IN REPLY REFER TO : 

L7615 

March 26, 2004 

United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL

4101 E. Montezuma Canyon Road 

Hereford, Arizona 85615 

Dear Friends of Coronado National Memorial: 

The enclosed Final General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Coronado National 

Memorial represents the culmination of four years of planning for the future of the park. We officially

began the process on February 22, 2000 with a notice in the Federal Register announcing the intent to 

produce a general management plan and accompanying environmental impact statement. A news release 

went out to local and regional outlets shortly thereafter. Public scoping meetings began in April of that 

year to gather public perspectives and expectations for the national memorial as well as to collect ideas 

for future management, development, and interpretation. 

A draft plan was written and placed on 60-day public review in August 2003. A public meeting was held 

in Sierra Vista to discuss the plan during the review period. Comments were received from individuals, 

government agencies, and organized interest groups. Many of these comments are reflected in this final 

plan. 

Although technically not on review, this plan cannot be finalized for the next 30 days. This is so the 

public, organizations, and government agencies may look at the document and notify the National Park 

Service of any legal insufficiencies. Following that 30-day period, the Intermountain Regional Director of 

the National Park Service will sign a Record of Decision, which marks the end of the general 

management planning process. 

We are very pleased to have this plan completed. It will provide the framework for management and 

development at Coronado National Memorial in the coming years. Thank you for your participation in the 

planning process. 

Sincerely, 

DaleThompson 

Superintendent 
United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service 

Coronado National Memorial

Arizona

Coronado National Memorial

Arizona

Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement
______________________________________________________________________________ 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

Cochise County, Arizona 

January 2004 

This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement describes five alternatives for the future management 

of Coronado National Memorial. The approved plan will establish a direction for guiding the memorial for the next 15 to 

20 years. Some issues to be addressed are relations with Mexico, helping visitors understand the memorial’s context 

within the region and the significance of the Coronado Expedition, livestock grazing in the memorial, preserving cultural 

landscapes, and ensuring efficiency and sustainability in developments. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative would continue the current management. It forms a basis for comparing and 

evaluating the other alternatives. Visitor and staff facilities would be little changed under this alternative. The memorial 

would work with Mexico to develop interpretive programs. Livestock grazing would continue in the memorial’s two 

leased grazing allotments following the guidance in the memorial’s “Livestock Management Plan.” In alternatives B and 

C, grazing in the memorial would be ended. In alternative B, the preferred alternative, the visitor center would be 

rehabilitated, with an annex added for more office space and storage. New trails would be developed, and pullouts and 

waysides would be added to roads. Programs would help visitors understand the Coronado Expedition and its impact on 

the American Southwest. In alternative C, the focus would be on conserving cultural and natural resources. The visitor 

center’s interior would be remodeled to make more space for interpretation. In alternative D, the memorial’s 

international aspects would be emphasized. A structure would be built to commemorate the Coronado Expedition, and 

an educational center would be developed in the Montezuma Ranch area. The visitor center would be expanded and 

rehabilitated. Grazing would continue in the Joe’s Spring allotment but not in the Montezuma allotment. The visitor 

experience would be enhanced in alternative E by a new visitor/educational center, to which visitors could drive on a 

paved two-lane road and enjoy a panoramic view of the San Pedro River Valley and the United States–Mexico border. 

The visitor center would be converted into administrative offices. Grazing would be eliminated from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment. 

The potential environmental consequences of each alternative are described in this document. In alternative A, 

continued use of roads and trails would degrade soils, vegetation, and water quality. Continued crowding at the visitor 

center would continue to adversely affect interpretation and orientation. Livestock would continue to trample soils and 

consume vegetation even though this is being reduced by the memorial’s “Livestock Management Plan.” Continuing 

grazing in one allotment in alternatives D and E would cause similar effects, but the area grazed in those alternatives 

would be reduced by 14% and 25%, respectively. In alternative B, building the visitor center annex, parking areas, trails, 

pullouts, and waysides, would disturb soils and vegetation and agitate small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. The 

annex would decrease congestion and allow better displays for interpretation, furthering visitor understanding. In 

alternatives B and C, ending grazing would stop conflicts between visitors and livestock, reduce soil erosion and 

compaction, prevent livestock damage of archeological resources, and improve bird nesting habitat and riparian habitat. 

Developments in alternative C would disturb soils and vegetation. Restoring views to those that existed at the time of 

the Coronado Expedition would benefit cultural landscapes. In alternatives C and D, access to the grasslands would be 

improved by closing one grazing allotment. In alternative D, expanding the visitor center would cause runoff and 

erosion, harming soils and vegetation. This would be temporary and controlled. Widening and paving East Forest Lane 

would remove riparian vegetation in a small area. Adapting the Montezuma Ranch structures to use as the educational 

center would adversely affect soils, vegetation, sensitive species, and water quality. The commemorative feature would 

enhance visitors’ understanding of the memorial. In alternatives D and E, more roads, trails, and facilities could harm 

cultural landscapes. Ending grazing in one allotment would adversely affect individual ranchers, but the effect on the 

local economy would be negligible. Building a visitor center under alternative E would harm soils, vegetation, and 

wildlife habitat in a mostly previously undisturbed area. Runoff from added parking and the widened, paved Windmill 

Road would adversely affect soils, vegetation, sensitive species, and water quality. The new visitor center would reduce 

congestion, enriching interpretation, and the panoramic view from there would improve visitors’ understanding of 

Coronado National Memorial. 

This document will be on review for 30 days following the publication of the notice of availability in the Federal Register. 

Following a 30-day no-action period, the Intermountain Regional Director of the National Park Service will sign a Record of 

Decision, which marks the end of the general management planning process. For questions or comments, write to 

Superintendent, Coronado National Memorial, 4101 East Montezuma Canyon Road, Hereford, AZ 85615, or telephone 520-

366-5515. 

United States Department of the Interior ? National Park Service 

iii 
SUMMARY

The purpose of this General Management Plan 

/ Environmental Impact Statement is to define a 

direction for the management of Coronado 

National Memorial for the next 10 to 15 years. 

The approved plan will provide a framework 

for making decisions about the future 

direction for the management and use of 

Coronado National Memorial. It will establish 

a management philosophy and framework for 

decision making and problem solving so that 

future opportunities and problems can be 

addressed effectively. The plan will prescribe 

the resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved over time according to 

law, policy, regulations, and public expectations within the context of the memorial’s 

purpose, significance, and mission. 

The memorial was established as a unit of the 

national park system to commemorate and interpret Francisco Vásquez de Coronado’s 

16th-century expedition into what is now the 

United States. The memorial’s southern 

boundary is on the border between the United 

States and Mexico. It offers extraordinary 

views of the San Pedro River Valley, and the 

National Park Service has an opportunity to 

interpret for visitors the first major exploration by Europeans into the American 

Southwest. 

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED 

A plan is needed to address issues related to 

international significance, cultural landscapes, 

interpretation, orientation, facility 

development, and livestock management. 

• Illegal immigration through the memorial 

and illegal trafficking in drugs adversely 

affect resources and the visitor 

experience. 

• The memorial’s cultural landscape is 

gradually being eroded by modern 

intrusions. 

• The visitor center / headquarters building, 

the maintenance facilities, and staff 

housing are inadequate, and NPS 

managers must decide what facilities are 

necessary for future visitor experiences 

and resource protection. 

• Two areas in the memorial now leased for 

livestock grazing may contribute to 

conflicts between ranching and 

recreational uses. 

• Public involvement is needed to maximize 

services for visitors and to offset the effect 

of overextended NPS funding and staff. 

Public and private groups must be 

encouraged to help in the memorial’s 

mission. 

ALTERNATIVES 

To achieve the desired conditions in 

Coronado National Memorial, the planning 

team developed a “no-action” alternative 

(continuing present management) and four 

“action” alternatives for managing the 

memorial’s resources and uses. After the 

action alternatives were formed, the team 

created management prescriptions (zones) 

that would apply — although differently — to 

each action alternative. Four management 

prescriptions were established: conservation, 

education, visitor services, and operations / 

special use. Each prescription area could have 

a particular combination of resource conditions, visitor understanding, facilities, and 

activities. Each alternative would involve 

different configurations of these prescriptions. The management prescriptions for each 

alternative are clarified in table 1 (p. 37); the 

alternatives are compared in table 8 (p. 77). 

v 
SUMMARY 

Alternative A: Existing Management 

Direction (No Action) 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

represents the existing conditions at the 

national memorial. This alternative is 

presented as a way of comparing current 

conditions to possible future conditions, as 

proposed by the four “action” alternatives. 

Under alternative A the current management 

direction would continue with no significant 

change in interpretation or management, and 

the staff would continue to work in 

overcrowded conditions with limited storage 

space. Interpretive themes would be equally 

emphasized. The memorial would work with 

Mexico to develop interpretive programs. 

Cultural and natural resources would be managed, protected, and maintained as staff time 

and funding allowed, and inventories and 

monitoring would be expanded if possible. 

There would be no management prescriptions 

in alternative A. 

In alternative A, as in all the alternatives, the 

recently acquired Montezuma Ranch, which 

is in the grasslands south of the main memorial road, would be evaluated for eligibility for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. In alternatives A, B, C, and E, the 

memorial staff then would work toward 

removing the early 20th century ranch structures to improve the views. If any structures 

were found eligible for the national register, 

the staff would consult with the Arizona state 

historic preservation office to determine what 

features could be removed, or documented 

and then removed. The goal would be to 

remove as many of these nonhistoric features 

as possible. The natural contours of the area 

would then be restored, and the area would be 

revegetated with native plant species. 

The Joe’s Spring and Montezuma grazing 

allotments would continue to be managed 

according to the Livestock Management Plan 

(NPS 2000b). This would include the eventual 

retirement of one or both allotments if the 

permittees were willing. The memorial would 

continue existing partnering agreements for 

the provision of law enforcement, communications, and fire protection, as well as working 

with schools and other organizations to 

interpret the area’s cultural heritage and 

ecosystems. 

Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities 

While Protecting Resources (Preferred 

Alternative) 

The concept of alternative B, the alternative 

preferred by the National Park Service, would 

be to enhance educational and recreational 

opportunities while protecting, perpetuating, 

and ensuring public understanding of the 

national memorial’s resources. Educational 

and interpretive goals would be emphasized, 

and the staff would seek new ways to foster 

public appreciation of the memorial’s 

resources. 

All lands not included in other prescriptions 

would be in the conservation prescription. 

Grazing in the national memorial would be 

discontinued, and the abandoned powerline 

along the road to Montezuma Pass would be 

removed and revegetated with native plant 

species. All existing trails would be retained, 

and four new trails would be developed 

(locations described below for the education 

prescription). Some trails would be in the 

former grazing allotments. 

The education prescription, in which 

interpretation would be intensive, would be 

applied to the trail from Montezuma Pass to 

Coronado Peak, the trail to Coronado Cave, 

and the grasslands north and south of the 

main road. The Montezuma Ranch, which is 

in the grasslands, would be managed as 

described in the discussion of alternative A. A 

loop trail would be developed in the 

grasslands south of the main road. A trail 

accessible for people with disabilities would 

be developed in the grasslands north of the 

entrance, using part of Windmill Road. 

The visitor services prescription would 

contain the area around the visitor center, 

vi 
parking atop Montezuma Pass, and the main 

road. Another trail would be added between 

the visitor center and the entrance. The 

rehabilitated visitor center would offer 

updated interpretation. Interpretation also 

would be available at Montezuma Pass. More 

pullouts and waysides would be developed 

along the main road. An annex behind the 

visitor center would contain additional office 

space and storage, along with a multipurpose 

room. To add the annex, the interpretive trail 

outside the visitor center would have to be 

removed, but a new interpretive trail 

accessible for people with disabilities would 

be developed near the current picnic area. 

Staff and visitors could park in the current 

picnic area. 

A new group picnic area would be placed near 

the site of the old fiesta area. The visitor 

shelter at Montezuma Pass would be 

converted into a minimal contact station 

(staffed at peak times); at some later time it 

might become a sheltered shuttle stop. The 

interpretive media at this site would be 

updated. 

The operations / special use prescription 

would contain the current staff housing, the 

maintenance area, private inholdings, and a 

utility corridor. A new four-unit structure 

might be added to house temporary 

employees and others at the memorial 

temporarily. All development would be 

screened from the road by vegetation. 

To encourage better public understanding of 

its mission, the national memorial would work 

toward creating an offsite cultural festival to 

celebrate various associated cultures, emphasizing the historical aspects of the Coronado 

Expedition. To help visitors understand the 

memorial’s story, the staff would promote 

special events inside and outside the 

memorial, such as programs highlighting the 

Coronado Expedition, its legacy, and its 

impact on the present American Southwest. 

The memorial would support the preservation 

of the regional ecosystem, possibly working 

Summary 

with partners to preserve the views of the San 

Pedro Valley from Montezuma Pass. 

Alternative C: Focus on Resource 

Protection While Fulfilling the 

Memorial’s Mission 

The concept of alternative C would be to 

focus on conserving the memorial’s cultural 

and natural resources for future generations. 

Intrusive features on the landscape would be 

minimized, interpretation would be updated, 

and the outreach program would be assertive. 

All lands in the memorial not included in 

other prescriptions would be placed in the 

conservation prescription. The abandoned 

powerline along the Montezuma Pass road 

would be removed and revegetated with 

native species. Studies would be done to 

determine the feasibility of reintroducing 

native plants and animals in the memorial that 

were present at the time of the Coronado 

Expedition. Grazing would be eliminated 

from the national memorial. The Montezuma 

Ranch would be managed as described in the 

discussion of alternative A, page vi. 

Abandoned roads would be restored to 

natural contours and revegetated. 

The education prescription would include 

the trail from Montezuma Pass to Coronado 

Peak and the trail to Coronado Cave. More 

intensive interpretation would be offered in 

both areas. 

The visitor services prescription in 

alternative C would encompass the area 

around the visitor center, the picnic area, 

parking atop Montezuma Pass, and the main 

road. The interior of the visitor center would 

be remodeled to make more space for interpretation. The building would be evaluated 

for its eligibility for national register listing, 

and any work would be planned to protect the 

contributing features. The interpretive trail 

near the visitor center would be made 

accessible for people with disabilities. 

vii 
SUMMARY 

Some staff positions would be relocated in 

adequate space outside, but near, the 

memorial to make room for visitors to park at 

the visitor center. The picnic area and its 

access road would be retained, with parking 

added nearby for four buses or recreational 

vehicles. The dirt storage area on the road to 

Montezuma Pass would be removed, and that 

area, along with the former fiesta grounds and 

social trails, would be restored to natural 

contours and revegetated. 

The operations / special use prescription in 

alternative C would comprise the staff 

housing, the maintenance area, private 

inholdings, and a utility corridor. A new fourunit structure might be built to house 

temporary employees and others at the 

memorial temporarily. Vegetation would 

screen all development from the road. 

Strong emphasis would be placed on reaching 

beyond the memorial’s boundaries to improve 

public understanding of the national 

memorial. The staff would join forces with 

various groups to tell the memorial’s story. 

Interpretive programs would be developed 

with Mexican groups, and activities could 

support Mexican and American natural and 

cultural resources. The memorial would 

support the preservation of the regional 

ecosystem, possibly working with partners to 

preserve the views of the San Pedro Valley 

from Montezuma Pass. 

Alternative D: Create an International 

Experience for Visitors 

The concept of alternative D would be to 

develop a fuller international experience for 

visitors by finding new ways for the public to 

appreciate and understand the international 

aspects of the memorial. 

The conservation prescription in alternative 

D would contain all lands not included in 

other prescriptions. The abandoned 

powerline along the Montezuma Pass road 

would be removed and the area revegetated 

with native species. Abandoned roads would 

be restored to natural contours and 

revegetated. Grazing would not be permitted 

in the Montezuma allotment. 

In the education prescription would be the 

trail from Montezuma Pass to Coronado Peak 

(with updated interpretive media), the trail to 

Coronado Cave (with added interpretive 

media), and the grasslands north of the main 

road. Part of the trail to Coronado Peak might 

be made accessible for visitors with 

disabilities. A new interpretive trail would be 

developed north of the main road in the 

grasslands, possibly using Windmill Road, but 

not going into the Joe’s Spring allotment. 

The visitor services prescription would 

consist of the area around the visitor center, 

the picnic area, parking atop Montezuma 

Pass, the main road, East Forest Lane from the 

main road to the border, and the Montezuma 

Ranch area. East Forest Lane would be 

upgraded to two lanes, and a new structure 

would be built at the end of that road to offer 

shelter from weather and views into Mexico. 

In this commemorative feature, which could 

become a main attraction of the memorial, 

interpretive media would foster understanding and appreciation through a historical 

perspective of the region as illustrated by the 

Coronado Expedition, encouraging 

international amity. 

An educational center with space for staff 

offices would be built in the Montezuma 

Ranch area. The center would be designed to 

blend into the environment, with the 

surrounding area landscaped so that it would 

not detract from the views from Coronado 

Peak. The Montezuma Ranch structures 

would be evaluated for national register 

eligibility. The structures found ineligible 

would be demolished. If any structures were 

found eligible for the national register, the 

staff would consult with the Arizona state 

historic preservation office to determine what 

features could be removed, adaptively used, or 

documented and then removed. Any 

viii 
Summary 

structures found eligible might be adaptively 

used as part of the educational center. 

The views from Montezuma Pass would be 

preserved, with the roads to the educational 

center and the commemorative feature 

designed to minimize harm to the vista. The 

visitor center would be expanded and 

rehabilitated, with updated interpretation and 

more office and storage space. Interpretative 

themes would relate to the memorial’s 

international aspects. 

The interpretive trail at the visitor center 

would be removed. The visitor center would 

be evaluated for national register eligibility, 

and any work would be planned to protect the 

contributing features. More parking for 

visitors and NPS staff would be added; some 

could be in the present picnic area. The road 

to the picnic area would be upgraded and 

picnic sites added. The visitor shelter at 

Montezuma Pass would be converted into a 

minimal contact station (staffed at peak 

times); at some later time it might become a 

sheltered shuttle stop. 

The operations / special use prescription in 

alternative D would contain the staff housing, 

the maintenance area, private inholdings, and 

a utility corridor. A new four-unit structure 

might be built to house temporary employees 

and others at the memorial. All development 

would be screened from the road by 

vegetation. 

The memorial would explore the feasibility of 

sponsoring Coronado-related events at 

various universities to promote international 

understanding. These events might include 

onsite or offsite lectures and cultural activities. 

In addition, The memorial would support the 

preservation of the regional ecosystem, 

possibly working with partners to preserve the 

views of the San Pedro Valley from 

Montezuma Pass. 

Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation 

and the Efficiency of Operations 

The concept of alternative E would be to offer 

an enhanced experience for visitors while 

creating a more sustainable national memorial 

and seeking new ways to educate the public 

about the significance of the Coronado 

Expedition. A new visitor/educational center 

would be created, and a new interpretive trail 

would be developed. 

The conservation prescription would 

contain all lands not included in other 

prescriptions. The abandoned powerline 

along the road to Montezuma Pass would be 

removed and the area revegetated with native 

species. Grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment 

would be ended. East Forest Lane would 

continue to be used for NPS operations and as 

an access road to the Montezuma grazing 

allotment. The Montezuma Ranch would be 

managed as described in the discussion of 

alternative A, page vi. 

The education prescription in alternative E 

would consist of the trail from Montezuma 

Pass to Coronado Peak, the trail to Coronado 

Cave, and the grasslands north of the main 

road. The interpretive media on both trails 

would be updated. Another trail would be 

added between the visitor center and the 

entrance. 

The visitor services prescription would 

contain the present visitor center, the picnic 

area, the parking atop Montezuma Pass, the 

main road, part of Windmill Road, and the 

new visitor/educational center, which would 

be about 1.2 miles west of the east entrance. A 

trail would be developed at that center to 

interpret the grasslands, and another trail 

would be created between the current visitor 

center and the new visitor and educational 

center. From the new center, visitors would 

have panoramic views of the San Pedro River 

Valley and the United States–Mexico border. 

These views would add to the staff’s ability to 

tell the human and natural history stories 

significant to Coronado National Memorial. 

ix 
SUMMARY 

The principles of sustainable design would be 

used to create this building typical of the 

Spanish colonial period, which would blend 

into the environment as much as possible. 

The present visitor center, which may be 

eligible for national register listing, would be 

converted into administrative offices. It would 

be evaluated for national register eligibility, 

and any work done on the building would be 

planned to protect the eligible features. The 

main road, trailheads, parking, picnic area, 

and restrooms would be unchanged, with 

social trails revegetated. Windmill Road 

would be made into a two-lane paved road, 

with the alignment changed slightly to give 

access to the visitor/educational center. The 

visitor shelter at Montezuma Pass would be 

converted into a minimal contact station and 

possibly, at a later date, a sheltered shuttle 

stop. 

The operations / special use prescription 

would include the staff housing, the 

maintenance area, private inholdings, and a 

utility corridor. A new four-unit structure 

might be added to house temporary 

employees and others temporarily staying at 

the memorial. All development would be 

screened from the road by vegetation. 

All interpretive themes would be equally 

emphasized in alternative E, with strong 

importance given to working with various 

groups to tell the memorial’s stories and reach 

beyond its boundaries. Partnerships would be 

created with local schools, the U.S. Forest 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and 

others, and interpretive programs would be 

developed in conjunction with Mexican 

groups. 

The memorial would support the preservation 

of the regional ecosystem, possibly working 

with partners to preserve the views of the San 

Pedro Valley from Montezuma Pass. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

The planning team evaluated the potential 

consequences that the actions of each 

alternative would have on natural resources, 

cultural resources, visitor understanding and 

recreational resources, and the socioeconomic 

environment. The beneficial or adverse effects 

were categorized as either short term or long 

term, and their intensity was rated as negligible, minor, moderate, or major. The impacts 

of the alternatives are compared in table 9 (p. 

77). 

Effects from Alternative A 

Natural Resources. Long-term local 

negligible to minor adverse effects on soils 

and vegetation would be caused by human 

activity at developed sites and along trails, the 

ongoing maintenance of existing structures 

and roads, and the rehabilitation of existing 

structures as funds permitted. The associated 

ground disturbance could encourage invasive 

nonnative plant species to increase. Removing 

the Montezuma Ranch structures would cause 

trampling and the uprooting of vegetation, a 

short-term negligible to minor local adverse 

effect on about 5 acres of soils and vegetation 

(less than 1% of the memorial’s total acreage). 

Revegetating the area after the structures were 

removed would restore the overall integrity of 

the vegetative community. Minor adverse 

effects on soils and vegetation (which 

stabilizes soils) would continue in the grazing 

allotments from erosion and compaction by 

cattle hooves. However, implementation of 

the new Livestock Management Plan is 

reducing stocking levels and modifying the 

season of use, allowing native grass species to 

increase and improving range condition. 

These long-term beneficial effects on soils 

and vegetation would be negligible to minor. 

Developing a fire management plan would reduce hazardous fuels, diminishing the 

potential for wildland fire in the memorial and 

beyond its boundaries. 

x 
Summary 

Threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species would not be adversely affected by 

alternative A. Removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures and restoring and 

revegetating the area would result in more 

agave plants, increasing the available food for 

nectar-feeding bats. It also would increase the 

habitat available for small rodents and insects, 

an negligible to minor beneficial effect on the 

loggerhead shrike. 

Water quality in Coronado National 

Memorial would continue to be adversely 

affected by the use of current trails, roads, and 

facilities adjacent to drainages, which would 

make streambanks unstable. Maintaining and 

using existing structures might cause the loss 

of riparian vegetation in small areas through 

trampling and uprooting. The long-term 

adverse effects on wetlands from these causes 

would be negligible. The short-term adverse 

effect on water quality from removing the 

Montezuma Ranch structures would be 

negligible because it would not be near 

drainages, and mitigative measures would 

reduce soil erosion. Restoring and 

revegetating the area after building removal 

would reduce compaction and wind erosion. 

Grazing, even at reduced levels under the 

Livestock Management Plan, would continue 

to degrade watersheds, causing soil erosion, 

reduced plant cover, and altered plant 

communities. However, sedimentation, fecal 

coliform, and other microbes would decrease, 

and the effects on grazing in riparian areas 

would be reduced. The long-term adverse 

impacts on water quality and riparian areas 

from continued grazing would be minor. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

improve grassland habitat, benefiting wildlife 

and giving small rodents more habitat, but 

removing the structures would result in longterm negligible adverse effects on wildlife. 

Mitigating measures would reduce the effects 

on rare or uncommon wildlife species. 

Continued management of grazing according 

to the Livestock Management Plan would 

improve small mammal habitat and bird 

nesting habitat. Continued grazing would 

reduce forage and cause habitat loss, a minor 

long-term adverse impact on wildlife. 

Cultural Resources. An archeological survey 

of the Montezuma Ranch would be 

completed, and any archeological resources 

found there would be preserved in place, a 

negligible long-term beneficial effect. 

Archeological sites have been damaged by 

livestock grazing. The continued disturbance 

of archeological sites by cattle would cause a 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impact. 

Continuing efforts of the memorial staff to 

identify and protect archeological resources 

would be beneficial to those resources. 

Historic structures in the memorial would 

benefit from ongoing efforts to identify and 

preserve them, resulting overall in a longterm negligible to minor beneficial effect. 

Before any action was taken regarding the 

early 20th century Montezuma Ranch 

structures, a formal determination of their 

national register eligibility would be 

completed. 

Ethnographic resources would benefit from 

inventories that would be developed, but the 

long-term minor beneficial effect would be 

partly offset by a lack of in-depth programs 

sponsored by the memorial. Therefore, the 

overall long-term beneficial effect on 

ethnographic resources would be negligible. 

American Indians would continue gathering 

items important to their culture on the 

memorial’s lands. Visitors’ understanding and 

appreciation of the Indian and Hispanic 

viewpoints about the Coronado Expedition 

would continue to be limited. 

Cultural landscapes would benefit from the 

continued efforts of the national memorial 

staff to maintain such landscapes. Any 

construction in the memorial would be done 

so as to protect the views from Montezuma 

Pass. Identifying and preserving cultural 

landscapes would result in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect. Removing the visually 

xi 
SUMMARY 

intrusive Montezuma Ranch structures would 

cause a long-term minor beneficial effect on 

the views from Montezuma Pass. Development outside the memorial could result in 

short-term and long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational 

Resources. Visitor access to resources would 

be unchanged under alternative A, with most 

visitors spending one to two hours at the 

memorial’s many attractions. Access for 

visitors with disabilities would continue to be 

inadequate. Thus, the ability of visitors to 

experience valuable resources would be 

limited, a negligible to minor adverse effect. 

Continuing the existing interpretive materials 

and services would be helpful in interpretation and orientation, giving visitors information and decreasing physical effects on 

resources. Continued crowding at the visitor 

center would damage the quality of the visitor 

experience, a long-term moderate adverse 

effect. 

If visitor numbers and the demand for 

recreational resources continued to increase 

with no corresponding improvement in visitor 

services, there would be local minor to 

moderate long-term adverse impacts on the 

visitor experience. The memorial’s facilities 

would deteriorate, and deferring maintenance 

to divert funds to recreational services could 

make the memorial less appealing as a 

recreation site. Removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures and restoring and revegetating the area would enable visitors to 

enjoy an uninterrupted view of the San Pedro 

Valley from the Montezuma Peak scenic 

lookout, improving scenic values, a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effect. With 

increasing demands for recreation and 

opportunities to observe wildlife and 

vegetation, continuing grazing in the 

memorial would have a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact on visitors wanting 

to experience natural resources. 

The Socioeconomic Environment. With few 

improvements in recreational facilities under 

alternative A, recreational use in the 

memorial would increase at about the same 

rate as visitation. Facilities and attractions 

would deteriorate through overuse, making 

the memorial less appealing, a negligible longterm adverse effect. 

Cattle grazing in the memorial would continue to follow the actions set forth in the 

“Livestock Management Plan,” but increased 

recreational use would lead to more complaints by recreational users about cattle. 

However, the economic effect on grazing 

would be negligible. 

Alternative A would result in negligible effects 

on the local and regional economy from new 

jobs and visitor spending. Continuing grazing 

in the memorial would not cause any 

economic changes in grazing fees or cattle 

production. The memorial’s ability to provide 

additional people trained in fighting wildland 

fires would be a minor long-term beneficial 

effect on the region. 

Effects from Alternative B 

Natural Resources. Ground disturbance to 

build the visitor center annex and add 

pullouts, new trails, and trailheads would 

affect less than 1 acre of soils and vegetation 

in a previously disturbed area, a long-term 

negligible to minor local adverse impact. The 

adverse effects on soils and vegetation from 

removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would be short term and negligible to minor 

because mitigative measures would minimize 

erosion and limit construction activities. 

