier, American kestrel, red-tailed hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and turkey and black vultures are 

attracted to fire and recent burns. When prey species increase in response to postfire increases in 

forage, raptors are also favored. Dodd (1988) describes beneficial effects from fire on populations 

of burrowing owl in desert grassland, sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawk in chaparral, and 

northern goshawk and sharp-shinned hawk in ponderosa pine forest. 

Smith et al. (2001) studied the effects of prescribed fire on montane rattlesnakes during and after 

fire in the Peloncillo Mountains, in the southwest corner of the New Mexico Bootheel, on the 

Arizona-New Mexico state line. All nine individual snakes studied sought refuge from fire; one 

died. Simons (1989) reported similar mortality in general for reptiles in southern Arizona. 

There is no question that fire events can directly harm plants and wildlife. At the species level 

there is variation in the sensitivity to fire. However, mobile animals are able to escape direct 

effects of fire, and many plants benefit from fire during some stage of their life cycle. Fire effects 

data for dominant species at the park (Appendix E) generally show tolerance of fire in the long 

term, either through resprouting of topkilled stems or fire-induced germination. At the ecosystem 

level, it can be argued that fire was historically present and benefits plant communities over the 

long term. Those benefits translate into habitat improvements for animals or habitat adjustments, 

where faunal composition has changed as a function of suppression-induced vegetation change. 

Alternative A brings more fire to the landscape, and Alternative B brings the most fire because of 

less need to suppress fires that might cross the northern boundary. Continued absence of fire, 

most likely under No Action, will increase fuel buildups that make future conflagrations more 

probable with the potential to impact entire habitats or populations. 
101

Wildlife Intensity and Duration of Effects Defined 

Negligible: An action that could affect individuals of a species, with no measurable or 

perceptible change to populations. 

Minor: An action that could cause a change to populations, but the change would be small 

and, if measurable, would be a small and localized effect and not decrease or 

increase the species diversity of the park. 

Moderate: An action that could cause a change to populations and communities such that the 

species diversity of the park is decreased or increased. The change would be a 

localized effect and not be considered a threat to the long-term survivability of 

species in question. 

Major: An action that could decrease the species diversity of the park, be considered a 

threat to the long-term survivability of populations in question, and/or eliminate 

the population of a species that is locally endemic or considered key to the natural 

integrity of the park. Or an action that would increase species diversity or 

population numbers of particular species. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Short-term: A return to the pre-event range of variability in distribution and abundance of 

species within the natural fire interval of the affected habitat. 

Long-term: No return to pre-event range of variability in distribution and abundance of species 

within the natural fire interval of the affected habitat. 

Assessment Methodology 

Assessment of change in wildlife comes from past experience in the park’s fire program, park 

staff expertise, and literature pertaining to fire in the Chihuahuan Desert region. 

No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Natural-season fires that avoid breeding seasons should cause the fewest direct negative impacts 

on animals. This alternative dictates the most suppression, which would limit duration of low- to 

moderate-intensity fires and their direct effects. Effects of fire suppression—increasing risk of 

high-severity fires—would continue. Maximum suppression will minimize short-term adverse 

direct effects (death and injury) to animals. Suppression activities (ground disturbance, helicopter 
102

overflight) can locally affect wildlife. Prescribed fire mosaics preserve unburned areas as refuges 

for animals. Under the No Action Alternative only minor indirect benefits from wildland fire use 

and prescribed burning are predicted. The indirect effects of habitat degradation and threat of 

high-severity wildland fire continue. 

Mitigation actions are: mechanical hazardous fuel reduction; prescriptions that protect sensitive 

species’ habitats; presence of resource experts during fire operations; post-fire monitoring to 

verify and improve prescriptions. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on wildlife include concerns within the park. Areas around the park that are 

sources of colonization for park animals, or places where park animals move, are also considered. 

Based on the list of related activities appearing at the beginning of this chapter, the cumulative 

effect analysis finds: 

 Ongoing increases in woody plant cover increase fuels, make burns hotter, increase fire 

tolerant species, and decrease fire-intolerant species, having moderate adverse effects on 

wildlife habitat. 

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fire treatments at the park would 

cause moderate beneficial effects on wildlife habitat. 

 Large, high-severity fires in the Guadalupe Mountains that reach the park and ZOC may add 

moderate adverse effects. 

 Insect outbreaks may have moderately adverse effects on wildlife habitat. 

 Hunting on the Lincoln National Forest may have minor adverse effects on wildlife. 

 Large-scale fires on neighboring lands could reduce available pools for recolonization after 

fires at the park deplete animal populations. 

 Fire events in the same location at higher than historical frequency could shift plant and 

animals to different habitats. 

 Rabies control activities add helicopter overflights that disturb wildlife. 

The combination of the cumulative impacts listed above with suppression actions, prescribed 

burns, and wildland fire use events would have minor to moderate adverse effects on wildlife. 

Conclusion 

Continued suppression of most fires would result in minor, short-term, direct adverse impacts to 

wildlife. Prescribed fire, thinning, wildland fire, and suppression actions could cause small 

changes to populations through loss of individual animals but moderate, indirect effects in the 

long-term by renewing habitat. No Action is least effective at meeting long-term resource 

management objectives. There would be a potential for long-term moderate adverse impacts to 

particular species with continued habitat degradation and threats of high-severity fires during 

periods of severe fire conditions resulting from successive suppression actions. The park would 

continue its progress from a “natural” fire regime to a “suppression” landscape. 

Because there should be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 
103

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there should be no impairment of wildlife under this alternative. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

The timing and context of Alternative A is similar to No Action with future impacts reduced as 

more fires occur. There are more longer-duration impacts with less suppression, though the need 

to suppress along most of the boundary would shorten duration of direct effects. Increased 

wildland fire use for resource benefit would have moderate, short-term adverse direct effects on 

animals intolerant of fire. There is an indirect beneficial effect to native species from changes in 

vegetation structure and composition due to increased use of fire under Alternative A; post-fire 

increases in resource availability (light, nutrients, water) benefit plants and thus animals. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

With more fire use, greater short-term, adverse impacts to individual animals are expected in 

relation to the No Action Alternative. Fires will consume stumps, logs, and snags that may be 

nesting and foraging sites for woodpeckers, small owls, and small mammals, but fire also creates 

more of such sites. Managing for burn mosaics keeps such impacts minor. Resprouting of shrubs 

after burns provides new forage for browsers. Short-term adverse impacts to particular species 

would be minor to moderate with appropriate protective measures. The long-term threat of highseverity fires would subside with park-wide application of prescribed fire and wildland fire use. 

Particular species would benefit as management objectives are met. 

Because there should be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would not be impairment of wildlife under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

The timing and context of Alternative B is similar to Alternative A. There is a further reduction of 

impacts as upper North McKittrick is treated by fire, which improves the entire watershed. As the 

upper North McKittrick landscape is treated, the likelihood of fires spreading from the ZOC to the 

park decreases. With NPS and USFS cooperating to avoid high-severity fires with moderate 

impacts in upper North McKittrick, erosion and downstream deposition that could alter habitat for 

aquatic animals would be reduced in intensity and duration. The direct effects are similar to 

Alternative A, except inclusion of upper North McKittrick would expand the area where 

moderate, short-term adverse effects on fire-intolerant species may occur. The indirect effects are 
104

also similar to Alternative A, except inclusion of upper North McKittrick would expand the area 

where fire improves habitat conditions. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative, but also include the Zone of 

Cooperation: 

 Grazing on the Lincoln National Forest Zone of Cooperation may have minor adverse effects 

on the ability of wildland fire use and prescribed burns to meet vegetation goals under 

Alternative B. 

Conclusion 

The effects of Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, and the effects to animals within 

the Zone of Cooperation would be similar to those experienced within the park. The long-term 

threat to the park’s resources from high-severity fires will further decrease as management 

objectives for the Zone of Cooperation are met, reducing the opportunity for fire encroachment 

from neighboring Forest Service land. Allowing fires that meet prescriptions to burn the upper 

North McKittrick watershed decreases the likelihood of high-severity fires that can result in 

adverse indirect effects (erosion and sedimentation) on aquatic animals downstream. 

Because there may be no major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan and/or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there should be no impairment of wildlife under this alternative. 

Impact Topic 6 (Unique Sites and Sensitive Species) 

Fire could change the character of unique sites as well as positively or negatively change the 

abundance of species of particular interest to park visitors and managers. 

The loss of unique sites and sensitive species would rob the park of key portions of its identity 

and undermine its purpose. At Guadalupe Mountains National Park, McKittrick Canyon is a 

geological-biological wonder beloved for its spectacular scenery. Its spring-fed, perennial stream 

supports deciduous riparian woodland. High-intensity fire through the canyon bottom would 

drastically change its character. The sensitive species of fish, invertebrates, and amphibians in the 

canyon would be impacted, not to mention the disappointment of the public that flocks to the site 

to see fall color displays. Meanwhile the chaparral-covered canyon slopes are overdue for a standreplacing fire. The creek’s delicate travertine (CaCO3 precipitate) lining would be highly 

susceptible to damage from suppression activities. Thus, fire retardant should be avoided. 

The park’s springs are also places whose character is subject to change as a result of fire. These 

locations are always undergoing succession, and fire just resets the clock—opening up areas that 

will later fill in, and freeing up water that will later be consumed by new vegetation. Fire in 
105

surrounding areas can result in erosion that can fill waterways with sediment. Again, fire retardant 

should be avoided in these areas. 

Research Natural Areas [(1) Devil's Den Canyon, (2) Upper South McKittrick Canyon (above 

Hunter Line Cabin), and (3) The Middle Fork of North McKittrick Canyon] are set aside for 

study. Fire has not been a tool of researchers in these areas and deliberate manipulative activity 

such as experimental fire is not permitted within research natural areas under NPS management 

policy. Seeking to improve understanding of fire behavior in particular plant communities, 

however, suggests the need for fire research associated with conditions before, during and after 

wildland fire use. Fire retardant would not be used in these areas. 

Middle Permian benchmark—Two out of three (Getaway Ledge and Stratotype Canyon) are fireproof; third area (Nipple Hill) does not have particularly high fuel loads and digging line would 

cause more disturbance than burning. 

Wilderness necessitates minimum impact management, including minimum tool analysis, and fire 

suppression in such areas relies on crews arriving on foot, using hand tools, and expecting no 

helicopter support. Superintendents can override these provisions under emergency conditions 

when threats to life and property supersede maintenance of wilderness values. 

Plant species of concern are generally local endemics that occur in specialized habitats (see 

Chapter III, Table III-1). 

Table III-1 lists the plants of concern to NPS, State of Texas, USFWS, and Lincoln National 

Forest relative to fire program activities. The park will manage for low-intensity fire in the 

vicinity of known populations of special status plants. For presribed burns the park will: check for 

known populations, conduct fuels assessments around known populations, mechanically reduce 

fuels, if needed, and survey populations at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years post-burn under fire effects 

monitoring protocol. 

Sensitive plants, by vegetation type, are listed below: 

 Rocky Mountain Coniferous Forest: biennial woolywhite, fiveflower rock daisy, Guadalupe 

pincushion cactus, Guadalupe rabbitbrush, Guadalupe valerian, Guadalupe violet, mat 

leastdaisy, McKittrick pennyroyal, and possibly McKittrick’s snowberry 

 Great Basin Conifer Woodland: Guadalupe mescal bean 

 Madrean Evergreen Woodland: Chisos coralroot, Glass Mountain coralroot, Guadalupe 

milkwort, Guadalupe rabbitbrush, Guadalupe valerian, mat leastdaisy, and sparseflower 

jewelflower 

 Interior Chaparral: Culberson County skullcap and possibly strong bladderpod 

 Chihuahuan Semi-desert Grassland: Chisos agave, gypsum wild-buckwheat, paper spine, 

Payson’s hiddenflower, and Trans Pecos beargrass 

 Chihuahuan Desertscrub: Burgess’ broomsage, gypsum milkvetch, Payson’s hiddenflower, 

and Warnock’s ragwort 

 Interior Deciduous Forest and Woodland: cardinal penstemon, Chaplin’s golden columbine, 

Guadalupe Mountains aster, and possibly Guadalupe fescue 
106

Table III-2 is a list of sensitive animal species developed by NPS, State of Texas, USFWS, and 

Lincoln National Forest. Animals of concern tend to be widespread species that are hurting across 

their ranges. Discussion under Impact topic 5 (Wildlife) also applies to the sensitive wildlife. 

Mexican spotted owl (MSO) is the species of greatest concern relative to fire at Guadalupe 

Mountains. The Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Opinion (BO) contain background 

and guidelines for fire management. The following conservation measures are specified in the BA 

prepared for the USFWS: 

The park will identify occupied owl breeding locations, prioritize areas for protection, 

and locate access points for suppression, wildland fire use, and prescribed burning 

activities. This information will be communicated in advance (when feasible) to fire 

management personnel. Guadalupe Mountains National Park is a Class I airshed, and 

smoke will be managed to prevent air quality degradation according to state and local 

requirements. Both volume and density of smoke is usually greater for wildfires than 

for prescribed burns or wildland fire use; smoke dispersal is a factor in the decision for 

wildland fire use. Fire operations will proceed without helicopter flight over protected 

activity centers (PACs) during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), 

except in emergency life-threatening situations. 

Unique Sites and Sensitive Species Intensity of Effects Defined 

Negligible: The impacts on unique sites or sensitive species are at the lowest levels of 

detection, barely perceptible and not measurable. 

Minor: The impacts on the unique sites or sensitive species are measurable and 

perceptible, but slight and localized within a relatively small area or restricted to 

one or two species. The impacts do not affect the character-defining features of 

sites, have a permanent effect on sites’ integrity, or threaten in any way continued 

persistence of species in the park. 

Moderate: The impacts are measurable and perceptible. The impacts change one or more 

character-defining feature(s) of unique site(s) but do not affect the site to the extent 

that its integrity is jeopardized. More than two sensitive species are affected, and 

continued persistence in localized areas may be threatened. 

Major: The impact is substantial, noticeable, and permanent. The impact is severe or of 

exceptional benefit. In the case of adverse effects on unique sites, the impact 

changes one or more character-defining feature(s) to the extent that integrity of the 

site(s) is jeopardized and the site(s) can no longer be considered suitable for 

special recognition. Continued persistence of sensitive species in the park is 

threatened. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 
107

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Short-term: A return of unique sites and distribution and abundance of sensitive species to preevent range of variability within the natural fire interval of the affected habitat. 