Restoring and revegetating the site would 

offset the adverse effects and improve the 

ecosystem’s health and integrity. Restoring 

and revegetating East Forest Lane and 

removing powerlines along the Montezuma 

Pass road would affect soils and vegetation on 

less than 50 acres, with negligible to minor 

long-term adverse effects. Ending grazing in 

the memorial would reduce nonnative species 

xii 
and reestablish native vegetation, a long-term 

minor beneficial effect. 

Threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species would not be affected by the 

construction of the visitor center annex and 

hiking trails, parking lots, and pullouts. These 

actions would not alter the population of 

agave plants or affect the small mammals that 

are prey for loggerhead shrikes. Removing the 

Montezuma Ranch structures and restoring 

the area would improve the habitat for agave 

plants and small mammal species, resulting in 

negligible to minor beneficial effects on 

nectar-feeding bats and loggerhead shrikes. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would stop 

cattle from eating the memorial’s agave plants 

and might increase the prey base and nesting 

habitat for loggerhead shrikes. 

Long-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on water quality would result from 

building a visitor center annex and adding 

parking, pullouts, and trails. Parts of two 

accessible trails that cross drainages might 

need to be adjusted for slope requirements, 

which would reduce soil erosion in the 

riparian habitat. Reestablishing streambank 

vegetation after construction would reduce 

those effects. Native riparian vegetation 

would be restored, a long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial effect on riparian habitats. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

cause negligible effects on water quality and 

wetlands. The long-term beneficial effects 

from restoring East Forest Lane and the 

powerline area would be negligible to minor. 

Ending grazing in the national memorial 

would stop livestock disturbance of soils and 

vegetation in riparian areas, reducing 

streambank erosion, a short-term minor 

beneficial effect. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding trails 

would give wildlife more access to habitat, a 

negligible to minor beneficial effect from 

alternative B. However, slow or sedentary 

species such as amphibians and reptiles would 

be more at risk for adverse effects from 

Summary 

construction. Some individuals might be lost, 

affecting their populations in the memorial. 

However, with mitigation to reduce the 

impacts, the overall long-term adverse effects 

on wildlife would be negligible to minor. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

with mitigating measures to reduce impacts on 

rare or uncommon species, would cause longterm negligible adverse effects on wildlife. Restoring and revegetating the area would 

improve grassland habitat, a long-term 

negligible to minor benefit. Restoring and 

revegetating East Forest Lane and removing 

the powerline along the main road would 

increase habitat and food for many species of 

small mammals, nesting birds, and reptiles, a 

long-term negligible to minor beneficial 

effect. Closing East Forest Lane to vehicles 

would reduce the indirect effects of human 

presence. Ending grazing in the memorial 

would improve wildlife habitat and forage. 

Cultural Resources. The impacts on archeological resources from alternative B would be 

partially or fully mitigated by sensitive siting 

and by designing facilities in relation to the 

resources. Any resources found by an archeological survey of the Montezuma Ranch 

would be preserved in place, a negligible 

long-term beneficial effect. Ending grazing in 

the memorial would help to conserve 

archeological resources; hence, the long-term 

beneficial effect on archeological resources 

would be negligible to minor. 

The national memorial’s ongoing efforts to 

identify and preserve historic structures 

would benefit these resources. Evaluating the 

Montezuma Ranch structures and the visitor 

center for eligibility for the National Register 

of Historic Places would produce a long-term 

negligible beneficial effect on historic 

structures. 

Known ethnographic resources would not be 

affected by any action in alternative B. Longterm moderate to major beneficial effects 

would result from the national memorial’s 

educational and interpretive programs, which 

xiii 
SUMMARY 

would promote the protection of tangible and 

intangible resources, and from efforts to 

emphasize the area’s multicultural heritage. 

Any effects on cultural landscapes from the 

minimal developments of alternative B would 

be partially or fully mitigated by sensitive 

siting and design, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects on 

cultural landscapes. 

The annex would enable the staff to present 

more in-depth interpretation of the 

memorial’s natural and cultural resources, a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

effect. 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational 

Resources. Visitors’ access to resources and 

cultural exhibits would be improved by developing four new trails, two of which would be 

made accessible for mobility-impaired 

visitors. Two new trails to be developed 

would be loop trails in the grasslands, one 

south of the main road near the Montezuma 

Ranch and one north of the entrance, the 

latter using part of the old Windmill Road. A 

trail partially accessible for visitors with 

disabilities also would be added in the grasslands north of the entrance. The present 

interpretive trail near the visitor center would 

be removed to allow the addition of the 

annex, but a new interpretive trail would be 

developed between the visitor center and the 

entrance to the memorial. 

The memorial’s grasslands would be more 

easily available for hiking and birding after the 

end of grazing in the memorial, a negligible to 

minor long-term beneficial effect. Congestion 

would be reduced and views would be more 

accessible after the addition of parking and 

pullouts. All these actions would cause longterm minor to moderate beneficial effects on 

the visitor experience. 

Interpretation and orientation would be improved by upgraded interpretive materials and 

expanded outreach programs. Visitors would 

have an opportunity to understand the story 

of Coronado National Memorial, a moderate 

long-term beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience. 

Enlarging the memorial’s facilities would accommodate larger visitor numbers, 

improving recreation opportunities, a longterm minor to moderate beneficial effect on 

the visitor experience. Removing the 

Montezuma Ranch structures and restoring 

and revegetating the area would make 

available an uninterrupted view of the San 

Pedro Valley from the Montezuma Peak 

lookout, improving scenic values, a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effect. Ending 

grazing in the memorial would let visitors experience the grasslands’ natural resources, a 

negligible to minor beneficial effect. 

The Socioeconomic Environment. The 

visitor service enhancements, resource 

conservation measures, and outreach efforts 

of alternative B would enable the memorial to 

accommodate more recreational use without 

reducing the quality of the recreational 

experience, a moderate long-term beneficial 

effect on recreation. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would benefit 

recreational use, but it would cause a negligible adverse effect on the county’s economy. 

The loss of the payment of grazing fees to the 

National Park Service would be a negligible 

adverse effect on the memorial’s operating 

budget. 

The local and regional economy would 

receive negligible beneficial effects under 

Alternative B from new jobs, more spending 

caused by increased visitation, and NPS 

expenditures for construction labor and 

supplies. The availability of more trained 

firefighters would be a minor long-term 

beneficial effect on the region. 

Effects from Alternative C 

Natural Resources. Adding more parking 

would cause negligible to minor effects on 

xiv 
Summary 

soils and vegetation in a previously disturbed 

area of less than 1 acre. More areas would be 

restored and revegetated in alternative C than 

in the other alternatives. Removing the 

Montezuma Ranch structures would cause 

negligible to minor short-term local adverse 

effects on soils and vegetation, but mitigative 

measures would be used. Restoring 

construction sites and the Montezuma Ranch 

area would reduce nonnative plants and bring 

back native species, improving ecosystem 

health and integrity, a local long-term local 

negligible to minor beneficial effect. Trail 

changes to provide better access would cause 

negligible to minor damage of soils and 

vegetation. Ending grazing in the memorial 

would reduce nonnative plants and increase 

native vegetation, a long-term minor 

beneficial effect. 

Threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species would not be affected by the addition 

of parking. Removing the Montezuma Ranch 

structures and restoring the area would 

establish habitat for agave plants and small 

mammal species, a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect for nectar-feeding bats and 

loggerhead shrikes. Ending grazing in the 

memorial would stop cattle consumption of 

agave plants, increasing the prey base and 

nesting habitat for loggerhead shrikes. 

The effects on water quality from adding 

more parking would be negligible because the 

small parking area would not be in riparian 

habitat or adjacent to a stream channel. 

Restoring and revegetating more sites than in 

the other alternatives would reduce 

sedimentation into drainages, a long-term 

minor beneficial effect on water quality and 

the riparian habitat. Ending grazing in the 

memorial would produce a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on water quality. 

The adverse effects on the memorial’s wildlife 

from adding parking and upgrading trails 

would be negligible. Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures would cause negligible 

short-term adverse effects on wildlife, with 

mitigating measures reducing the impacts on 

rare or uncommon species. Restoring and 

revegetating areas would improve grassland 

habitat, benefiting wildlife species. Ending 

grazing in the memorial would improve 

habitat and forage, a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on wildlife. 

Cultural Resources. Alternative C would not 

result in any effects on archeological 

resources because development would be 

limited, most of it in previously disturbed 

areas. Thus, the long-term beneficial effects 

on archeological resources would be 

negligible to minor. 

The national memorial’s various potential 

historic structures — specifically, the visitor 

center and the Montezuma Ranch structures 

— would be formally evaluated for their 

eligibility for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places. Any ranch structures found 

ineligible for listing would be torn down; this 

would result in no effect. Any structures 

determined to be eligible would be stabilized 

and preserved, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on these resources. The 

visitor center would be retained. 

The memorial’s ethnographic resources 

would be protected from damage in 

alternative C because development would be 

limited. Restoring and revegetating roads, 

powerline areas, and areas with nonhistoric 

structures would make more areas suitable for 

ethnographic use, resulting in long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effects on 

ethnographic resources. 

Restoring cultural landscapes in the 

memorial to appear like those at the time of 

the Coronado Expedition would result in a 

negligible to minor long-term beneficial 

effect. 

More in-depth interpretation would be 

feasible at the remodeled visitor center, but 

there could be more risk of vandalism or 

deterioration of the items. Overall, the longterm effects of alternative C on the collections 

would be negligible and beneficial. 

xv 
SUMMARY 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational 

Resources. Visitors’ access to resources 

would be enhanced by upgrading the trail at 

the visitor center and making it accessible to 

mobility-impaired visitors, but the beneficial 

effects would be negligible because the trail is 

small. Ending grazing in the memorial would 

enable some visitors to use grassland areas, 

but with no trails being developed in the 

allotment areas, the use would remain limited, 

a negligible beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience. 

Interpretation and orientation would be improved by the memorial staff’s efforts with 

other groups to reach beyond the boundary 

and tell the memorial’s story. This would give 

visitors an opportunity to appreciate and 

understand Coronado National Memorial’s 

story, a minor long-term beneficial effect on 

the visitor experience. 

Visitor numbers would increase under 

alternative C, and opportunities for recreation would be improved by upgrading the 

interpretive trail, particularly for mobilityimpaired visitors. Removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures and restoring and revegetating the area would enable visitors to enjoy 

an uninterrupted view of the San Pedro Valley 

from the Montezuma Peak scenic lookout, 

improving scenic values, a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effect. Congestion would 

be reduced by adding parking, also a longterm minor to moderate beneficial effect. 

The Socioeconomic Environment. In alternative C, recreational use would benefit from 

increased recreational services, improved 

facilities, better controls, and enhanced visitor 

services. This would result in minor longterm beneficial effects on recreation. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would cause 

a negligible long-term beneficial effect on 

recreational use and a negligible adverse effect 

on the county economy from reduced cattle 

production. Ending the payment of grazing 

fees to the National Park Service would have a 

negligible adverse effect on the memorial’s 

operating budget. 

Alternative C would cause negligible 

beneficial effects on the local and regional 

economy from new jobs, more spending 

caused by greater visitation, and NPS 

spending for construction labor and supplies. 

Negligible adverse effects would result from 

decreased cattle production. The availability 

of more personnel trained in firefighting 

would be a minor long-term beneficial effect 

on wildland fire control in the county. 

Effects from Alternative D 

Natural Resources. Expanding the visitor 

center and adding picnic sites would cause 

negligible to minor adverse effects on 

previously disturbed soils and vegetation. 

The short-term and long-term adverse effects 

from paving, creating parking areas and trails, 

and building an educational center would be 

negligible to minor because the areas affected 

would be small and best management 

practices would reduce the damage. Only the 

vegetation adjacent to developments would be 

affected, and the harm would ultimately 

diminish as the area revegetated. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and replacing them with new buildings or 

adapting them for use as an educational center 

would cause the trampling and uprooting of 

grassland vegetation, resulting in negligible 

adverse impacts on less than 20 acres. 

Adapting the existing structures for use as the 

educational center would cause fewer impacts 

than would building new structures because 

less construction would be needed. The local 

adverse effects would be negligible, as would 

the effects on vegetation throughout the 

memorial from either scenario. Adverse 

impacts on soils and vegetation from grazing 

in the Joe’s Spring allotment would continue, 

but the minor long-term impacts would be 

offset by the beneficial effects of ending 

grazing in the Montezuma allotment. 

xvi 
The populations of agave plants used by 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species 

would not be affected by the developmentrelated activities of alternative D, although 

individual plants might be disturbed by trail 

construction in grasslands or by paving roads 

and parking areas. Removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures might cause the loss of 

individual agave plants but would not 

adversely affect the memorial’s total agave 

population, and it would not measurably 

affect small mammal prey species, especially 

those that are mobile or common. Adapting 

the ranch structures for use as an educational 

center would cause negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on sensitive species. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding 

picnic sites in previously disturbed areas 

would cause negligible effects on water 

quality. The development would not take 

place in riparian habitat or near drainages, and 

mitigating measures would minimize erosion 

and limit construction to the immediate area. 

Paving East Forest Lane and developing trails 

would cause short-term minor adverse effects 

on water quality and negligible to minor 

adverse effects on riparian habitat. In the long 

term, the impacts would be negligible because 

riparian vegetation along the streambank 

would recover. Riparian habitat would not be 

affected by removing the Montezuma Ranch 

structures and replacing them with new 

buildings or adapting them for the educational 

center. Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would cause long-term minor 

adverse effects on water quality and riparian 

areas through continued streambank erosion 

and sedimentation, but ending grazing in the 

Montezuma allotment would offset these 

effects. 

Negligible to minor adverse effects on wildlife 

would be caused by expanding the visitor 

center and adding picnic sites in previously 

disturbed areas. Removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures would result in long-term 

negligible harm to wildlife, but mitigative 

measures would reduce the impacts on rare or 

uncommon species. Adding new trails also 

Summary 

would adversely affect some wildlife species in 

the long term, but the effects would be 

negligible to minor because the areas affected 

would be small and previously disturbed. 

Widening and paving East Forest Lane would 

improve visitor access, resulting in roadkill 

and the continued fragmentation of habitat, a 

local long-term minor adverse effect on 

wildlife. Ending grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would increase grassland forage and 

improve riparian habitat, a long-term minor 

benefit for wildlife. 

Cultural Resources. The many grounddisturbing actions in alternative D would increase the possibility of affecting archeological resources. However, about 70% of the 

actions would occur in formerly disturbed 

areas. The areas to be disturbed could contain 

unknown archeological resources, and if any 

were found, actions would be taken to protect 

them. Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would allow more disturbance of 

archeological resources, mainly lithic scatters, 

but stopping grazing in the Montezuma allotment would end the risk of damage in that 

area. The continued damage of archeological 

sites by cattle would be a long-term negligible 

to minor adverse effect. The continuing 

identification and location of archeological 

resources would result in their being 

preserved in place, a negligible long-term 

beneficial effect. Overall, the long-term 

effects on archeological resources from 

alternative D would be negligible and adverse. 

The historic structures on the Montezuma 

Ranch would be formally evaluated for their 

eligibility for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places, as would the visitor center. 

Any ranch structures found ineligible for 

listing would be torn down; this would result 

in no effect. If any structures were found 

eligible for the national register, the staff 

would consult with the Arizona state historic 

preservation office to determine if they could 

be removed, adaptively used, or documented 

and then removed. If the visitor center was 

found eligible, the rehabilitation proposed in 

this alternative would result in a long-term 

xvii 
SUMMARY 

moderate beneficial effect. The overall longterm effect on historic structures from 

alternative D would be negligible and 

beneficial. 

Ethnographic resources could be affected by 

improved access from new and upgraded 

trails and roads, which could bring visitors to 

areas previously visited very little. Thus, 

alternative D could have a long-term 

negligible adverse impact on ethnographic 

resources. 

Alternative D would be more likely to affect 

cultural landscapes than the other 

alternatives because of the variety of actions 

involved (building roads, facilities, and trails). 

Efforts would be made to perpetuate the 

appearance of the area as it looked to the 

Coronado Expedition. Although care would 

be taken in designs and vegetative screening, 

vehicles on roads and in parking lots still 

could be visually intrusive. Overall, the longterm effect of alternative D on cultural 

landscapes would be adverse and negligible to 

minor. 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational 

Resources. Alternative D would improve 

visitors’ access to resources because paving 

East Forest Lane so that vehicles could reach 

the new commemorative feature would enable 

people to experience the natural resources of 

the grasslands, a long-term moderate to major 

beneficial effect. Visitors also could experience the grassland habitat of the Montezuma 

grazing allotment, a negligible to minor 

beneficial effect because only a small number 

of visitors use the memorial’s trails. Access to 

natural resources and cultural exhibits for 

people with disabilities would increase, a 

negligible to minor beneficial effect. 

Interpretation and orientation would be enhanced by improved interpretive materials 

and expanded outreach programs, which 

would emphasize the memorial’s mission, 

purpose, and significance. Opportunities for 

visitors to learn about and understand the 

memorial’s resources would be a moderate to 

major beneficial effect. 

The congestion of visitor numbers would be 

reduced in alternative D by the addition of an 

educational center and a group picnic area. 

There would be short-term minor to 

moderate adverse effects on recreation from 

construction noise and the temporary closure 

of some areas, but the expanded facilities 

would reduce crowding and enable the 

memorial to accommodate more visitors, a 

moderate to major beneficial effect. With 

increasing demands for recreation and 

opportunities to observe wildlife and vegetation, continuing grazing in one allotment 

would have a long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impact on visitors wanting to 

experience the memorial’s natural resources. 

The Socioeconomic Environment. In 

alternative D, recreational use would benefit 

from enhanced visitor services, resource 

conservation measures, and outreach efforts. 

The memorial could accommodate more 

visitation without harming the quality of the 

recreation experience, a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect. 

Ending grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

would prevent some visitor-livestock 

conflicts. The ranchers who would lose the 

grazing capacity would not be able to replace 

it, an adverse effect on individual ranchers, 

but the countywide adverse effect would be 

negligible. Therefore, eliminating grazing 

from one allotment would result in a minor 

long-term beneficial effect on recreational use 

and a negligible adverse effect on the county 

economy from reduced cattle production. The 

memorial would be able to offer more 

recreational opportunities by placing recreational amenities south of the main road, a 

minor beneficial effect on recreation. 

Alternative D would cause negligible 

beneficial effects on the local and regional 

economy from new jobs, more spending 

caused by greater visitation, and NPS 

spending for construction labor and supplies. 

xviii 
Negligible adverse effects would result from 

decreased cattle production. The availability 

of more personnel trained in firefighting 

would be a minor long-term beneficial effect 

on wildland fire control in the county. 

Effects from Alternative E 

Natural Resources. Local short-term and 

long-term negligible to minor adverse effects 

on soils and vegetation would result from 

building a new visitor center and a hardened 

parking area in the grassland now occupied by 

the Joe’s Spring allotment. This would result 

in soil erosion and compaction on previously 

grazed land. Paving roads, adding parking 

areas, and developing trails would cause 

short-term and long-term negligible to minor 

damage of soils and vegetation. Those effects 

would diminish over time as vegetation along 

the road recovered. Removing the structures 

from the Montezuma Ranch would cause 

short-term negligible to minor adverse 

impacts on soils and vegetation, which would 

be offset by long-term beneficial effects from 

restoring and revegetating the site, reducing 

compaction and increasing permeability, a 

local long-term negligible to minor beneficial 

effect. Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would cause minor long-term 

adverse impacts on soils and vegetation, but 

they would be offset by eliminating grazing 

from the Joe’s Spring allotment. 

Alternative E would affect threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species because the 

ground-disturbing activities associated with 

buildings, trails, and road access into the 

grasslands would disturb vegetation and 

wildlife. Removing the Montezuma Ranch 

structures and restoring and revegetating the 

area would result in more habitat for agave 

plants and more ground cover and habitat for 

small rodent species. Revegetation also would 

benefit nectar-feeding bats and loggerhead 

shrikes by increasing the available food. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would continue negligible to minor 

adverse effects on the vegetation and wildlife 

Summary 

on which sensitive species rely for food and 

habitat. 

Cultural Resources. The potential to affect 

archeological resources would increase 

because many of the ground-disturbing 

actions in alternative E would take place in 

previously undisturbed areas. Actions would 

be taken to protect any unknown archeological resources found in the areas to be disturbed. Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would allow further disturbance of 

archeological resources, mainly lithic scatters, 

but eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would end the possibility of grazing 

damage in that area. The continued disturbance of archeological sites by cattle would 

result in a long-term minor to moderate 

adverse impact on archeological resources. 

The continuing identification and location of 

archeological resources would result in their 

being preserved in place, a negligible longterm beneficial effect. Overall, the actions of 

this alternative would result in a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on 

archeological resources. 

The visitor center and the historic structures 

on the Montezuma Ranch would be formally 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. Any 

ranch structures found ineligible for listing 

would be torn down; this would have no 

effect. If any structures were found eligible for 

the national register, the staff would consult 

with the Arizona state historic preservation 

office to determine if they could be 

demolished. If the visitor center was found 

eligible, its rehabilitation would result in a 

long-term moderate beneficial effect. The 

overall long-term effect on historic structures 

from alternative E would be negligible and 

beneficial. 

The possibility of adversely affecting ethnographic resources would be greater in alternative E than in some of the other alternatives 

because visitors would have more access to 

the grasslands in the national memorial. The 

long-term adverse effects of this alternative 

xix 
SUMMARY 

on ethnographic resources would be 

negligible. 

Cultural landscapes could be affected by the 

construction of roads and trails and the 

removal of nonhistoric structures; however, 

none of the roads, trails, or structures have 

been identified as being part of cultural 

landscapes. Visual intrusions on the views 

replicating the appearance of the country at 

the time of the Coronado Expedition could 

occur from vehicles on roads and in parking 

lots, although the designs and vegetative 

screening would be planned with care. The 

long-term adverse effects on cultural 

landscapes from alternative E would be minor. 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational 

Resources. Visitors’ access to resources 

would be enhanced in alternative E by the 

ability to visit grassland habitats now used for 

grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment, a 

negligible to minor beneficial effect. Minor 

beneficial effects would result from increased 

access for visitors with disabilities to trails 

leading to natural resources and cultural 

exhibits. A paved road to the visitor center 

would offer access to an area not previously 

accessible by vehicles, a long-term moderate 

to major beneficial effect. Removing the 

Montezuma Ranch structures and restoring 

and revegetating the area would enable 

visitors to enjoy an uninterrupted view of the 

San Pedro Valley from the Montezuma Peak 

scenic lookout, improving scenic values, a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

effect. 

Minor beneficial effects for interpretation 

and orientation would result from the 

memorial staff’s working with various groups 

to tell the memorial’s international stories. A 

new visitor center would enable people to 

enjoy a view of the landscape and the valley. 

This would add a major attraction that could 

help visitors understand and appreciate the 

memorial’s history. 

Larger visitor numbers could be accommodated in the new, roomier visitor/educational 

center, which would help to disperse visitors 

and relieve crowding, a long-term moderate 

to major beneficial effect. The long-term 

adverse effects on recreation from new 

developments that would affect the viewshed 

would be negligible. With increasing demands 

for recreation and opportunities to observe 

wildlife and vegetation, continuing grazing in 

one allotment would have a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on visitors 

wanting to experience natural resources. 

The Socioeconomic Environment. In 

alternative E, recreational use would benefit 

from improved facilities and visitor services, 

resource conservation actions, and outreach 

efforts. The memorial could accommodate 

more visitation without harming the quality of 

recreation that visitors would experience. 

This would be a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect. 

Ending grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment 

would avert some human-livestock conflicts. 

The ranchers who would lose the grazing capacity would not be able to replace it, an adverse effect on individual ranchers, but the 

countywide effect would be negligible. Therefore, eliminating grazing from one allotment 

would result in a minor long-term beneficial 

effect on recreational use and a negligible adverse effect on the county’s economy from reduced cattle production. The national 

memorial could offer more recreational 

opportunities by placing facilities north of the 

main road, a minor beneficial effect on 

recreational use. 

Negligible beneficial effects on the local and 

regional economy would result from 

alternative E because of new jobs, added 

spending by more visitors, and NPS payments 

for construction labor and supplies. Negligible 

adverse effects would be caused by decreased 

cattle production. The availability of more 

trained firefighters would be a minor longterm beneficial effect on wildland fire control 

in the county. 

xx 
CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND 

Introduction 3

The Plan 3

Brief Description of the Area and the Memorial 3

Purpose of and Need for the Action 9

Overview 9

Purpose, Significance, Mission, and Themes 9

Purpose Statement 9

Significance Statement 9

Mission Statement 10

Primary Interpretive Themes 10

Constraints, Issues, and Concerns 11

International Significance 11

Protection of Resources and the Visitor Experience 11

Views 11

Interpretation 11

Orientation 11

Development 11

Livestock Management 12

Partnerships 12

Relationship to Other Planning Efforts 12

Special Park Mandates and Administrative Commitments 13

Servicewide Laws and Policies 13

Natural Resource Management Requirements 14

Cultural Resource Management Requirements 17

Requirements for Sustainable Design and Development 21

Requirements for Visitor Experience and Use of the National Memorial 21

Requirements for Right-of-Way and Telecommunication Infrastructure 22

Impact Topics 23

Natural Resources 23

Cultural Resources 23

Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 23

The Socioeconomic Environment 23

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 23

Natural Resource Topics 24

Cultural Resource Topics 26

Hazardous Materials 27

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 27

Mining Areas 27

Indian Trust Resources 27

Land Use Trends 27

Conservation Potential and Requirements for Natural or Depletable Resources 28

Environmental Justice 28

Transportation and Access 28

xxi 
CONTENTS 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Introduction to the Alternatives 31

Decision Points 31

Priorities within Alternatives 31

Implementation Costs 32

Carrying Capacity 32

Visitor Experience and Resource Protection 32

Monitoring 33

Management Prescriptions 33

Elements Common to All Action Alternatives 34

Boundary Adjustments 34

Wilderness Suitability 35

Protection of Visitors and Resources 36

Alternative A: No Action 39

Concept 39

Description 39

Implementation 40

Staffing 40

Costs 40

Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities while Protecting Resources (Preferred Alternative) 43

Concept 43

Description 43

Conservation Prescription 43

Education Prescription 43

Visitor Services Prescription 44

Operations / Special Use Prescription 44

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 47

Implementation 47

Priorities for Implementation 47

Staffing 48

Implementation Costs 48

Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection while Fulfilling the Memorial’s Mission 49

Concept 49

Description 49

Conservation Prescription 49

Education Prescription 49

Visitor Services Prescription 49

Operations / Special Use Prescription 50

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 50

Implementation 50

Priorities for Implementation 50

Staffing 53

Implementation Costs 53

Alternative D: Create an International Experience for Visitors to the National Memorial 54

Concept 54

Description 54

Conservation Prescription 54

Education Prescription 54

Visitor Services Prescription 54

xxii 
Contents 

Operations / Special Use Prescription 57

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 58

Implementation 58

Priorities for Implementation 58

Staffing 59

Implementation Costs 59

Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and the Efficiency of Operations 60

Concept 60

Description 60

Conservation Prescription 60

Education Prescription 60

Visitor Services Prescription 60

Operations / Special Use Prescription 63

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 63

Implementation 63

Priorities for Implementation 63

Staffing 64

Implementation Costs 64

Mitigating Measures 65

Natural Resources 65

Cultural Resources 66

Future Plans and Studies Needed 68

Alternatives Considered But Rejected 69

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative 70

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Natural Resources 87

General Description 87

Sky Islands Ecosystem 87

Physiography 87

Climate 87

Cave Resources and Abandoned Mines 88

Mines 88

Coronado Cave 88

Air Quality 88

Soils 89

Vegetation and Range Condition 89

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species 96

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 97

Mexican Long-Tongued Bat 98

Mexican Spotted Owl 98

Loggerhead Shrike 99

Water Resources and Water Quality 99

Wildlife 100

Cultural Resources 101

The Expedition 101

Archeological Resources and Historic Structures 102

xxiii 
CONTENTS 

Ethnographic Resources 103

Cultural Landscapes 103

Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 104

Access and Visitor Facilities 104

Visitation Trends 104

Visitor Services and Interpretation 107

Visitor Experience 107

Visitor Safety 107

Local Attractions and Other Recreational Opportunities 107

Socioeconomic Environment 109

Demographics and Economics 109

Coronado National Memorial Economics 109

Grazing 110

Land Use and Trends 110

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Introduction 115

Background 115

Cumulative Effects 115

Definition 115

Plans Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis 115

Impairment 120

Methodology 121

How Effects Were Analyzed 121

Methods of Assessing Effects on Natural Resources 122

Air Quality 122

Cave Resources 122

Soils 123

Vegetation 123

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species 125

Water Quality 126

Wildlife 126

Methods of Assessing Effects on Cultural Resources 127

Archeological Resources 129

Historic Structures 130

Ethnographic Resources 130

Cultural Landscapes 131

Mitigation and Section 106 132

Methods of Assessing Effects on Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 132

Methods of Assessing Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 133

Effects on Natural Resources 135

Alternative A 135

Air Quality 135

Cave Resources 135

Soils 135

Vegetation 137

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species 139

xxiv 
Contents 

Water Quality 141

Wildlife 143

Impairment 144

Alternative B 145

Air Quality 145

Cave Resources 145

Soils 146

Vegetation 148

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species 150

Water Quality 153

Wildlife 155

Impairment 157

Alternative C 158

Air Quality 158

Cave Resources 158

Soils 158

Vegetation 160

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species 162

Water Quality 164

Wildlife 166

Impairment 167

Alternative D 168

Air Quality 168

Cave Resources 168

Soils 168

Vegetation 170

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species 173

Water Quality 175

Wildlife 177

Impairment 179

Alternative E 179

Air Quality 179

Cave Resources 180

Soils 180

Vegetation 182

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Species 184

Water Quality 186

Wildlife 188

Impairment 190

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 190

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 191

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 191

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 191

Effects on Cultural Resources 192

Alternative A 192

Archeological Resources 192

Historic Structures 193

Ethnographic Resources 194

Cultural Landscapes 194

xxv 
CONTENTS 

Alternative B 196

Archeological Resources 196

Historic Structures 197

Ethnographic Resources 198

Cultural Landscapes 198

Alternative C 199

Archeological Resources 199

Historic Structures 200

Ethnographic Resources 201

Cultural Landscapes 202

Alternative D 202

Archeological Resources 202

Historic Structures 203

Ethnographic Resources 204

Cultural Landscapes 205

Alternative E 206

Archeological Resources 206

Historic Structures 207

Ethnographic Resources 208

Cultural Landscapes 209

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 209

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 209

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 210

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 210

Effects on Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 211

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 211

Alternative A 211

Analysis 211

Cumulative Effects 212

Conclusion 212

Alternative B 213

Analysis 213

Cumulative Effects 213

Conclusion 214

Alternative C 214

Analysis 214

Cumulative Effects 215

Conclusion 215

Alternative D 215

Analysis 215

Cumulative Effects 216

Conclusion 216

Alternative E 216

Analysis 216

Cumulative Effects 217

Conclusion 217

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 217

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 217

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 218

xxvi 
Contents 

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 218

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 219

Alternative A 219

Recreational Use 219

Grazing 219

Local and Regional Economy 219

Alternative B 220

Recreational Use 220

Grazing 221

Local and Regional Economy 222

Alternative C 223

Recreational Use 223

Grazing 223

Local and Regional Economy 224

Alternative D 224

Recreational Use 224

Grazing 225

Local and Regional Economy 225

Alternative E 226

Recreational Use 226

Grazing 227

Local and Regional Economy 227

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 228

Relationships of Short-term Uses of the Environment and Long-term Productivity 228

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 228

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 228

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Involvement of Public and Other Agencies 232

Public Involvement 232

Consultation 232

Section 106 Consultation 232

Consultation with American Indians 233

Consultation Regarding Threatened or Endangered Species 233

Consultation with Other Agencies 233

Publishing the Draft Document 233

Agencies and Organizations Receiving Copies of This Document 234

Review and Comments on the Draft Document 235

APPENDIXES / REFERENCES / PREPARERS / INDEX 

Appendix A: Legislation 267

Appendix B: Summary of Key Legal Mandates 272

Appendix C: Wilderness Suitability Assessment 274

Appendix D: Development of Preferred Alternative 280

Appendix E: Scientific Names of Plants and Animals Discussed in This Plan 281

xxvii 
CONTENTS 

Appendix F: Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Threatened or Endangered 

Species 283

Selected References 291

Preparers 300

Index 301

MAPS 

Region 5

Vicinity 7

Alternative A 41

Alternative B 45

Alternative C 51

Alternative D 55

Alternative E 61

Figures 

1: Precipitation Data, 1961–2000 88

2: Coronado National Memorial Soil Map 91

3: Vegetation Associations at Coronado National Memorial 92

4: Visitation to Coronado National Memorial based on Traffic Counts 106

5: Visitation to Coronado Cave in Coronado National Memorial 106

6: Grazing Allotments 110

Tables 

Table 1: Management Prescriptions 37

Table 2: Staffing Costs, Alternative A 40

Table 3: General Estimate for Staffing Costs, Alternative B 48

Table 4: General Estimate for Staffing Costs, Alternative C 53

Table 5: General Estimate for Staffing Costs, Alternative D 59

Table 6: General Estimate for Staffing Costs, Alternative E 64

Table 7: Environmentally Preferred Alternative Analysis 71

Table 8: Comparison of Alternatives 72

Table 9: Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives 77

Table 10: Soils Characteristics, Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona 90

Table 11: Special Status Species that May Exist in Coronado National Memorial 96

Table 12: Population of Cochise County, Arizona, Year 2000 Census 109

Table 13: Socioeconomic Effects of the Alternatives in 2017 221

xxviii 
BACKGROUND
INTRODUCTION

THE PLAN 

This Final General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement contains analyses 

of four alternative future approaches for the 

management and use of Coronado National 

Memorial. A fifth “no-action” alternative 

represents the continuation of the current 

management direction into the future. This 

provides a basis for comparing the four 

“action” alternatives. One alternative has been 

identified as the alternative preferred by the 

National Park Service (NPS). The potential 

environmental consequences that could result 

from implementing each alternative have been 

identified and assessed. 

General management plans are intended to be 

conceptual documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for decision making and problem 

solving in the area to be managed. These plans 

usually provide guidance over a period of 15 

to 20 years. 

Actions directed by general management 

plans or in subsequent implementation plans 

are accomplished over time. Budget 

restrictions, requirements for additional data 

or regulatory compliance, and competing 

national park system priorities may prevent 

the immediate implementation of many 

actions. Major or especially costly actions 

could be implemented 10 or more years into 

the future. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE 

AREA AND THE MEMORIAL 

Coronado National Memorial (4,750 acres) is 

in Cochise County in southeast Arizona, 21 

miles south of Sierra Vista and 26 miles west 

of Bisbee on the United States–Mexico 

border. The memorial is 50 miles south of 

Benson, on Interstate 10, off Arizona Highway 

92. The road through the memorial is paved to 

about a mile beyond the visitor center and 

then becomes a mountainous dirt-and-gravel 

road that leads to Montezuma Pass. This dirt 

road continues west through the San Rafael 

Valley and over the Patagonia Mountains to 

Nogales — a slow, scenic drive. 

The memorial’s significance can best be 

realized by placing it in a historical 

perspective. In the second quarter of the 16th 

century, the territory north of central Mexico 

was a massive, mysterious, unknown land to 

the Spanish. Spain’s explorers touched its 

fringes in Florida and along the Gulf of 

Mexico, but very little penetration of the 

interior had resulted. From 1539 to 1543, 

Spain undertook three major expeditions to 

explore the unknown lands to the north. 

Hernando de Soto explored Florida and what 

became the southeastern United States; Juan 

Rodríguez Cabrillo explored the west coast; 

and Francisco Vásquez de Coronado explored 

northwestern Mexico and what became the 

southwestern United States from California to 

Kansas. This was just 50 years after the 

Columbus voyages and 80 years before the 

Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. 

The 2.5-year Coronado Expedition (1540– 

1542) probably entered the United States via 

the San Pedro River Valley immediately east 

of the national memorial. No physical evidence has been found to substantiate the 

actual route of Coronado at the existing 

international boundary. However, the 

important aspect of the expedition was not its 

actual crossing point, but rather the international implications and the Hispanic 

cultural development initiated by these events. 

Today the Spanish language, Spanish and 

Mexican food, Spanish–Mexican influenced 

architecture, and other Hispanic customs are 

evident in our lives, not only in the Southwest, 

but throughout the nation. 

3
BACKGROUND 

The area was authorized as an international 

memorial in 1941 and established as a national 

memorial in 1952 (see appendix A). The 

4,750-acre memorial contains desert grasses 

and shrubs in lower elevations with oak 

woodlands and piñon-juniper forest in upper 

elevations. The terrain varies from open 

grasslands to steep ridges. The national 

memorial is encircled on three sides by ridges 

that rise more than 1,000 feet above the valley 

floor. The memorial preserves a wide array of 

plant and animal life native to the southwestern United States. More than 160 species 

of birds have been sighted in the memorial. In 

addition, a wide variety of mammals, birds, 

amphibians, and reptile species either inhabit 

the area or migrate through. 

The memorial’s interpretive offices are at the 

visitor center. Administrative offices, 

maintenance facilities, and several auxiliary 

structures are in the same area, as are two 

employee residences. A third (former) house 

has additional offices. Inside the visitor center, 

space for preparing and presenting programs 

is limited, and there is not enough room to 

accommodate school groups or tour groups. 

The interpretive media are dated but are being 

revised as funding permits. 

Visitors who come into the visitor center can 

look at exhibits depicting the Coronado 

Expedition and the wildlife native to the area, 

shop for books, watch a film presentation, and 

receive orientation to the memorial. There is a 

short interpretive trail near the visitor center. 

A nearby picnic area is open during daylight. 

Some visitors go to Coronado Cave, and only 

a small percentage of the people who visit the 

memorial hike the trails. Access to natural 

resources and cultural exhibits via the trails is 

limited because those trails were not designed 

for people with disabilities, but mobilityimpaired people can get to the Montezuma 

Pass overlook, the visitor center, and the 

picnic area. 

Three miles west of the visitor center, the 

scenic overlook at Montezuma Pass offers 

views of the San Raphael Valley to the west, 

the San Pedro River Valley to the east, and 

Mexico to the south. Wayside signs placed 

around the Montezuma Pass parking lot can 

help visitors understand the area’s physiographic and historical significance. From a 

short trail to Coronado Peak, one can see 

unobstructed vistas of the area through which 

the Coronado Expedition passed. Along the 

Coronado Peak trail are signs with quotations 

from the journals of the Coronado Entrada. At 

the peak a ramada shades visitors from the sun 

while they look at the San Pedro and San 

Rafael Valleys south into Mexico. 

Windmill Road is in the grasslands south of 

the main road and just north of the memorial 

entrance. On its course to the international 

border, this two-lane dirt road crosses an 

ephemeral streambed. The picnic area, the 

pullout near the State of Texas mine, the main 

road, and the trail to the picnic area are in or 

adjacent to stream channels. The East Forest 

Lane road and the Windmill Road (dirt roads) 

cross drainages. 

The Joe’s Canyon trail branches off the Coronado Peak trail and continues 3 miles down to 

the visitor center and picnic area. Both of 

these trails are part of the national trails 

system. The Yaqui Ridge trail descends 

steeply from the Joe’s Canyon trail down to 

International Boundary marker 102. Across 

from the parking area at Montezuma Pass 

begins the Crest Trail, which leads to Miller 

Peak. This also serves as the beginning of the 

developing Arizona Trail. When completed, 

that trail will end at the Utah border. 

Coronado Cave is reached by a trail 0.75 mile 

long that begins at the visitor center. 

4
Las 

Los 

Angeles 

Flagstaff 

Phoenix 

Albuquerque 

Roswell 

Oklahoma 

City 

San Antonio 

Amarillo 

Mexico 

Arizona 

California New Mexico Oklahoma 

Colorado 

Utah 

Nevada 

Coronado 

National 

Memorial 

N 

Kansas 

n 

Vegas 

Tucson 

Santa Fe 

Pueblo 

El Paso Texas 

Regio

401/20021/DSC/12•2003 

Coronado National Memorial • Arizona

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior
CCacsssksks

ty 

83

82 92

80

Ari

Phoenix i 

u191

10

i17

i10

i8

i10

i19

90

90

Vicini

Coronado 

National Memorial 

Chiricahua 

National 

Monument zona 

New Mexico 

Mexico 

United States 

Tucson 

Tumacacori National 

Historic Park 

Fort Bowie 

National Historic 

Site 

Saguaro 

National Park 

Tonto 

National Monument 

Casa Grande 

Ruins National 

Monument 

Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument 

Nogales 

Tombstone

Bisbee

SierraVista

401/20022/DSC/12•2003 0 25 50 75 100 Miles 

N 

Coronado National Memorial • Arizona

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

OVERVIEW 

The purpose of this General Management Plan 

is to clearly define a direction and philosophy 

for resource preservation and visitor use at 

Coronado National Memorial. The existing 

plan needs updating to reflect the increasing 

use of the memorial. While the general 

management plan is being finalized, the 

memorial managers will continue to follow 

the laws, policies, and guidelines that the 

National Park Service is required to comply 

with as part of its standard operating 

procedures. These laws and guidelines include 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as 

amended), and NPS Management Policies 

2001. 

PURPOSE, SIGNIFICANCE, 

MISSION, AND THEMES 

Agencywide laws, as well as laws, regulations, 

and policies specific to the unit, guide each 

unit in the national park system. Understanding this guidance and how it affects the 

memorial’s mission is fundamental to 

planning for the memorial’s future. This 

section highlights the mission (expressed as 

memorial purpose, significance, and mission 

statements), legal policies, and mandates that 

guide the management of Coronado National 

Memorial. These mission and mandate 

statements define the “sideboards” within 

which all management actions must fall. All 

alternatives to be considered in the general 

management planning effort must be 

consistent and contribute to fulfilling these 

missions and mandates. 

The memorial’s purpose and significance and 

the primary interpretive themes were used to 

develop all alternatives for this plan. The National Park Service defines interpretation as 

providing information to visitors about the 

site so that they can understand why Congress 

set aside the park unit (in this case, Coronado 

National Memorial). In addition, interpretation provides a connection between visitors’ 

interests and the meaning of the national 

memorial. The memorial’s legislation, public 

comments, NPS policy, legal requirements, 

and resource values were analyzed in 

developing the following critical elements. 

Purpose Statement 

The following statement describes the 

primary reason that the memorial was created. 

It influences management priorities and is 

central to decisions about how the memorial 

should be developed and managed. 

The purpose of Coronado National Memorial 

is to 

permanently commemorate the 

explorations of Francisco Vásquez de 

Coronado and preserve and protect the 

cultural and natural resources within the 

memorial for public benefit and 

enjoyment. 

Significance Statement 

Coronado National Memorial is significant 

for the following reasons: 

� Coronado National Memorial is the only 

unit in the national park system that commemorates the Francisco Vásquez de 

Coronado Expedition of 1540–1542. 

When reporting to Congress in 1940 on 

the establishment of the memorial, the 

Committee on Public Lands and Surveys 

said, 

Coronado’s expedition was one of the 

outstanding achievements of a period 

marked by notable explorations. His 

expedition made known the vast extent 

9 
BACKGROUND 

and the nature of the country that lay 

north of central Mexico, and from the 

time of Coronado, Spaniards never lost 

interest in the country. In no small 

measure their subsequent occupation 

of it was due to the curiosity so created. 

� The creation of the memorial was not to 

protect any tangible artifacts related to the 

expedition. It was created to give visitors 

an opportunity to reflect upon the impact 

the Coronado Entrada had in shaping the 

history, culture, and environment of the 

southwestern United States and its lasting 

ties to Mexico and Spain. 

� The location was chosen for the 

panoramic views of the United States– 

Mexico border and the San Pedro River 

Valley, the route believed to have been 

taken by Coronado. It was hoped that this 

proximity to the border would strengthen 

binational amity and the bonds, both 

geographical and cultural, that continue to 

link the two countries. 

� The memorial, near the center of the Sky 

Island bioregion (the juncture of four 

major biogeographic provinces: Madrean, 

Sonoran, Chihuahuan, and Southern 

Rockies/Mogollon), preserves a rich 

biological and geological diversity. 

Visitors are able to enjoy recreational 

opportunities that foster a better 

understanding and appreciation of the 

area’s natural and human history. 

Mission Statement 

The mission statement is based on the 

national memorial’s purpose and significance. 

It includes future conditions or visions, stated 

as outcomes, and articulates the ideals that the 

National Park Service is striving to obtain for 

Coronado National Memorial. This 

qualitative statement is expressed in terms of 

resource conditions and appropriate visitor 

experiences. The memorial’s mission goals are 

consistent with the mission goals found in the 

National Park Service’s Strategic Plan. Thus, 

they support the overall mission of the agency. 

The Coronado National Memorial mission is 

to commemorate and interpret the 

significance of Francisco Vásquez de 

Coronado’s expedition and the resulting 

cultural influences of 16th century 

Spanish colonial exploration in the 

Americas. The memorial preserves and 

interprets the natural and human history 

of the area for the benefit and enjoyment 

of current present and future generations. 

Primary Interpretive Themes 

Interpretive themes are ideas, concepts, or 

stories that are central to the memorial’s purpose, identity, and visitor experience. Primary 

themes provide the framework for Coronado 

National Memorial’s interpretation and 

educational programs, influence the desired 

visitor experience, and provide direction for 

planners and designers who develop the 

memorial’s exhibits, publications, and audiovisual programs. The draft primary themes are 

detailed below. Subthemes may be added 

during subsequent interpretive planning. 

As a context for the memorial’s interpretive 

themes, it should be noted that the Spanish 

discovery and eventual settlement of what is 

now the southwestern United States occurred 

much earlier than European settlement of 

what is now the eastern United States. The 

earlier conquest of Mexico and Peru fueled a 

race to the unknown northern lands by 

Spanish explorers Coronado, DeSoto, and 

Cabrillo. The Spanish conquest, although 

controversial, is a fascinating story of how a 

small force, with the aid of technology, was 

able to lay the groundwork for Spain’s control 

of a vast empire. The memorial’s interpretive 

themes are as follows: 

• The Coronado Expedition (1540–1542), 

the first major exploration of the Southwest by Europeans, was an incredible feat 

that made known the vast extent of the 

land and culture north of central Mexico. 

10
Purpose of and Need for the Action 

• The expedition, intended to win converts 

to Catholicism, find gold, and claim land, 

had and continues to have a major impact 

in shaping the history, social and political 

culture, and environment of the 

southwestern United States and Mexico. 

• Coronado National Memorial preserves 

and interprets a rich biological and 

geological diversity typical of the Sky 

Island bioregion. 

• The unique natural features and 

panoramic views of the area remain 

similar to the actual time of the expedition 

and provide an excellent opportunity for 

contemplating the thoughts, motives, and 

hardships of the members of the 

Coronado Expedition and its impacts on 

native populations, their cultures, and the 

environment. 

CONSTRAINTS, ISSUES, 

AND CONCERNS 

During the planning process, the planning 

team identified a variety of issues that the 

National Park Service may face in the future. 

The plan will provide a framework or strategy 

for addressing those issues within the context 

of the memorial’s purpose, significance, and 

mission. The following issues were identified 

and refined through discussions with national 

memorial staff, interested agencies and 

organizations, and the general public. 

International Significance 

The memorial’s southern boundary is on the 

border between the United States and 

Mexico. How can the memorial best 

commemorate the relationship between the 

United States and Mexico? 

Protection of Resources and 

the Visitor Experience 

The memorial’s location on the U.S.–Mexico 

border has resulted in an illegal trafficking in 

drugs and people, which adversely affects 

both resources and the visitor experience. 

How can the experience of visitors to the 

memorial best be safely maintained and 

enhanced? 

Views 

The memorial contains superlative views of 

the San Pedro River Valley in the United 

States and Mexico, and these views represent 

an important part of the visitor experience. To 

carry out the memorial’s purpose, the 

surrounding landscape is important. Various 

modern encroachments are gradually 

intruding on this landscape. How best can the 

National Park Service preserve the landscape 

at the memorial’s boundaries and beyond? 

Interpretation 

The memorial’s mission is to commemorate 

and interpret the first major exploration by 

Europeans into the American Southwest and 

the events associated with that milestone. 

What is the interpretive role of the National 

Park Service? What stories should be told and 

how can they best be conveyed? 

Orientation 

It is difficult for visitors to gain a full understanding of the memorial and its geographical 

context. Highways to the memorial are poorly 

marked and lack clear direction. Some visitors 

do not understand the distinction between the 

memorial and the surrounding national forest. 

How can the lack of awareness of the memorial within the regional setting be addressed? 

Development 

The visitor center, headquarters building, 

maintenance facilities, and staff housing are 

inadequate. NPS managers must determine 

what facilities are necessary for future visitor 

experiences and resource protection needs. 

Efficiency and sustainability are prime 

11
BACKGROUND 

considerations, as is providing a setting that 

promotes visitor understanding. (Sustainability refers to results attained by managing 

an area in ways that do not compromise the 

environment or its capacity to provide for 

present and future generations. Sustainable 

practices minimize the environmental effects 

of developments and other activities by conserving resources, minimizing waste, 

recycling, and using energy-efficient, 

ecologically responsible materials and 

techniques.) 

Livestock Management 

Two areas in the memorial are leased out as 

grazing allotments. A concern has been raised 

about conflicts between the NPS mission and 

the potential detrimental effect of grazing on 

recreation and resources. NPS managers must 

determine the role of grazing while providing 

for visitor understanding and resource 

protection. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

Public involvement is required to maximize 

the services offered to visitors and to 

counteract the effect of overextended NPS 

funding and staff. A strategy must be 

developed to encourage public and private 

groups to assist in the mission of Coronado 

National Memorial. 

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER 

PLANNING EFFORTS 

Possible conflicts between the alternatives and 

county, state, or tribal or federal land use 

plans and policies must be considered. 

Coronado National Memorial is adjacent to 

the U.S. border with Mexico. Coronado 

National Forest is adjacent to the memorial on 

its northern and western boundaries. There is 

a single state parcel on the southeastern 

boundary of the memorial. The remaining 

surrounding land is primarily privately owned 

residential and agricultural lands with a few 

commercial parcels. 

About 10 miles east of the memorial, the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management, extends along the river corridor from 

the Mexican border to several miles south of 

Saint David. This area was set aside to protect 

and enhance the riparian ecosystem and 

related resources. Birds nest in the San Pedro 

and use it as a migratory pathway. A variety of 

grassland and riparian species can be seen in 

this area. North of the memorial is the 

community of Fort Huachuca. Coronado 

National Forest is adjacent to the memorial on 

the north. Together, Coronado National 

Forest and Fort Huachuca cover 73,000 acres. 

There are no tribal lands nearby. 

The U.S. Forest Service is constructing a trail 

system along the eastern side of the Huachuca 

Mountains that may eventually connect to the 

memorial boundary near its northeast corner. 

The National Park Service is participating as a 

cooperating agency in an environmental 

assessment about a proposal to place a remote 

video surveillance camera in Coronado 

National Memorial. Other agencies involved 

are the United States Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. In addition, the National Park 

Service will have an opportunity to comment 

on an environmental assessment about a 

proposal to install vehicle barriers along part 

of the memorial’s boundary (which is also the 

international border). The National Park 

Service will request funding from Congress 

for vehicle barriers. 

The U.S. Border Patrol has begun the scoping 

process for a proposal for other improvements, including an improved border road 

and a 300-foot security zone along the U.S.– 

Mexico border. All the planning and compliance efforts for the Border Patrol projects 

involve lands inside and outside Coronado 

National Memorial. 

12
Purpose of and Need for the Action 

Changes brought about by any of the alternatives would not conflict with any of the 

approved plans of other jurisdictions. (For 

more details, see “Cumulative Effects,” p. 

115.) 

SPECIAL PARK MANDATES 

AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

COMMITMENTS 

Coronado National Memorial, created from 

U.S. Forest Service lands, was authorized in 

1941 and established in 1952. The 1941 

legislation provided for the continuation of 

grazing within the memorial boundaries 

“provided it does not interfere with 

recreational development.” 

The National Park Service in 2000 published 

the Livestock Management Plan, Including 

Livestock Management Guidelines, 

Environmental Assessment (NPS 2000b) and 

allotment treatment plans. Among other 

provisions, it calls for the National Park 

Service to work toward permanently retiring 

the remaining grazing allotments as opportunities arise to do so through mutual 

agreement with the permittees. Until this can 

be accomplished, the Livestock Management 

Plan will serve to moderate the effects of 

grazing. Some alternatives of this General 

Management Plan could result in retiring one 

or both of the grazing allotments. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS 

AND POLICIES 

As with all units of the national park system, 

the management of Coronado National 

Memorial is guided by the 1916 Organic Act 

that created the National Park Service, the 

General Authorities Act of 1970, the act of 

March 27, 1978 (relating to the management 

of the national park system), and other 

applicable federal laws and regulations such as 

the Endangered Species Act and the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Actions also are 

guided by NPS Management Policies 2001. 

Many resource conditions and some aspects 

of the visitor experience are prescribed by 

these legal mandates and NPS policies. The 

management plan is not needed to decide, for 

instance, whether or not it is appropriate to 

protect endangered species, control exotic 

species, improve water quality, protect 

archeological sites, provide access for visitors 

with disabilities, or conserve artifacts. 

Although attaining some of these conditions 

has been deferred in the memorial because of 

funding or staffing limitations, the National 

Park Service will continue to strive to 

implement these requirements with or 

without a new general management plan. 

The conditions prescribed by the laws, regulations, and policies most pertinent to the 

planning and management of the memorial 

are summarized in the following charts. 

13
BACKGROUND 

Natural Resource Management Requirements 

Air Quality 

Desired Condition Source 

Air quality in the memorial, a class II air quality area, meets 

national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for specified 

pollutants. 

Clean Air Act, NPS Management Policies 2001 

Memorial activities do not contribute to deterioration in air 

quality. Healthful indoor air quality is ensured in NPS facilities. 

Clean Air Act, NPS Management Policies 2001 

Compliance Actions 

Although the National Park Service has very little direct control over air quality within the airshed 

encompassing the region, memorial managers cooperate with the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor air quality and ensure that air quality is not 

degraded. In addition, the National Park Service will take the following actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to air quality: 

� Participate in regional air pollution control plans and regulations and review of permit applications for 

major new air pollution sources. 

� Conduct memorial operations in compliance with federal, state, and local air quality regulations. 

Water Quality 

Desired Condition Source 

Surface water and groundwater are restored or enhanced. Clean Water Act; Executive Order 

(EO) 11514; NPS Management Policies 

2001 

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are maintained and 

operated to avoid pollution of surface water and groundwater. 

Clean Water Act; EO 12088; NPS 

Management Policies 2001 

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following actions: 

� Apply best management practices to all pollution-generating activities and facilities in the memorial, such 

as NPS maintenance and storage facilities and parking areas; minimize use of pesticides, fertilizers, and 

other chemicals, and manage them in keeping with NPS policy and federal regulations. 

14 
Purpose of and Need for the Action 

Natural Resource Management Requirements (continued) 

Species of Special Concern 

Desired Condition Source 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as natural condition as 

possible except where special management considerations are warranted. 

Endangered Species Act; 

NPS Management Policies 

2001 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or extirpated from 

the memorial are restored where feasible and sustainable. 

NPS Management Policies 

2001 

Management of populations of exotic plant and animal species, up to and 

including eradication, will be undertaken wherever such species threaten 

memorial resources or public health and when control is prudent and feasible. 

NPS Management Policies 

2001; EO 13112, Invasive 

Species. 

Compliance Actions 

Several species of invasive exotic plants have become established in disturbed areas in the memorial and 

represent a threat to native species. Given time, these aggressive exotic plants can greatly expand their 

populations, alter forest and wildlife habitats, and change memorial scenery by smothering and displacing native 

species. These effects, already clearly occurring in some areas of Coronado National Memorial, will worsen 

substantially if left untreated. A sustained effort is needed to control these internal threats to the native species 

and their natural habitats. The National Park Service will take the following actions to comply with legal and 

policy requirements related to native species and to manage the national memorial “in as natural condition as 

possible.” 

� Complete an inventory of plants and animals in the memorial and regularly monitor the distribution and 

condition (health or disease) of selected species that are (a) indicators of ecosystem condition and 

diversity, (b) rare or protected species, (c) invasive exotics, or (d) native species capable of creating 

resource problems (such as habitat decline due to overpopulation). 

� Support research that will contribute to knowledge for the management of native species. 

� Take mitigating actions to restore native species and their habitats where warranted. 

� Control or eliminate exotic plants where there is a reasonable expectation of success and sustainability. 

� Obtain a systematic survey of rare plants and animals to improve management. Particularly, inventory and 

monitor threatened or endangered species, improve habitat for and the protection of endangered bats and 

Mexican spotted owls, and assess the barking frog population. 