Long-term: No return of unique sites and distribution and abundance of sensitive species to 

pre-event range of variability within the natural fire interval of the affected habitat. 

Assessment Methodology 

The IDT produced the list of unique sites. Consultations with USFWS (Texas and New Mexico 

Ecological Services), Texas Parks and Wildlife, and New Mexico Game and Fish plus park 

biologists produced the sensitive species list. Park resource management staff made the 

determination of impacts based on experience with fuels reduction projects. 

No Action Alternative 

Impact Analysis 

Fires during natural fire (monsoon) season minimize the threat of adverse effects to unique sites 

and sensitive species in the park. Mitigation measures reduce intensity and duration of impacts. 

Low- to moderate-intensity fires result in a minimal risk of adverse impact. Fire is part of the 

process for natural sites and effects subside with each post-fire season. Suppression could 

postpone direct effects of fire, but the potential exists for surface and subsurface disturbance 

during suppression activities. Continued suppression brings risk of high-intensity events that 

could cause moderate direct effects on unique sites. Fuel reduction treatments decrease likelihood 

of major direct effects. Unique natural sites and habitats of fire-adapted species likely benefit 

from fire. The No Action Alternative is least effective at lessening the threat of future highseverity wildland fire threats to these sites and habitats. Suppression actions may have the indirect 

effect of postponing the loss of vegetation, temporarily preventing secondary effects of erosion 

and silting up of unique aquatic sites. 

Mitigation actions include: surveying known populations of sensitive species, fuel reduction 

around unique sites and in sensitive species habitats; prescribed burning of fire-tolerant sites and 

habitats; fire suppression in and around fire-intolerant sites and habitats; timing of fires to 

minimize intensity; minimum impact management techniques. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on unique sites and sensitive species include concerns within the park only, 

with the exception of Mexican spotted owl on the Lincoln National Forest for all alternatives. 

Based on the list of related activities appearing at the beginning of this chapter, the cumulative 

effect analysis finds: 

 Ongoing increases in woody plant cover increase fuels and make burns hotter, possibly having 

moderate adverse effects on the McKittrick Canyon riparian zone, Research Natural Areas, 

areas around springs, Mexican spotted owl habitat, and Guadalupe mescal bean and 

Guadalupe violet, two species whose entire known populations could be affected by highintensity fire. 
108

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fire treatments at the park would 

cause moderate beneficial effects through reduction of fuels in the McKittrick Canyon riparian 

zone, areas adjacent to Research Natural Areas, areas around springs, Mexican spotted owl 

habitat, and the habitats of Guadalupe mescal bean and Guadalupe violet, two species whose 

entire known populations could be affected by high-intensity fire. 

 High severity fires in the Guadalupe Mountains that reach the ZOC and park could have 

minor to moderate adverse effects on the McKittrick Canyon watershed, including Research 

Natural Areas and Mexican spotted owl habitat. 

 Ongoing insect outbreaks may have long-term moderate adverse effects on Mexican spotted 

owl habitat and Research Natural Areas by killing trees. 

Past effects that have led to increases in vegetation and dead and downed materials increase the 

potential for larger hotter fires. All proposed fire activities would lessen harmful effects over the 

long-term on sensitive species and special sites. 

The combination of the cumulative impacts listed above with suppression actions, prescribed 

burns, and wildland fire use events would have moderate, adverse effects on unique sites and 

sensitive species. 

Conclusion 

Continued suppression of most fires would result in minor, short-term, direct adverse impacts to 

unique sites and sensitive species. Prescribed and wildland fire could result in increased sediment 

loads in streams and springs and small changes to populations of sensitive species through loss of 

individual plants and animals. Prescribed fire should lead to moderate, indirect beneficial effects 

in the long-term. The No Action is least effective at meeting long-range resource management 

objectives. The potential for long-term adverse impacts to fire-sensitive species with continued 

habitat degradation and threats of high-severity fires would be moderate. Moderate, adverse 

impacts resulting from successive suppression actions are expected. Potential exists for minor to 

moderate, adverse impacts to unique sites and sensitive species accrues as suppression continues. 

Because there should not be major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there should not be impairment of unique sites and sensitive species under this 

alternative. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

The timing, context, duration, and intensity of impacts are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

The direct effects are similar to the No Action Alternative, except the likelihood of minor direct 

effects increase and major direct effects decrease with increased prescribed burning and wildland 

fire use. Alternative A is indirectly effective at reducing long-term adverse impacts from highseverity wildland fire by improving historic scenes at these sites. 
109

Mitigation measures are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

With more fire use, greater short-term, adverse impacts to individual plants and animals are 

expected in relation to No Action. Fires will consume stumps, logs, and snags that may be nesting 

and foraging sites for woodpeckers, small owls, and small mammals, but fire also creates more of 

such sites. Managing for burn mosaics keeps such impacts minor. Resprouting of shrubs after 

burns provides new forage for browsers. Short-term adverse impacts to particular species would 

be minor with appropriate protective measures. The long-term threat of high-intensity fires would 

subside with park-wide application of prescribed fire and wildland fire use. Particular species 

would benefit as management objectives are met. 

Because there should not be major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would not be impairment of unique sites and sensitive species under this 

alternative. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

The timing and context of Alternative B is similar to the No Action Alternative. Inclusion of 

upper North McKittrick Canyon increases overall project areas and number of unique sites. The 

duration and intensity is the same as the No Action Alternative. Direct effects are similar to the 

No Action Alternative, except likelihood of fires entering the park along the Forest Service 

boundary will lessen as more burning takes place in upper North McKittrick. Likelihood of highintensity fires that could harm unique sites in upper North McKittrick decreases with increased 

treatment. The indirect effects are similar to Alternative A with increased effectiveness at 

reducing long-term adverse impacts. In addition, the lower stocking levels in North McKittrick 

Canyon would increase the available water content of the area. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative, but also include the Zone of 

Cooperation. This is the site of caves that are considered important to recreational users. 

Conclusion 

The effects of Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, and the effects to plants and 

animals within the Zone of Cooperation would be similar to those experienced within the park. 

The long-term threat to the park’s resources from high intensity fires will further decrease as 
110

management objectives for the Zone of Cooperation are met, reducing the opportunity for fire 

encroachment from neighboring Forest Service land. Allowing fires that meet prescriptions to 

burn the upper North McKittrick watershed decreases the likelihood of high-severity fires that can 

result in adverse indirect effects (erosion and sedimentation) on plants and animals downstream. 

Benefits in the long-term are greater than Alternative A. 

Because there should not be major, adverse impacts to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or 

(3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would not be impairment of unique sites and sensitive species under this 

alternative. 

Impact Topic 7 (Non-indigenous Species) 

Fire may aid invasion of non-indigenous species but may also prove to be a control tool. 

Non-indigenous species, particularly plants, threaten the integrity of many ecosystems. Fire raises 

three main concerns with respect to exotic plants. First, many species thrive in bare or disturbed 

areas, and fires and suppression activities can make more habitat prone for invasion. Second, 

many non-indigenous species can resprout after being topkilled by fire, and if they grow faster 

than natives, repeated fires can favor the non-indigenous species. Third, non-indigenous grasses 

are fine fuels bringing fire into systems either not tolerant of fire or not tolerant of the fire 

behavior produced by the invading species. While grasses appear on the list of exotics for 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park (see Table III-4), they do not at this time occur in densities 

that create fuel problems. Carefully applied fire can help with control of some invading plants, 

and further research will aid managers with matters of timing, frequency, and intensity of burns. 

Non-indigenous animals are not viewed at this time as requiring consideration in the planning of 

fire program activities. 

Of the non-indigenous plants described as priorities in Chapter III, the following are of concern or 

interest relative to fire program activities. Information comes from communications with park 

staff, Guertin and Halvorson’s (2003) review, and the Fire Effects Information System (FEIS) 

managed by the Forest Service: 

 African rue’s tendency to thrive on degraded lands may mean it can spread into areas recently 

disturbed by fire intense enough to produce bare ground. 

 Malta starthistle grows in disturbed, mainly roadside, areas. Fire suppression activities could 

facilitate this plant’s spread. Hot burning before seed set may kill seed. 

 While horehound is known to move into eroded areas, and fire can lead to erosion, its 

occurrence at the park seems to be restricted to old home and ranch sites. In 1993 the Pine 

Fire burned hot and fast through the horehound field in the old horse pen at the Houser house 

site. The horehound has not returned. 
111

 The places in the park inhabited by Johnson grass are too close to developed areas to be 

prescribed burning sites. Deep rhizomes have no trouble surviving fire, and spring burning 

may encourage Johnson grass growth. Prescribed fire may also serve to open dense stands of 

Johnson grass for more effective herbicide treatment and dispose of plants dead from other 

treatments. 

 Tumbleweeds are present in an area that the park may want to burn, near the Butterfield stage 

stop ruins parking lot. Burning when succulent (late July and early August) may reduce 

densities but cannot prevent the arrival of seeds from off-site. Return of natives eventually can 

crowd them out. Piled up dry tumbleweeds can be a fire hazard; flaming plants have been 

known to roll and spread fire. 

 Puncture vine likes bare areas and could germinate with summer rains after spring fires. It 

occurs near the housing area where burning might be desirable for fuel reduction. 

 Woolly mullein occurs in areas of the park that are priorities for prescribed burning, 

particularly Dog Canyon. It colonizes bare areas and disturbance brings seeds to the surface. 

 Cocklebur likes bare areas and could germinate with summer rains after spring fires. It occurs 

near the housing area where burning might be desirable for fuel reduction. Leafy plants would 

be killed by fire, but seeds, housed in a hefty bur, could likely survive fast-moving, lowintensity fires such as would move through grassland areas. 

Park managers are actively eradicating the non-indigenous species viewed as threats. The fire 

program would work in concert with these efforts and actively plan activities in ways that prevent 

exotics from spreading. Minimization measures include (1) avoiding unnecessary ground 

disturbance, (2) avoiding transport of seed by people and vehicles, and (3) avoid burning exotics 

in a way that might encourage them to spread. Fire planners and crews can also help with 

detection of new problem areas and even removal of exotics as they find them. 

Fire is not considered a significant contributor to the spread of exotic species on a park-wide 

scale. Most exotic species identified in the park are limited to specific locations; fire management 

actions in these areas can be tailored to reflect the specific management considerations for each 

species. 

Non-indigenous Species Intensity of Effects Defined 

Negligible: Impacts would be barely perceptible changes in number, distribution, and densities 

of non-indigenous species. 

Minor: Impacts would be perceptible and noticeable, but would remain localized and 

confined to one or two species or places. 

Moderate: Impacts would be sufficient to cause a noticeable but not substantial change in 

number, distribution, and densities of non-indigenous species. 
112

Major: Impacts would result in substantial and highly noticeable changes in number, 

distribution, and densities of non-indigenous species. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is key to the 

integrity of the park or identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan 

or other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Short-term: A return to the pre-event range of variability in distribution and abundance of nonindigenous species within the natural fire interval of the affected habitat. 

Long-term: No return to pre-event range of variability in distribution and abundance of nonindigenous species within the natural fire interval of the affected habitat. 

Assessment Methodology 

Impacts of the fire program on exotic species have been developed from the literature and the 

experiences of staff and outside experts. 

No Action 

Impact Analysis 

Season and location of fire will affect impacts on non-indigenous species. Fuels treatments will 

reduce the threat of high-severity fires in affected areas. Prescribed burns can be timed to 

discourage propagation of non-indigenous species. Most areas of the park are not threatened by 

the spread of exotic species. High-severity fires that result in bare ground may exacerbate the 

spread of non-indigenous species. High-intensity fires may, on the other hand, kill seeds of Malta 

starthistle and permanently remove horehound. Low-intensity fires may favor native or nonindigenous species depending on time of year. Seeds of spiny cocklebur likely survive lowintensity fire. Duration of a fire should have negligible effects on particular sites; duration, as an 

indicator of overall fire size, affects amount of ground potentially disturbed. The direct effects are 

localized and both beneficial or adverse with the fewest fires under the No Action Alternative. 

Burning the shoots of sprouters stimulates growth (adverse effect) but high-intensity fires may kill 

seeds of sensitive non-indigenous species (beneficial effect). Indirect effects include post-fire 

erosion, the creation of new habitat by suppression-activity disturbances, and the clearing of areas 

by fire. The greater reliance on suppression under the No Action Alternative would lead to 

moderate long-term adverse effects. 

Mitigation actions are: surveying for stand locations; non-indigenous species control programs; 

research programs; fuel reduction programs around areas containing target species; adjusting 

prescriptions to avoid spread of target species; maintaining vigilance about seed transport on 

vehicles; and education can help reduce effects of the fire program on the spread of nonindigenous species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on spread of non-indigenous species include concerns within and beyond the 

park to areas that are sources of colonization. Based on the list of related activities appearing at 

the beginning of this chapter, the cumulative effect analysis finds: 
113

 Ongoing increases in woody plant cover increase fuels and make fires burn hotter, making 

more areas suitable for disturbance-loving non-indigenous species and having moderate 

adverse effects on ecosystem integrity. 

 Ongoing education programs that teach people how to avoid spreading non-indigenous plants 

may have a negligible to minor beneficial effect. 

 Ongoing non-indigenous plant management programs may have a minor beneficial effect by 

curbing target species. 

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fire treatments at the park may 

create disturbances having minor short-term adverse effects in the form of spread of nonindigenous species but also may result in minor long-term beneficial effects by averting highintensity, high-severity wildland fires that cause greater disturbances. 

 Past and future suppression activities at the park may cause disturbances that encourage 

spread of non-indigenous plants and minor, long-term adverse effects. 

 Large, high severity fires in the Guadalupe Mountains that reach the park and ZOC may add 

moderate adverse effects by creating expanses of habitat in the region for invasive nonindigenous plants. 

All planned and non-planned fire events may lead to the increase of exotics without mitigative 

measures. Educational efforts may result in minor benefits. 

The combination of the cumulative impacts listed above with suppression actions, prescribed 

burns, and wildland fire use events would have minor, adverse effects on non-indigenous species 

prevalence and distribution. 