Wildland Fire 

Desired Condition Source 

Fire management programs in the memorial will be designed to meet resource management 

objectives prescribed for various areas of the memorial and to ensure that firefighter and 

public safety are not compromised. Until a fire management plan is approved, all wildland 

fires must be aggressively suppressed, taking into account resources to be protected and 

firefighter and public safety. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2001; DO 

41, Wilderness 

Preservation and 

Management 

Compliance Actions 

All fires burning in natural or landscaped vegetation in Coronado National Memorial will be classified as either 

wildland fires or prescribed fires. All wildland fires will be effectively managed, considering resource values to 

be protected and the safety of firefighters and the public, using the full range of strategic and tactical operations 

as described in an approved fire management plan. Prescribed fires are fires ignited by managers to achieve 

resource objectives. For prescribed fires, actions will include monitoring programs that record fire behavior, 

smoke behavior, fire decisions and fire effects to provide information on whether specified objectives are met. 

The memorial intends to begin drafting a fire management plan in FY 04, which should be completed during FY 

05. 

15 
BACKGROUND 

Natural Resource Management Requirements (continued) 

Night Sky 

[referred to as Lightscape Management in NPS Management Policies 2001] 

Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service will cooperate with neighbors and local 

government agencies in seeking to minimize the intrusion of artificial light 

into the night scene in the national memorial. In natural areas, artificial 

outdoor lighting will be limited to basic safety requirements and will be 

shielded when possible. 

NPS Management Policies 2001 

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following actions to comply with legal and policy requirements related 

to the night sky. 

� Work with local communities and other agencies to encourage the protection of the night sky. 

� Evaluate impacts on the night sky caused by facilities in the memorial. If light sources in the memorial are 

found to affect night skies, memorial staff will study alternatives such as shielding lights, changing lamp 

types, or eliminating unnecessary sources. 

Natural Sounds 

[referred to as Soundscape Management in NPS Management Policies 2001] 

Desired Condition Source 

An important part of the NPS mission is to preserve or restore the natural soundscapes 

associated with units of the national park system, including Coronado National 

Memorial. The sounds of nature are among the intrinsic elements that combine to form 

the environment of our national memorial. The National Park Service will preserve the 

natural ambient soundscapes, restore degraded soundscapes to the natural ambient 

condition wherever possible, and protect natural soundscapes from degradation due to 

human-caused noise. Disruptions from recreational uses will be managed to provide a 

high-quality visitor experience, striving to preserve or restore the natural quiet and 

sounds. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2001; DO 47, 

Sound Preservation and 

Noise Management 

The Federal Aviation Administration and the National Park Service were directed to 

“develop appropriate educational and other materials for the public at large and all 

aviation interests that describe the importance of natural quiet to memorial visitors and 

the need for cooperation from the aviation community.” 

Executive 

memorandum signed 

by President Clinton on 

April 22, 1996 

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following actions to comply with this policy: 

� Take actions to prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect the memorial’s resources or 

values or visitors’ enjoyment of them. 

� The National Park Service will work with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of 

Defense (DOD), tour operators, commercial businesses, and general aviation interests to encourage aircraft 

to fly outside the national memorial, especially for flights where the presence of the memorial is incidental 

to the purpose of the flight (such as when the flight is simply a transit between two points). Actions that may 

be considered to encourage pilots to fly outside the memorial include identifying the memorial on route 

maps as a noise-sensitive area, educating pilots about the reasons for keeping a distance from the 

memorial, and encouraging pilots to fly in compliance with FAA regulations and advisory guidance in a 

manner that minimizes noise and other impacts. 

� The staff of Coronado National Memorial will continue to require tour bus companies to comply with 

regulations that reduce noise levels (such as turning off engines when buses are parked). 

� Minimize noise generated by NPS management activities by strictly regulating administrative functions such 

as the use of motorized equipment. Noise will be a consideration in the procurement and use of equipment 

by the memorial staff. 

16 
Purpose of and Need for the Action 

Cultural Resource Management Requirements 

Archeological Resources 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in units of the national park system, 

including Coronado National Memorial: 

Desired Condition Source 

Archeological sites are identified and inventoried, and 

their significance is determined and documented. 

Archeological sites are protected in an undisturbed 

condition unless it is determined through formal 

processes that disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. In cases where disturbance or 

deterioration is unavoidable, the site is professionally 

documented and salvaged in consultation with the 

Arizona state historic preservation officer and affiliated 

American Indian tribes. 

National Historic Preservation Act; EO 11593; 

Archeological Resources Protection Act; The Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology 

and Historic Preservation; Programmatic Memorandum 

of Agreement Among the NPS, Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National Council of State 

Historic Preservation Officers (1995); NPS Management 

Policies 2001; DO 28 Cultural Resources Management 

Guidelines; List of Classified Structures; Cultural 

Landscape Inventory 

Compliance Actions 

Archeological surveys of the entire national memorial have been completed. Of a total of 15 archeological sites 

listed for the memorial, the condition of 8 was reevaluated in 2001. With further review of the original data and 

the assistance of the archeologist in the Southern Arizona Group office, conditions will be determined for as many 

of the remaining 7 sites as possible, and a work plan and budget will be prepared to acquire other data as needed. 

The National Park Service will take the following actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to 

archeological sites: 

� Treat all archeological resources as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places pending a 

formal determination of their significance by the National Park Service and the Arizona state historic 

preservation office. 

� Protect all archeological resources eligible for listing or listed on the national register; if disturbance to such 

resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 

as appropriate, and with the Arizona state historic preservation office in accordance with the National 

Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations. 

17 
________________ 

BACKGROUND 

Cultural Resource Management Requirements (continued) 

Historic Properties 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in units of the national park system, 

including Coronado National Memorial, for historic properties (such as buildings, structures, roads, trails, and 

cultural landscapes): 

Desired Condition Source 

Historic resources are inventoried and 

their significance and integrity are 

evaluated under the criteria for the 

National Register of Historic Places. The 

qualities that contribute to the eligibility 

for listing or listing of historic properties 

on the national register are protected in 

accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards unless it is 

determined through a formal process that 

disturbance or natural deterioration is 

unavoidable. 

National Historic Preservation Act; EO 11593; Archeological and 

Historic Preservation Act; the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation; Programmatic 

memorandum of agreement among the NPS, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National Council of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (1995); NPS Management Policies 2001, DO 28, 

Cultural Resources Management Guidelines (1994); the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes; List of Classified 

Structures; Cultural Landscape Inventory 

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to historic 

resources: 

� Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each historic property formally determined to be eligible 

for listing or listed on the National Register of Historic Places (subject to the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards).* 

� Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for such properties. 

� Analyze the design elements ( materials, colors, shape, massing, scale, architectural details, site details) of 

historic structures and cultural landscapes in the national memorial (such as buildings, bridges, trails, roads 

and intersections, curbing, signs, picnic tables) to guide the rehabilitation and maintenance of sites and 

structures.* 

� Before modifying any historic properties on the national register, such as structures built by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) along the main road, the National Park Service will consult with the Arizona state 

historic preservation office and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, as appropriate. 

For other actions, see “Future Plans and Studies Needed,“ page 68. 

*Before undertaking any restoration of natural contours or any revegetation, the National Park Service will evaluate all humanmade features such as buildings or other structures, roads, or trails to determine their eligibility for the national register, and if 

any are found eligible, consult with the Arizona state historic preservation office to develop a plan for treatment of these 

features. 

18 
Purpose of and Need for the Action 

Cultural Resource Management Requirements (continued) 

Ethnographic Resources 

Certain contemporary American Indian and other communities are permitted by law, regulation, or policy to 

pursue customary religious, subsistence, and other cultural uses of national memorial resources with which they are 

traditionally associated. Recognizing that its resource protection mandate affects this human use and cultural 

context of resources, the National Park Service plans and executes programs in ways that safeguard cultural and 

natural resources while reflecting informed concern for the contemporary peoples and cultures traditionally 

associated with them. 

Desired Condition Source 

Appropriate cultural anthropological research is conducted 

in cooperation with groups associated with Coronado 

National Memorial. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Advisory Council 

for Historic Preservation implementing regulations; 

NPS Management Policies 2001; DO 28, Cultural 

Resources Management Guidelines. 

The National Park Service will accommodate access to and 

ceremonial use of American Indian sacred sites by American 

Indian religious practitioners and avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of these sacred sites. 

EO 13007 on American Indian sacred sites; American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act 

NPS general regulations on access to and the use of natural 

and cultural resources in units of the national park system 

will be applied in an informed and balanced manner that is 

consistent with the national memorial’s purposes, does not 

unreasonably interfere with American Indian use of 

traditional areas or sacred resources, and does not result in 

the degradation of national memorial resources. 

EO 13007 on American Indian Sacred Sites; 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2001 

Other federal agencies, state and local governments, 

potentially affected American Indians, and other 

communities, interested groups, the Arizona state historic 

preservation officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation will be given opportunities to become informed 

about and comment on anticipated NPS actions at the earliest 

practicable time. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Programmatic 

memorandum of agreement among the NPS, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Council of State Historic Preservation 

Officers (1995); EO 11593; American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act; Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act; EO 13007 on 

American Indian sacred sites, Presidential 

Memorandum of April 29, 1994, on “Government to 

Government Relations with Tribal Governments”; 

NPS Management Policies 2001 

All agencies consult with tribal governments before taking 

actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments. 

These consultations are open and candid so that all 

interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential 

impact of relevant proposals. The national memorial 

regularly consults with traditionally associated Native 

Americans regarding planning, management, and operational 

decisions that affect subsistence activities, sacred materials or 

places, or other ethnographic resources with which they are 

historically associated. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act; Presidential 

Memorandum of April 29, 1994 on Government to 

Government Relations with Tribal Governments; 

National Historic Preservation Act; Implementing 

regulations of the Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation. 

The identities of community consultants and information 

about sacred and other culturally sensitive places and 

practices will be kept confidential when research agreements 

or other circumstances warrant. 

National Historic Preservation Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2001 

American Indians and other individuals and groups linked by 

ties of kinship or culture to ethnically identifiable human 

remains, sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and 

associated funerary objects will be consulted when such 

items may be disturbed or are encountered on national 

memorial lands. 

NPS Management Policies 2001; Native American 

Grave Protection and Repatriation Act 

(continued on next page) 

19 
________________ 

BACKGROUND 

Cultural Resource Management Requirements (continued) 

Ethnographic Resources (continued) 

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to 

ethnographic resources: 

� Continue to provide access to sacred sites and national memorial resources by American Indians that is 

consistent with the purposes of Coronado National Memorial and the protection of the memorial’s resources. 

� Survey and inventory ethnographic resources and document their significance. 

� Treat all ethnographic resources as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places pending a 

formal determination of their significance by the National Park Service and the Arizona state historic 

preservation officer.

� Protect all ethnographic resources determined eligible for listing or listed on the national register. If 

disturbance to such resources is unavoidable, conduct formal consultation with Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, as appropriate, the Arizona state historic preservation office, and American Indian tribes in 

accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the ACHP implementing regulations and 

programmatic agreement. 

� Conduct regular consultations with affiliated tribes to continue to improve communications and resolve any 

problems or misunderstandings that occur. 

� Continue to encourage the employment of American Indians on the national memorial staff so as to improve 

communications and working relationships and encourage cultural diversity in the workplace. 

For other actions, see “Future Plans and Studies Needed, page 68. 

Museum Collections 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national memorial for museum 

collections: 

Desired Condition Source 

All museum objects and manuscripts are identified 

and inventoried, and their significance is determined 

and documented. The qualities that contribute to the 

significance of collections are protected in accordance 

with established standards. 

National Historic Preservation Act; American Religious 

Freedom Act; Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; 

Archeological Resources Protection Act; Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; NPS Management 

Policies 2001; DO 28, Cultural Resources Management 

Guidelines 

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to 

collections: 

� Inventory and catalog all the national memorial’s museum collections in accordance with standards in the NPS 

Museum Handbook. 

� Develop and implement a collection management program according to NPS standards to guide the 

protection, conservation, and use of museum objects. 

20 
Purpose of and Need for the Action 

Requirements for Sustainable Design and Development 

Sustainable Design and Development 

Desired Condition Source 

NPS and concessioner visitor facilities will be 

harmonious with national memorial resources, 

compatible with natural processes, aesthetically 

pleasing, functional, as accessible as possible to all 

segments of the population, energy-efficient, and 

cost-effective. 

NPS Management Policies 2001; EO 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management; EO 13101, 

Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, 

and Federal Acquisition; NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable 

Design; DO 13, Environmental Leadership; DO 90, Value 

Analysis. 

Compliance Actions 

To achieve sustainability and reduce costs, eliminate waste, and conserve resources, the National Park Service will 

observe established sustainability principles, emphasizing the use of renewable energy, and will also do the 

following: 

� Coronado National Memorial staff will work with appropriate experts to make the memorial’s facilities and 

programs sustainable. Value analysis and value engineering, including life cycle cost analysis, will be 

preformed to examine the energy, environmental, and economic implications of proposed developments. 

� The national memorial’s staff will support and encourage suppliers, permittees, and contractors to follow 

sustainable practices. 

� Interpretive programs will address sustainable practices by the national memorial and others. 

Requirements for Visitor Experience and Use of the National Memorial 

Visitor Experience 

Desired Condition Source 

Visitor and employee safety and health are protected. NPS Management Policies 2001 

Visitors understand and appreciate the national 

memorial’s values and resources and have the 

information necessary to adapt to the memorial’s 

environments; they have opportunities to enjoy the 

memorial in ways that leave the resources unimpaired for 

future generations. 

NPS Organic Act; NPS Management Policies 2001; DO 22, 

Fee Collection 

Recreational uses in the memorial are promoted and 

regulated, and basic visitor needs are met in keeping with 

the purposes of Coronado National Memorial. 

NPS Organic Act; Title 36 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR 36); NPS Management Policies 2001 

To the extent feasible, facilities, programs, and services in 

the national memorial are accessible to and usable by all 

people, including those with disabilities. 

Americans with Disabilities Act; Architectural Barriers 

Act; Rehabilitation Act; NPS Management Policies 2001 

Visitors who use federal facilities and services for 

outdoor recreation may be required to pay a greater 

share of the cost of providing those opportunities than 

the population as a whole. 

NPS Management Policies 2001; 1998 Executive Summary 

to Congress; Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, 

Progress Report to Congress: Vol. I, Overview and 

Summary (USDI, NPS, USFWS, BLM; USDA, USFS) 

The Coronado National Memorial staff has identified 

implementation commitments for visitor carrying 

capacities for all areas of the national memorial. 

1978 National Parks and Recreation Act (PL 95-625), 

NPS Management Policies 2001 

Compliance Actions 

These laws, regulations, and policies leave considerable room for judgment about the best mix of types and levels of 

visitor activities, programs, and facilities. Therefore, most decisions related to visitor understanding and use are 

addressed in the alternatives. The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and 

policy requirements related to visitor experience and visitors’ use of the national memorial: 

� Provide opportunities for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy Coronado National Memorial 

(management directions are explored in the alternatives within this broad policy). 

� Continue to enforce the regulations governing visitor use and behavior in 36 CFR. 

� Ensure that all programs and facilities of the national memorial are accessible to the extent feasible. 

� After the approval of the Final General Management Plan, undertake detailed planning to establish visitor 

carrying capacity strategies and monitoring programs. 

21 
BACKGROUND 

Requirements for Right-of-Way and Telecommunication Infrastructure 

Right-of-Way and Telecommunication Infrastructure 

Desired Condition Source 

The resources of Coronado National Memorial or the public’s enjoyment of the 

national memorial are not denigrated by nonconforming uses. Telecommunication 

structures are permitted in the memorial to the extent that they do not jeopardize its 

mission and resources. No new nonconforming use or rights-of-way will be 

permitted through the national memorial without specific statutory authority and 

approval by the director of the National Park Service or his representative, and such 

uses will be permitted only if there is no practicable alternative to such use of NPS 

lands. 

Telecommunications Act; 16 

USC 79; 23 USC 317; 36 CFR 

14; NPS Management Policies 

2001; DO 53A, Wireless 

Telecommunications; Reference Manual 53, Special 

Park Uses 

Compliance Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to meet legal and policy requirements related to 

rights-of-way and the telecommunication infrastructure: 

� According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, accommodate requests of telecommunication companies 

for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements to the extent allowable under the NPS mission. 

� The enabling legislation for Coronado National Memorial emphasizes the need for protecting the views of the 

Coronado Expedition’s route along the San Pedro river as the primary mission of the memorial. Any use of the 

memorial’s lands for telecommunication infrastructures could occur only if this use would not affect the 

memorial’s ability to accomplish its mission of preserving those historic views. 

22 
IMPACT TOPICS 

Impact topics are used to focus discussion, assess the potential environmental consequences of each alternative, and compare the 

alternatives’ consequences. Impact topics 

were selected for analysis by determining 

which resources or elements of the human 

environment would be affected by the actions 

of each alternative. 

Impact topics were identified on the basis of 

federal laws, regulations, and executive orders 

(such as the National Environmental Policy 

Act and NPS Management Policies 2001) and 

such sources as federal legislation, executive 

orders, and the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementing the National Environmental Policy 

Act (CEQ 1978). Other topics that must be 

considered are listed in Director’s Order #12 

and Handbook (NPS 2001b). Also useful in 

identifying impact topics was NPS knowledge 

of limited or easily affected resources. 

Other impact topics were identified on the 

basis of regional or memorial-specific 

concerns, or as a result of scoping. (Scoping is 

seeking public interest, concerns, and ideas 

about the management of a unit of the 

national park system.) A brief rationale for the 

selection of each impact topic is given below. 

Natural Resources 

The planning team selected several natural resource impact topics. The selection was based 

on the major values or issues the team 

identified early in the planning process, as 

well as on applicable laws and executive 

orders (see appendix B). Natural resource 

topics are air quality; cave resources; soils; 

vegetation; threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species; water quality; and wildlife. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resource impact topics were selected 

on the basis of major values identified in the 

Purpose of and Need for the Action 

memorial’s enabling legislation, values identified in the scoping process, and applicable 

laws and executive orders pertaining to 

cultural resources (the 1966 National Historic 

Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act). The topics are archeological resources, historic structures, ethnographic resources, and cultural landscapes. 

Visitor Understanding and 

Recreational Resources 

The planning team identified visitor understanding as an important issue that could be 

appreciably affected by the implementation of 

the alternatives. Impact topics in this category 

are visitor access to the memorial’s resources, 

visitor access to orientation and interpretive 

information, and visitors’ experience of the 

resources. 

The Socioeconomic Environment 

The planning team selected three impact 

topics related to the socioeconomic 

environment. The selection was based on the 

major values or issues that the team identified 

early in the planning process, as well as on 

applicable laws and executive orders. The 

topics identified were recreational use of 

Coronado National Memorial, grazing, and 

the local and regional economy. 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM 

FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Resources and environmental concerns that 

either would not be affected or would be 

negligibly affected by the alternative actions 

were eliminated from further consideration 

and comparative analysis. Other topics were 

dismissed because they were not identified as 

concerns by regulators, the public, or other 

stakeholders during scoping. Impact topics 

that were dismissed from further 

consideration are outlined below, as are the 

justifications for each dismissal. 

23
BACKGROUND 

Natural Resource Topics the conservation and reuse of water. For 

example: 

Water Quantity. The Upper San Pedro Partnership is “a consortium of agencies and 

organizations formed in 1998 to facilitate and 

implement sound water resource management 

and conservation strategies in the Sierra Vista 

Sub-Watershed of the San Pedro River.” The 

partnership’s purpose is to “coordinate and 

cooperate” in identifying, assigning priorities, 

and implementing comprehensive policies 

and projects to help meet water needs in the 

Sierra Vista subwatershed. 

The partnership has established as its highest 

priority the development of an Upper San 

Pedro conservation plan, with a goal of 

ensuring that an adequate long-term groundwater supply will be available to meet the 

reasonable needs of current and future area 

residents and property owners, as well as the 

needs of the San Pedro Riparian National 

Conservation Area. Coronado National 

Memorial is in the Sierra Vista sub-watershed 

and is a member of the San Pedro Partnership. 

The National Park Service will continue to 

work with the partnership to meet its stated 

priorities, as follows: 

• developing an Upper San Pedro 

conservation plan 

• supporting and assisting member agencies 

in continuing the implementation of their 

existing plans, including efforts to reduce 

consumption, reuse/recharge effluent, and 

recharge stormwater 

• supporting the collection and analysis of 

scientific data that will improve the ability 

to make informed decisions on the best 

projects and policies to accomplish the 

partnership’s planning goal 

Regardless of the management alternative 

chosen, there would be little effect on the hydrology or quality of the memorial’s water 

resources, largely because water is an 

extremely limited resource in the memorial. 

Practices are already in place to optimize 

water use, protect water quality, and maximize 

• The well that the national memorial uses is 

at or near capacity. Regardless of the 

alternative selected, a study will be 

required to determine if additional 

conservation measures can adequately 

meet the memorial’s slowly growing water 

needs or whether another solution such as 

an additional well is needed. 

• The memorial’s wastewater is treated by a 

leachfield, from which it percolates into 

the ground to recharge the groundwater. 

This practice would continue, regardless 

of which alternative was selected. 

The National Park Service has requested a 

federally reserved water right of 10 acre-feet 

per year. This request is being considered as 

part of the current Upper San Pedro River 

Basin adjudication process. If granted, 

adjudication would legally give the memorial 

the right to use 10 acre-feet per year (1 acre 

foot = 326,000 gallons) from any combination 

of state and federal water sources located on 

the memorial’s lands. This quantity of water 

would be sufficient for current activities and 

would allow for development over the next 50 

years. Once a federal reserve water right has 

been established, it is unlikely that additional 

water resources would be made available to 

the memorial without a new adjudication 

request (NPS Water Resources Division, W. 

Hanson, pers. comm. 2002). 

State-Listed Wildlife of Special Concern. 

Wildlife of special concern are identified as 

species whose occurrence in Arizona is or may 

be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived 

threats or population declines, as described by 

the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZ 

G&F Dept. 1996). The barking frog 

(Eleutherodactylus augusti) is considered a 

species of concern because of its limited 

distribution and threats to its habitat from 

road expansion and the development of 

recreation and administrative sites. 

24
The presence of barking frogs at Coronado 

National Memorial was confirmed in 1993 

(USGS and U. of AZ 1997). They inhabit 

rocky limestone areas of the memorial, some 

of which are in the Joe’s Spring grazing 

allotment. In recent surveys, barking frogs 

also were heard in other locations in the 

Huachuca Mountains (NPS 2001b). The 

results of the recent surveys indicate that the 

number of known locations of calling male 

frogs has increased since the surveys of the 

early 1990s. 

The Arizona Game and Fish Department 

considers the elegant trogon (Trogon elegans) 

a special concern species. These brightly 

colored solitary forest birds are quiet when 

perched, flutter in the air to pick small fruit, 

and also consume insects. They live in highelevation pine and pine-oak forests, sometimes with madrone and Arizona sycamore 

riparian woodland, in the southwestern 

United States. They are migrants in the 

mountain ranges of southeastern Arizona 

(Kunzmann, Hall, and Johnson 1998). Elegant 

Trogons often nest in abandoned woodpecker 

cavities in trees. They breed from the 

mountains of southern Arizona (rare or 

irregular in the Huachucas, Santa Ritas, and 

Chiricahuas) to Costa Rica (Peterson 1961). 

They have been sighted in the memorial over 

the years between May and November; 

however, their occurrence can be considered 

rare (SW Parks and Monuments Assn. 1993). 

These species are not federally listed as 

endangered or threatened, and they are not 

candidates for listing. Therefore, they do not 

have any protections beyond those afforded 

to other species of wildlife and birds, and they 

were not considered in detail in the evaluation 

of the effects of the alternatives. The actions 

of the alternatives would not be likely to occur 

in areas suitable for barking frog habitat. The 

elegant trogon may pass through the national 

memorial, but it is considered a transient. 

Construction activities and noise that would 

occur under some alternatives might disturb 

the elegant trogon or preclude it from 

foraging in construction areas; however, the 

Purpose of and Need for the Action 

actions would not permanently displace this 

species from the memorial. 

Despite the lack of federal listing, it is NPS 

policy to protect state-listed and candidate 

species. Therefore, during the implementation 

of this plan, site-specific surveys would be 

conducted before any disturbance could take 

place in habitat suitable for either the barking 

frog or the elegant trogon. If either species 

was found, the proposed action would be 

relocated, or other mitigation would be 

arranged to prevent adverse effects on 

individuals or their habitat. 

Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands. According to the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, (K. Maguire, pers. comm. 2001), 

none of the soil types occurring in the 

memorial is prime or unique agricultural soil. 

Prime farmland has the best combination of 

physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and 

oilseed crops. Unique land is land other than 

prime farmland that is used for the production 

of specific high-value food and fiber crops. 

Both categories require that the land be 

available for farming uses. The lands in Coronado National Memorial are not available for 

farming and therefore do not meet the criteria 

for prime or unique agricultural lands. 

Ecologically Critical Areas. Coronado 

National Memorial does not contain any 

designated ecologically critical areas, wild and 

scenic rivers, or other unique natural 

resources, as referred to in 40 CFR 1508.27. 

Wetlands. Wetlands that would meet the 

Clean Water Act criteria as jurisdictional wetlands do not occur within the area affected by 

actions associated with the alternatives. 

Therefore, this impact topic was eliminated 

from further consideration. The areas affected 

by the alternatives do consist of riparian vegetation composed of western honey mesquite– 

mixed short tree woodland association (PMT) 

and Arizona sycamore–Arizona walnut–oak 

riparian forest association (PJQ). The effects 

25
BACKGROUND 

of management activities on riparian 

vegetation have been analyzed under the 

vegetation impact topic. 

Wilderness. There is no designated 

wilderness area within Coronado National 

Memorial. It has been determined that no 

areas of the memorial are suitable for 

wilderness designation (see appendix C). 

Floodplains. Federal agencies are directed by 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, and evaluate the 

potential effects of any actions taken in a 

floodplain. In addition, this executive order 

requires that federal structures and facilities 

be constructed in accordance with the 

standards of the National Flood Insurance 

Program. 

The national memorial does not lie within a 

designated floodplain, and Federal 

Emergency Management Agency maps 

indicate that no analysis of flood hazards has 

been conducted in or around Coronado 

National Memorial. Occasional intense 

summer thunderstorms contribute to the 

possibility of flash flooding in the memorial. 

High water in ephemeral streams and dry 

arroyos could occur periodically; these events 

would be transient and highly variable. The 

occurrence rate or severity of these flash 

floods could not be affected by any of the 

alternatives, and none of the actions of the 

alternatives would increase the potential for 

downstream flooding or amplify the flood 

hazard. Therefore, floodplains are not 

evaluated in this document. 

Lightscape/Night Sky. Parks are required by 

NPS Management Policies 2001 to “preserve to 

the greatest extent possible the natural 

lightscapes of parks, which are natural 

resources and values that exist in the absence 

of human-caused light.” The agency is 

developing the Night Sky Initiative to 

formulate a policy for protecting views of the 

stars and planets in our national parks. To 

meet this directive, the use of lighting would 

be restricted to areas where security and 

safety are required. Wherever possible, 

overnight lighting would not be used. If night 

lighting was needed, low-impact techniques 

would be used and shields would be installed 

to prevent the degradation of the night sky 

view, protect cave resources, and avoid disrupting the physiological processes of plants 

and animals. None of the alternatives would 

be likely to affect the appreciation of the night 

sky or interfere with activities of nocturnal 

creatures, including bats. For these reasons, 

lightscape and night sky have been dismissed 

from further consideration. 

Soundscape. NPS managers are directed by 

NPS DO 47, Soundscape Preservation and 

Noise Management, to protect, maintain, or 

restore natural soundscapes unimpaired by 

inappropriate or excessive noise. In this 

directive, noise is defined as appropriate or 

inappropriate relative to the purpose of the 

park, the level of visitor services available, and 

the activities pursued by visitors. None of the 

alternatives would introduce long-term 

inappropriate noise levels to the memorial. 

The actions would occur in areas with an 

existing level of development, including, 

roads, trails, and visitor facilities. The 

temporary nature of noise produced during 

construction or revegetation and restoration 

would be appropriate in the developed 

environment and would not cause adverse 

effects on the human or natural environment. 

None of the actions in the alternatives would 

introduce inappropriate noise to remote or 

undeveloped portions of the memorial, and 

no action would appreciably alter the baseline 

ambient noise level. 

Cultural Resource Topics 

Museum Collections. The memorial’s 

museum collections are housed and maintained at several locations outside the 

memorial boundaries. Most are in storage at 

the Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center in Tucson, AZ. Botanical specimens 

are housed primarily at Arizona State 

26
Purpose of and Need for the Action 

University, with mammal, herpetological, and 

botanical collections being stored at Arizona 

State University and the University of Arizona. 