Conclusion 

The No Action Alternative results in the most suppression. Suppression disturbances potentially 

prepare more areas for colonization by exotics in the short-term; high-severity fires potentially 

prepare areas for colonization over the long-term, as fuels build up. This alternative also includes 

prescribed burns often conducted near developments where exotics are present. Because the 

occurrence of exotics is highly localized in the park and the mitigation measures described above 

would be applied in all instances where feasible, No Action is predicted to have minor short-term 

adverse effects. The greater reliance on suppression under the No Action Alternative would lead 

to moderate long-term adverse effects. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment from non-indigenous vegetation under this alternative. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

The timing, context, duration, and intensity are similar to the No Action Alternative but more 

areas of the park will likely not experience high-severity fire due to allowing fire use and 

prescribed burns to cross the north boundary. Direct effects remain localized but with an increase 

in the number of fires. There is a moderately adverse indirect effect from the disturbance of 
114

digging during suppression. This creates an opening for the spread of non-indigenous species. 

Nonetheless, indirect effects are expected to be less than the No Action Alternative because of the 

fewer suppressed fires. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative A, the potential for exotic plant spread exists both from allowing fires to burn, 

thus clearing areas for colonization, and from disturbing the ground during suppression actions. 

Because the occurrence of exotics is highly localized in the park and mitigation measures would 

be applied in all instances where feasible, Alternative A is predicted to have minor to moderate 

short-term adverse effects. In addition, the lower reliance on suppression under Alternative A 

would lead to minor long-term adverse effects. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment from non-indigenous vegetation under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

Timing, context, duration and intensity of impacts are all similar to Alternative A except that the 

benefits of increased wildland fire use will extend beyond the north boundary into upper North 

McKittrick Canyon. Direct and indirect effects are also similar to Alternative A but with a 

lessening of adverse effects due to more wildland fire use. Minor adverse effects may occur from 

the increased clearing by fire, which increases the opportunity for the spread of exotics. Vigilant 

removal of exotics may be needed. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative but also include the Zone of 

Cooperation. 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative B there should be less suppression disturbance, but more extensive wildland 

fire use and prescribed burns that cross the north boundary. Because the occurrence of exotics is 

highly localized in the park and the mitigation measures would be applied in all instances where 

feasible, Alternative B is predicted to have minor short-term adverse effects. Similar to 

Alternative A, the lower reliance on suppression would lead to minor long-term adverse effects. 
115

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment from non-indigenous vegetation under this alternative. 

Impact Topic 8 (Geology and Geohazards) 

Removal of vegetation by fire can contribute to erosion, flooding, and damage of fossils, while 

fire can also facilitate new discoveries; heat can cause exfoliation of rock surfaces. 

The Guadalupe Mountains are a remnant of a marine fossil reef that formed about 250 million 

years ago as calcareous sponges, algae, and other lime-secreting marine organisms, along with 

lime, precipitated from the seawater. There are no living examples of this type of reef; modern 

reefs are mostly composed of corals. The geology of the range has been well studied due to its 

proximity to oil and natural gas fields. The international benchmark for the Middle Permian 

period also lies within the park. 

The geology of the Guadalupe Mountains, from both scientific and scenic perspectives, is a 

significant resource bringing visitors to the park. A long history of fire on the landscape would 

seemingly have long ago reduced the number of fire-sensitive geological features. However, loss 

of vegetation as a result of fire increases erosion and rockfall, and heat can cause rock to explode. 

The park recently hired a full-time geologist to determine fossil type localities and conduct 

surveys of significant resources. As new paleontological specimens are discovered and new type 

localities determined, there would be a need to mitigate localities where extreme fire conditions 

are possible. 

Low erosion potential to begin with keeps predicted impacts minor; long-term impacts could be 

highest under No Action and lowest under Alternative B. 

Geology and Geohazard Intensity of Effects Defined 

Negligible: An action that would cause no perceptible alteration of features or change to 

existing rates of erosion, levels of seasonal floodwaters, or sediment load during 

flood events. 

Minor: A slight but measurable and perceptible alteration to features or change to existing 

rates of erosion, levels of seasonal floodwaters, or sediment load during flood 

events. 

Moderate: A measurable and perceptible alteration of features or change to existing rates of 

erosion, levels of seasonal floodwaters, or sediment load during flood events that 

would necessitate some rehabilitation, cleanup, or repair. 
116

Major: A measurable and perceptible alteration of features or change to existing rates of 

erosion, levels of seasonal floodwaters, or sediment load during flood events that 

would necessitate major rehabilitation, cleanup, or repair and road or campground 

closures. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to a resource or value whose conservation is (1) necessary 

to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation 

of Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity 

of the park; or (3) identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Short-term: A return of erosion, seasonal flooding, or sedimentation to pre-event rates within 

3-5 summer rainy seasons. 

Long-term: No return of erosion, seasonal flooding, or sedimentation to pre-event rates within 

3-5 summer rainy seasons. 

Assessment Methodology 

Assessment of geology and geohazard impacts comes from staff observations, discussions with 

experts, studies conducted in the park, and the literature. 

No Action Alternative 

Impact Analysis 

In regard to context and timing, the likelihood and severity of impacts depend on (1) extent and 

intensity of fire and (2) timing of and amounts of rainfall following burns. The intensity and 

duration of impacts also relate directly to the intensity, pattern of burning, and extent of fire. 

There is the potential for the most direct adverse effects from high-severity wildland fire under 

the No Action Alternative. Nonetheless, rocky slopes moderate erosion potential. Suppression 

activities have the indirect effect of causing localized soil disturbance. 

Mitigation actions are to minimize size and intensity of individual burns; plan for burning in a 

“mosaic”; construct erosion controls following fires; replant slopes; and “rezone” high risk areas 

temporarily. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on geology and geohazards include the entirety of the watersheds that occur in 

the park. Based on the list of related activities appearing at the beginning of this chapter, the 

cumulative effect analysis finds: 

 Past and future prescribed burns, wildland fire use, and non-fire treatments have a minor 

short-term beneficial effect by reducing the likelihood of future high-severity fires that 

remove vegetation, promote erosion, and damage fossils. 

 Ongoing increase in cover and density of woody species increase the likelihood of highseverity fire events that remove vegetation, promote erosion, damage fossils, and have longterm moderate adverse effects. 

 Ongoing suppression activities in the park may disturb soil and have minor adverse effects. 
117

 Grazing on USFS land north of the park boundary may have negligible to minor adverse 

effects. 

 Wildland and prescribed fire and thinning on USFS land in the Guadalupe Mountains over the 

tenure of the FMP and beyond have a minor beneficial effect by reducing the likelihood of 

future high-severity fires that remove vegetation, promote erosion, and cause moderately 

adverse effects. 

 Other actions are not likely to cause significant erosion and debris flow. Trail improvement 

will lessen erosion potential on affected slopes.

Build up of fuels will lead to hotter fires removing vegetation and increasing the likelihood of 

erosion. Fire activities to lessen fuels will reduce the probability of high-severity fire but there 

could be minor cumulative adverse effects from suppression activities. 

Conclusion 

Fire management-related impacts to geology and geohazards would be adverse but short-term and 

minor to moderate in intensity with appropriate mitigation measures. No change to existing 

conditions is expected in the short-term. Potential continues for moderate, short-term, adverse 

impacts to soil stability and flood potential during periods of severe fire conditions followed by 

monsoon-like rainfall events. No other actions are identified as causing cumulative impacts to 

geology or generating geohazards. Potential in the long-term for moderate, adverse impacts to 

geology and from geohazards accrues as suppression continues, fuels build, and the likelihood of 

high-severity fire increases. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents; there would be no impairment of geologic resources under this alternative. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

The timing and context is the same as the No Action Alternative. The intensity and duration of 

effects is similar to the No Action Alternative, except more wildland fire use will help establish 

mosaic patterns that moderate erosion and debris flow. The direct and indirect effects are also 

similar, but the potential for high-severity wildland fire is reduced with wildland fire use and 

suppression will play less of a role. 

Mitigation actions are to minimize size and intensity of individual burns; construct erosion 

controls following fires; and replant slopes with short-lived annuals as a nurse crop and erosion 

control. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 
118

Alternative A would also result in minor to moderate short-term adverse effects. However, over 

the long-term soil stability becomes less threatened as the potential for future high-severity 

wildland fire is reduced. Greater wildland fire use would lessen the adverse effects of future 

wildland fires by reducing fuel loads and connectivity throughout the park and therefore reduce 

erosion of mineral soil potentially exposed by high-intensity fires. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of geologic resources under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

The timing, context, duration, and intensity is similar to the No Action Alternative, but burning in 

the Zone of Cooperation will help stop fire spread onto the park. Direct and indirect effects are 

also similar to the No Action Alternative, except the potential for high-severity wildland fire is 

reduced with wildland fire use and burning in the Zone of Cooperation. In addition, high-severity 

flooding in upper North McKittrick Canyon is a possible short-term moderate indirect effect. 

Mitigation actions are to minimize size and intensity of individual burns; construct erosion 

controls following fires; and to replant slopes in upper North McKittrick Canyon. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative, but also include the Zone of 

Cooperation. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B, which might see fires crossing from the park to Forest Service land in upper North 

McKittrick Canyon, also has the potential for minor to moderate short-term adverse effects. Fire 

management actions in the upper reaches of the watershed will affect downstream reaches in the 

short-term, but would further lessen the potential adverse effects of future wildland fire events on 

geological features and from geohazards in the long-term. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of geologic resources under this alternative. 

Impact Topic 9 (Air Quality) 

Smoke from fires can be unhealthy and temporarily impact visibility. A natural consequence of 

wildland fire is smoke-related air quality impacts. Prescribed fires used to meet resource and 

protection objectives have direct, adverse impacts on air quality, but such impacts are considered 
119

short-term. The use of prescribed fire for fuel reduction and resource-related purposes will reduce 

the likelihood of high-severity wildland fire and thus the chance for severe air quality impacts in 

the future. 

Smoke may actually benefit some park plants; over the last decade, researchers have confirmed 

that chemicals in smoke trigger germination in species from Australia, South Africa, and the 

California chaparral (Brown and van Staden 1997). Conversely, smoke also reduces the growth of 

parasitic plants that grow on native trees. In a summer 2004 press release, Yosemite National Park 

mentioned the eradication of dwarf mistletoe as an ecological benefit of smoke. 

In the absence of large, high-intensity wildland fires, the three alternatives (including the agencypreferred alternative) would potentially have the same relative impacts to air quality, given the 

schedule of prescribed fires is similar for all. Depending on wind speed, direction, and mixing 

height, the effects to downstream smoke load and visibility may be a concern during prescribed 

burn actions. Under all alternatives, mitigation of adverse air impacts is mandatory. 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park is designated a Class I airshed, which requires the strictest 

enforcement of air quality regulations. Park personnel have the duty, as defined by the Clean Air 

Act, to protect park resources from air pollution-related effects and damage. Burn prescriptions 

must comply with all federal, state, interstate, and local air pollution standards. The state has 

authority in establishing air quality standards and permitting requirements. A burn permit from 

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is required. A burn permit details predicted 

smoke and particulate emissions resulting from the prescribed fire. 

Clear skies, both day and night, are a feature of the park that affects visitor enjoyment. Views 

towards and out from the mountains are a significant part of the visitor experience. Smoke will 

compromise these views and cloud the starry, night sky. 

Air Quality Intensity of Effects Defined 

Negligible: The impact is at the lowest levels of detection. A fire management action (other 

than a wildland fire) that is well within established Texas and New Mexico 

ambient air quality standards, including visibility. 

Minor: The impact is slight, but detectable. An action that meets all established Texas and 

New Mexico ambient air quality standards, including visibility. 

Moderate: The impact is readily apparent. An action that exceeds one or more established 

Texas and New Mexico ambient air quality and/or visibility standards if mitigation 

measures are not implemented. 

Major: The impact is severely adverse. An action that exceeds one or more established 

Texas and New Mexico ambient air quality and/or visibility standards, if 

mitigation measures are not implemented. 

Impairment: A major, adverse impact to air quality that negates or contradicts (1) specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of Guadalupe 
120

Mountains National Park; (2) the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

goals in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents. 

Short-term: Within the duration of a specific fire program activity (for example prescribed 

burn or suppression action). 

Long-term: Beyond the duration of a specific fire program activity. 

Assessment Methodology 

Air quality measurements in the park have established clear sky norms. Experience with 

prescribed burns and wildland fires is the basis of the assessment. 

No Action Alternative 

Impact Analysis 

The park is federally designated a Class I airshed, which sets the highest level of air quality 

regulations; any smoke causes degradation. Weather at the time of fire events will determine 

dispersal patterns. Health problems from smoke exposure might appear at a later time. Intensity 

and duration of wildland fire impacts vary with weather conditions, vegetation, and duration and 

intensity of fire. Prescribed fires and wildland fire use are required to meet air quality standards. 

Impacts to air quality would be short-term, minor, direct effects with the suppression of most 

fires. Visual values would also be affected by increased risk of wildland fire. In regard to indirect 

effects, the risk of high-severity wildland fires continues to cause significant air quality impacts 

with the least amount of wildland fire use under the No Action Alternative. 

Mitigation for adverse air impacts is mandatory. Actions are to continue to integrate weather data 

before and during prescribed burns; time prescribed burns to minimize smoke production, size, 

and intensity; and coordinate burns with adjacent and nearby land managers to minimize 

cumulative impacts in the region. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects on air quality include concerns within the park’s airshed. Fire operations are 

conducted only under conditions stipulated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

Based on the list of related activities appearing at the beginning of this chapter, the cumulative 

effect analysis finds: 

 Past and future prescribed burns and wildland fire use at the park and on the surrounding 

Lincoln National Forest potentially cause minor short-term adverse effects on air quality if 

they exceed prescription but lower the likelihood of future degradation by wildland fire. 

 Fire on the park would add to short-term airshed degradation caused by other fires and dust 

generated by ground-disturbing projects in the region. 

 Past and future wildland fire at the park and on the surrounding Lincoln National Forest 

potentially causes minor short-term adverse effects on air quality. 

 Ongoing increase in cover and density of woody species increases the need and likelihood for 

smoke-producing fire events. 
121

 Ongoing insect outbreaks increase the likelihood of wildland fire and adverse short-term 

effects on air quality.

All fire reduces air quality over the short-term. Regular fires to meet management objectives 

reduce air quality more frequently but provide many resource benefits and reduce the likelihood 

of large fires and greater reduction in the quality of the airshed. 