Some historical and ethnographic objects are 

displayed at the visitor center, and archival 

collections are kept in the administrative 

offices. None of the alternatives would affect 

the present dispositions of storage of the 

collections, nor would their care, maintenance, or access by researchers be affected. For 

these reasons, museum collections have been 

dismissed from further consideration. 

Hazardous Materials 

No hazardous materials are known to exist in 

the memorial. 

Energy Requirements and 

Conservation Potential 

The management policies of the National Park 

Service direct parks to plan, site, construct, 

and operate facilities to conserve energy and 

reduce pollution. Any new facility should 

include consideration of energy efficiency and 

minimal consumption of nonrenewable fuels. 

The construction in the action alternatives 

would integrate the components of energy 

conservation and efficiency mandated under 

NPS policy. Neither the no-action alternative 

nor any of the action alternatives would 

measurably affect local or regional energy 

consumption; therefore, energy requirements 

and conservation potential have been 

dismissed as a topic for further consideration. 

Mining Areas 

The memorial contains no active mining 

claims. There are 62 openings in 8 mining 

areas, and mitigation to reduce safety hazards 

is required at 23 of the openings. This work is 

underway and continues as funds become 

available. The mitigation is an operational 

issue; therefore, it is outside the scope of this 

document. It has been determined that some 

of the mines have historic qualities. Some of 

them are described in the “Affected 

Environment” chapter. 

Indian Trust Resources 

According to the American Indian Trust Fund 

Management Reform Act of 1994 and 

President Clinton’s “Memorandum for the 

Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies” dated April 29, 1994, it is required 

that agencies determine the effects on tribal 

trust resources caused by federal government 

plans, projects, programs, and activities. One 

definition of tribal trust resources (from 

Secretarial Order 3206, Babbitt, June 5, 1997, 

subsection B, section 3) is as follows: 

Those natural resources, either on or off 

Indian lands, retained by or reserved by or 

for Indian tribes through treaties, statutes, 

judicial decisions, and executive orders, 

which are protected by a fiduciary [trust] 

obligation on the part of the United 

States. 

None of the lands in Coronado National Memorial are trust resources according to this 

definition; therefore, this topic has not been 

analyzed. 

Land Use Trends 

The federal government is the primary landowner in Arizona and in Cochise County. 

Only 41% of Cochise County is privately 

owned. The land east of the memorial is 

predominantly agricultural, but increasingly 

more agricultural lands are being converted to 

residential use. The 2001 Southern San Pedro 

Valley Area Plan. envisions future growth in 

the region, with zoning proposed for commercial development. Although some alternatives would result in more visitation and 

staffing over time, the need for increased 

commercial services or residential development in the county would be negligible. The 

economic effects of more visitation and the 

elimination of grazing in the memorial are 

discussed under “Effects on the 

27
BACKGROUND 

Socioeconomic Environment.” None of the 

alternatives in this plan would conflict with 

current land uses in the region or with uses 

prescribed by any regionwide plans. Therefore, impacts on land use and trends will not 

be analyzed. 

Conservation Potential and Requirements for Natural or Depletable 

Resources 

None of the alternatives would result in the 

extraction of resources from the memorial. As 

noted under “Servicewide Laws and Policies,” 

page 13, under all the alternatives, the staff of 

the national memorial would apply ecological 

principles to ensure that the memorial’s 

natural resources would be maintained. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that all federal agencies incorporate 

environmental justice into their missions by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs/policies on 

minorities and low-income populations and 

communities. 

For the purpose of fulfilling EO 12898, in the 

context of the National Environmental Policy 

Act, the planning team assessed the alternatives presented in this plan during the 

planning process. The team determined that 

none of these alternatives would result in 

significant direct or indirect negative or 

adverse effects on any minority or lowincome population or community. The 

following information contributed to this 

conclusion: 

• There would be no direct or indirect 

negative or adverse health effects on any 

minority or low-income population or 

community. 

• The effects on the natural and socioeconomic environment that would result 

from any alternative would not cause 

disproportionate adverse effects on any 

minority or low-income population or 

community. 

The planning team actively solicited public 

participation in the planning process and gave 

equal consideration to all input from people, 

regardless of age, race, income status, or other 

socioeconomic or demographic factors. 

Coronado National Memorial employees have 

consulted and worked with the American 

Indian tribes in the area and will continue to 

do so in cooperative efforts to improve 

communications and resolve any problems 

that might occur. 

Transportation and Access 

The topic of transportation and access will not 

be discussed in this document because several 

access routes are available, and no impacts on 

access to the memorial would be expected. In 

view of the high level of service on the road 

leading to the memorial, the relatively low 

density development proposed by the 

Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan, and the 

modest increase in development considered in 

the alternatives in this management plan, none 

but modest increases would be expected in 

the number of vehicles using AZ 92 to 

Palominas. 

The average annual daily traffic (AADT) for 

the main memorial road (five-year average) is 

104. The peak flow on the main road is 300 

vehicles per day. 

28
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
INTRODUCTION TO THE ALTERNATIVES

This chapter contains descriptions of the five 

alternatives. Alternative A, the “no-action” 

(status quo) alternative, which is described 

first, reflects existing conditions and serves as 

a basis for comparing and evaluating the other 

alternatives. Then the four “action” 

alternatives (B, C, D, and E), which propose 

the future direction for Coronado National 

Memorial, are described. 

Alternative B is the National Park Service’s 

preferred alternative. In the process used to 

select the preferred alternative, the planning 

team found that alternative B would best safeguard the resources and scenic values of 

Coronado National Memorial while making 

those resources easily accessible for visitors. 

The cultural and natural values of the memorial would be protected in this alternative, and 

the visitor experience would be enhanced. 

Before the action alternatives were developed, 

information was gathered about the resources 

in the national memorial. Information about 

the issues and the scope of the project was 

solicited from the public, other agencies, 

special interest groups, and memorial staff 

through newsletters, meetings, and personal 

contacts. This helped with the development of 

the action alternatives. All the alternatives are 

intended to support the memorial’s mission, 

purpose, and significance and to address 

issues; avoid unacceptable resource impacts; 

and respond to public desires and concerns. 

DECISION POINTS 

Three decision points were identified during 

this process. They are phrased as questions 

that each alternative must answer, as follows: 

• What level of development should be allowed while still preserving the 

memorial’s cultural and natural resources 

unimpaired for future generations? 

• What visitor use should be accommodated 

while preserving the integrity of the resources and maximizing visitor services? 

• What is the best way to tell the public the 

story of Coronado National Memorial 

while not neglecting significant resources 

within the authorized boundaries? 

These preliminary concepts were presented to 

the public for review in spring 2001. Following 

the public review, an evaluation process called 

“Choosing by Advantages” was used to 

compare the four alternatives and to develop 

the National Park Service’s preferred 

alternative (see appendix D). The other 

preliminary alternatives were subsequently 

refined to reflect a similar level of detail as that 

developed for the preferred alternative. 

In the following pages, the use of 

management prescriptions for each 

alternative is described, with a table 

outlining the general types of activities that 

could occur in those areas. Then the 

alternatives are described. The descriptions 

of the four action alternatives are organized 

by management prescriptions. 

PRIORITIES WITHIN 

ALTERNATIVES 

Priorities have been assigned to the actions 

discussed for each alternative; that is, certain 

actions would be implemented first (as having 

primary priority), with others implemented 

later according to the time likely to be needed 

to develop facility plans, obtain construction 

funding, and/or reach necessary partnership 

agreements. For the purposes of organization 

and comparison, existing conditions are 

shown as having primary priority, with some 

other actions given secondary priority. 

31
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The potential environmental effects of implementing each alternative are presented in the 

“Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

Although a general management plan contains 

the analysis and justification for future 

funding, the plan in no way guarantees that 

money will be forthcoming. This General 

Management Plan will establish a vision of the 

future that will guide the year-to-year 

management of Coronado National 

Memorial, but the full implementation of a 

plan could take a number of years. 

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS 

The general gross costs listed for each 

alternative are rough estimates of the 

implementation costs to be used only for 

comparing the alternatives; they cannot be 

used for budgetary purposes. The costs were 

developed with the use of conceptual-type 

estimates for fiscal year 2001 (FY 01). After a 

final plan is selected and the memorial is 

closer to implementing individual actions, 

more detailed and accurate cost estimates will 

need to be developed. All implementation 

costs have been rounded to the nearest 

thousand dollars. 

CARRYING CAPACITY 

The General Authorities Act for the National 

Park Service, section 604, amended section 

12(b), requires that general management plans 

establish a carrying capacity for a unit of the 

national park system, saying, among other 

things, that there must be “identification of an 

implementation commitment for visitor 

carrying capacities for all areas of the [national 

park system] unit . . . .” In addition, there also 

is a requirement in the NPS Management 

Policies 2001 that general management plans 

address the issue of visitor carrying capacity. 

The use of the concept of carrying capacity in 

planning infrastructure and visitor management programs would be expected to result in 

effective and efficient management. 

Visitor Experience and 

Resource Protection 

Currently, visitor use has had few adverse 

effects on the resources of Coronado National 

Memorial. Illegal trafficking in people and 

drugs in this border area has adversely 

affected the visitor experience, and the 

memorial continues to address the issue of 

illegal activities through operational actions. 

As visitor numbers increase, it is expected that 

the potential for adverse effects natural and 

cultural resources also would increase. Large 

numbers of visitors at one time also could 

affect the visitor experience. Therefore, it is 

important for the National Park Service to be 

proactive in preventing problems that could 

result from visitors’ use of the memorial. 

While carrying capacities are being determined during the implementation of this plan, 

the memorial staff will monitor resources and 

visitor use and judge whether or not the 

capacities (desired conditions) are being 

exceeded in any area. It is not likely that the 

expected levels of facility development and 

visitation and the expected types of use would 

cause unacceptable impacts on the desired 

visitor experience or on the memorial’s 

resources. However, if carrying capacities 

were exceeded, the NPS staff would take 

actions to restore conditions to acceptable 

levels. For example, the number of visitors 

could be restricted or facilities could be 

modified. 

For the life of this plan, visitation would be 

controlled by the number and quality of 

facilities, by management actions, and through 

cooperative local efforts and initiatives. The 

National Park Service’s visitor experience and 

resource protection (VERP) process would 

guide planners and managers in addressing 

carrying capacity and assessing impacts on 

resources and the visitor experience. The 

process would enable the staff to avoid some 

of the problems that other areas have 

experienced when visitation has not been 

managed to protect the resources or the 

quality of the visitor experience. 

32
Introduction to the Alternatives 

The Coronado National Memorial staff has 

identified desired conditions for various areas. 

In picnic areas, the desired condition would 

be to have minimal impact on natural 

resources, with the areas shaded by native 

vegetation. These areas would be managed to 

allow for a mix of young and mature trees and 

shrubs. Visitor groups would be managed not 

to exceed the number of tables and grills 

available. Off-road parking would not be 

allowed. 

The visitor center would be designed and 

managed to accommodate individuals and 

small groups, even when larger groups were 

present, and to help them to understand the 

memorial’s story. Adequate areas would be 

developed for interpretive programs and 

media that would tell the stories of the 

memorial’s natural and cultural resources. 

Adequate space for cars and recreational 

vehicles would be available in the area near 

the visitor center. Resources would be 

preserved by not allowing off-road parking or 

the development of “social” roads. 

Coronado Cave and the trail to the cave 

would be managed to minimize speleothem 

damage, dust in the area, and trash along the 

trail and in the cave. Visitors would have an 

opportunity to understand the cave’s 

ecosystem. 

Montezuma Pass, the trail to Montezuma 

Peak, and the rest of the memorial’s trails 

would be managed to minimize trash and 

erosion and to discourage the creation of 

“social” trails. Visitors would have opportunities to understand the memorial’s natural 

resources, to see views related to the story of 

the Coronado Expedition, to experience a 

variety of habitats in the memorial (such as 

grasslands, shrubs, and hillsides), and to 

participate in various recreational activities 

(such as birding, walking, and nature study.) 

All this would be done to offer a variety of trail 

experiences to hikers of all abilities. 

After the General Management Plan is approved, indicators of resource conditions will 

be developed, as will indicators of visitor 

experiences and standards. Monitoring 

programs will be initiated to measure resource 

condition and the visitor experiences. The 

indicators will establish the maximum amount 

of deterioration of the quality of resources or 

experience that will be allowed before 

management action is taken. Such indicators 

will reflect the overall condition of the area 

and allow the measurement of effects on the 

memorial’s biological, physical, and cultural 

resources and on the visitor experience. 

Monitoring 

To ensure that the memorial’s desired 

conditions would remain as prescribed, 

monitoring would be carried out to evaluate 

resource conditions and visitor experiences. 

Through monitoring, the memorial staff 

would determine if these indicators were 

viable and acceptable; if not, the indicators 

might be modified. The process of 

determining how much is too much is a 

dynamic one. Critical to the success of this 

process are identifying standards and 

indicators and adjusting the management 

strategies when monitoring indicates that 

conditions are out of standard. 

Surveys would be conducted at specific times 

and places to determine whether or not the 

desired visitor experience conditions were 

being met. Follow-up plans (such as a revised 

resource management plan) might be necessary to test these numbers. Work might be 

needed after this plan is approved to “finetune” the indicators, standards, and 

monitoring methods. 

MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

Management prescriptions identify management zones and define the levels of visitor use, 

management activities, and development. 

They provide a foundation for all subsequent 

management decisions in the national 

memorial. Along with the memorial’s mission 

goals, they are the basis for establishing the 

33
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

long-term goals of the memorial’s strategic 

plan and for developing implementation plans 

such as resource management plans. 

After the action alternatives for future 

conditions and management in the national 

memorial were developed, the planning team 

developed management prescriptions 

(management zones) that would apply — 

although differently — to each action 

alternative. For example, it is known that an 

area would need to be set aside for NPS offices and housing, another area would be 

needed for educational activities, and another 

where visitors could get information about the 

national memorial and decide what they 

wanted to do. Thus, four management 

prescriptions came into being for the national 

memorial: conservation, education, visitor 

services, and operations / special use, as 

shown in table 1 (p. 37). 

In each prescription area, a particular 

combination of resource conditions, visitor 

understanding, and facilities and activities 

could take place. Each alternative would 

require a different application or 

configuration of these management 

prescriptions. For example, the visitor 

facilities in alternative B might be located in a 

different place than in alternative C, 

depending on the overall concept. One 

alternative’s concept might call for additional 

visitor opportunities; thus, the visitor services 

management prescription might be larger in 

that alternative than in an alternative calling 

for more conservation. The configuration of 

the management prescriptions for each 

alternative was next placed on a map; this 

resulted in the alternative maps in this 

document. 

When drawing boundaries for management 

prescriptions in the action alternatives, we 

considered known resource conditions. For 

example, we have done our best to avoid 

directing new uses into areas that contain 

sensitive natural resources. 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO 

ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Boundary Adjustments 

As one of the provisions of Public Law (PL) 

95-625, the National Parks and Recreation 

Act of 1978, Congress directed that the 

National Park Service consider, as part of a 

planning process, what modifications of 

external boundaries might be necessary to 

carry out the purposes of a unit of the national 

park system. After passing this act, Congress 

also passed PL 101-628, the Arizona Desert 

Wilderness Act. Section 1216 of that act 

directs the secretary of the interior to develop 

criteria to evaluate any proposed changes to 

the existing boundaries of individual park 

units, and section 1217 calls for the National 

Park Service to consult with affected agencies 

and others regarding any proposed boundary 

change and to provide a cost estimate of the 

acquisition cost, if any, related to the 

boundary adjustment. 

To implement these provisions, NPS Management Policies 2001 indicates that the National 

Park Service will conduct studies of potential 

boundary adjustments and may make 

boundary revisions as follows: 

• to protect significant resources and values 

or to enhance opportunities for public 

enjoyment related to park purposes 

• to address operational and management 

issues such as the need for access or the 

need for boundaries to correspond to 

logical boundary delineations such as 

topographic or natural features or roads 

• to protect resources that are critical to 

fulfilling park purposes 

NPS policies instruct that any recommendation to expand the boundaries of a unit be 

preceded by a determination that the added 

lands would be feasible to administer, 

considering size, configuration, ownership, 

cost, and other factors. Another requirement 

34
is that other alternatives for management and 

resource protection must have been 

considered and found not to be adequate. 

The present boundaries of Coronado 

National Memorial are sufficient to carry out 

its mission. The expansion of the national 

memorial would not meet any of the criteria 

for boundary revisions. It is not feasible to 

acquire all lands within the national 

memorial’s viewshed because the cost would 

be prohibitive, and Arizona land policies 

prohibit this action. Instead, Coronado 

National Memorial would seek to identify and 

work with willing partners to achieve the goal 

of protecting the viewshed. 

Wilderness Suitability 

The National Park Service is required by its 

management policies and the 1964 Wilderness 

Act to evaluate all NPS units to determine 

what lands are suitable for inclusion in the 

national wilderness preservation system. This 

evaluation has been undertaken with the use 

of the following criteria taken from the 1964 

Wilderness Act and NPS Management Policies 

2001: 

• The earth and its community of life are 

untrammeled by humans, who are visitors 

and do not remain. 

• The area is undeveloped and retains its 

primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human 

habitation. 

• The area generally appears to have been 

affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of humans’ work 

substantially unnoticeable. 

• The area is protected and managed so as 

to preserve its natural conditions. 

• The area offers outstanding opportunities 

for solitude of a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. 

Introduction to the Alternatives 

The lands in Coronado National Memorial do 

not meet some of these primary suitability criteria, including “The area offers outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation” and “The area 

generally appears to have been affected 

primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of humans’ work substantially 

unnoticeable.” The paved main road bisects 

the national memorial, and most of the 

memorial’s lands are less than 1 mile from that 

road, which is visible from most areas within 

the boundary. Road noise can be heard from 

most places. The one area in the national 

memorial that is protected from road noise is 

the south slope of Smuggler’s Ridge, which in 

itself is too small an area, at several hundred 

acres, to constitute a high-quality wilderness 

area. The topography and vegetation are such 

that houses, roads, and “the imprint of 

humans’ work” outside the boundaries are 

visible from most parts of the national 

memorial. (See “Appendix C: Wilderness 

Suitability Assessment.”) 

Furthermore, Forest Service and NPS 

managers did not consider wilderness in 

Coronado National Memorial a significant 

complement to the 

Miller Peak Wilderness in Coronado National 

Forest, nor did they believe it would be 

advantageous to either agency’s management 

of its area. Planning is still underway for a 

protected area in Mexico that might be 

adjacent to Coronado National Memorial; 

however, it is unlikely that a core protected 

area of a future Mexican reserve would be 

close to the national memorial. The views of 

Mexico played a significant role in the 

establishment of Coronado National 

Memorial, and they continue to be a focal 

point in telling the story of Coronado’s 

expedition and interpreting our lasting ties to 

Mexico. The mission of Coronado National 

Memorial is to preserve those views, and the 

alternatives presented in this document offer 

various ways to protect the memorial’s natural 

resources and viewshed and conserve them 

for future generations. 

35
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Protection of Visitors and Resources 

In any of the action alternatives, the memorial 

would undertake a series of measures 

designed to better protect park resources and 

provide for enhanced visitor safety. The goal 

of these would be to eliminate cross-border 

illegal activities and to provide a sufficient law 

enforcement presence to deter such activities. 

The already existing partnerships between the 

Forest Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, and the 

Bureau of Land Management would be 

strengthened to provide for additional 

security. The memorial would continue to 

seek to upgrade communication capability 

and other equipment necessary to accomplish 

this task. 

36
TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTIONS 

Management 

Prescription Resource Condition Visitor Understanding Facilities and Activities 

Conservation Management manipulation of vegetation 

limited to providing for seclusion, scenic 

vistas, or what is needed to maintain a 

healthy ecosystem; high degree of 

protection for cultural and natural 

resources in these areas. 

Visitors could reflect on history and 

significance of memorial; these places, 

although adjacent to higher use areas, 

would allow a degree of solitude; few 

encounters with memorial staff; 

encounters with other visitors moderate to 

Access not easy because of rugged terrain 

and topography; activities could include 

resource appreciation, hiking, and 

horseback riding in permitted areas; 

primitive roads for administrative access 

would remain. 

low, depending on time of day and season. 

Education Resource manipulation would vary by 

amount and intensity of physical 

development needed for a particular type 

of recreation; natural setting retained as 

much as possible; resources could be 

modified for essential visitor services, but 

changes would harmonize with natural and 

cultural environment; areas managed to 

provide best, most appropriate 

interpretation of resources; recreation 

would take place where effects on 

resources would be minimal. 

Visitors could learn about memorial’s 

important resources and reflect on its 

history and significance; self-guided or 

ranger-led experiences easily accessible; 

where possible without unacceptable 

resource impacts, visitors could interact 

with resources; direction and structure 

(trails, interpretive media, signs) provided, 

but some opportunities for discovery 

would remain; possible chances for 

solitude at certain times; encounters with 

staff and interaction with other visitors 

The primary development in this 

prescription would be trails for 

interpretation; possibly benches, shade, a 

minimal number of signs, overlooks, 

wayside exhibits, self-guided activities and 

other interpretive media, and wildlife 

viewing areas; predominant activities could 

include seeing the resources and attending 

interpretive walks and talks. 

moderate. 

Visitor 

Services 

Resources might have been previously 

disturbed; either no or few significant 

These areas would be easily accessible and 

offer education and interpretation about 

Development might include kiosks, a 

visitor center, comfort stations, first aid 

resources present; significant resources national memorial’s significant resources; station, short trails, hardened parking, 

managed according to NPS policy and legal visitors could contact staff easily; possibly drinking fountains, fee collection station, 

requirements; only native vegetation frequent interactions with other visitors, pay phones, paved and unpaved roads, 

species used except in interpretive exhibits. large groups, and staff. picnic areas — facilities could support 

various social activities such as picnicking, 

special events, other group activities. 

37
Management 

Prescription Resource Condition Visitor Understanding Facilities and Activities 

Operations / 

Special Use 

These areas located where limited or no 

significant resources or in previously 

disturbed areas; as much as practicable, 

NPS facilities in these areas would be 

Visitor use limited; no visitors allowed on 

any private property within national 

memorial’s boundaries; visitors only 

slightly aware of this prescription and its 

These areas could include grounds and 

structures used for administration and 

operations: housing, offices, maintenance 

shops and yards, indoor and outdoor 

models of best management practices and facilities; a few national memorial facilities storage areas, fire engine storage, employee 

sustainable development; natural might be showcased here to help visitors parking, security systems, a secured law 

environment could be modified for NPS understand how the National Park Service enforcement area, heating and cooling 

operations but still harmonize with works to develop sustainable and systems, phone lines, computer lines, and 

surrounding environment; although environmentally responsible facilities in an water supply and treatment; facilities 

environment might be highly modified, arid environment. would give staff a safe, efficient, 

pollutants and other evidences of comfortable, and aesthetic work 

disturbance (stormwater runoff; dust from environment; hardened circulation and 

construction) contained and mitigated parking areas appropriate here; housing 

before affecting adjacent areas; facilities would have enough space for family 

and operations buffered so that visitors activities; these areas would include utility 

would not see them or be disturbed by rights-of-way, administrative roads, and 

associated noise; physical footprint of NPS 

structures and stored material minimal; 

private property. 

private landowners encouraged to adopt 

best management practices. 

38
ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION

(EXISTING MANAGEMENT DIRECTION)

CONCEPT 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, is 

presented for comparison with the “action” 

alternatives B, C, D, and E. In alternative A, 

the current management direction would 

continue, and there would be no significant 

change in the interpretation or management 

of the memorial. 

DESCRIPTION 

The administrative offices for the memorial 

would remain in their current location away 

from the visitor center. The visitor center 

would remain to house offices for the 

memorial’s interpretive staff. All of the 

memorial’s interpretive themes would be 

equally emphasized in this alternative. The 

memorial would work with Mexico to 

develop interpretive programs that would 

include activities to support Mexican and 

American / national memorial natural and 

cultural resources. 

Cultural and natural resources would be managed, protected, and maintained as staff time 

and funding allowed. Cultural and natural 

resource inventory work and monitoring 

would continue and would be expanded if 

possible. The staff of the national memorial 

would encourage the research that is needed 

to “fill in the gaps.” The memorial would 

continue not to have management 

prescriptions, but areas of the memorial are 

managed for visitor services, operations, 

education, and conservation. 

Coronado National Memorial has acquired 

the remaining parcels of the Montezuma 

Ranch, which is in the grasslands south of the 

main memorial road. In all the alternatives, the 

property would be evaluated to determine if 

the ranch was eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. In 

alternatives A, B, C, and E, the memorial staff 

then would work toward removing the early 

20th century ranch structures to improve the 

views for which the memorial was established. 

If the structures were found eligible for listing 

on the national register, the National Park 

Service would initiate consultation with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office to 

determine what features could be removed, or 

documented and then removed. After the 

documentation was completed, the staff 

would work to eliminate all the ranch structures. The goal would be to remove as many of 

these features as possible, then to restore the 

natural contours of the area and revegetate it 

with native species. Exotic species of plants 

and trees that do not contribute to the cultural 

landscape also would be removed from the 

ranch area as time and funding permitted. 

The abandoned powerlines and roads on 

memorial property would be allowed to deteriorate. If any section should prove to be a 

safety hazard, that portion would be removed. 

The Livestock Management Plan (NPS 2000b) 

established long-term and short-term strategies for managing permitted (authorized) 

livestock operations. The Joe’s Spring and 

Montezuma grazing allotments are now being 

managed according to that plan. This 

eventually will include the retirement of one 

or both allotments if the permittees are 

willing. Nonnative plants are not being seeded 

or planted on the allotments. No new range 

structures are planned for the Joe’s Spring 

allotment, and any grazing improvement 

needed in the Montezuma allotment would be 

planned to maintain agave populations. 

Relative to pre “Livestock Management Plan” 

conditions, grazing intensity and duration 

have been reduced, and the season of use has 

been shortened by removing cattle during the 

agave bolting and flowering period. These 

39
______________ 

ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

changes have improved range conditions on 

both allotments. 

The memorial has partnering agreements to 

assist in law enforcement, communications, 

and fire protection. In addition, the national 

memorial continues to work with schools and 

other organizations to interpret the area’s 

cultural heritage and ecosystems. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Staffing 

The following list of staffing (12 full-timeequivalent (FTE)* employees) reflects the 

current staffing at Coronado National 

Memorial. The FY 2001 pay scale has been 

used for all staffing costs. 

Costs 

The yearly cost for administering the 

memorial is estimated at $740,000. This 

estimate is very general, in keeping with the 

general nature of the alternatives; the estimate 

should be used only for comparing the 

alternatives. 

*FTE = full-time equivalent position; that is, 

one FTE (40-hours per week) position could 

be two employees, each working 20 hours 

per week, one employee working 30 hours 

per week and another employee working 10 

hours per week, or four employees each 

working 10 hours per week — or other 

combinations. 

TABLE 2: STAFFING COSTS, ALTERNATIVE A 

Superintendent 1 FTE 

Park ranger (protection) 5 FTE 

Park ranger (biologist) 1 subject to furlough 

Park ranger (interpretation) 1 FTE 

Park ranger (interpretation) 1 seasonal 

Resource management specialist 1 FTE 

Administrative officer 1 FTE 

Maintenance worker 2 FTE 

40 
Visitor Center 

Boundary Marker 102 

Ridge 

Crest 

Montezuma 

East 

Lane 

0 N 

Montezuma 

Coronado 

Cave 

MEXICO 

USA 

Memorial 

Entrance 

Paved Road 

Dirt Road 

Road Staff Housing and 

Maintenance Area 

Contact

 Station 

ernati

Coronado 

Montezuma 

Private Ranch

Property 

Utility Corridor 

Joe's Canyon Trail 

Yaqui 

Trail 

Trail 

Pass 

Forest 

1 Mile 

Peak 

Windmill

Alt ve A 

Peak 

401/20014/DSC/3•2003 

Coronado National Memorial • Arizona

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior
ALTERNATIVE B: ENHANCE OPPORTUNITIES WHILE 

PROTECTING RESOURCES (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

CONCEPT 

The concept of alternative B is to enhance 

educational and recreational opportunities 

while protecting, perpetuating, and ensuring 

public understanding of the national 

memorial’s resources. Under this alternative, 

the National Park Service would seek to 

develop new ways for the public to gain an 

appreciation and understanding of the 

memorial’s natural and cultural resources. 

Educational and interpretive goals would be 

emphasized. 

DESCRIPTION 

The description of this alternative, like the 

descriptions of the three other action 

alternatives, is organized by management 

prescription. The various kinds of 

prescription are described at the beginning of 

this chapter. Also see the Alternative B map. 

Conservation Prescription 

The conservation prescription would 

encompass all the lands in the memorial not 

included in other prescriptions. Grazing in the 

national memorial would be discontinued. 