The combination of the cumulative impacts listed above with suppression actions, prescribed 

burns, and wildland fire use events would have minor, short-term, adverse effects on air quality. 

Conclusion 

No Action minimizes short-term, adverse impacts to air quality and visual values through the 

active suppression of most fires. Impacts to air quality during prescribed burns and wildland fire 

use would be minor in intensity with required mitigation to meet state air quality standards. Over 

the long-term, potential grows for moderate adverse impacts to air quality during severe fire 

conditions with increasing fuel loads. The park’s use of fire as a tool for meeting resource 

objectives has a cumulative effect on the airshed in combination with all other activities in the 

region producing airborne particulates. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of air quality under this alternative. 

Alternative A 

Impact Analysis 

The timing and duration are the same as the No Action Alternative while the intensity and effects 

are similar. Small smoke events become more frequent with more burning in the park and the 

potential for large events generating a lot of smoke decreases. More burning will generate more 

smoke. The short-term direct adverse effects are expected to be minor with required mitigations 

such as monitoring, notifications, and ventilation. There would be long-term benefits with 

reductions in fuels. Indirect effects are similar to the No Action Alternative, except with more 

burning in the park, potential for large events generating a lot of smoke decreases. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

Under Alternative A the greater use of fire for resource management may result in more smoke 

being released for any given period and short-term minor adverse impacts. Fire prescriptions 

would be required to meet air quality standards. Over the long-term, air quality and visual values 
122

benefit from reduced fuels and decreased potential for high-severity wildland fires that produce 

large quantities of smoke. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of air quality under this alternative. 

Alternative B 

Impact Analysis 

The timing and context for Alternative B is the same as the No Action Alternative while duration, 

intensity, and effects are all similar. The exception is that burning in the Zone of Cooperation 

reduces the likelihood of fires escaping the park and growing into bigger smoke-generating 

events. 

Mitigation actions are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are the same as the No Action Alternative. 

Conclusion 

Alternative B would have effects similar to Alternative A, with greater potential for short-term, 

minor, adverse impacts with more extensive wildland fire use and prescribed burning. Prescribed 

and wildland fire use actions in the Zone of Cooperation in the long-term increase the extent of 

reductions in fuels and fuel connectivity and thus reduce the likelihood that a fire will grow into a 

larger smoke-generating event. 

Because there would be no major impacts to a resource or a value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the establishing legislation or proclamation of 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of air quality under this alternative. 
123

Chapter V: Consultation and Coordination 

Preparers 

Fred Armstrong, Natural Resource Program Manager, Guadalupe Mountains National Park—

BS in Natural Resources Management from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis 

Obispo; 23 years with the NPS, 11 years at Guadalupe Mountains NP. Lead on compliance 

activities (for listed species and cultural resources) for the park. 

Richard Gatewood, Fire Ecologist, National Park Service, Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion. Ph.D. 

in Disturbance and Restoration Ecology, Colorado State University. Four years ecologist, State 

of Texas; Research Associate, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Experiment Station; 4 

years Ecologist, Bandelier National Monument. Lead on fire ecology and fire effects monitoring 

for the park. 

Brooke S. Gebow, Senior Research Specialist, University of Arizona School of Natural 

Resources—MS in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from University of Arizona, six years 

energy consulting, 12 years free-lance science writer, four years Tucson Botanical Gardens, five 

years project support for UA/USGS Sonoran Desert Research Station. Cooperator with the NPS 

to coordinate production of the Guadalupe Mountains NP FMP and associated compliance 

documents. 

John V. Lujan, Superintendent, Guadalupe Mountains National Park—BA in History from Sul 

Ross State University in Alpine, Texas; 27 years with the NPS at eight park units representing 

cultural, natural, and recreational areas. Fire Management background to include fire fighting 

experiences across the west and southeast. Oversight of the development of the Interagency 

FMP between the NPS and the BLM. 

Jim McMahill, Fire Management Officer, Guadalupe Mountains and Carlsbad Caverns National 

Parks—BS in Geography with a concentration in natural resources management from the 

University of Wyoming; 12 years of federal fire management service with the National Park 

Service and Bureau of Land Management. 

Ellis Richard, Former Superintendent, Guadalupe Mountains National Park—BA in 

Anthropology from University of California, Berkeley, 31 years with the NPS including service 

at Grand Canyon, Lassen Volcanic and Grand Teton National Parks. Fire experience includes 

fire information officer, initial attack fire boss and fire fighter. Responsible for overall fire 

management planning process.

Timothy C. Stubbs (now retired NPS)—BS in Botany from San Diego State University, 24 years 

with NPS; FMO for both Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks 1990 to 

March 2003. He also worked at Great Smoky Mountains and Sequoia National Park where he 

began his career as a seasonal employee in 1969. Drafted preliminary sections for the current 

revision. 

Dan Swanson, former Lead Fire Effects Monitor, Guadalupe Mountains & Carlsbad Caverns 

National Parks—MS in Forest Resources from University of Idaho; BA in Environmental, 
124

Population, and Organismic Biology from University of Colorado; 2 1⁄2 years at Guadalupe 

Mountains NP, 2 1⁄2 years Assistant Nursery Manager at University of Idaho Research Nursery. 

Responsible for fire effects, burn unit delineation, and GIS maps. 

Janice A. Wobbenhorst, Chief, Resource Management & Visitor Protection, Guadalupe 

Mountains National Park—MPA in Public and Environmental Affairs from Indiana UniversityNW, 34 years with the NPS. Responsible for overall review of fire operations, assisting with 

compliance, interagency coordination, and impact analysis review. 

List of Recipients 

The recipients of the EA include: federal agencies, Indian tribes, state and local agencies, 

organizations, and individuals. The list is available upon request. 
125

Chronology 

Date Event Notes 

March 12-13, 2002 Internal scoping meeting Tony Armijo, Roads & Trails 

Foreman; Ellis Richard, former 

Superintendent; Richard Gatewood, 

Fire Ecologist; Kathy Davis, SOAR 

Fire Ecologist; Tim Stubbs, retired 

FMO; Fred Armstrong, Resource 

Manager; Brooke Gebow, UA 

Cooperator; Jan Wobbenhorst, 

Chief of Resources and Visitor 

Protection; Chuck Barat, Chief of 

Science and Stewardship, Carlsbad 

Caverns NP; Eva Long, IMRO 

Compliance Specialist for Fire; 

Bruce Malloy, former District 

Ranger; Doug Buehler, Chief of 

Interpretation 

October 10, 2002 NOI publication in Federal 

Register 

November 11, 2002 Mailing sent to public and 

tribes 

October 10 to December 31, 

2002 

Public scoping comment 

period 

November 18, 19, 20, 21, 2002 Public scoping meetings held 

jointly with Carlsbad Caverns 

National Park 

Met with Jamie Kingsbury, USFS 

District Ranger; Stubbs, Richard, 

Wobbenhorst, Gebow, Gatewood 

November 20, 2002 Initiated consultation with 

Lincoln National Forest 

September 18, 2003 Initiated consultation with 

USFWS 

Letters- Gebow to Texas and New 

Mexico Ecological Services 

September 18, 2003 Initiated consultation with 

Texas Parks and Wildlife 

Letter- Gebow to Celeste Brancel 

January 27, 2004 Sent Biological Assessment to 

USFWS 

Letter- Armstrong to Joy 

Nicolopoulous, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico 

February 26, 2004 Comments received from 

TPWD 

Letter- Brancel to Gebow 

February 13, 2004 Initiated consultation with 

New Mexico Game and Fish 

Department 

Letter- Gebow to Jan Ward 

May 27, 2004 Initiated consultation with 

Texas SHPO 

Phone call- Armstrong/Gebow to 

Debra Beene 

December 27, 2004 Cultural Resource Component 

submitted to Texas SHPO 

Letter- Armstrong to F. Lawrence 

Oaks 
126

Literature Cited 

Abbott, L. 1998. The ecological role of fire in southeastern Arizona oak woodland ecosystems. 

Report to The Nature Conservancy from the University of Arizona School of Renewable 

Natural Resources. 116 p. 

Ahlstrand, G. M. 1981. High country fire history. P. 1–22 in G. M. Ahlstrand, principal 

investigator. Ecology of fire in the Guadalupe Mountains and adjacent Chihuahuan Desert. 

Carlsbad Caverns and Guadalupe Mountains National Parks, Carlsbad, NM. 

Ahlstrand, G. M. 1982. Response of Chihuahuan Desert mountain shrub vegetation to burning. J. 

Range Management 35:62–65. 

Aiken, S. G., M. J. Dallwitz, C. L. McJannet, and L. L. Consaul. 1996 onwards. Festuca of 

North America: descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information retrieval. Version: 

14th September 2001. 9-30-03. http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/. 

Baker, M. A. and R. A. Johnson. 2000. Morphometric analysis of Escobaria sneedii var. sneedii, 

E. sneedii var. leei, and E. guadalupensis (Cactaceae). Systematic Botany. 25:577-587. 

Bendell, J. F., 1974. Effects of fire on birds and mammals. P. 73-138 in T. T. Kozlowski and C. 

E. Ahlgren, editors. Fire and Ecosystems. Academic Press, New York. 

Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock. 1990. Effects of fire on wildlife in southwestern lowland habitats. P. 

50-64 in Krammes, J. S., tech coord. Effects of Fire Management on Southwestern Natural 

Resources. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech, Rep. RM191. Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Brack, S., and K.D. Heil. 1986. The cacti of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Cactus and 

Succulent Journal. 58(4):165-177. 

Brand, J. P. and A. D. Jacka. 1979. Geology of Guadalupe Mountains National Park. P. 1-12. H. 

H. Genoways and R. L. Baker, editors. Biological Investigations in the Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park, Texas. National Park Service Proceedings and Transactions Series Number 

Four. 

Brown, D. E., editor. 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern 

Mexico. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 342 p. 

CA Department of Fish and Game. 2003. African rue or Harmel. 

http://pi.cdfa.ca.gov/weedinfo/PEGANUM2.html. 3-21-03. 

Caprio, A. C., and M. J. Zwolinski. 1995. Fire and vegetation in a Madrean oak woodland, Santa 

Catalina Mountains, southeastern Arizona. P. 389-398 in P. F. Ffolliott, L. F. DeBano, M. B. 

Baker, Jr., G. J. Gottfried, G. Solis-Garza, C. B. Edminster, D. G. Neary, L. S. Allen, and R. 
127

H. Hamre, Technical Coordinators. Effects of Fire on Madrean Province Ecosystems. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO. 

Coleman, R. A. 2000. Hexalectris revoluta Correll (Orchidaceae). Madroño. 47(2): 138. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning Council on 

Environmental Quality’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. 

Desert Botanical Garden. 1999. Festuca ligulata Guadalupe Fescue: Poaceae. DBG Center for 

Plant Conservation. 9-30-03. http//:67.29.153.101:28485/Collections/festuca_ligulata.html. 

Dick-Peddie, W. A. 1993. New Mexico Vegetation: Past, Present and Future. University of New 

Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 244 p. 

Dodd, N. L. 1988. Fire management and southwestern raptors. P. 341-347 in R. L. Glinski, and 

B. G. Pendleton [et al.], editors. Proceedings of the southwest raptor symposium and 

workshop. National Wildlife Federation Technology Series No. 11, Washington, D.C. 

Erwin, W. J., and R. H. Stasiak. 1979. Vertebrate mortality during the burning of reestablished 

prairie in Nebraska. American Midland Naturalist 101:247-249. 

Finch, D. M., J. L. Ganey, W. Yong, R. T. Kimball, and R. Sallabanks. 1997. Effects and 

interactions of fire, logging, and grazing. P. 103-136 in W. M. Block and D. M. Finch, tech. 

coords. Songbird Ecology in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests: a Literature Review. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-292, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Ffolliott, P. F., and D. A. Bennett. 1996. Peak fire of 1988: its effects on Madrean oak trees. P. 

235-237 in P. F. Ffolliott, L. F. DeBano, M. B. Baker, Jr., G. J. Gottfried, G. Solis-Garza, C. 

B. Edminster, D. G. Neary, L. S. Allen, and R. H. Hamre, Technical Coordinators. Effects of 

Fire on Madrean Province Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RMGTR-289. Fort Collins, CO. 

Ganey, J. L., W. M. Block, and P. F. Boucher. 1996. Fire effects on birds in Madrean forests and 

woodlands. P. 146-154 in P. F. Ffolliott, L. F. DeBano, M. B. Baker, Jr., G. J. Gottfried, G. 

Solis-Garza, C. B. Edminster, D. G. Neary, L. S. Allen, and R. H. Hamre, Technical 

Coordinators. Effects of Fire on Madrean Province Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report RM-GTR-289. Fort Collins, CO. 

Gentry, H. S. 1982. Agaves of Continental North America. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Guertin, P., and W. L. Halvorson. 2003. USGS weeds of the west: status of introduced plants in 

southern Arizona national parks (50 plant fact sheets). 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1992. Resources Management Plan. 
128

Guadalupe Mountains National Park. 1996. Wildland Fire Management Plan. National Park 

Service. Larry Henderson, Superintendent. 

Heil, K., and J. Herring. 1999. Chaetopappa hersheyi (Hershey’s cliff daisy). New Mexico Rare 

Plant Technical Council (NMRPTC). Albuquerque, NM: 

http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/reports/chaher.html. 4-2-04. 

Jones, A. T., and R. C. Euler. 1986. Effects of forest fires on archaeological resources in Grand 

Canyon National Park. North American Archaeologist 7(3): 243-254. 

Kaufmann, M.R., L. S. Huckaby, C. M. Regan, J. Popp. 1998. Forest reference conditions for 

ecosystem management in the Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico. Gen. Tech. Report 

RMRS-GTR-19. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, 87 p. 

Kittams, W. H. 1972. Effect of fire on vegetation of the Chihuahuan Desert region. P. 427–444 

in Proceedings Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, June 8–9, 1972. 

Kruse, A. D., and J. L. Piehl. 1986. The impact of prescribed burning on ground-nesting birds. P. 

153-156 in G. K. Clambey and R. H. Pemble, editors. The Prairie: Past, Present, and Future, 

Proceedings, 9th North American Prairie Conference. Tri-College University Center for 

Environmental Studies, Fargo, ND. 

Ladyman, J. A. R., L. DeLay, P. Gegick and M.A. Bogan. 1999. Status and reproductive biology 

of Lepidospartum burgessii (Burgess broomshrub or gypsum scalebroom). Report to: U.S. 