The abandoned powerline along the road to 

Montezuma Pass would be removed and 

revegetated with native species. All existing 

trails would be retained, and a trail would be 

developed between the entrance and the 

visitor center. That trail would be partially in 

the education prescription and partially in the 

conservation prescription. 

Education Prescription 

In alternative B, the education prescription 

would be applied to the trail from Montezuma 

Pass to Coronado Peak, the trail to Coronado 

Cave, and the grasslands north and south of 

the main memorial road. The interpretation of 

the memorial’s resources would be more 

intensive in these areas. 

The grasslands include the Montezuma Ranch 

structures, which would be evaluated to 

determine if the ranch is eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places. The 

management of the ranch would be as 

described for alternative A, page 39. 

East Forest Lane would continue to be used 

for NPS operations and as an access road to 

the grazing allotments. When grazing was 

discontinued and the road was not needed for 

NPS operations, it would be removed and 

revegetated with native species, and part of 

the road might be used as a trail. 

A trail accessible to people with disabilities 

would be developed in the grasslands north of 

the memorial’s entrance. Part of Windmill 

Road would be used to make this trail. In 

addition, a loop trail would be developed in 

this northern grassland area. When grazing 

was discontinued and Windmill Road was not 

needed for NPS/memorial operations, the 

remaining part of that road would be removed 

and revegetated with native species. A loop 

trail also would be developed in the grasslands 

south of the main road in the Montezuma 

Ranch area, possibly using part of East Forest 

Lane. 

Any trailhead would have minimal development, possibly including a restroom. Facilities 

at the trailhead would be placed in areas with 

natural screening, or vegetative screening 

could be added to protect the viewshed. The 

trail from Montezuma Pass to Coronado Peak 

would be studied to determine how much of 

that trail could be made accessible to visitors 

with disabilities. The interpretive media on 

the trail would be rehabilitated and updated. 

43
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

Visitor Services Prescription 

The visitor services prescription would 

encompass the area around the visitor center, 

the parking area at the top of Montezuma 

Pass, and the main road through the memorial. The visitor center would be rehabilitated 

to offer updated interpretation of the 

memorial’s natural and cultural resources. 

The memorial’s interpretive themes would be 

presented at the visitor center and at Montezuma Pass. An annex would be added behind 

the visitor center to accommodate more office 

space, storage, and a multipurpose room to 

house a variety of visitor and staff activities 

and programs. The annex would be designed 

to blend into the environment and complement the architecture of the visitor center. 

The visitor center is potentially eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. A determination of eligibility would be 

carried out, and any work done on that 

building would be planned to protect the 

features that could make it eligible. 

Adding the annex would require removing the 

interpretive trail just outside the visitor center. 

A trail would be developed between the 

memorial entrance and the visitor center. A 

new interpretive trail would be developed 

near the current picnic area. A parking area 

for staff and visitors (up to four buses or 

recreational vehicles) would be added in the 

picnic area across from the visitor center, and 

a group picnic area would be added near the 

site of the former fiesta area. 

Even though no formal cultural landscape 

evaluation has been made for the visitor 

center area, NPS professionals have 

determined that it would be important to 

protect the views of the visitor center as 

approached from the parking lot. 

The visitor shelter on Montezuma Pass would 

be converted into a minimal contact station. 

This might necessitate a slight expansion of 

the facility, but as much of the existing 

footprint would be used as possible. The 

contact station would be staffed during peak 

visitation times. The interpretive media at this 

location would be rehabilitated and updated. 

A small structure might be constructed in this 

area to house communication equipment. 

Alternative B could include a shuttle system to 

carry visitors between the visitor center and 

the contact station at Montezuma Pass. 

During the early years of this alternative’s 

implementation, such a shuttle system would 

not be either necessary or feasible. However, 

in later years, it might be appropriate to establish such a shuttle service in the memorial. 

Before establishing any shuttle system, the 

National Park Service would conduct a 

feasibility study. The shuttle system would be 

implemented only if sufficient need and 

economic feasibility for such a transit system 

in the park could be established. The 

feasibility study would also analyze possible 

approaches to shuttle system operations and 

maintenance, such as by the National Park 

Service or a concessioner, and identify the 

most appropriate method for implementation. 

Up to three new pullouts and waysides would 

be developed along the main memorial road. 

The pullout near the end of the paved road 

would be expanded to accommodate a picnic 

area and wayside. Two more pullouts would 

be added along the road in locations where 

drivers could stop and see the memorial’s 

scenic vistas. 

Operations / Special Use Prescription 

The operations / special use prescription 

would comprise the staff housing and maintenance area, private inholdings, and a utility 

corridor. The current staff housing area would 

remain, with the option of constructing a 

four-unit structure that could serve as 

housing for temporary employees, volunteers, 

researchers, and others working at the memorial for short periods. The two trailer pads 

would be retained, and all development would 

be screened from the road by vegetation. 

44
Visitor Center 

Montezuma 

Coronado 

Cave 

0 N 

Montezuma 

MEXICO 

USA 

Memorial 

Entrance 

Staff Housing and 

Maintenance Area 

Al

Coronado 

East 

Lane 

Road 

Montezuma 

Ranch 

Pass 

1 Mile 

Peak 

ternative B 

Peak 

Conservation 

Visitor Services 

Operations/ 

Special Use 

Education

Forest 

Windmill 

Preferred Alternative 

Management Zones 

401/20015A/DSC/3•2003 

Coronado National Memorial • Arizona

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior
Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities while Protecting Resources (Preferred Alternative) 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, 

AND ACTIVITIES 

To encourage better public appreciation and 

understanding of its mission, the national memorial would work toward the creation of an 

offsite cultural festival to celebrate the various 

cultures associated with the memorial. 

Although not serving as the chief sponsor of 

this event, Coronado National Memorial 

would support its creation. For such a festival, 

the National Park Service would encourage 

emphasis on the historical aspects of the 

Coronado Expedition. The memorial staff 

would work with interested groups and 

organizations in Mexico to develop 

interpretive programs, which could include 

activities to support Mexican and American 

natural and cultural resources. 

To offer opportunities for people to better 

understand and appreciate the memorial’s 

story, the staff would work either separately 

or in cooperation with the others to promote 

special events inside and outside the 

memorial. These events could include special 

programs highlighting the historic event of the 

Coronado Expedition, the expedition’s 

legacy, and its impact on the present American 

Southwest. The national memorial would 

expand its work with other organizations and 

groups to support the preservation of the regional ecosystem. This could include working 

with partners to preserve the views of the San 

Pedro Valley from Montezuma Pass. 

Coronado National Forest is in the process of 

developing a trail outside of Coronado 

National Memorial. In this alternative, it is 

recommended that this trail should not be 

directly connected to trails in Coronado 

National Memorial but instead should be 

routed to end in Ash Canyon in Coronado 

National Forest. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Priorities for Implementation 

The actions proposed under this alternative, 

which would be implemented over the next 15 

years, have been divided into primary and 

secondary priorities for funding and to guide 

implementation. 

Primary Priority. Certain actions have been 

assigned primary priority for the following 

reasons: 

• The action would address crucial resource 

protection needs. 

• It would remedy serious infrastructure 

concerns. 

• It would accommodate immediate 

interpretive or visitor use needs. 

• It would have to be accomplished before 

subsequent steps could be taken. 

Primary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• inventory, document, and interpret 

cultural and natural resources 

• cooperate with American Indian tribes in 

developing programs 

• develop interpretive media supportive of 

the national memorial’s interpretive 

themes 

• rehabilitate and update the Coronado 

Peak trail and facilities at Montezuma Pass 

• take action to keep visitation levels in line 

with goals while maintaining visitor 

experiences and resource protection 

• establish management prescription areas 

• work with others to develop festivals and 

programs celebrating the various aspects 

of the memorial’s mission 

• finish evaluating Montezuma Ranch for 

eligibility for the National Register of 

Historic Places 

47
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

• restore natural contours and revegetate 

Montezuma Ranch 

• revegetate areas around the memorial 

• design and build the visitor center annex 

and a parking area 

• develop two trails in the grassland 

• discontinue grazing in the Coronado 

National Memorial 

Secondary Priority. Secondary priority has 

been assigned to some actions for the 

following reasons: 

• The action would require or would benefit 

from the results of primary priority 

actions. 

• It would address intermediate priority 

resource protection needs. 

• It would address intermediate 

interpretation or visitor use needs. 

Secondary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• improve parking at the picnic area 

• develop new picnic facilities 

• revegetate East Forest Lane if feasible 

• design and build employee housing 

• expand the monitoring of natural resource 

trends 

• develop the last two new trails 

• rehabilitate the visitor center 

• create new pullouts and waysides 

Staffing 

The FY 2001 pay scale has been used for all 

estimates of staffing costs. This alternative 

would retain the current base staff of 12. Table 

3 shows the additional full-time equivalents 

that would be needed to implement this 

alternative. These staffing figures represent 

the additional positions or upgrading of 

positions that would be needed to carry out 

alternative B. The additional positions that 

would be needed for this alternative are 

interpreters, resource specialists, maintenance 

workers, and administrative support staff. 

Implementation Costs 

The proposed construction, rehabilitation, 

and revegetation costs for alternative B would 

range from $1.8 million to $2.2 million. This 

estimate is general, in keeping with the general 

nature of this conceptual management plan 

and alternatives, and it should be used only 

for comparing the alternatives. 

TABLE 3: GENERAL ESTIMATE FOR STAFFING COSTS, ALTERNATIVE B 

Staffing FTE Costs 

Existing and authorized staffing 12.0 $ 740,000 

Added staff needed for primary priority actions 9.5 439,000 

Total 21.5 $1,179,000 

48
ALTERNATIVE C: FOCUS ON RESOURCE PROTECTION WHILE 

FULFILLING THE MEMORIAL’S MISSION 

CONCEPT 

The concept of alternative C is to enhance the 

conservation and preservation of the 

memorial’s cultural and natural resources for 

future generations. Under this alternative the 

National Park Service would seek to minimize 

intrusive features on the memorial’s landscape 

(such as modern structures, paved roads, and 

additional trails). Educational and interpretive 

goals would be accomplished by updating 

interpretive media and by using a more 

assertive outreach program. 

DESCRIPTION 

The description of this alternative, like the 

descriptions of the three other action alternatives, is organized by management prescription. The various kinds of prescription are 

described at the beginning of this chapter. 

Also see the Alternative C map. 

Conservation Prescription 

All the lands in the memorial not included in 

other prescriptions would be placed in the 

conservation prescription. The abandoned 

powerline along the road to Montezuma Pass 

would be removed and revegetated with 

native species. 

Studies would be undertaken to determine the 

feasibility of reintroducing native species of 

plants and animals in the memorial that were 

present at the time of the Coronado 

Expedition. Grazing in the national memorial 

would be discontinued. 

The Montezuma Ranch would be evaluated 

for eligibility for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places, then managed as 

described for alternative A, page 39. East 

Forest Lane would continue as an unpaved 

road used for NPS operations. Abandoned 

roads within the memorial boundaries would 

be restored to natural contours and 

revegetated to provide for larger areas of 

unbroken habitat for wildlife. 

Education Prescription 

In alternative C the education prescription 

would be applied to the trail from Montezuma 

Pass to Coronado Peak and the trail to Coronado Cave. More intensive interpretation 

would be offered in these areas. 

Visitor Services Prescription 

The visitor services prescription would 

encompass the area around the visitor center, 

the picnic area, the parking area at the top of 

Montezuma Pass, and the main road through 

the memorial. The interior of the visitor 

center would be remodeled to provide more 

space for interpreting the memorial’s natural 

and cultural resources. 

The visitor center is potentially eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. A determination of eligibility would be 

carried out, and any work done on that 

building would be planned to protect the 

features that could make it eligible. 

Some staff positions would be relocated 

outside, but near, the national memorial, 

possibly in a leased facility. This would relieve 

congestion of offices and parking at the visitor 

center. Adequate staff office and storage space 

would be arranged offsite. The interpretive 

trail at the visitor center would be upgraded 

and made accessible for people with 

disabilities. 

The picnic area and its access road would be 

retained. Parking for four buses or 

49
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

recreational vehicles would be developed in 

the picnic area. The former fiesta grounds and 

social trails in the picnic area would be 

restored to natural contours and revegetated. 

On the road to Montezuma Pass, the dirt 

storage area near the end of the paved part of 

the main memorial road would be removed 

and the area restored to natural contours and 

revegetated. The current visitor contact 

facility at Montezuma Pass would be updated 

and rehabilitated. 

Operations / Special Use Prescription 

The operations / special use prescription 

would comprise the staff housing and 

maintenance area, private inholdings, and a 

utility corridor. The current staff housing area 

would remain, with the option of constructing 

a four-unit structure that could serve as 

housing for temporary employees, volunteers, 

researchers, and others working at the 

memorial for short periods. The two trailer 

pads would be retained, and all development 

would be screened from the road by 

vegetation. 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, 

AND ACTIVITIES 

To encourage better public appreciation and 

understanding of its mission, the national 

memorial would strongly emphasize reaching 

beyond the memorial’s boundaries and 

working with various groups to tell the 

memorial’s compelling story. This could be 

accomplished by creating partnerships with 

local schools (elementary to university level) 

and working with the U.S. Forest Service, the 

Bureau of Land Management, and others. The 

memorial staff would work with Mexican 

groups to develop interpretive programs, 

which could include activities to support 

Mexican and American natural and cultural 

resources. 

Coronado National Forest is in the process of 

developing a trail outside of Coronado 

National Memorial. In this alternative, it is 

recommended that this trail should not be 

directly connected to trails in Coronado 

National Memorial but instead should be 

routed to end in Ash Canyon in Coronado 

National Forest. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Priorities for Implementation 

The actions proposed under this alternative, 

which would be implemented over the next 15 

to 20 years, have been divided into primary 

and secondary priorities for funding and to 

guide implementation. 

Primary Priority. Certain actions have been 

assigned primary priority for the following 

reasons: 

• The action would address crucial resource 

protection needs. 

• It would remedy serious infrastructure 

concerns. 

• It would accommodate immediate 

interpretive or visitor use needs. 

• It would have to be accomplished before 

subsequent steps could be taken. 

Primary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• inventory, document, and interpret the 

memorial’s cultural and natural resources 

• cooperate with American Indian tribes in 

developing programs 

• develop interpretive media that will 

support Coronado National Memorial’s 

interpretive themes 

• rehabilitate and update trail and facilities 

at Montezuma Pass 

• take action to keep visitation levels in line 

with goals while retaining visitor experiences and resource protection 

• establish management prescription areas 

50 
Visitor Center 

Montezuma 

0 

N 

Montezuma 

MEXICO 

USA 

Memorial 

Entrance 

Staff Housing and 

Maintenance Area 

Al

Coronado 

Coronado 

Cave 

Road 

East 

Lane 

Montezuma 

Ranch 

Pass 

1 Mile 

Peak 

ternative C 

Peak 

Conservation 

Visitor Services 

Operations/ 

Special Use 

Education 

Windmill 

Forest 

Management Zones 

401/20016/DSC/3•2003 

Coronado National Memorial • Arizona

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior
Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection while Fulfilling the Memorial’s Mission 

• study the feasibility of reintroducing 

native plants and animals 

• rehabilitate the visitor center and move 

some staff offsite 

• begin to develop programs with partners 

• remove powerlines, restore fiesta grounds 

and dirt storage area; revegetate all 

• finish evaluating Montezuma Ranch for 

eligibility for the National Register of 

Historic Places 

• restore natural contours and revegetate 

Montezuma Ranch 

• upgrade the interpretive trail at the visitor 

center and make it accessible for visitors 

with disabilities 

• discontinue grazing on memorial lands 

Secondary Priority. Some actions have been 

assigned secondary priority for the following 

reasons: 

• The action would require or would benefit 

from the results of primary priority 

actions. 

• It would address intermediate priority 

resource protection needs. 

• It would address intermediate 

interpretation or visitor use needs. 

Secondary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• design and build employee housing 

• expand monitoring of natural resource 

trends 

• develop new bus or recreational vehicle 

parking in the picnic area 

Staffing 

The FY 2001 pay scale has been used for all 

estimates of staffing costs. This alternative 

would retain the current base staff of 12 fulltime equivalents. Table 4 shows the number of 

additional positions that would be needed to 

implement this alternative. These staffing figures represent the additional positions or 

upgrading of positions that would be needed 

to carry out alternative C. The additional 

positions that would be needed are 

interpreters, resource specialists, maintenance 

workers, and administrative support staff. 

Implementation Costs 

The proposed construction, rehabilitation, 

and revegetation costs for alternative C would 

range from $1.4 million to $1.8 million. This 

estimate is general, in keeping with the general 

nature of this conceptual management plan 

and alternatives, and it should be used only 

for comparing the alternatives. 

TABLE 4: GENERAL ESTIMATE FOR STAFFING COSTS, ALTERNATIVE C 

Staffing FTE Costs 

Existing and authorized staffing 12.0 $740,000 

Added staff needed for primary priority actions 5.0 226,000 

Total 17.0 $966,000 

53
ALTERNATIVE D: CREATE AN INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE 

FOR VISITORS TO THE NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

CONCEPT 

The concept of alternative D would be to develop a fuller international experience for 

visitors to the memorial. The National Park 

Service would seek new ways for the public to 

gain an appreciation and understanding of the 

international aspects of the memorial. 

Educational and interpretive activities would 

emphasize the memorial’s international 

aspects. 

DESCRIPTION 

The description of this alternative, like the 

descriptions of the three other action alternatives, is organized by management 

prescription. The various kinds of 

prescription are described at the beginning of 

this chapter. Also see the Alternative D map. 

Conservation Prescription 

All the lands in the memorial not included in 

other prescriptions would be placed in the 

conservation prescription. The abandoned 

powerline along the road to Montezuma Pass 

would be removed and revegetated with 

native species. 

Abandoned roads within the memorial 

boundaries would be restored to natural 

contours and revegetated. Grazing in the 

Montezuma allotment would be discontinued 

because the new trails would result in conflicts 

with grazing operations. 

Education Prescription 

In alternative D, the education prescription 

would encompass the trail from Montezuma 

Pass to Coronado Peak, the trail to Coronado 

Cave, and the grasslands north of the 

memorial road. The interpretive media on the 

trail from Montezuma Pass to Coronado Peak 

would be rehabilitated and updated. The 

National Park Service would explore the 

feasibility of making part of the trail to 

Coronado Peak accessible for visitors with 

disabilities. More interpretive media would be 

developed for the trail to Coronado Cave. A 

new interpretive trail would be developed 

north of the main national memorial road in 

the grasslands, possibly using Windmill Road. 

This trail would avoid going into the Joe’s 

Spring allotment. 

Visitor Services Prescription 

The visitor services prescription would 

comprise the area around the visitor center, 

the picnic area, the parking area at the top of 

Montezuma Pass, East Forest Lane from the 

main memorial road to the border, the vicinity 

of Montezuma Ranch, and the main road 

through the memorial. 

East Forest Lane, a dirt road in the grasslands 

south of the main memorial road that crosses 

an ephemeral streambed, would be upgraded 

to a two-lane paved road. The upgraded East 

Forest Lane would closely follow its current 

alignment. 

A structure to be built at the end of East 

Forest Lane would be designed in a manner 

that would offer visitors views into Mexico. 

The structure would be large enough to 

include areas for interpretive media and 

protection from the sun and weather. Here, 

visitors would have an opportunity to 

understand and appreciate the Coronado 

Expedition, fostering international amity. This 

commemorative feature would become a main 

attraction of the memorial. 

After the Montezuma Ranch structures and 

cultural landscapes were evaluated to 

determine if any would be eligible for listing 

54
Visitor Center 

Montezuma 

Montezuma 

Ranch 

0 N 

Montezuma 

MEXICO 

USA 

Memorial 

Entrance 

Staff Housing and 

Maintenance Area 

ernative D 

Coronado 

Coronado 

Cave 

New 

Commemorative 

Education 

Center 

Road 

East 

Lane 

Pass 

1 Mile 

Peak 

Alt

Peak 

Conservation 

Visitor Services 

Operations/ 

Special Use 

Education 

Feature 

Windmill 

Forest 

Management Zones 

401/20017/DSC/3•2003 

Coronado National Memorial • Arizona

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior
Alternative D: Create an International Experience for Visitors to the National Memorial 

on the National Register of Historic Places, 

the memorial staff would consult with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office to 

determine what features could be removed, 

adaptively used, or documented and then 

removed. 

Alternative D includes the construction of an 

educational center in the Montezuma Ranch 

area, with space for some staff offices. Any 

structures found eligible for listing on the national register would be considered for 

adaptive use as part of the educational center 

complex. The educational center would be 

designed to blend into the environment, and 

the area around it would be landscaped in a 

way that would not detract from the views 

from Coronado Peak. An interpretive trail 

would be developed near the educational 

center. Any structures found ineligible for the 

national register would be demolished. 

Design solutions would be used to preserve 

the views from Montezuma Pass into the San 

Pedro Valley. The roads to the educational 

center and the commemorative feature would 

be designed and built to minimize their visual 

impact on views from Montezuma Pass. This 

could include using paving materials that 

would blend in with the natural landscape. 

The visitor center would be expanded and rehabilitated to offer updated interpretation of 

the memorial’s natural and cultural resources, 

as well as containing added office and storage 

space. Interpretation at the visitor center 

would include emphasis on themes related to 

the memorial’s international aspects. The 

interpretive trail at the visitor center would be 

removed. 

The visitor center is potentially eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. A determination of eligibility would be 

carried out, and any work done on that 

building would be planned to protect the 

features that could make it eligible. 

More parking would be added for the vehicles 

of visitors and NPS staff; some could be in the 

present picnic area. The road to the picnic 

area would be upgraded, and picnic sites 

would be added in the former fiesta area. 

The visitor shelter on Montezuma Pass would 

be converted into a minimal contact station. 

This might necessitate a slight expansion of 

the facility, but as much of the existing 

footprint would be used as possible. The 

contact station would be staffed during peak 

visitation times. The interpretive media at this 

location would be rehabilitated and updated. 

A small structure might be constructed in this 

area to house communication equipment. In 

addition, a smaller structure might be necessary to house communication equipment. 

In the latter part of its implementation period, 

alternative D might include a shuttle system to 

carry visitors between the visitor center and 

the contact station at Montezuma Pass. As 

described in alternative B, a feasibility study 

would be conducted to establish the need for 

and economic feasibility of such a system. The 

feasibility study would also identify the most 

appropriate approach to shuttle system 

operations and maintenance, such as by the 

National Park Service or a concessioner. 

A picnic area and a wayside exhibit would be 

added to the pullout near the end of the main 

memorial road. 

Operations / Special Use Prescription 

The operations / special use prescription 

would comprise the staff housing and 

maintenance area, private inholdings, and a 

utility corridor. The current staff housing area 

would remain, with the option of constructing 

a four-unit structure that could serve as 

housing for temporary employees, volunteers, 

researchers, and others working at the 

memorial for short periods. The two trailer 

pads would be retained, and all development 

would be screened from the road by 

vegetation. 

57
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, 

AND ACTIVITIES 

To promote the international aspects of the 

memorial, the feasibility of sponsoring 

Coronado-related events at various 

universities would be explored. These might 

include lectures, original papers, and cultural 

activities, which could take place onsite or 

offsite. 

Coronado National Forest is in the process of 

developing a trail outside of Coronado 

National Memorial. In alternative D, the 

National Park Service would encourage the 

entry of this trail into the memorial, where it 

could proceed down a trail to be developed 

paralleling East Forest Lane. It could then exit 

the memorial in the direction of the San Pedro 

River. 

A hiking and horseback trail would be developed parallel to East Forest Lane. That trail 

would exit the memorial in the direction of 

the San Pedro River. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Priorities for Implementation 

The actions proposed under this alternative, 

which would be implemented over the next 15 

to 20 years, have been divided into primary 

and secondary for funding and to guide 

implementation. 

Primary Priority. Certain actions have been 

assigned primary priority for the following 

reasons: 

• The action would address crucial resource 

protection needs. 

• It would remedy serious infrastructure 

concerns. 

• It would accommodate immediate 

interpretive or visitor use needs. 

• It would have to be accomplished before 

subsequent steps could be taken. 

Primary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• inventory, document, and interpret the 

memorial’s cultural and natural resources 

• cooperate with American Indian tribes in 

developing programs 

• develop interpretive media supportive of 

the national memorial’s interpretive 

themes 

• rehabilitate and update Coronado Peak 

trail and facilities at Montezuma Pass 

• take action to keep visitation levels in line 

with goals and to maintain visitor 

experiences and resource protection 

• establish management prescription areas 

• rehabilitate and expand the visitor center 

• begin to develop programs with partners 

• develop a picnic area and wayside at the 

pullout near the end of the main national 

memorial road 

• finish evaluating Montezuma Ranch for 

eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places 

• restore natural contours and revegetate 

Montezuma Ranch 

• construct an educational center at 

Montezuma Ranch 

• discontinue grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment 

Secondary Priority. Some actions have been 

assigned secondary priority for the following 

reasons: 

• The action would require or would benefit 

from the results of primary priority 

actions. 

• It would address intermediate priority 

resource protection needs. 

• It would address intermediate 

interpretation or visitor use needs. 

58
Alternative D: Create an International Experience for Visitors to the National Memorial 

Secondary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• pave East Forest Lane 

• design and construct a commemorative 

feature at the end of East Forest Lane 

• develop grasslands trails 

• design and build employee housing 

• expand the monitoring of natural resource 

trends 

• develop new parking for buses or 

recreational vehicles in the picnic area 

Staffing 

The FY 2001 pay scale has been used for all 

estimates of staffing costs. This alternative 

would retain the current base staff of 12. Table 

5 shows the additional full-time equivalents 

that would be needed to implement this 

alternative. These staffing figures represent 

the additional positions or upgrading of 

positions that would be needed to carry out 

alternative D. The additional positions that 

would be needed for this alternative are 

interpreters, resource specialists, maintenance 

workers, and administrative support staff. 

Implementation Costs 

The proposed construction, rehabilitation, 

and revegetation costs for alternative D would 

range from $3.5 million to $4 million. This 

estimate is general, in keeping with the general 

nature of this conceptual management plan 

and alternatives, and it should be used only 

for comparing the alternatives. 

TABLE 5: GENERAL ESTIMATE FOR STAFFING COSTS, ALTERNATIVE D 

Staffing FTE Costs 

Existing and authorized staffing 12.0 $ 740,000 

Added staff needed for primary priority actions 9.5 468,000 

Total 21.5 $1,208,000 

59
ALTERNATIVE E: ENHANCE INTERPRETATION AND THE 

EFFICIENCY OF OPERATIONS

CONCEPT 

The concept of alternative E would be to offer 

an enhanced experience for visitors while 

creating a more sustainable national 

memorial. Under this alternative, the National 

Park Service would seek new ways to educate 

the public about the significance of the 

Coronado Expedition, primarily within the 

boundaries of the national memorial. 

DESCRIPTION 

The description of this alternative, like the 

descriptions of the three other action alternatives, is organized by management prescription. The various kinds of prescription are 

described at the beginning of this chapter. 

Also see the Alternative E map. 

This alternative would involve the creation of 

a new visitor center, into which the educational center also would be placed. All trails in 

the memorial would be retained. A new 

interpretive trail and one other trail would be 

developed, as described below. 

Conservation Prescription 

All the lands in the memorial not included in 

other prescriptions would be placed in the 

conservation prescription. The abandoned 

powerline along the road to Montezuma Pass 

would be removed and revegetated with 

native species. 

The grasslands south of the main memorial 

road include the Montezuma Ranch 

structures, which would be evaluated to 

determine if the ranch is eligible for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places, then 

the Montezuma Ranch would be managed as 

described for alternative A, page 39. 

Grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment would be 

discontinued. East Forest Lane would continue to be used for NPS operations and as an 

access road to the Montezuma grazing 

allotment. 

Education Prescription 

The education prescription in alternative E 

would encompass the trail from Montezuma 

Pass to Coronado Peak, the trail to Coronado 

Cave, and the grasslands north of the 

memorial road. The interpretive media on the 

trails to Coronado Peak and Coronado Cave 

would be rehabilitated and updated to better 

explain the memorial’s purpose and 

resources. A new interpretive trail would be 

developed at the new visitor and educational 

center to offer interpretation of the 

memorial’s grasslands. Another trail would be 

developed between the current visitor center 

and the new visitor and educational center. 

Visitor Services Prescription 

The visitor services prescription in alternative 

E would comprise the present visitor center, 

the picnic area, the parking area at the top of 

Montezuma Pass, the main memorial road, 

part of Windmill Road, and the area where the 

new visitor and educational center would be 

located. 