Geological Survey, Biological Resource Division, Arid Lands Field Station, University of 

New Mexico, Albuquerque. 

Lehman, R. N., and J. W. Allendorf. 1989. The effects of fire, fire exclusion, and fire 

management on raptor habitats in the western United States. Western Raptor Management 

Symposium and Workshop:236-244. 

Lentz, S. C., J. K. Gaunt, and A. J. Willmer. 1996. Fire effects on archaeological resources, 

phase I: the Henry Fire, Holiday Mesa, Jemez Mountains, New Mexico. Res. Pap. RM-GTR273. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 103p. 

McClaran, M.P., and T. R. Van Devender, editors. 1995. The Desert Grassland. The University 

of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. 

National Interagency Fire Center. 2002. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire 

Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy 

Implementation Plan. 27 p. 

NPS. 1998. Archeological Site Hazardous Fuel Assessment Site Report. Guadalupe Mountains 

National Park. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Interior. 
129

NPS. 1998. Director’s Order #18: Wildland Fire Management. Washington D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Interior. 

NPS. 1999 and in progress. NPS-77 Guideline: Natural Resources Management. Washington 

Office, Washington D.C. 

NPS. 2001. Director’s Order #12: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision Making. Washington D. C.: U.S. Department of Interior. 

NPS. 2001. Management Policies. National Park Service Office of Policy. 141 p. 

NPS. 2002. Wildland Fire Management Reference Manual 18. Version 3. November 5, 2002. 

NPS. 2003. Fire Monitoring Handbook. Boise (ID): Fire Management Program Center, National 

Interagency Fire Center. 274 p. 

Northington, D. K., and T. L. Burgess. 1979. Status of rare and endangered plant species of the 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. P. 59-77. H. H. Genoways and R. L. Baker, 

editors. Biological Investigations in the Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. National 

Park Service Proceedings and Transactions Series Number Four. 

Paysen, T. E., R. J. Ansley, J. K. Brown, G. J. Gottfried, S. M. Haase, M. G. Harrington, M. G. 

Narog, S. S. Sackett, and R. C. Wilson. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and 

grassland ecosystems. P. 121–159 in J. K. Brown and J. K. Smith, editors. Wildland Fire in 

Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 257 p. 

Powell, A. M. 1998. Trees and Shrubs of the Trans-Pecos and Adjacent Areas. University of 

Texas Press, Austin. 498 p. 

Powell, A.M., and B. Wauer. 1990. A new species of Viola (Violaceae) from the Guadalupe 

Mountains, Trans-Pecos Texas. SIDA Contrib. Bot. Fort Worth, Tex 14(1):1-6. 

Robbins, L. E., and R. L. Myers. 1992. Seasonal effects of prescribed burning in Florida: a 

review. Misc. Pub. No. 8. Tall Timbers Research, Inc., Tallahassee, FL. 96 p. 

Rotenberry, J. T., R. J. Cooper, J. M. Wunderle, and K. G. Smith. 1995. When and how are 

populations limited? The roles of insect outbreaks, fire, and other natural perturbations. P. 55-

82 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, editors. Ecology and Management of Neotropical 

Migratory Birds: A Synthesis of Critical Issues. Oxford University Press. 

Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W. J. Hann, D. L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

Coarse-Scale Spatial Data for Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. Gen. Tech. Report 

RMRS-GTR-87. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 50 

p. 
130

Simons, L. H. 1989. Vertebrates killed by desert fire. Southwestern Naturalist. 34: 144. 

Singer, F. J., and P. Schullery. 1989. Yellowstone wildlife: populations in process. Western 

Wildlands 15:18-22. 

Singer, F. J., W. Schreier, J. Oppenheim, and E. O. Garton. 1989. Drought, fires, and large 

mammals. Bioscience 39:716-722. 

Sivinski, R. 1999. Sophora gypsophia var. guadalupensis (Guadalupe mescal bean). New 

Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council (NMRPTC). Albuquerque, NM: 

http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/reports/sopgyp.html. 4-2-04. 

Smith, L. J., A. T. Holycross, C. W. Painter, M. E. Douglas. 2001. Montane rattlesnakes and 

prescribed fire. Southwestern Naturalist. 46(1): 54-61. 

Svedarsky, W. D., T. J. Wolfe, M. A. Kohring, and L. B. Hanson. 1986. Fire management in 

prairies in the prairie-forest transition of Minnesota. P. 103-107 in A. L. Koonce, editor. 

Prescribed burning in the Midwest: State of the art (Symposium proceedings). University of 

Wisconsin-Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources, Fire Science Center, Stevens Point, 

WI. 

Traylor, D., L. Hubbell, N. Wood, and B. Fielder. 1990. The 1977 La Mesa Fire study: an 

investigation of fire and fire suppression impact on cultural resources at Bandelier National 

Park. Southwest Cultural Resources Center, Professional Papers 28. Branch of Cultural 

Resources Management, Division of Anthropology, National Park Service, Santa Fe, NM. 

206p. 

Turner, B. L. 1977. Lepidospartum burgessii (Asteraceae, Senecioneae), a remarkable new 

gypsophilic species from Trans-Pecos Texas. Wrightia 5:354-355. 

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Lincoln National Forest Plan (Land and Resource Management 

Plan). Southwestern Region, USDA Forest Service. 

USDA Fire Effects Information System. Maintained by the Forest Service. Contains literature 

reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. McKittrick Pennyroyal (Hedeoma apiculatum W.S. 

Stewart) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. iv + 46 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule 

to delist the plant Hedeoma apiculatum (McKittrick pennyroyal) and remove its critical 

habitat designation. Federal Register 58:49244-49247. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl: Vol. I. 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 
131

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule 

determining endangered status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Register, 

60:10,694-10,715. 

Vales, D. J., and J. M. Peek. 1996. Responses of elk to the 1988 Yellowstone fires and drought. 

P. 159-167 in J. M. Greenlee, editor. The Ecological Implications of Fire in Greater 

Yellowstone, Proceedings, 2nd Biennial Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield, WA. 

Worthington, R. D. 1999. Salvia Summa (Supreme sage). New Mexico Rare Plant Technical 

Council (NMRPTC). Albuquerque, NM: http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/reports/salsum.htm. 11-

29-04. 

Wright, H. A. 1990. Role of fire in the management of Southwestern ecosystems. P. 1–5 in J. S. 

Krammes, technical coordinator. Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural 

Resources. General Technical Report RM-191. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 293 p. 

Wright, H. A., and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire Ecology—United States and Southern Canada. John 

Wiley & Sons, New York. 501p. 
132

Appendix A: Glossary 

Appropriate 

Management 

Response 

AMR Specific actions taken in response to a wildland fire to 

implement protection and fire use objectives. 

Biological 

Assessment 

BA An assessment presented to USFWS of effects on federally 

listed species, proposed listed species, or critical habitats of 

proposed federal actions that are not major construction 

projects (in this particular case, implementing a new FMP is 

the proposed action). 

Biological Opinion BO The opinion of the USFWS on whether or not a proposed 

federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Context The geographical or temporal environment of a proposed 

action, such that a change in the action relative to space or time 

might alter impacts. 

Cultural Landscape Landscapes as affected by people through time— the definition 

of such captures overlapping occupancy by different groups of 

people. 

Cultural Resources Valued aspects of a cultural system that might be tangible 

(districts, sites, structures, objects). 

Cultural Resources 

Component 

CRC Document analyzing effects of the proposed action on cultural 

resources for review by the State Historic Preservation Office. 

Cumulative Effect 

Diameter at breast 

height 

dbh 

Effects of actions (those in the past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future) that have an additive impact on the 

resources affected by the proposed action. 

Diameter of tree trunk measured about 55 in (1.4m) from the 

ground. 

Debris Flow “Rivers” of earth, rock, and debris saturated with water. 

Direct Effect An impact that occurs as a result of the proposed action or 

alternative in the same place and at the same time as the action. 

Duration The length of time of effects of an action. 

Ecoregion A large-scale area with a common geological and biological 

history. 

Exotic Species Species not native to a particular ecosystem. 

Fire Management FMP The plan that guides all fire-related activities at a park that is
133

Plan consistent with land and resource management plans and 

follows NPS guidelines. 

Fire Management 

Unit 

FMU A delineated area of the park that permits particular fire 

management strategies. 

Fuel 

Fuel Moisture 

 Vegetation, both living and dead, capable of burning. 

Amount of moisture contained in vegetation and in standing 

and downed, dead wood. Expressed as a percentage relative to 

the dry weight of the fuel. 

Impairment Impacts on resources that negatively, significantly, and 

possibly irreversibly alter their character from the state that 

made them important to protect in a park. 

Indirect Effect An impact that occurs as a result of the proposed action, but 

removed in time and space from the action. 

Intensity Magnitude of effect, from low to high. 

Inter-disciplinary 

team 

IDT Group of interdisciplinary specialists that identifies important 

issues, relationships, and alternatives for public scrutiny. 

Lincoln National 

Forest 

LNF USFS jurisdiction north of the park in New Mexico. 

Mechanical/manual 

Treatment 

 Removal of vegetation by mechanical or manual means (rather 

than by fire). 

Minimum Tool 

Requirement 

 The lowest impact means of accomplishing a task, frequently 

considered with respect to wilderness. 

Mitigation Modification of an action that lessens intensity of its impacts 

on a particular resource. 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

NEPA The 1969 law that dictates the objective analysis and public 

scrutiny of the environmental as well as social and economic 

impacts of proposed federal actions and their alternatives prior 

to implementation. 

Natural Resources A feature of the natural (physical and biological) environment 

that has value to humans. 

No Action Under NEPA, No Action continues the current planning and 

operational direction and provides a baseline against which 

other alternatives can be measured. 

Non-fire 

Treatments 

 Removal of vegetation without using fire, most commonly 

through mechanical/manual or herbicidal treatments. 

Non-indigenous 

Species 

 Species not original to a particular ecosystem (used like 

“exotic”). 
134

Non-native Species Species not native to a particular ecosystem (used like 

“exotic”). 

Prescribed Fire Fire ignited by management to meet specific objectives. 

Prescription Measurable environmental criteria, particularly temperature, 

relative humidity, wind speed and direction, and fuel moisture, 

that define the conditions under which a prescribed fire would 

be ignited or allow a wildland fire use fire to continue to burn, 

guide selection of appropriate management responses, and 

indicate other required actions. Safety, economic, public 

health, geographic, administrative, social, or legal 

considerations would also affect decision-making. 

Protected Activity 

Center 

PAC Designated areas that are protected to benefit Mexican spotted 

owl by restricting certain management activities. 

Resource Advisor An expert in a particular resource area (such as an archeologist 

or botanist) who is brought on site to advise fire crews relative 

to protecting sensitive resources. 

Scoping Compilation of knowledge and opinions in order to properly 

develop and decide on alternative courses of action, both 

internally to the park and externally with the public. 

Sensitive Species Species sensitive to perturbation from the proposed action, 

frequently rare species that are federal or state-listed, proposed 

for listing, occurring in very few places, or particularly 

sensitive to the action’s impacts. 

Species Diversity A measure of the number of species in an area (species 

richness) that also accounts for species abundance. 

State Historic 

Preservation Office 

SHPO The state office overseeing protection of cultural resources. 

Succession The natural development of biotic communities over time 

following disturbance. 

Suppression All the work of extinguishing a fire beginning with its 

discovery, using confine, contain, and control actions. 

Thinning Reduction of density of vegetation, frequently using non-fire 

means. 

Timing How effects vary depending on when the action takes place. 

U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

USFWS U.S. Department of Interior agency charged with overseeing 

protection of threatened and endangered species. 

Unique Sites Sites sufficiently uncommon such that their presence is a 

special feature of the park with intrinsic value and of interest to 

visitors. 
135

Unique Stands Patches of vegetation that are uncommon in an area that may 

be relicts from an earlier age. 

USDA Forest 

Service 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agency overseeing 

national forests (same as USFS). 

Watershed Land above a given point in a drainage that potentially 

contributes water to the streamflow at that point. 

Wilderness Designated area managed to perpetuate natural processes and 

minimize human impacts. 

Wildland Fire Use Naturally (lightning) ignited fire managed to meet resource 

benefits under predetermined conditions. 

Zone of 

Cooperation 

ZOC Under the preferred alternative, an area of USFS land 

immediately north of the park that is jointly managed for fire 

by NPS and USFS. 
136

Appendix B: Issues related to fire management planning at Guadalupe Mountains National 

Park. 

 

Possible Impact Area Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 

 

Visitor Experience 

safety Fire can put visitors (and staff and firefighters) at risk. 

Fire use, prescribed fire, and thinning reduce hazard fuels. 

mechanical noises Equipment (chainsaws, hand tools, helicopters, aircraft, other 

vehicles) will make noise during burns and suppression. 

traffic Fire may force road closures within the park; planned 

highway closure, which could divert travelers from firerelated hazards, is not an option as alternate routes are not 

available. 

Vehicles to support prescribed burning or suppression efforts 

add to traffic in the park. 

Fire by-standers (rubber-neckers) may cause traffic hazards. 

views Sight of fire may frighten visitors. 

Smoke may reduce visibility. 

Burned landscape offends. 

Fires and thinning can open areas and enhance scenic views. 

Fire activities and post-fire scenes offer interpretive 

opportunities. 

recreation opportunities Fire may necessitate temporary closures of trails, vista points, 

and campgrounds. 

visitation Post-fire landscape may alter visitation. 

Land Use 

property damage Fire is a threat to park developments, structures and 

landscaping. 

Fire use, prescribed fire, and thinning reduce hazard fuels that 

threaten property. 

neighbors Fire may burn across boundary to neighboring property, 

especially along the north boundary with the Forest Service. 

Though sparse fuels currently reduce the risk of fire escaping 

onto neighboring private lands, ranchers’ concerns persist 

about park fires spreading onto their property and burning 

grazing land and fence posts. 

Neighbors may be affected by increased erosion and flooding 

post-fire. 

Neighbors may benefit from fire’s habitat-enhancing effects. 
137

 

Possible Impact Area Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 

 

local economy Local tourism could decline temporarily after a large, wellpublicized fire. 

Local cafe business may increase when fire crews are present; 

restaurants and hotels in Carlsbad, NM (nearest sizable town) 

may also see increased business. 