The new visitor center would be constructed 

about 1.2 miles west of the east entrance to the 

national memorial. From this location, visitors 

would have panoramic views of the San Pedro 

River Valley and the United States–Mexico 

border. These views would enhance the ability 

of the staff to tell the complete human and 

natural history stories significant to Coronado 

National Memorial. 

60
Administrative 

Center 

Montezuma 

0

N 

Montezuma 

MEXICO 

USA 

Memorial 

Entrance 

Staff Housing and 

Maintenance Area 

Al

Coronado 

Coronado 

Cave 

Visitor and 

Education 

Center 

Montezuma 

Ranch 

Road 

East 

Lane 

Pass 

1 Mile 

Peak 

ternative E 

Peak 

Conservation 

Visitor Services 

Operations/ 

Special Use 

Education 

Windmill 

Forest 

Management Zones 

401/20018/DSC/3•2003 

Coronado National Memorial • Arizona

National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior
Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and the Efficiency of Operations 

The educational center would be 

incorporated into the building, as would 

offices for the NPS interpretive staff. The 

principles of sustainable design would be used 

to create this building, which would blend 

into the environment as much as possible. Its 

architectural style would be typical of the 

Spanish colonial period. A hardened parking 

area for the structure would be built. 

The present visitor center would be converted 

into administrative offices. The trailheads, 

parking, and restrooms would remain as at 

present. The picnic area would remain as at 

present, with social trails revegetated. The 

main memorial road would remain as at 

present; Windmill Road would be made into a 

two-lane paved road, with the alignment 

changed slightly to provide access to the new 

visitor and educational center. 

The present visitor center is potentially 

eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places. A determination of eligibility 

would be carried out, and any work done on 

that building would be planned to protect the 

features that could make it eligible. The visitor 

shelter at Montezuma Pass would be 

converted into a sheltered minimal contact 

station. This might require a slight expansion 

of the structure, but the existing footprint 

would be used as much as possible. 

In the latter part of its implementation period, 

alternative E might include a shuttle system to 

carry visitors between the visitor center and 

the contact station at Montezuma Pass. As 

described in alternative B, a feasibility study 

would be conducted to establish the need for 

and economic feasibility of such a system. The 

feasibility study would also identify the most 

appropriate approach to shuttle system 

operations and maintenance, such as by the 

National Park Service or a concessioner. 

Operations / Special Use Prescription 

The operations / special use prescription 

would comprise the staff housing and 

maintenance area, private inholdings, and a 

utility corridor. The current staff housing area 

would remain, with the option of constructing 

a four-unit structure that could serve as 

housing for temporary employees, volunteers, 

researchers, and others working at the memorial for short periods. The two trailer pads 

would be retained, and all development would 

be screened from the road by vegetation. 

PARTNERSHIPS, PROGRAMS, 

AND ACTIVITIES 

All the memorial’s interpretive themes would 

be equally emphasized in alternative E, and 

strong emphasis would be placed on working 

with various groups to tell these stories and 

reach beyond the memorial’s boundary. This 

would be done by creating partnerships with 

local schools (elementary to university level) 

and working with the U.S. Forest Service, the 

Bureau of Land Management, and others. The 

memorial staff would work with Mexican 

groups to develop interpretive programs, 

which could include activities to support 

Mexican and American natural and cultural 

resources. 

Coronado National Forest is in the process of 

developing a trail outside of Coronado 

National Memorial. In alternative E, it is 

recommended that this trail should enter the 

memorial from the east and end at the new 

visitor and educational center. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Priorities for Implementation 

The actions proposed under this alternative, 

which would be implemented over the next 15 

to 20 years, have been divided into primary 

and secondary priorities for funding and to 

guide implementation. 

Primary Priority. Certain actions have been 

assigned primary priority for the following 

reasons: 

63
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

• The action would address crucial resource 

protection needs. 

• It would remedy serious infrastructure 

concerns. 

• It would accommodate immediate 

interpretive or visitor use needs. 

• It would have to be accomplished before 

subsequent steps could be taken. 

Primary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• inventory, document, and interpret the 

memorial’s cultural and natural resources 

• cooperate with American Indian tribes in 

developing programs 

• develop interpretive media supportive of 

the national memorial’s interpretive 

themes 

• rehabilitate and update the Coronado 

Peak trail and facilities at Montezuma Pass 

• take action to keep visitation levels in line 

with goals and to maintain visitor 

experiences and resource protection 

• establish management prescription areas 

• design and construct a new visitor center 

and convert the present visitor center to 

offices 

• construct a road to the new visitor center 

• discontinue grazing at Joe’s Spring 

allotment 

• begin to develop programs with partners 

• finishing evaluating Montezuma Ranch 

for eligibility to the National Register of 

Historic Places 

• restore the natural contours and 

revegetate Montezuma Ranch 

Secondary Priority. Some actions have been 

assigned secondary priority for the following 

reasons: 

• The action would require or would benefit 

from the results of primary priority 

actions. 

• It would address intermediate priority 

resource protection needs. 

• It would address intermediate 

interpretation or visitor use needs. 

Secondary priority has been assigned to the 

following actions: 

• design and build employee housing 

• develop grassland trails 

• expand the monitoring of natural resource 

trends 

• develop new parking for buses or 

recreational vehicles in the picnic area 

Staffing 

The FY 2001 pay scale has been used for all 

estimates of staffing costs. This alternative 

would retain the current base staff of 12. Table 

6 shows the additional full-time equivalents 

that would be needed to implement this 

alternative. These staffing figures represent 

the additional positions or upgrading of 

positions that would be needed to carry out 

alternative E. The additional positions that 

would be needed for this alternative are 

interpreters, resource specialists, maintenance 

workers, and administrative support staff. 

Implementation Costs 

The proposed construction, rehabilitation, 

and revegetation costs for alternative E would 

range from $4.2 million to $4.7 million. This 

estimate is general, in keeping with the general 

nature of this conceptual management plan 

and alternatives, and it should be used only 

for comparing the alternatives. 

TABLE 6: GENERAL ESTIMATE FOR STAFFING COSTS, ALTERNATIVE E 

Staffing FTE Costs 

Existing and authorized staffing 12.0 $ 740,000 

Added staff needed for primary priority actions 10.0 499,000 

Total 22.0 $1,239,000 

64
MITIGATING MEASURES

The following mitigating measures would be 

used to avoid or minimize potential impacts 

on natural and cultural resources from 

construction activities, use by visitors, and 

national memorial operations. These 

measures would apply to all alternatives. 

Natural and cultural resource management 

activities would be integrated to avoid 

potential impacts from natural processes, 

construction, and NPS operations. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The resources of the national memorial, 

including air, caves, soils, vegetation, water, 

and wildlife, would be inventoried and 

monitored to avoid or minimize the effects of 

future development. 

New facilities would be built in previously 

disturbed areas or in carefully selected sites 

with as small a construction footprint as 

possible. 

All new developments not tied to an approved 

plan would be designed to be temporary and 

reversible. If feasible, new developments 

would be confined to areas outside the 100­

year floodplain. 

New facilities would be built on soils that are 

suitable for development. Soil erosion would 

be minimized by limiting the time that soil was 

left exposed and by using various erosion 

control measures such as erosion matting or 

silt fencing. Once work was completed, 

construction areas would be revegetated with 

native plants in a timely manner. 

Erosion controls and other mitigating 

measures would be implemented to 

ameliorate the negative impacts of natural 

processes. 

To prevent water pollution during construction, erosion control measures would be used, 

and the equipment would be regularly 

inspected for leaks of petroleum and other 

chemicals. 

A runoff filtration system would be built to 

minimize water pollution from parking areas. 

To minimize visitor-caused water pollution, 

interpretive displays and programs would be 

prepared, regulations on use would be established, and ranger patrols would be initiated 

when necessary. 

Areas used by visitors (such as trails) would be 

monitored for signs of disturbance of native 

vegetation. To control potential impacts on 

plants from trail erosion or social trails, 

barriers would be used, and disturbed areas 

would be revegetated with native plants. In 

addition, the national memorial would 

practice public education and erosion control 

measures. 

Based on recommendations by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service in its 1995 recovery plan 

for the Mexican spotted owl (USFWS 1995b), 

no construction activities would be conducted 

in protected activity centers during the 

breeding season. 

A variety of techniques would be employed to 

reduce the impacts on wildlife. These could 

include visitor education programs, 

restrictions on visitor activities, and ranger 

patrols. 

In areas proposed for development, surveys 

would be conducted for the presence of rare 

or uncommon wildlife species, and whenever 

possible, animals would be trapped and 

transferred to adjacent suitable habitat within 

the memorial. 

Wherever possible, agaves and other native 

plants in construction sites would be transplanted to prevent the loss of important food 

65
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

sources for nectar-feeding bats and other 

threatened or endangered animal species. 

Integrated inventory and monitoring of 

natural resources would be undertaken to 

provide a comprehensive understanding of 

the memorial’s wildlife, vegetation, and 

habitat. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

For all projects that would involve ground 

disturbance or would affect ethnographic 

resources or cultural landscapes, mitigating 

measures would be undertaken in consultation with the Arizona state historic preservation office and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation. 

In accordance with NPS policies and 

procedures, the national memorial would 

continue to protect cultural resources to the 

greatest extent possible with current funding 

and staffing levels. Disturbing significant 

resources would be avoided wherever 

possible. Where avoidance or preservation 

could not be achieved, mitigation would be 

carried out under the guidance of the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800). 

All unsurveyed areas in the national memorial 

would be inventoried for archeological, 

historical, and ethnographic resources and 

cultural landscapes. Archeological surveys 

would be conducted in unsurveyed areas 

where development was planned to determine 

the extent and significance of archeological 

resources in those areas. 

To ensure the preservation of cultural 

landscapes in the national memorial, those 

landscapes would be documented and 

treatments would be identified as part of the 

implementation of the General Management 

Plan. 

Wherever possible, projects and facilities 

would be located in previously disturbed or 

developed areas. Developments would be 

designed to avoid known or suspected 

archeological resources. 

Project design features would be modified 

whenever possible to avoid effects on cultural 

resources. New developments would be located on sites that would blend in with cultural 

landscapes and would not be adjacent to 

ethnographic resources. If necessary, vegetative screening would be used to minimize 

impacts on cultural landscapes and 

ethnographic resources. 

Archeologists would monitor grounddisturbing construction in areas where 

subsurface remains might be present. 

“Stop work” provisions and other protective 

measures would be included in project documents implementing the alternatives. 

Construction would be restricted to the 

immediate vicinity of the projects, and no new 

disturbance would be originated outside the 

designated project area. If previously 

unknown archeological resources were 

unearthed during construction work, or if 

human remains were discovered, work in the 

discovery area would be stopped and a 

professional archeologist would make an 

evaluation following consultation between 

NPS national memorial and regional staff and 

the Arizona state historic preservation office. 

The staff at the national memorial would 

consult with affiliated American Indian tribes 

to develop and accomplish the programs of 

Coronado National Memorial in a way 

respectful of the beliefs, traditions, and 

cultural values of the American Indian tribes 

that have ancestral ties to the lands. 

The National Park Service would accommodate access to and the ceremonial use of 

American Indian sacred sites by American 

Indian religious practitioners. This would be 

done in a manner consistent with memorial 

purposes. The Park Service would avoid 

adversely affecting the physical integrity of 

these sacred sites, and would not interfere 

66
Mitigating Measures 

with American Indian use of traditional areas 

or sacred resources. 

Measures would be taken to protect human 

remains, sacred objects, associated funerary 

objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. If 

such items were found, the superintendent 

and contracting officer of the national 

memorial would be notified immediately. Any 

artifacts found in association with the remains 

— funerary objects, sacred objects, and 

objects of cultural patrimony — would be left 

in situ. If the remains were determined to be of 

American Indian origin, the memorial 

superintendent would notify the appropriate 

tribes according to the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA) and its implementing regulations. 

Consultation with the affected tribes would be 

undertaken. 

All preservation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration efforts for historic structures 

would be carried out in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, with 

Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitation, 

Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic 

Buildings, as would the daily, cyclical, and 

seasonal maintenance of historic resources. 

Opportunities would be provided for tribes to 

participate in cultural resource identification 

and protection activities to prevent impacts on 

archeological and ethnographic resources. 

Through interpretive programs, visitors 

would be encouraged to respect tribal 

offerings and archeological resources and 

leave them undisturbed. 

The staff at the national memorial would 

ensure that objects housed in repositories or 

institutions outside the national memorial 

would be preserved, protected, and documented according to NPS standards and 

procedures. The staff also would adhere 

strictly to NPS standards and guidelines on 

the display and care of artifacts. Irreplaceable 

items would be kept above the 500-year 

floodplain. 

67
FUTURE PLANS AND STUDIES NEEDED

The development of a general management 

plan is the first planning step for Coronado 

National Memorial; it sets the overall vision 

and direction for the national memorial and 

identifies future planning needs. The 

following studies (not listed in priority order) 

are mandated by the National Park Service 

and will be needed to fully implement the 

approved General Management Plan for the 

national memorial. 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan — 

This plan would provide the next level of 

detailed planning for interpretation at 

Coronado National Memorial. It would 

expand the broader guidance in the General 

Management Plan and provide a cohesive 

approach toward implementation, including 

all media and personal services. 

Cultural Landscape Report — A cultural 

landscape report is needed for abandoned 

mines and for the entire memorial’s viewshed. 

This report would consist of three parts: (a) a 

cultural landscape inventory, (b) 

recommendations for treatment of the 

landscape, and (c) documentation of the 

actual treatment. 

Ethnographic Overview and 

Assessment — An ethnographic overview and 

assessment would emphasize the review and 

analysis of accessible archival and 

documentary data on the memorial’s 

ethnographic resources and the groups that 

traditionally define such cultural and natural 

features as significant to their ethnic heritage 

and cultural viability. Limited interviews and 

discussions with traditionally associated 

people would be conducted to assess and 

augment the documentary evidence and 

identify gaps in the available data. 

Exhibit Plan and Design — An exhibit 

plan and design would serve as a guide for developing exhibits that would support the 

national memorial’s interpretive themes. The 

final production-ready exhibit plan would 

identify museum objects and graphics to be 

exhibited. 

Carrying Capacity Analyses — The 

National Park Service has developed a visitor 

experience and resource protection (VERP) 

process for addressing carrying capacity. 

Rather than focusing on the number of cars 

that can fit into a parking area, the VERP 

process defines the type and levels of visitor 

use that can be accommodated while 

maintaining the desired resource and social 

conditions that would complement the 

purposes of the national memorial. 

Ethnographic Landscape Study and 

Ethnographic Resource Inventory — A field 

study is needed to identify and describe the 

names, locations, distributions, and meanings 

of ethnographic landscape features. 

For implementing the approved plan, archeological and ethnographic surveys might be required. This would be determined individually 

when planning for construction was funded 

and undertaken. 

Shuttle System Feasibility Study — If the 

option to undertake a shuttle service is 

decided on at some future point, a feasibility 

study would be conducted to establish the 

need for and economic feasibility of such a 

system. The feasibility study would also 

identify the most appropriate approach to 

shuttle system operations and maintenance, 

such as by the National Park Service or a 

concessioner. 

68
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED

During the scoping phase of this project, some 

suggestions were made that have been 

dropped from further consideration. These 

were to pave the Montezuma Pass road and to 

provide for camping in the Coronado 

National Memorial. 

The paving of the Montezuma Pass road 

would have been a costly project, would have 

caused considerable damage to memorial 

resources, and would have resulted in an 

adverse impact on the views from Montezuma 

Pass. A preliminary engineering assessment of 

the unpaved portion of the Montezuma 

Canyon road indicated that paving would 

have necessitated widening the road to 20 feet 

to accommodate two-way traffic. One option 

considered was to achieve a minimum 20 

miles per hour driving speed; another option 

looked at maintaining the existing alignment 

but not achieving a 20 mph speed. Both of 

these options would have been costly, would 

have increased accident hazards associated 

with increased driving speed, and would have 

resulted in more visual and resource impacts. 

This action, which would have been contrary 

to the memorial’s purpose, was dropped from 

further consideration. 

Adequate camping for memorial visitors is 

available outside the national memorial, and 

in-memorial camping facilities are not 

necessary to accomplish the memorial’s 

mission. 

69
THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

the alternative that will promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in section 

101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

In the National Park Service, the 

environmentally preferable alternative is 

identified by (1) determining how each 

alternative would meet the criteria set forth in 

section 101(b) and (2) considering any 

inconsistencies between the alternatives 

analyzed and other environmental laws and 

policies (Director’s Order 12, 2.7.E). 

Alternative B, which has been selected as the 

preferred alternative, is also the 

environmentally preferable alternative for 

Coronado National Memorial. The criteria 

listed in the National Environmental Policy 

Act are as follows: 

� Fulfill the responsibilities of each 

generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations. 

� Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and 

esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings for all Americans. 

� Attain the widest range of beneficial uses 

of the environment without degradation, 

risk of health or safety, or other 

undesirable and unintended 

consequences. 

� Preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage 

and maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment that supports diversity and a 

variety of individual choices. 

� Achieve a balance between population 

and resource use that will permit high 

standards of living and a wide sharing of 

life’s amenities. 

� Enhance the quality of renewable 

resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable 

resources. 

Alternative B rated high in all those categories, 

and it would best meet the requirements of 

other environmental laws and policies. 

Implementing alternative B would enhance 

the ability of Coronado National Memorial to 

carry out its mission through developmental 

and programmatic activities while limiting the 

impacts on the environment from any 

development. This would be accomplished 

because the existing developmental footprint 

would be used, and new development would 

be limited primarily to previously disturbed 

areas. Alternatives D and E, although they 

would enhance the visitor experience, would 

involve substantially more development and 

construction in previously undisturbed areas. 

Alternatives A and C would not entail new 

development in previously undisturbed areas, 

but they would not offer the diversity of 

individual choices available under alternative 

B. 

Table 7 shows how each alternative would or 

would not fulfill the requirements of sections 

101 and 102(1) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Although all the alternatives in this 

plan rated well (which is not surprising, since 

elements that were not environmentally sound 

were eliminated from consideration), it was 

found that alternative B would best protect, 

preserve, and enhance the historic, cultural, 

and natural resources of the national 

memorial. It also would “create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can 

exist in productive harmony and fulfill the 

social, economic, and other requirements of 

present and future generations of Americans” 

(from section 101). 

70
TABLE 7: ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 

Criterion 

Alternative 

A B C D E 

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment 

for succeeding generations. 1 2 1 1 2 

Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings for all Americans. 2 2 2 2 2 

Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without 

degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences. 1 2 1 2 1 

Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national 

heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports 

diversity and a variety of individual choices. 2 2 1 2 1 

Achieve a balance between population and resource use that will permit 

high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities. 2 2 2 2 1 

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum 

attainable recycling of depletable resources. 1 2 1 1 1 

Total points 

2 points for high (alternative fully meets the criterion) 

1 point for moderate (alternative partially meets the criterion) 

0 points for low (alternative does not meet the criterion) 

9 12 8 10 8 

71
TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative B: Enhance 

Alternative A: Existing Opportunities while Alternative C: Focus on Alternative D: Create an Alternative E: Enhance 

Management Direction Protecting Resources Resource Protection While International Experience Interpretation and the 

(No Action) (Preferred Alternative) Fulfilling Memorial’s Mission for Visitors Efficiency of Operations 

Concept 

Continue current 

management direction. 

Enhance educational, recreational opportunities while ensuring public understanding of 

national memorial’s resources; 

develop new ways for public to 

appreciate and understand the 

resources; emphasize 

educational and interpretive 

goals through multiple uses. 

Enhance conservation and 

preservation of cultural and 

natural resources for future 

generations; minimize intrusive 

features on memorial’s 

landscape; update interpretive 

media and make outreach more 

assertive. 

Develop a fuller international 

experience for visitors; find 

new ways for public to 

appreciate and understand 

international aspects of 

memorial. 

Offer enhanced visitor experience while making memorial 

more sustainable; seek new 

ways to educate public about 

significance of Coronado 

Expedition. 

Conservation Prescription 

No management prescriptions in this alternative. Includes all lands not in other 

prescriptions; retain all existing 

trails; develop four new trails, 

one of which would be in grasslands south of main road; do 

some restoration and revegetation to more natural state. 

Includes all lands not in other 

prescriptions; restore abandoned 

roads to natural contours and 

revegetate with native species; 

study feasibility of reintroducing 

plants and animals present 

during Coronado Expedition. 

Includes all lands not in other 

prescriptions; restore and 

revegetate abandoned roads in 

memorial. 

Includes all lands not in other 

prescriptions; Montezuma 

Ranch (see below); East Forest 

Lane (see below). 

GRAZING 

Continue managing grazing No grazing in the memorial. Same as alternative B. Continue grazing in Joe’s Continue grazing in 

in both allotments according Spring allotment; manage Montezuma allotment; manage 

to Livestock Management according to Livestock according to Livestock 

Plan; eventually retire one or Management Plan. Management Plan. 

both allotments if permittees 

willing. 

ABANDONED POWERLINE ALONG MONTEZUMA PASS ROAD 

Allow powerline to deterio- Remove and revegetate with Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

rate; if any section becomes native species. 

a hazard, remove that 

portion. 

72
Alternative B: Enhance 

Alternative A: Existing Opportunities while Alternative C: Focus on Alternative D: Create an Alternative E: Enhance 

Management Direction Protecting Resources Resource Protection While International Experience Interpretation and the 

(No Action) (Preferred Alternative) Fulfilling Memorial’s Mission for Visitors Efficiency of Operations 

Education Prescription 

No management prescrip- Comprises trail from Encompasses trail from Includes trail from Montezuma Comprises trail from Montetions in this alternative. Montezuma Pass to Coronado Montezuma Pass to Coronado Pass to Coronado Peak (inter­ zuma Pass to Coronado Peak, 

Peak, trail to Coronado Cave, Peak, trail to Coronado Cave; pretive media there rehabilita­ trail to Coronado Cave (intergrasslands north and south of resources more intensively ted and updated), trail to Coro­ pretive media on those trails 

main road; interpret resources interpreted in those areas. nado Cave, grasslands north of rehabilitated and updated); 

more intensively in those areas. main road; NPS would explore 

feasibility of making part of trail 

grasslands north of main road; 

new interpretive trail at new 

to Coronado Peak accessible visitor and educational center; 

for people with disabilities; another new trail from old 

Coronado trail’s interpretive visitor center to new visitor and 

media improved; new inter- educational center. 

pretive trail added north of 

road in grassland, possibly 

using Windmill Road, but not 

in Joe’s Spring allotment. 

MONTEZUMA RANCH 

Evaluate ranch for national Ranch would be in Ranch would be in conservation Ranch would be in visitor Ranch would be in 

register eligibility; if eligible, 

preserve contributing 

features and let 

noncontributing features 

deteriorate; remove any 

safety hazards. 

conservation prescription in 

alternative B. Evaluate ranch for 

national register eligibility; if 

eligible, consult with Arizona 

state historic preservation office 

about how to document eligible 

features; then eliminate structures, restore natural contours, 

prescription in alternative C; 

manage same as in alternative B. 

services prescription in 

alternative D; evaluate for 

national register eligibility as in 

alternative B; educational 

center would be in ranch area 

either in adapted structures or 

in new structures. 

conservation prescription in 

alternative E; evaluate for 

national register eligibility as in 

alternative B, then remove 

structures, restore natural 

contours, and revegetate with 

native species. 

and revegetate with native 

species. 

EAST FOREST LANE 

No change in use of East 

Forest Lane. 

Ranch and East Forest Lane 

would be in conservation 

East Forest Lane would be in 

conservation prescription; it 

Part of East Forest Lane in 

education prescription; rest in 

East Forest Lane in 

conservation prescription; 

prescription. Continue using for 

NPS purposes and grazing 

access; when not needed and 

grazing ended, revegetate with 

native species. 

and other abandoned roads in 

memorial restored to natural 

contours and revegetated to 

make larger area of unbroken 

wildlife habitat. 

visitor services prescription; 

upgrade from dirt to a paved 

two-lane road; build a structure to commemorate 

Coronado Expedition. 

would continue to be used for 

NPS operations and 

Montezuma allotment access. 

73
Alternative B: Enhance 

Alternative A: Existing Opportunities while Alternative C: Focus on Alternative D: Create an Alternative E: Enhance 

Management Direction Protecting Resources Resource Protection While International Experience Interpretation and the 

(No Action) (Preferred Alternative) Fulfilling Memorial’s Mission for Visitors Efficiency of Operations 

TRAILS 

No change in trails. Develop a trail accessible to 

mobility impaired visitors, using 

part of Windmill Road and a 

road in Montezuma Ranch area; 

develop a loop trail in this area; 

also develop a loop trail in 

grasslands south of main 

memorial road; minimal 

developments on trailheads 

(possibly restrooms); determine 

if trail from Montezuma Pass to 

Only changes on trail from 

Montezuma Pass to Coronado 

Peak and trail to Coronado Cave 

would be more intensive 

interpretation, as mentioned 

above. Upgrade interpretive trail 

near visitor center and make it 

accessible for visitors with 

disabilities. 

Build a new interpretive trail 

north of main road, possibly 

using Windmill Road; but not 

in Joe’s Spring allotment; find 

out if trail from Montezuma 

Pass to Coronado Peak can be 

made accessible; rehabilitate 

and update that trail’s 

interpretive media. Remove 

interpretive trail at visitor 

center. 

Rehabilitate and update 

interpretive media on trails to 

Coronado Peak and Coronado 

Cave to explain memorial’s 

purpose and resources better; 

develop new interpretive trail at 

new visitor/ educational center 

to interpret grasslands; add 

another trail between old visitor 

center and new visitor/ 

educational center. Retain 

Coronado Peak can be made 

accessible; rehabilitate and 

interpretive trail at visitor 

center as it is. 

update interpretive media on 

that trail. Remove interpretive 

trail near visitor center to 

accommodate annex; make new 

trail near current picnic area. 

Visitor Services Prescription 

No management Encompasses area around visitor Encompasses area around visitor Includes area around visitor Comprises area for new visitor 

prescriptions in this center, parking area at top of center, parking area at top of center, picnic area, parking at and educational center, present 

alternative. Montezuma Pass, and main Montezuma Pass, and main top of Montezuma Pass, East visitor center, picnic area, parkmemorial road. memorial road. Forest Lane from main road to 

border, Montezuma Ranch 

ing area at top of Montezuma 

Pass, main memorial road, part 

area, main memorial road. of Windmill Road. 

ACTIONS NEAR VISITOR CENTER 

No change in parking. Develop parking area for up to 4 

buses or RVs and 6 cars; develop 

new group site at former fiesta 

area. 

Develop parking area for up to 4 

buses or RVs and 6 cars; restore 

former fiesta area and social trails 

to natural contours and 

Add parking (some in current 

picnic area) upgrade road to 

picnic area; add picnic sites in 

former fiesta area. 

No change in parking area at 

current visitor center. 

revegetate. 

74
Alternative B: Enhance 

Alternative A: Existing Opportunities while Alternative C: Focus on Alternative D: Create an Alternative E: Enhance 

Management Direction Protecting Resources Resource Protection While International Experience Interpretation and the 

(No Action) (Preferred Alternative) Fulfilling Memorial’s Mission for Visitors Efficiency of Operations 

MAIN MEMORIAL ROAD 

No change in main road. Develop up to three new 

pullouts and waysides; expand 

No change in main road. Add a few picnic tables and a 

wayside exhibit to pullout near 

No change in main road. 

pullout near end of paved road end of main memorial road. 

for a few picnic tables and place 

for visitors to see views. 

Operations / Special Use Prescription 

No management pre- Includes staff housing, mainten- Includes staff housing, mainten- Includes staff housing, main- Includes staff housing, mainscriptions in this alternative. ance, private inholdings, utility ance, private inholdings, utility tenance, private inholdings, tenance, private inholdings, 

corridor. corridor. utility corridor. utility corridor. 

HOUSING AREA 

No change in housing. No change, but option to build a Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

4-unit structure to house people 

working temporarily at 

memorial; retain two trailer 

pads; screen all development 

from road with vegetation. 

Partnerships, Programs, and Activities 

INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH 

No change. Memorial would support 

creation of, but not be chief 

sponsor of, an offsite festival to 

celebrate various cultures 

associated with memorial; 

NPS would work with Mexican 

groups and organizations to 

develop interpretive programs 

and activities that would support 

Mexican and American cultural 

Explore feasibility of 

sponsoring (at various 

universities) Coronadorelated events such as lectures 

and cultural activities onsite or 

Same as alternative C. 

historical aspects of Coronado 

Expedition emphasized; staff 

would work with Mexican 

and natural resources. offsite; emphasize themes 

related to international aspects 

of national memorial at visitor 

organizations to develop 

interpretive programs and 

activities to support Mexican 

and American cultural and 

center, educational center, and 

commemorative feature. 

natural resources. 