Cultural Resources 

archeological sites Fire might damage/uncover exposed sites and artifacts on the 

surface. 

pictographs and petroglyphs Rock art sites are susceptible to smoke and heat damage. 

structures Fire might damage or destroy significant fire-susceptible 

structures listed on the National Register. 

historic trout Rainbow trout (stocked in McKittrick Canyon in 1929) could 

suffer from watershed alteration due to fire. 

Vegetation 

composition Fire-intolerant species may decline. 

Fire can stimulate growth and germination of some plants. 

structure Fires of high intensity can destroy entire stands of vegetation. 

unique stands Fire of high intensity may damage or eliminate unique stands 

of vegetation. 

Low- to moderate-intensity fire may renew unique stands of 

vegetation. 

non-indigenous species Fire facilitates invasion by undesirable Lehmann lovegrass, 

Malta starthistle, woolly mullein and other fire-loving species.

Fire may prove to be a tool to control non-indigenous species. 

Species of Special Concern 

plants Effects of fire on numerous endemics and sensitive species 

are not well known. 

Endemics and sensitive species may suffer injury, death, or 

destruction of habitat by fire, thus require protection. 

Fire-adapted species may benefit from fire-reduced 

competition in vegetation stands; nutrient release may benefit 

plants. 

Aspens need fire to regenerate. 

animals Rare, protected, or listed animals may suffer injury, death, or 

destruction of habitat by fire. 

Effects of fire on sensitive species are not well known; 

species may benefit from fire-renewed habitat. 
138

 

Possible Impact Area Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 

 

Mexican spotted owl habitat benefits from low to moderate 

intensity fires. 

Important Wildlife 

Considerations 

unusual species Fire may kill, injure, or temporarily displace unusual species. 

Some species benefit from habitat-renewing, low intensity 

fire. 

fire timing Fire outside the fire season may disrupt animal cycles. 

Fire during bird breeding and nesting season will cause 

nesting failures and mortality. 

Unique Sites 

ecoregions Madrean ecoregion species (those with south-of-the-border 

affinities that are present in very few parks in the U.S.) may 

suffer injury, death or destruction of habitat by fire. 

one-of-a-kind features One-of-a-kind features may be altered by fire. 

Public concern about fire in beloved McKittrick Canyon 

(home of incredible fall color) and other riparian areas would 

be great; low-intensity prescribed burns and mechanical fuels 

treatment should lessen risk of stand-replacing, high intensity 

fires. 

Pockets of endemic plants on moist, north-facing cliffs may 

have difficulty regenerating after intense fires. 

Sand dunes on the west side should be protected from 

suppression activities; dune-adjacent landowner, the 

Hudspeth County Directive for Conservation, will require 

consultation on dune fire matters. 

Texas Champion Trees might incur fire damage or death. 

scientific resources Old trees containing significant data in tree rings and fire 

scars could be lost in major fire events. 

Non-vegetated international benchmark (geological “type 

locality”) for the Middle Permian period requires protection 

from suppression activities (retardant drops and ground 

disturbances). 

Loss of datable packrat middens and sloth dung in caves 

would be irreplaceable. 

wilderness Aircraft used in suppression activities bring noise and visual 

disturbances to wilderness areas. 

Suppression activities need to avoid compromising wilderness 
139

 

Possible Impact Area Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 

 

values. 

Geological Resources 

paleontological specimens Heat from fire may cause spalling (exfoliation) of rock 

surfaces and expose fossils. 

Heat may crack rocks. 

Fire may thin vegetation to reveal new sites. 

Fire may char specimens. 

soils Removal of vegetation by fire may create temporary 

hydrophobic conditions (decrease infiltration on exposed 

soils), increase erosion (especially on alluvial fans and in 

drainages), leading to deposition of sediments. 

Fire can increase soil moisture (due to less uptake by plants) 

and release nutrients to soil. 

Handlines may expose soil and increase erosion. 

Geohazards 

mudflows Increased potential for debris- and mudflows when intense 

storms hit fire-denuded slopes. 

flooding Potential for higher peak flow during intense storms, with 

increased risk of debris in floodflows after fires. 

rockslides Danger of rockslides increases after fire consumes vegetation 

on steep slopes. 

seismic disturbances Fire line explosives might dislodge rocks. 

Water 

quantity Runoff increases post-fire with lack of intercepting and waterconsuming vegetation. 

Spring flows may be increased by fire thinning dense 

vegetation. 

Spring flows may be decreased by siltation and reduced shade 

after fires. 

Streamflows may increase then decrease post-fire. 

quality Runoff from fire-denuded slopes will contain increased 

particulate load. 

Retardant, lubricants, and fuels from suppression activities 

may wash into streams. 

Floodplains/Wetlands 

hydrology Potential for both positive and negative effects to hydrology 

from fire; flows may increase with thinning of overgrown 
140

 

Possible Impact Area Issues, Concerns, Opportunities 

 

vegetation, or decrease with siltation and reduced shade. 

vegetation Fire will cause damage to or loss of individual plants. 

Exclusion of fire and fuel accumulation makes habitat 

alteration due to intense fire more likely. 

wildlife Fire may favor certain species while deterring others. 

Fire may open thickets that ultimately dry up wet habitats. 

Bird nests are especially susceptible. 

Air Quality 

smoke Smoke may be a health hazard (especially to firefighters). 

Smoke may be an air-quality regulatory problem. 

Smoke may hamper visibility on roads. 

Smoke may slow spread of mistletoe if timing is such that it is 

present during pollination and seed set seasons. 

Smoke may trigger germination in plant species. 

Smoke is an attractant to some insects that damage forests. 

Other Agency Policies 

federal agencies Coordination with USFS needed to manage fire appropriately 

in watersheds crossing agency boundaries. 

NPS and other agency policies may not be compatible. 

tribes Consultation with tribes necessary to avoid fire impacts on 

significant landscapes and resources. 

Fire may have an impact on materials sought by tribes on park 

land. 

states New Mexico (over north boundary) has policies affecting 

wildland fire use. 
141

Appendix C: Cultural Resource Matrix 

The cultural resources analysis presented in Appendix C originated through discussion at an 

internal scoping meeting of park resource management, fire, and interpretive staff and University 

of Arizona cooperators in March 2002. Fred Armstrong (GUMO Cultural Resources 

Management Lead) led the cultural resources analysis efforts for this EA and the production of a 

Cultural Resources Component (CRC), a document summarizing concerns and solutions for 

submittal to the Texas Historical Commission (SHPO). The matrix appearing below was 

constructed with help from Dan Swanson, former park fire effects monitor. Dan made substantial 

progress on the analysis while attending a class on cultural resources and fire at the NPS Western 

Archeological Conservation Center in January 2003. The CRC was submitted to the Texas 

Historical Commission for review in December 2004. 

Scope of the Cultural Resources Component 

The entire area of Guadalupe Mountains National Park may be considered as a cultural landscape 

in a broad sense. Vegetation communities, patterns and elements attracted, and were important 

to, the people who lived here from the prehistoric past through the ranching settlement period. 

Tables C-1 through C-4 present a matrix of cultural resources, potential fire program effects, and 

treatments for Guadalupe Mountains National Park. Park resource management, fire, and 

interpretive staff began developing this matrix by defining historic contexts and a list of cultural 

resource types that included elements and values at risk from fire. This matrix considers 

historical, archeological, architectural, engineering, and cultural values and has been reviewed by 

NPS cultural resources professionals at the Western Archeological Conservation Center 

(WACC) in Tucson, Arizona. The cultural resources matrix is a working summary of resources 

and how the fire program should relate to them. It also specifies the particular aspects at risk, 

reviews what fire program activities create the risk, defines protection objectives for these 

resources, and suggests methods to minimize or mitigate impacts in order to achieve the 

objectives. It is a useful guide, both for planning and operations, to all who will be working with 

fire and cultural resources in the park. 

The matrix lays out the cultural resource types pertaining to specific historic contexts within the 

park. Historic contexts are defined as patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific 

occurrence, property, or site is understood. These cultural resource types are further defined by 

elements, which are also found in the matrix. 

Staff looked at risk conditions and/or activities that might occur in the presence of fire and 

potential effects on specific resource types given the elements of the resource, surrounding 

environment, and geographic location. Once the resource types and risk conditions or activities 

were defined, the resource and fire management personnel used this information to determine 

what the fire management objectives were and what treatments should be used to preserve 

identified resource values. In general, fire will be kept away from significant, combustible, nonrenewable cultural resources. Pre-treatments of cultural resources for prescribed or wildland fires 

may include manual fuel removal/reduction, controlled black-lining to produce buffers from 

advancing fire, fire-repelling foam on combustible or thermally alterable features, or water 

sprayed by hand pump, pressurized hose, or aerial drops. As a rule, aerial tanker retardant drops 
142

will not be used specifically to defend cultural resources because of the potential to stain and 

highlight sensitive resources for years to come. Potential impacts to known cultural resources 

will be considered whenever fire managers are confronted with making the decision to use aerial 

retardants as a last resort to defend life, property or significant park resources at risk of loss. 

As future plans are made for prescribed burns in the park, we will conduct archeological 

inventories for those portions of the proposed burn area with known or high potential for cultural 

resources and where recent, thorough cultural resource inventory, condition assessments and 

management recommendations have not been accomplished by qualified cultural resource 

personnel. Burn plans will be reviewed for fire management strategies with regard to cultural 

resources, using the most up-to-date information available. 

Currently, the park consults with the Mescalero Apache Tribe, Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo (Texas), 

Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Isleta (New Mexico), Jicarilla Apache Nation, Pueblo of Zia, Commanche 

Nation, Kiowa Indian Tribe, San Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Zuni 

Tribe, Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Fort Sill Apache Tribe. Also consulted are relevant 

state and federal agencies, local governments, local businesses, non-government organizations, 

and private residents living adjacent to or near the park. 

For this FMP, the park sent the public scoping newsletters to the mailing list that includes the 

parties listed above. Four public scoping meetings took place in November 2002, and the public 

scoping comment period extended from November 15 until December 31, 2002. Letters were 

sent to the Mescalero Apache tribal president, the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo, the Hopi tribe Office of 

the Chairman, and other groups who requested to be brought up to date on the planning progress 

at GUMO. 

Definitions of terms: 

Historic contexts are the historic and prehistoric themes under which various resources were 

created and used. Individual resources are best understood and evaluated by understanding the 

roles they played within specific historical frameworks. In the matrix, for example, ranchingmining-petroleum exploration context covers resources dating from the 1890s to 1970. 

Resource types represent general function or morphology. The exact function may not be known, 

especially for prehistoric resources. In the matrix, historic districts are a specific resource type 

that are the setting for a number of different elements. 

Elements are the specific physical characteristics of resource types. Identifying the elements 

allows us to define specific elements or values at risk from various fire management activities. 

Risk conditions or activities are the specific environmental conditions and/or fire management 

activities that place particular resources at risk. 

Fire management objectives guide actions in a way that protects the elements or values at risk. 

The matrix recommends reducing fuels and suppressing fires near historic structures. 
143

Treatments or prescriptions are methods of attaining the objectives. In the matrix, pretreatment 

and line construction are necessary. Following are examples of other treatments or prescriptions: 

 Reduce fuels in and around sites and artifacts using mechanical fuel reduction and/or 

prescribed fire, as appropriate. 

 Manage the movement of fire into an identified sensitive cultural resource area only 

while taking safety and natural resource protection into consideration. 

 Under certain circumstances, wildland fires and prescribed burns will be prevented from 

entering sensitive cultural resource areas. 

 At fire-vulnerable sites such as corrals, other wooden structures or features, and hearths 

on archeological sites some form of documentation, sampling, or erecting protective 

barriers, etc. can mitigate adverse effects prior to fires. 
144

Table C-1. Historic Context: Pre-ceramic period (paleo/archaic through AD 1000) 

Resource Type Elements Elements or Values 

at Risk 

Risk Conditions or 

Activities 

Fire Management 

Objectives 

camps and villages hearths feature integrity; 

radiocarbon date contamination 

ground disturbance; carbon loading from fire; erosion 

avoid disturbance; reduce fuels 

 lithic scatter radiocarbon date 

contamination; spatial arrangement 

ground disturbance; loss of concealment; increased erosion 

avoid disturbance; reduce fuels 

 rock shelters physical integrity ground disturbance; 

rock flaking from heat; loss of concealment 

avoid disturbance; reduce fuels; suppression 

 rock art radiocarbon date 

contamination; feature integrity; interpretive value 

ground disturbance; loss of concealment; UV exposure; increased erosion; flaking from heat; retardant drop 

avoid disturbance; suppression 

 bedrock mortars feature integrity ground disturbance; upgradient erosion (burial 

would also protect) 

avoid disturbance 
145

Table C-2. Historic Context: Ceramic period to European/American contact (AD 1000 to 1850) 

Resource Type Elements Elements or Values 

at Risk 

Risk Conditions or 

Activities 

Fire Management 

Objectives 

camps and villages hearths feature integrity; 

radiocarbon date contamination 

ground disturbance; carbon loading from fire; erosion 

avoid disturbance; reduce fuels 

precowhph

 ceramics feature integrity; 

security 

ground disturbance; loss of concealment; increased erosion 

avoid disturbance; reduce fuels 

prewh

 rock ring middens 

(agave roasting pits) 

feature integrity and arrangement, radiocarbon date contamination 

ground disturbance avoid disturbance; 

reduce heavy fuels 

prewh

 rock shelters feature integrity ground disturbance; 

rock flaking from heat; loss of concealment 

avoid disturbance; reduce fuels; suppression 

preco

 rock art pigments; security ground disturbance; loss 

of concealment; UV exposure; flaking from heat; retardant drop 

suppression bla

cultural landscapes sacred sites interpretive value; 

aesthetics 

ground disturbance; loss of key features in fire; increased erosion 

suppression; avoid disturbance 

preco

 landscape 

arrangements 

feature integrity and arrangement (fire also maintains historic scene) 

ground disturbance; loss of key features in fire; erosion 

avoid disturbance; reduce fuels 

pre

 bark peels feature integrity loss of individual trees 

by stand-replacing fire 

reduce fuels; suppression 

preco

 agaves individual plants, a 

local traditional food 

plant mortality; loss or damage 

reduce fuels pre

pre
146

Table C-3. Historic Context: Early Anglo-Military-Butterfield Stage (1850 to 1900) (Note—most potentially flammable features are long gone) 

Resource Type Elements Elements or Values 

at Risk 

Risk Conditions or 

Activities 

Fire Management 

Objectives 

settlements; camps houses wooden features loss or damage divert fire from sites; 

suppression; minimize disturbance; maintain lointensity fuels 

 dugouts wooden structural 

members 

loss or damage; increased erosion 

suppression; minimize disturbance 

 stone ruins physical integrity ground disturbance; 

increased erosion 

avoid disturbance; reducwoody vegetation and root encroachment 

 military 

encampments 

feature integrity and arrangement (fire also maintains historic scene) 

ground disturbance; loss of landscape features; erosion 

avoid disturbance 

roads stage route/ 

emigrant trail 

feature integrity ground disturbance; 

erosion 

minimize disturbance; maintain and stimulate grass cover 

historic sites U.S. military-Indian 

engagement sites 

feature integrity and arrangement (fire also maintains historic scene) 

ground disturbance; loss of landscape features; erosion; fire could also help maintain cultural scene 

minimize disturbance 

 signature trees individual plants plant mortality; loss 

or damage 

suppression; avoid disturbance 
147

Table C-4. Historic Context: Ranching-Mining-Petroleum Exploration (1890s to 1970) 

Resource Type Elements Elements or Values 

at Risk 

Risk Conditions or 

Activities 

Fire Management 

Objectives 

ranch sites metal tanks not at risk  stone tanks physical integrity ground disturbance; 

erosion 

divert fire from sites; minimize disturbance; reduce woody fuels 

 earthen tanks physical integrity ground disturbance; 

erosion 

avoid disturbance; reduce woody fuels 

 concrete dams physical integrity heat suppression; reduce 

woody fuels 

 cabins and houses wooden features loss or damage suppression; reduce 

woody fuels 

ranching cultural landscapes 

Landscape arrangements 

feature integrity and arrangement (fire also maintains historic scene) 

ground disturbance; loss of landscape features; erosion 

minimize disturbance 

mining/oil exploration sites 

well derricks (water/oil) 

physical integrity ground disturbance minimize disturbance; 

suppression 

 Pipelines physical integrity ground disturbance minimize disturbance; 

suppression 
148

List of Classified Structures 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park has 34 entries on the List of Classified Structures (LCS, 

Table C-5). These structures include buildings, partial ruins, stone walls, water impoundments, 

water tanks, windmills, well equipment and a historic trail. 

Desired Conditions for Historic Properties 

Desired Conditions for historic properties at Guadalupe Mountains National Park have been 

identified in previous plans or reports. Moreover, the List of Classified Structures (1998) 

specifies the condition of historic structures in the park. Fire program activities are intended to 

maintain present condition and minimize impacts to cultural resources. Given sufficient funding, 

the park plans to bring all structures and archeological resources into a standing of good 

condition. In some cases fire may be beneficial to historic landscapes and archeological site 

preservation. An example is the use of low-intensity fire to remove encroaching shrubs in order 

to restore grasslands or prevent woody vegetation encroachment around historic structures.
149

Table C-5. List of Classified Structures 

 Preferred Structure Name 

Structure 

Number 

LCS 

ID 

Latest 

Condition 

Latest Year 

Assessed 

1. Pinery B-106 000520 Fair 1997 

2. Frijole Ranch House B-200 005700 Good 1997 

3. Frijole Ranch Barn and Corral B-205 005706 Good 1997 

4. Williams Ranch House B-281 005707 Fair 1997 

5. Pratt Lodge B-342 012077 Fair 1997 

6. Pratt Lodge Garage & Servant's 

Quarters B-241 012078 Fair 1997 

7. Pratt Lodge Pumphouse B-242 012079 Fair 1997 

8. Pratt Residence B-341 012080 Fair 1997 

9. Pratt Residence Servant's 

Quarters B-343 012081 Fair 1997 

10. Frijole Ranch Bunk House B-207 012083 Good 1997 

11. Frijole Ranch Toilet and Shower B-202 012084 Good 1997 

12. Frijole Ranch Pump House B-204 012085 Good 1997 

13. Frijole Ranch Spring House B-203 012086 Fair 1997 

14. Frijole Ranch Schoolhouse B-201 012087 Fair 1997 

15. Grisham-Hunter Line Cabin B-243 014400 Fair 1997 

16. Pratt Lodge Stone Fence F-012 064390 Good 1997 

17. Frijole Ranch Water Tower C-006 064394 Fair 1997 

18. Grisham-Hunter Tack Room B-244 064401 Fair 1997 

19. Cabin in the Bowl B-283 064402 Good 1997 

20. Cabin at Cox Tank B-286 064403 Fair 1997 

21. Grisham-Hunter Line Cabin 

Stone Walls B-246 064404 Fair 1997 

22. Metal Water Tanks W-023-36 064405 Fair 1997 

23. Upper Pine Springs Pumping 

Operation W-007 064406 Fair 1997 

24. Stone Water Tanks W-023 064407 Good 1997 

25. Tack Building and Corral B-142 064408 Fair 1997 

26. Stone Dam D-001 064409 Good 1997 

27. Windmills with Metal Water 

Tanks W-050-54 064410 Fair 1997 

28. Stone Dam D-002 064411 Fair 1998 

29. Stone Dam D-003 064412 Good 1998 

30. Stone Dam D-004 064413 Good 1998 

31. Frijole Ranch Stone Fence F-013 064414 Good 1997 

32. Butterfield Trail Segment T-015 064415 Fair 1998 
150

 Preferred Structure Name 

Structure 

Number 

LCS 

ID 

Latest 

Condition 

Latest Year 

Assessed 

33. Williams Ranch Corral C-003 064416 Poor 1997 

34. Oil Well W-201 064417 Fair 1997 
151

Appendix D: Common and Scientific Names 

African Rue (Peganum harmala) 

Alkali Sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) 

Alligator Juniper (Juniperus deppeana) 

American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) 

Ash (Fraxinus spp.) 

Asian tumbleweed (Salsola collina) 

Banana Yucca (Yucca baccata) 

Bermuda Grass (Cynodon dactylon) 

Big Bend Tree Lizard (Urosaurus ornatus schmidti) 

Bigtooth Maple (Acer grandidentatum) 

Black Bear (Ursus americanus)

Black Grama (Bouteloua eriopoda) 

Black-tailed Jackrabbit (Lepus californicus)

Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) 

Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) 

Black Willow (Salix nigra)

Blue Grama (Bouteloua gracilis) 

Bobcat (Lynx rufus) 

Brazilian Free-tail Bat (Tadarida brasiliensis)

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) 

Bush Muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri) 

Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus)

Cane Bluestem (Bothriochloa barbinodis) 

Canyon Towhee (Pipilo fuscus) 

Catclaw Acacia (Acacia constricta) 

Catclaw Mimosa (Mimosa biuncifera) 

Chaplin’s Columbine (Aquilegia chaplinei)

Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail (Aspidoscelis exsanguis)

Chinkapin Oak (Quercus muehlenbergii) 

Cholla (Opuntia spp.) 

Colorado Pinyon Pine (Pinus edulis) 

Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

Cottontop (Digitaria californica) 

Couch's Spadefoot (Scaphiopus couchii) 

Coyote (Canis latrans) 

Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) 

Crucifixion Thorn (Castela emoryi) 

Desert Buckbrush (Ceanothus greggii) 

Desert Cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii) 

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 

Dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium spp.)

Elk (Cervus elaphus) 

Englemann Prickly-pear (Opuntia phaecantha) 

Faxon Yucca (Yucca faxoniana) 
152

Fluffgrass (Erioneuron pulchellum) 

Fourwing Saltbush (Atriplex canescens) 

French Tamarisk (Tamarix gallica) 

Gambel Oak (Quercus gambelii) 

Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)

Gray Oak (Quercus grisea) 

Guadalupe Fescue (Festuca ligulata) 

Hairy Grama (Bouteloua hirsuta) 

Hairy Mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) 

Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) 

Hernandez’s Short-horned Lizard (Phrynosoma hernandesi hernandesi)

Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) 

Horehound (Marrubium vulgare) 

Javelina Bush (Condalia ericoides) 

Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepsense) 

Juniper Titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) 

Kingcup Cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus)

Knowlton Hophornbeam (Ostrya knowltonii) 

Lechuguilla (Agave lechuguilla)

Lehmann Lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanniana) 

Little Walnut (Juglans microcarpa)

Malta Starthistle (Centaurea melitensis) 

Manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) 

Mariola (Parthenium incanum) 

Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) 

Mescalero Gooseberry (Ribes mescalerium) 

Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 

Mexican Vole (Microtus mexicanus) 

Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.) 

Mountain Chickadee (Poecile gambeli) 

Mountain Lion (Felis concolor) 

Mountain Patch-nosed Snake (Salvadora grahamiae grahamiae) 

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 

New Mexico Agave (Agave neomexicana) 

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) 

Ocotillo (Fouqueria splendens)

One-seed Juniper (Juniperus monosperma) 

Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) 

Plain Titmouse (Parus inornatus) 

Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) 

Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) 

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) 

Puncture Vine (Tribulus terrestris) 

Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea) 

Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) 
153

Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Range Ratany (Krameria parvifolia) 

Redberry Juniper (Juniperus pinchottii) 

Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) 

Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) 

Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) 

Red-spotted Toad (Bufo punctatus) 

Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) 

Rio Grande Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) 

Rio Grande Leopard Frog (Rana berlandieri)

Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus)

Rock Squirrel (Spermophilus variegates) 

Rocky Mountain Juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) 

Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps)

Russian Thistle (Salsola kali) 

Saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) 

Sand Dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) 

Sandpaper Oak (Quercus pungens) 

Say’s Phoebe (Sayornis saya) 

Scaled Quail (Callipepla squamata) 

Scott’s Oriole (Icterus parisorum) 

Scrub Oak (Quercus mohriana) 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus)

Sideoats Grama (Bouteloua curtipendula)

Smallseed Sacahuista (Nolina microcarpa) 

Soaptree Yucca (Yucca elata) 

Sotol (Dasylirion wheeleri) 

Southwestern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus cowlesi) 

Southwestern White Pine (Pinus strobiformis) 

Spanish Dagger (Yucca torreyi) 

Spiny Cocklebur (Xanthium spinosum) 

Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) 

Striped Whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus) 

Tarbush (Flourensia cernua)

Texas Madrone (Arbutus xalapensis) 

Three-awn (Aristida spp.) 

Tobosagrass (Pleuraphis mutica) 

Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) 

Utah Serviceberry (Amalanchier utahensis) 

Velvet Ash (Fraxinus velutina) 

Verdin (Auriparus flaviceps)

Viscid Acacia (Acacia neovernicosa) 

Western Diamond-backed Rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox) 

Western Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma californica) 
154

Western Soapberry (Sapindus saponaria) 

Western White Pine (Pinus monticola) 

Whitethorn Acacia (Acacia constricta) 

White-throated Swift (Aeronautes saxatalis) 

Woolly Mullein (Verbascum thapsus) 

Yucca (Yucca spp.) 

 
155

Appendix E: Fire effects on dominant species in Guadalupe Mountains National Park 

vegetation types 

Table E-1. Rocky Mountain (Petran) Conifer Forest: Fire Ecology of Species 

FEIS is the Fire Effects Information System maintained by the Forest Service that contains 

literature reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Acer grandidentatum Bigtooth maple live in moist sites that tend to 

burn infrequently; following crown destruction 

by fire, some resprout from root crown, but not 

generally vigorously. 

FEIS 

Amalanchier utahensis Utah serviceberry sprouts vigorously from root 

crowns after fire. 

Ahlstrand 

1981x 

Ostrya knowltonii Little is known about fire and Knowlton 

hophornbeam, but it probably sprouts in limited 

fashion post-fire as do congeners; may colonize 

burned sites via seed. 

FEIS 

Pinus edulis Colorado pinyon is generally very susceptible to 

fire damage depending on stand structure and 

understory; it is absent from post-fire early 

successional stages. Seedlings establish 

primarily via the postburn food caches of birds 

and rodents; successful establishment requires a 

nurse plant. 

FEIS 

Pinus ponderosa var. 

scopulorum 

Interior ponderosa pine can survive considerable 

scorching. Fire adaptations include: open 

crowns; self-pruning branches; thick, insulative, 

relatively unflammable bark; thick bud scales; 

tight needle bunches that open into a loose 

arrangement that does not favor combustion; 

high foliar moisture; and a deep rooting habit. 

FEIS 

Populus tremuloides Much work on quaking aspen comes from the 

northern Rockies and eastern U.S.; the species is 

topkilled by fire, but sends up a “profusion” of 

stems for several years post-fire; new stands can 

develop within a decade; fire-scarred aspens in 

Utah showed 7- to 10-year fire frequency pre1885; lack of young stands in the west may be 

due to absence of fire. 

FEIS 

Pseudotsuga menziesii Mature Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir is generally 

more fire resistant than spruces and true firs and 

FEIS 
156

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

equally or slightly less fire resistant than 

ponderosa pine. Mature trees can survive 

moderately severe ground fires because thick, 

corky bark insulates the cambium from heat 

damage. Where fire is frequent young trees don’t 

survive. Low growing branches and flammable 

foliage make trees susceptible to crowning. 

Quercus gambelii Gambel oak generally resprouts vigorously the 

first season post-fire; repeated fires weaken 

trees; Gambel oak understory can serve as ladder 

fuels; trees produce large amounts of litter; in 

Utah, fires were more frequent in ponderosa pine 

stands with Gambel oak understory than in oakdominated stands. 

FEIS 

Q. muehlenbergii Chinkapin oak often sprouts from stumps or 

rootcrowns after fire; reestablishment by seed is 

favored on mineral, post-fire seedbeds; sprouting 

ability appears to decrease as plants age. 

FEIS 
157

Table E-2. Great Basin Conifer Woodland: Fire Ecology of Species 

FEIS is the Fire Effects Information System maintained by the Forest Service that contains 

literature reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Bouteloua eriopoda Black grama has the reputation of being firesensitive, recovering slowly after fire through 

vegetative growth; healthy stands recover more 

readily, given decent moisture; carries fire if 

cover is dense and conditions windy. 

FEIS 

B. gracilis Blue grama is topkilled by fire, but fire generally 

increases occurrence, production, and cover; seed 

and seedstalk production may also be stimulated 

by fire; wet years post-fire increase yield. 

FEIS 

B. hirsuta Hairy grama cover was positively correlated with 

fire frequency in Minnesota; most studies 

conclude it is undamaged by fire following a 

season or two of depressed production. 

FEIS 

Dasylirion leiophyllum Young sotol with green leaves touching the 

ground are usually only slightly scorched; mature 

sotol with trunks sheathed in dead leaves makes 

them especially susceptible to fire; stalks attract 

lightning; plant tops spread fire by falling off and 

rolling downhill; plants occasionally resprout if 

lightly or moderately burned. 

FEIS 

Juniperus deppeana Alligator juniper canopies are often high enough 

so that fires scorch but do not severely damage 

the crown. Bark also provides protection from 

fire. It is generally capable of prolific sprouting 

after aboveground vegetation is consumed by 

fire, particularly if the resprouting zone is 

covered by soil. 

FEIS 

Juniperus scopulorum Rocky Mountain junipers up to about 20 years 

old are highly susceptible to fire; older trees have 

thicker bark and a more open crown that help 

them survive fire, though severe fires will 

damage or kill; fire causes less damage in 

habitats with sparse undergrowth. 

FEIS 

Nolina microcarpa Sacahuista resprouts from the woody, 

underground caudex after fire; cool fires result in 

little or no mortality; hot fires kill many young 

FEIS 
158

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

plants and some mature plants. 

Pinus edulis Colorado pinyon is generally very susceptible to 

fire damage depending on stand structure and 

understory; it is absent from post-fire early 

successional stages. Seedlings establish primarily 

via the postburn food caches of birds and 

rodents; successful establishment requires a nurse 

plant. 

FEIS 

Quercus grisea While the literature lacks fire data for Gray oak, 

oaks generally survive low-intensity, fast fires by 

resprouting after topkill. 

FEIS 

Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed is usually killed or topkilled by 

fire; younger plants suffer less than older plants; 

postfire regeneration via seeds varies by site; 

water stress inhibits ability to withstand fire; 

conversely, wet conditions buffer effects of fire; 

positive responses to fire are associated with 

reduced competition. 

FEIS 
159

Table E-3. Madrean Evergreen Woodland: Fire Ecology of Species 

FEIS is the Fire Effects Information System maintained by the Forest Service that contains 

literature reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Arbutus xalapensis [texana] Observation of fire scars on Texas madrone 

suggest some survival of fire; moist habitats 

generally protect from fire; post-fire sprouting at 

root collar has been observed by staff, even in 

severely topkilled trees; resprouts need 

protection from browsers to reestablish; birddispersed seed may establish on burns. 

FEIS; 

GUMO 

staff 

observation 

Bouteoua curtipendula Sideoats grama response to fire depends on 

growth form, climatic conditions, season of burn, 

and severity of fire; reestablishment occurs 

through seed and/or rhizomes; recovery time is 

variable, but 2 to 3 years may be required. 

FEIS 

B. gracilis Blue grama is topkilled by fire, but fire generally 

increases occurrence, production, and cover; 

seed and seedstalk production may also be 

stimulated by fire; wet years post-fire increase 

yield. 

FEIS 

B. hirsuta Hairy grama cover was positively correlated with 

fire frequency in Minnesota; most studies 

conclude it is undamaged by fire following a 

season or two of depressed production. 

FEIS 

Juniperus deppeana Alligator juniper canopies are often high enough 

so that fires scorch but do not severely damage 

the crown. Bark also provides protection from 

fire. It is generally capable of prolific sprouting 

after aboveground vegetation is consumed by 

fire, particularly if the resprouting zone is 

covered by soil. 

FEIS 

Mimosa aculeaticarpa var. 

biuncifera [M. biuncifera] 

Fire topkills catclaw mimosa; plants are prolific 

post-fire sprouters; Ahlstrand’s (1982) study 

showed greater frequency on burned versus 

unburned sites; plants themselves provide little 

fuel (open form and tiny leaves). 

FEIS 

Opuntia phaecantha Response of Englemann prickly-pear to fire is 

extremely variable, depending on presence of 

fuels and fire intensity. 

Cable 1973 
160

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Quercus grisea While the literature lacks fire data for Gray oak, 

oaks generally survive low-intensity, fast fires by 

resprouting after topkill. 

FEIS 

Q. mohriana The literature lacks fire effects data for Mohr 

shin oak, however, staff observed post-fire 

response after the 1993 Pine Fire showing that 

topkilled oaks vigorously resprouted. 

GUMO 

staff 

observations

Q. muehlenbergii Chinkapin oak often sprouts from stumps or 

rootcrowns after fire; reestablishment by seed is 

favored on mineral, post-fire seedbeds; sprouting 

ability appears to decrease as plants age. 

FEIS 

Q. undulata [Q. pungens] Fire topkills sandpaper oaks; surviving plants are 

stimulated to sprout; unburied acorns are 

probably killed by fire. 

FEIS 
161

Table E-4. Interior Chaparral: Fire Ecology of Species 

FEIS is the Fire Effects Information System maintained by the Forest Service that contains 

literature reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

B. gracilis Blue grama is topkilled by fire, but fire generally 

increases occurrence, production, and cover; 

seed and seedstalk production may also be 

stimulated by fire; wet years post-fire increase 

yield. 

FEIS 

Ceanothus greggii Fire generally kills desert ceanothus; seed 

remains viable for decades and is stimulated to 

germinate following fire; seedling abundance has 

been observed to increase with fire intensity; the 

plant is associated with stand-replacing fire 

frequencies of 20-30 years or more. 

FEIS 

Cercocarpus montanus Fire generally topkills true mountain mahogany; 

plants resprout vigorously following fire; some 

seedlings may establish after fire. 

FEIS; 

Ahlstrand 

1981xx 

Muhlenbergia porteri Fire probably topkills bush muhly but the plant 

can probably resprout; recovery time probably 

depends on post-fire weather and competition; 

species is non-rhizomatous. 

FEIS 

(probably) 

Quercus grisea While the literature lacks fire data for Gray oak, 

oaks generally survive low-intensity, fast fires by 

resprouting after topkill. 

FEIS 

Q. mohriana The literature lacks fire effects data for Mohr 

shin oak, however, staff observed post-fire 

response after the 1993 Pine Fire showing that 

topkilled oaks vigorously resprouted. 

GUMO 

staff 

observations

Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed is usually killed or topkilled by 

fire; younger plants suffer less than older plants; 

postfire regeneration via seeds varies by site; 

water stress inhibits ability to withstand fire; 

conversely, wet conditions buffer effects of fire; 

positive responses to fire are associated with 

reduced competition. 

FEIS 
162

Table E-5. Chihuahuan Semidesert Grassland: Fire Ecology of Species 

FEIS is the Fire Effects Information System maintained by the Forest Service that contains 

literature reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Agave lechuguilla Lechuguilla occurs in dense stands that can 

readily carry hot fire; mortality tends to be high; 

some plants survive and produce offsets; plants 

can escape fire by living in rocky microhabitats. 

FEIS 

Bouteloua eriopoda Black grama has the reputation of being firesensitive, recovering slowly after fire through 

vegetative growth; healthy stands recover more 

readily, given decent moisture; carries fire if 

cover is dense and conditions windy. 

FEIS 

B. gracilis Blue grama is topkilled by fire, but fire generally 

increases occurrence, production, and cover; seed 

and seedstalk production may also be stimulated 

by fire; wet years post-fire increase yield. 

FEIS 

B. hirsuta Hairy grama cover was positively correlated with 

fire frequency in Minnesota; most studies 

conclude it is undamaged by fire following a 

season or two of depressed production. 

FEIS 

Dasylirion leiophyllum Young sotol with green leaves touching the 

ground are usually only slightly scorched; mature 

sotol with trunks sheathed in dead leaves makes 

them especially susceptible to fire; stalks attract 

lightning; plant tops spread fire by falling off and 

rolling downhill; plants occasionally resprout if 

lightly or moderately burned. 

FEIS 

Digitaria californica Arizona cottontop probably recovers completely 

from fire during the first growing season if it is a 

wet summer; a dry summer following fire 

extends recovery to two years; fire tolerance is 

due to growing points at or below the ground 

line. 

FEIS 

Ephedra spp. Ephedras sprout post-fire; some seeding of 

disturbed sites has been observed. 

FEIS 

Fouqueria splendens Waxy, resinous ocotillo bark burns readily; 

plants sprout after some fires; most ocotillo 

habitat carries fire only with sufficient grassy 

fuel buildup. 

FEIS 
163

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Juniperus pinchottii Frequent fire kills young Pinchot (redberry) 

juniper seedlings and saplings; where grasses are 

present, germination is suppressed; lack of fire 

and grazing have allowed encroachment into 

former grassland areas; trees sprout after fire; 

very hot fires under very dry conditions will kill 

plants. 

FEIS 

Prosopis glandulosa Honey mesquite is an invader in some desert 

grassland communities; grazing reduced fuels 

and fire frequencies that kept plants in check; 

even very small plants survive fire by 

resprouting; frequent fire (7-10 yr intervals) may 

prevent honey mesquite establishment. 

FEIS 

Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton is thought to be tolerant but not 

resistant to fire; recovery following fire has been 

reported as 2-4 years; fire is associated with this 

plant when its habitat has dried out or been 

invaded by mesquite or acacia. 

FEIS 

Yucca elata Soaptree yucca can sprout from the stem after 

fire, even when some of the leaves are burnt; 

damage to apical meristem can lead to branching 

or death of above-ground plant and sprouting 

from rhizomes and root crown; the plant has been 

observed to increase in numbers in the absence of 

fire. 

FEIS 
164

Table E-6. Chihuahuan Desertscrub: Fire Ecology of Species 

FEIS is the Fire Effects Information System maintained by the Forest Service that contains 

literature reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush is poorly adapted to frequent 

fire; some may resprout after topkill by light fire; 

leaves are somewhat fire resistant. 

FEIS 

Bouteloua eriopoda Black grama has the reputation of being firesensitive, recovering slowly after fire through 

vegetative growth; healthy stands recover more 

readily, given decent moisture; carries fire if 

cover is dense and conditions windy. 

FEIS 

Echinocereus triglochidiatus Spines may ignite; cactus body may scorch and 

blister. Staff observed external cylinders of large 

clones protected the central cylinders but 

individual or small clumps may not survive fire. 

FEIS; 

GUMO 

staff 

observations

Flourensia cernua Tarbush habitat generally does not carry fire; it is 

thought to colonize [burned areas] through seed 

from offsite. 

FEIS 

Fouqueria splendens Waxy, resinous ocotillo bark burns readily; 

plants sprout after some fires; most ocotillo 

habitat carries fire only with sufficient grassy 

fuel buildup. 

FEIS 

Muhlenbergia porteri Fire probably topkills bush muhly but the plant 

can probably resprout; recovery time probably 

depends on post-fire weather and competition; 

species is non-rhizomatous. 

FEIS 

(probably) 

Opuntia spp. Prickly-pear and chollas survive fires depending 

on fuel buildup nearby; more fuel tends to 

accumulate under chollas; after cool fires, 

undamaged cholla joints on the ground may 

resprout. 

Cable 1973 

Prosopis glandulosa Honey mesquite is an invader in some desert 

grassland communities; grazing reduced fuels 

and fire frequencies that kept plants in check; 

even very small plants survive fire by 

resprouting; frequent fire (7-10 yr intervals) may 

prevent honey mesquite establishment. 

FEIS 

Sporobolus airoides Alkali sacaton is thought to be tolerant but not 

resistant to fire; recovery following fire has been 

FEIS 
165

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

reported as 2-4 years; fire is associated with this 

plant when its habitat has dried out or been 

invaded by mesquite or acacia. 

Yucca baccata Banana yucca is topkilled by fire; will resprout 

from rhizomes at 1-4 inch depth; some may 

resprout from base. Staff observations confirm 

this response. 

FEIS; 

GUMO 

staff 

observations
166

Table E-7. Interior Deciduous Forest and Woodland (riparian): Fire Ecology of Species 

FEIS is the Fire Effects Information System maintained by the Forest Service that contains 

literature reviews: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. 

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

Acer grandidentatum Bigtooth maple live in moist sites that tend to 

burn infrequently; following crown destruction 

by fire, some resprout from root crown, but not 

generally vigorously. 

FEIS 

Arbutus xalapensis [texana] Observation of fire scars on Texas madrone 

suggest some survival of fire; moist habitats 

generally protect from fire; post-fire sprouting at 

root collar has been observed by staff, even in 

severely topkilled trees; resprouts need protection 

from browsers to reestablish; bird-dispersed seed 

may establish on burns. 

FEIS; 

GUMO 

staff 

observation 

Fraxinus velutina Fire effects are not documented in the literature; 

other species of young ash are topkilled by fire 

and resprout or reproduce by seed; fire girdles 

thin bark on young trees; mature trees have thick 

protective bark 

FEIS 

Juglans microcarpa Little walnut exhibits few adaptations for fire; 

presumably reestablishes through seed from 

offsite. 

FEIS 

Juniperus deppeana Alligator juniper canopies are often high enough 

so that fires scorch but do not severely damage 

the crown. Bark also provides protection from 

fire. It is generally capable of prolific sprouting 

after aboveground vegetation is consumed by 

fire, particularly if the resprouting zone is 

covered by soil. 

FEIS 

Ostrya knowltonii Little is known about fire and Knowlton 

hophornbeam, but it probably sprouts in limited 

fashion post-fire as do congeners; may colonize 

burned sites via seed. 

FEIS 

Pinus ponderosa var. 

scopulorum 

Interior ponderosa pine can survive considerable 

scorching. Fire adaptations include: open crowns; 

self-pruning branches; thick, insulative, relatively 

unflammable bark; thick bud scales; tight needle 

bunches that open into a loose arrangement that 

does not favor combustion; high foliar moisture; 

FEIS 
167

 

Species Fire Ecology/Adaptations Source 

and a deep rooting habit. 

Populus deltoides var.

wislizenii 

Populus deltoides is a weak sprouter and 

generally killed by fire. 

FEIS 

Q. muehlenbergii Chinkapin oak often sprouts from stumps or 

rootcrowns after fire; reestablishment by seed is 

favored on mineral, post-fire seedbeds; sprouting 

ability appears to decrease as plants age. 

FEIS 

Sapindus saponaria Specific adaptations to fire have not been 

identified in western soapberry; plants may 

reoccupy a site through seed transported from 

adjacent unburned areas by birds; postfire 

sprouting from underground rhizomes is possible 

but has not been documented. 

FEIS