75
Alternative B: Enhance 

Alternative A: Existing Opportunities while Alternative C: Focus on Alternative D: Create an Alternative E: Enhance 

Management Direction Protecting Resources Resource Protection While International Experience Interpretation and the 

(No Action) (Preferred Alternative) Fulfilling Memorial’s Mission for Visitors Efficiency of Operations 

ENCOURAGING UNDERSTANDING 

No change. To help people understand 

memorial’s story, NPS would 

For better public understanding 

of its mission, memorial would 

Develop hiking and horseback 

trail parallel to East Forest 

Equal emphasis on all interpretive themes; strongly emwork separately or with others emphasize reaching beyond Lane that would exit toward phasize working with groups to 

to promote special events inside boundaries and working with San Pedro River. reach beyond boundaries to tell 

and outside memorial such as various groups to tell its story; story; could include partnerprograms about Coronado could include partnerships with ships with schools (elementary 

Expedition’s legacy and impact 

on American Southwest; NPS 

schools (elementary to 

university), Forest Service, BLM. 

to university), Forest Service, 

BLM; recommend that 

would expand work with others Coronado National Forest’s 

to preserve regional ecosystem. developing trail enter memorial 

from east, ending at new visitor/ 

educational center. 

Implementation 

STAFFING 

Current FTE of 12. Current 12 FTE, plus 9.5 more Existing 12 FTE, plus 5 more Existing 12 FTE, plus 9.5 more Existing 12 FTE, plus 10 more 

FTE needed for primary priority FTE needed for primary priority FTE needed for primary FTE needed for primary 

actions; total 21.5 FTE. actions; total 17 FTE. priority actions; total 17 FTE. priority actions; total 22 FTE. 

COSTS 

Staff $740,000 $1,179,000 $966,000 $1,208,000 $1,239,000 

Development –0– $1,800,000–$2,200,000 $1,400.000–$1,800,000 $3,500,000–$4,000,000 $4,200,000–$4,700,000 

76
TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

Natural Resources 

AIR QUALITY 

Alternative A would result in no measurable effects 

on the air quality at the memorial. 

The construction activities and increased 

traffic from more visitation in alternative B 

The construction activities and increased traffic from more 

visitation in alternative C would cause negligible local shortThe construction and revegetation of alternative D, along with more traffic generated by increased 

The construction activities and increased traffic 

from more visitation in alternative E would cause 

would cause negligible local short-term 

adverse effects on local air quality at the 

memorial but would not affect regional air 

term adverse effects on local air quality at the memorial but 

would not affect regional air quality. 

visitation, would cause short-term negligible to 

minor adverse effects on local air quality at 

Coronado National Memorial, but the actions of 

negligible local short-term adverse effects on 

local air quality at the memorial but would not 

affect regional air quality. 

quality. alternative D would not affect regional air quality. 

CAVE RESOURCES 

Cave resources would continue to be impacted 

by visitors and time with the result of a longterm minor adverse effect. 

There would be beneficial effects on Coronado 

Cave. The intensity of these effects would be 

difficult to quantify before the carrying 

capacity is determined, but the effects would be 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

long term and probably would be negligible to 

minor. 

SOILS 

No expansion would be planned for the visitor 

center vicinity. Off-road parking (mainly during 

peak periods) and social trails would continue to 

compact soils. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding 

parking, pullouts, and new trails and trailheads 

would affect less than 1 acre of soils, and 

mitigative measures would be used. These 

overall effects would be negligible to minor because of the small size of the area affected, the 

low erosion potential of the soils, and the 

implementation of mitigation measures. 

The impacts on soil resources from development under 

alternative C, such as visitor parking and trails 

improvements, would be long term and negligible because of 

the limited amount of development, the small size of the area 

affected (less than 1 acre), and the low soil erosion potential 

of the areas affected. Mitigative measures would be used to 

minimize erosion and to limit construction activities to the 

immediate area. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding picnic sites 

with low erosion potential would result in negligible 

to minor adverse effects on soils because these 

actions would take place in small previously 

disturbed areas. Mitigative measures would minimize 

erosion and limit construction to the immediate area. 

Developing a new visitor center under 

alternative E would result in ground disturbance, 

which would cause local short-term and longterm adverse effects on soils. These effects 

would be negligible to minor because the area 

affected would be small and mitigating measures 

would be used. Paving roads, adding parking 

areas, and developing trails would result in 

short-term and long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on soils. Those short-term 

effects would diminish over time with the 

recovery of vegetation along the road. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures would Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures Montezuma Ranch and other areas in the memorial would The short-term and long-term adverse effects on Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

result in negligible to minor short-term local 

adverse impacts on soils. Mitigating measures 

would be employed to avoid or reduce effects. 

would erode and compact soils. The local adverse impacts on soils would be short-term 

and negligible to minor because mitigative 

be restored and revegetated under alternative C than under 

the other alternatives. Restoring sites would improve soil 

properties by reducing soil compaction and increasing 

soils from paving roads, developing parking areas 

and trails, and developing an educational center at 

Montezuma Ranch would be negligible to minor 

would result in short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on soils, which would be offset 

by long-term beneficial effects from restoring 

Restoration of this site would offset any adverse 

effects and result in up to minor long-term benefits. 

measures would be employed to minimize 

erosion and limit construction activities to the 

permeability, causing local long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects on soils. 

because the area affected would be small, and best 

management practices would be used to reduce soil 

and revegetating the site, which would improve 

soils by reducing compaction and increasing 

immediate area. The adverse effects would be 

offset by beneficial effects from restoring and 

revegetating the site, which would improve the 

impacts. permeability. This would result in local longterm negligible to minor beneficial effects. 

ecosystem’s health and integrity by reducing 

nonnative vegetation and increasing the 

number of native species, a negligible to minor 

long-term beneficial effect. This alternative 

would reduce soil compaction and increase 

permeability and soil retention, a long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effect on soil 

resources. 

77
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

No new employee housing would be developed. The development of new employee housing Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on soils, and mitigation 

measures would be employed to reduce 

erosion. Programs to interpret, document, and 

inventory memorial resources and uses would 

result in long-term negligible benefits to soils 

in the memorial. 

The effects on soils from continued grazing on the Eliminating grazing from the memorial would Ending grazing in the memorial would have a long-term Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment Continuing grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

allotments would be reduced through an adaptive result in long-term minor beneficial effects on minor beneficial effect on soils because nonnative vegetative would result in minor long-term adverse impacts on (14% of the national memorial) would result in 

management approach that would monitor impacts soils by reducing nonnative species and species would be reduced and native vegetation would soils, but they would be offset by eliminating grazing minor long-term adverse Impacts on soils, but 

on soils and vegetation and adjust the number of reestablishing native vegetation. Overall, the increase. Overall, the beneficial effects of alternative C from the Montezuma allotment. they would be offset by eliminating grazing from 

livestock accordingly. Erosion and compaction beneficial effects of this alternative would would offset any adverse impacts associated with the limited the Joe’s Spring allotment. 

caused by continuing grazing on both allotments offset any adverse impacts associated with development. 

would result in minor adverse impacts on soils. development. 

VEGETATION 

No expansion would be planned for the visitor 

center vicinity. Off-road parking (mainly during 

Expanding the visitor center and adding 

parking, pullouts, and trailheads would affect 

Adding more visitor parking would result in long-term 

negligible effects on vegetation because the development 

Expanding the visitor center and adding picnic sites 

with low erosion potential would result in negligible 

Developing a new visitor center would cause 

ground disturbance, which would lead to local 

peak periods) and social trails would continue to 

impact vegetation. 

less than 1 acre of vegetation, and mitigative 

measures would be used. The impacts would be 

negligible to minor because of the small size of 

would be limited and the area affected would be less than 1 

acre. Mitigative measures would be used to minimize 

erosion and to limit construction activities to the immediate 

to minor adverse effects on vegetation because these 

actions would take place in previously disturbed 

areas and the areas would be small. Mitigative 

short-term and long-term adverse effects on 

vegetation. These effects would be negligible to 

minor because the area affected would be small 

the area affected, the low erosion potential of 

the soils, and the use of mitigation. 

area. measures would minimize erosion and limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

and mitigating measures would be used. Paving 

roads, adding parking areas, and developing 

trails would result in short-term and long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on grassland 

vegetation. Those short-term effects would 

diminish over time as vegetation along the road 

recovered. 

No new employee housing would be developed. The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on vegetation, and mitigation 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

measures would be employed. Programs to 

interpret, document, and inventory memorial 

resources and uses would result in long-term 

negligible benefits to vegetation in the 

memorial. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures would 

result in negligible to minor adverse short-term 

local impacts on vegetation. Mitigating measures 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would result in local adverse impacts on 

vegetation, which would be short term and 

More areas in the memorial would be restored and 

revegetated under alternative C than under the other 

alternatives. The impacts from development under 

Individual plants would be trampled and uprooted 

during the paving of roads and parking areas and the 

development of trails. The short-term and longRemoving the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would result in short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on vegetation. This would be 

would be used to avoid or reduce effects. 

Restoration and revegetation with native species 

negligible to minor because mitigative 

measures would be used to minimize soil 

alternative C would be long term and negligible because of 

the limited amount of development and the small size of the 

term adverse impacts on vegetation from paving 

roads, developing parking areas and trails, and 

offset by long-term beneficial effects from restoring and revegetating the site, which would 

would have a long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effect. 

erosion, limit construction activities to the 

immediate area, and accelerate restoration of 

native plant species. The adverse effects would 

area affected (less than 1 acre). Restoring sites would 

improve ecosystem health and integrity by reducing 

nonnative species and reestablishing native plant species, a 

developing an educational center would be negligible 

to minor because the area affected would be small 

and best management practices would be used to 

reduce compaction and increase permeability, 

resulting in local long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects. 

be offset by beneficial effects from restoring 

and revegetating the site, which would improve 

the ecosystem’s health and integrity by 

long-term local negligible to minor beneficial effect on 

vegetation. 

reduce impacts. Only the vegetation in the area 

adjacent to the development would be affected. The 

adverse effects would diminish over time as the area 

reducing nonnative vegetation and increasing 

the number of native species, a negligible to 

revegetated. 

minor long-term beneficial effect. 

78
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

The impacts on vegetation from continued grazing Ending grazing in the memorial would result in Eliminating grazing from the memorial would have a long- Grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment would continue Continuing grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

in the allotments is being reduced through an long-term minor beneficial effects on term minor beneficial effect on vegetation and range to adversely affect vegetation in the memorial, but (14% of the memorial) would result in minor 

adaptive management approach that monitors the vegetative communities and range condition by condition because nonnative vegetative species would be the minor long-term adverse effects would be offset long-term adverse impacts on vegetation, but 

impacts on vegetation and adjusts the number of reducing nonnative species and reestablishing reduced and native vegetation would increase. Overall, the by the beneficial effects from ending grazing in the they would be offset by eliminating grazing from 

livestock accordingly. Minor adverse impacts on native vegetation. Overall, the beneficial effects beneficial effects of this alternative would offset any adverse Montezuma allotment. the Joe’s Spring allotment. 

vegetation, including riparian vegetation, and range of this alternative would offset any adverse impacts associated with the limited development. 

condition would result from erosion and impacts associated with development. 

compaction caused by continuing grazing on both 

allotments. However, modifying grazing 

management according to the Livestock 

Management Plan will improve range conditions 

compared to those that existed before the plan was 

implemented. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 

Programs to interpret, document, and inventory Enhanced programs to interpret, document, Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

memorial resources and uses would result in a and inventory memorial resources and uses 

long-term negligible benefits to threatened and would result in a long-term negligible benefits 

endangered or sensitive species in the memorial. to threatened and endangered or sensitive 

species in the memorial. 

Current maintenance and operations activities 

would continue to have a negligible impact on 

Enlarging the visitor center and adding trails, 

parking areas, and pullouts would cause 

Adding parking for buses and recreational vehicles would 

not affect the long-nosed bat, the Mexican long-tongued 

The development-related activities of alternative D 

north of the main memorial road would not alter the 

The ground-disturbing activities of developing 

buildings and trails and more road access into 

wildlife. indirect effects on lesser long-nosed bats, 

Mexican long-tongued bats, and loggerhead 

bat or the loggerhead shrike because these actions would not 

take place in the grassland areas of the memorial, where the 

population of agave plants, which are the food source 

of the lesser long-nosed and Mexican long-tongued 

grasslands north of the main road would disturb 

vegetation and small mammals and reptiles. This 

shrikes by disturbing vegetation and small 

mammals that are food sources for the shrikes. 

The developments would not measurably 

predominant forage for these species is found. The 

developments would be placed in owl foraging habitat 

outside the protected activity centers, and they would be in 

bats. However, individual plants might be disturbed 

by building trails in grasslands or by paving roads and 

parking areas. These activities would not alter the 

would indirectly affect the lesser long-nosed bat, 

the Mexican long-tongued bat, and the 

loggerhead shrike, but it is unlikely that these 

affect the population of agaves, a food source 

for the lesser long-nosed bat and the Mexican 

long-tongued bat, nor would it alter the 

areas already used by visitors, so it is likely that the owls 

avoid these areas when foraging. Therefore, the effects from 

the developments would be short-term, indirect, and 

populations of small mammals and reptiles that are 

the prey base of the loggerhead shrike There might 

be indirect negligible effects, but it is not likely that 

species would be adversely affected. 

The activities and developments of alternative E 

populations of small mammals in grassland 

habitats, which are the prey base of loggerhead 

negligible, and these species would not be likely to be 

adversely affected. 

there would be adverse effects on these species. would take place in areas unsuited for Mexican 

spotted owl nesting and foraging habitat; thereshrikes. 

The development activity near the visitor 

Removing powerlines in the proposed protected activity 

center for the Mexican spotted owl at a time not in the owl’s 

The developments north of the main memorial road 

would not be in prime Mexican spotted owl foraging 

or nesting habitat, and the availability of the owl’s 

fore, implementing alternative E might affect, but 

would be unlikely to adversely affect, the 

Mexican spotted owl. 

center would occur in pine-oak-juniper 

forests that is primary foraging habitat of the 

Mexican spotted owl. These actions would 

breeding season might cause the owls to avoid the area when 

foraging but it would not adversely affect the species. 

prey species in this area is low. Therefore, the 

developments of alternative D would not be likely to 

adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl. 

take place in areas previously disturbed and 

frequently used by visitors. The owls often 

avoid those areas. The developments in owl 

foraging habitat outside the protected activity 

center would be short-term, indirect, and 

negligible and would not be not likely to 

adversely affect the species. 

79
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures would Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures would disturb a Adapting the Montezuma Ranch structures for use as Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and 

disturb a small area, and the effects would be shortterm and local, causing negligible to minor adverse would disturb about 25 acres (less than 1% of 

the memorial’s acreage), causing negligible to 

small area and might result in the loss of individual agave 

plants, the food base of the lesser long-nosed and Mexican 

an educational center or removing them and building 

new buildings would disturb agave plants and small 

restoring and revegetating the area would result 

in more habitat for agave plants and more 

effects on the populations of either agaves that are a 

food source for nectar-feeding bats or small 

mammals that are prey for the loggerhead shrike. 

minor adverse effects on the food base of the 

lesser long-nosed bat, the Mexican longtongued bat, and the loggerhead shrike. 

long-tongued bat. The action also might displace prey 

species of the loggerhead shrike. Therefore, removing the 

structures might indirectly affect but would not be likely to 

mammals that are food sources for loggerhead 

shrikes, lesser long-nosed bats, and Mexican longtongued bats, resulting in negligible to minor indirect 

ground cover and habitat for small rodent species. This would indirectly benefit nectarfeeding bats and loggerhead shrikes by inThe adverse effects to listed species would be 

negligible. The ranch area is not in prime foraging 

Therefore, removing the structures might 

indirectly affect but would not be likely to 

adversely affect these listed or sensitive species. The ranch 

area is not in prime foraging or nesting habitat for the Mexeffects on these species. Adapting the structures would not be likely to adversely affect these species. 

creasing their available food. 

or nesting habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, and 

there is low availability of the owl’s prey species in 

this location; therefore, removing the ranch 

adversely affect those listed or sensitive 

species. The ranch area is not in prime foraging 

or nesting habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, 

ican spotted owl, and there is low availability of the owl’s 

prey species in this location; therefore, removing the ranch 

structures would not be likely to adversely affect the 

structures would not adversely affect these owls. and there is low availability of the owl’s prey 

species in this location; therefore, removing the 

ranch structures would not be likely to 

Mexican spotted owl. 

adversely affect this species. 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch area might Restoring and revegetating the ranch area after Same as alternative B Restoring and revegetating the ranch area after the Same as alternative B. 

result in more agave plants, increasing the available removing the structures might increase the area is developed as an educational center would 

food for nectar-feeding bats. Revegetating the area number of agave plants, resulting in more result in about the same number of agave plants as 

probably would increase the habitat and prey available food for nectar-feeding bats. currently. Revegetation of the area probably would 

species of the loggerhead shrikes. Thus, there Revegetating the area probably would increase maintain the habitat and prey species of the 

would be beneficial effects on the lesser long-nosed the habitat and prey species of the loggerhead loggerhead shrikes. Thus there would be long-term, 

bat, the Mexican long-tongued bat, and the shrikes. Thus, there would be beneficial effects negligible effects on these species. 

loggerhead shrike, and the restoration would not be on the lesser long-nosed and Mexican longlikely to adversely affect these species. Because of tongued bat and the loggerhead shrike, and the 

the small portion of the national memorial affected, restoration would not be likely to adversely 

this alternative might affect the lesser long-nosed affect these species. Because only a small part 

and Mexican long-tongued bat and the loggerhead the memorial would be affected, this 

shrike but would not be likely to adversely affect alternative might affect the lesser long-nosed 

these species. and Mexican long-tongued bats and the 

loggerhead shrike but would not be likely to 

adversely affect these species. 

It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use the It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use the Same as alternative B. It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use the It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use the 

grazing allotments. Continued grazing in the grazing allotments; therefore discontinuing grazing allotments. Therefore, gazing associated with grazing allotments. Therefore, gazing associated 

memorial under alternative A, with the use of the grazing would not likely affect these owls. this alternative would not be likely to adversely affect with this alternative would not be likely to 

Livestock Management Plan, would not be likely to this species. adversely affect this species. 

adversely affect this species. 

Alternative A also would not be likely to adversely Alternative B would not be likely to adversely Ending grazing in the memorial would have a negligible Grazing associated with alternative D would have a Continuing grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

affect the endangered lesser long-nosed bat. affect the endangered lesser long-nosed bat. effect on nectar-feeding bats but would not be likely to 

adversely affect these species 

negligible effect on nectar-feeding bats and would 

not be likely to adversely affect the lesser long-nosed 

bat. 

would continue negligible to minor adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife on which listed 

or sensitive species rely for food and habitat. 

Implementing alternative E would not be likely 

to adversely affect the lesser long-nosed bat. 

Livestock grazing in the memorial under alternative Eliminating grazing from the memorial might Ending grazing in the memorial might increase the prey base Continued grazing on the Joe’s Spring allotment Continuing grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

A might adversely affect the loggerhead shrike by increase the prey base and nesting habitat for and nesting habitat for loggerhead shrikes. would disturb the food sources of the loggerhead would continue negligible to minor adverse efadversely affecting prey habitat for species that the loggerhead shrike. It would have a negligible shrike, indirectly affecting this species. fects on vegetation and wildlife on which listed 

loggerhead shrike relies on. These effects would be effect on the lesser long-nosed and Mexican or sensitive species rely for food and habitat. 

negligible. long-tongued bat. 

80
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

WATER QUALITY 

No new employee housing would be developed. No adverse effects on water quality would be 

anticipated from developing additional 

Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

employee housing. The establishment of 

monitoring programs in the memorial to 

monitor activities such as grazing would benefit 

overall water quality in the memorial. 

Current memorial maintenance and operation 

actions would continue to result in a gradual, longterm beneficial impact on the memorial’s water 

quality. 

Adding an annex to the visitor center and 

developing new parking, pullouts and 

trailheads would affect less than 1 acre, 

resulting in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on water quality. Mitigative 

measures would be used to reduce soil erosion 

The effects on water quality from adding a few more parking 

spaces in an existing footprint would be negligible because 

the area affected would be small, the actions would not take 

place in riparian habitat or adjacent to a stream channel, and 

mitigating measures would be used to reduce impacts. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding picnic sites 

in previously disturbed areas would result in 

negligible to minor effects on water quality because 

the development would not take place in riparian 

habitat or near drainages. Mitigating measures would 

minimize erosion and limit construction to the 

The long-term effects on water quality from 

developing a new visitor center would be 

negligible because the development would not 

take place in a riparian area or along drainages, 

and mitigative measures would reduce soil 

erosion. 

and the loss of vegetation along streams. immediate area. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures would 

not measurably affect water quality because the 

action would not be near drainages, and mitigative 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

have negligible effects on water quality. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and restoring 

and revegetating the area would have negligible effects on 

water quality. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and 

replacing them with new buildings or adapting them 

for use as an educational center would not affect 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and 

restoring and revegetating the area would result 

in negligible long-term beneficial effects on 

measures would be used to contain or reduce soil 

erosion. Restoration of the site would offset any Restoring East Forest Lane and the site where Restoring and revegetating more sites than in the other 

water quality. water quality. 

adverse effects of the removal. powerlines would be removed would restore 

native riparian vegetation, reducing soil 

erosion and sedimentation. The long-term 

action alternatives would result in negligible to minor 

improvements in water quality by reducing sedimentation 

into drainages. Ending grazing in the memorial would result 

Paving East Forest Lane and developing trails would 

result in short-term minor adverse impacts on water 

quality because construction would increase soil 

Paving Windmill Road would result in minor 

long-term adverse impacts on water quality 

because the amount of stream channel affected 

beneficial effects on water quality from those 

activities would be negligible to minor. 

in a long-term minor beneficial effect on water quality. 

Overall, the beneficial effects of alternative C on water 

quality would offset any adverse impacts associated with the 

erosion and sedimentation. The long-term impacts 

would be negligible because riparian vegetation 

would recover along the streambank. 

would be small. Road and trail development 

would result in negligible to minor long-term 

adverse impacts on water quality. 

limited development. 

Reducing livestock numbers consistent with the Ending grazing in the memorial would improve Same as alternative B. Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment Continuing grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

Livestock Management Plan is improving water water quality by decreasing sedimentation and would continue to affect water quality adversely would result in minor long-term adverse 

quality by reducing sedimentation, fecal coliform, reducing fecal coliform and other microbes, a through continued streambank erosion and impacts on riparian habitats and consequently 

and other microbes, but grazing, even at reduced long-term minor beneficial effect on riparian sedimentation, but ending grazing in the Montezuma on water quality, but the effects would be offset 

levels, would continue to degrade watersheds, This habitats and water quality. Overall, the benefi­ allotment would offset these effects. by eliminating grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

would cause soil erosion, decrease plant cover, and cial effects on water quality from this allotment. 

alter plant communities. The long-term adverse alternative would offset any adverse impacts 

effects on water quality from continued grazing associated with development. 

would be minor. 

WILDLIFE 

Programs to interpret, document, and Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. Same as alternative B. 

inventory memorial resources and uses would 

result in a long-term negligible benefits on 

threatened and endangered or sensitive species 

in the memorial. Loss of a small portion of 

wildlife habitat and the potential for loss of 

sedentary individual animals from 

development of new employee housing would 

have long-term negligible to minor adverse 

effects. 

81
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and Expanding the visitor center and building trails Adding parking for buses and recreational vehicles would The adverse effects on wildlife from expanding the 

restoring and revegetating the area would result in would result in more public access to wildlife result in negligible effects on wildlife in the memorial. The visitor center and adding picnic sites in previously Developing buildings, trails, and roads under 

more ground cover and habitat for small rodent habitat, resulting in negligible to minor adverse long-term adverse effects on wildlife from removing the disturbed areas would be negligible to minor. alternative E would result in the loss of habitat 

species. The structure removal would cause short- effects. Trails and roads might benefit some Montezuma Ranch structures would be negligible with the Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and and individual animals and the fragmentation of 

term negligible adverse effects on wildlife. species by facilitating movement. implementation of mitigating measures to reduce impacts on using mitigative measures to reduce impacts on rare populations. This represents a loss of habitat 

Mitigating measures would be used to prevent or rare or uncommon species. Restoring and revegetating areas or uncommon species would result in long-term value, but because the affected grassland area 

reduce the effects on rare or uncommon wildlife Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, in the memorial would improve grassland habitat, benefiting negligible adverse effects on wildlife. Developing would be small and does not contain uncommon 

species. Restoring and revegetating the site with with mitigating measures to reduce impacts on wildlife species. Ending grazing in the memorial would trails in the memorial would result in short-term species, the adverse effects on wildlife would be 

native vegetation after the structures were removed rare or uncommon species, would result in improve habitat and forage, a long-term minor beneficial adverse effects on wildlife, but the effects would be negligible. Trails and road development might 

would offset the adverse impacts on soils and long-term negligible adverse effects on effect on wildlife. negligible to minor because the areas affected would benefit individuals of some species by facilitating 

improve grassland habitat, benefiting wildlife wildlife. Restoring the ranch area to natural be small. Trails and roads might benefit some species movement. 

species. contours and revegetating it would improve by facilitating movement. 

grassland habitat, resulting in a long-term Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

Ongoing implementation of the Livestock negligible to minor benefit for wildlife species. Widening and paving East Forest Lane road, with the with mitigation to reduce the adverse effects on 

Management Plan is improving wildlife habitat in Ending grazing in the national memorial would resultant increased visitor access, would cause long- rare or uncommon species, would result in longthe two allotments. However, continued grazing in improve habitat and forage, benefiting wildlife. term minor adverse local effects on wildlife from term negligible adverse effects on wildlife. 

the national memorial would result in minor long- increased potential for roadkill and the continued Restoring and revegetating the ranch area would 

term adverse impacts on some wildlife species from fragmentation of habitat. These actions also would improve grassland habitat, benefiting wildlife. 

habitat loss and forage reduction. degrade the value of the drainages as migration Eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

corridors. Ending grazing in the Montezuma allotment would increase forage and habitat in 

allotment would increase grassland forage and grassland and riparian areas, a long-term 

improve riparian habitat, resulting in long-term beneficial effect for wildlife. 

minor beneficial effects for wildlife. 

Cultural Resources 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

An archeological survey would be undertaken at the New development in the national memorial Archeological resources probably would not be affected Much of the new development in Coronado National Much of the new development in Coronado 

Montezuma Ranch. Research and resource under alternative B would be minor, taking under alternative C, with development in the national Memorial under alternative D would be limited to National Memorial under alternative E would 

documentation are improving the national place primarily in previously disturbed areas. memorial limited and most of it taking place in previously previously disturbed areas. The large number of take place in previously undisturbed areas. The 

memorial’s ability to make informed management The impacts on archeological resources would disturbed areas. Therefore, alternative C would result in ground-disturbing actions in this alternative would variety of ground-disturbing actions in this 

decisions. The ongoing efforts to identify and be partially or fully mitigated by sensitive siting long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects on increase the possibility of affecting archeological alternative would increase the possibility of 

protect archeological resources would benefit and by designing facilities in relation to the archeological resources. resources. Overall, the actions of this alternative affecting archeological resources. Overall, the 

archeological resources, but such resources would resources. Ending grazing in the national would result in a long-term negligible adverse impact actions of this alternative would result in a longbe adversely affected by the continuation of grazing. memorial would help to conserve archeological on archeological resources. term negligible to minor adverse impact on 

The overall result would be a long-term negligible resources. Therefore, alternative B would archeological resources. 

adverse impact on the national memorial’s result in a long-term negligible to minor 

archeological resources. beneficial effect on archeological resources. 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Before taking any action regarding the Montezuma Before taking any action regarding the visitor Before taking any action regarding the visitor center or the Before taking any action regarding the visitor center Research and resource documentation are 

Ranch structures, the national memorial staff would center or the Montezuma Ranch structures, the Montezuma Ranch structures, the national memorial staff or the Montezuma Ranch structures, the national improving the national memorial’s ability to 

pursue a formal determination of the structures’ national memorial staff would pursue a formal would pursue a formal determination of the structures’ memorial staff would pursue a formal determination make informed management decisions. The 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic determination of the structures’ eligibility for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. Re- of the structures’ eligibility for the National Register ongoing efforts to identify and preserve historic 

Places. Research and resource documentation are the National Register of Historic Places. Re­ search and resource documentation are improving the of Historic Places. Research and resource structures would benefit these resources. The 

improving the national memorial’s ability to make search and resource documentation are national memorial’s ability to make informed management documentation are improving the national overall result would be a long-term negligible 

informed management decisions. The ongoing improving the national memorial’s ability to decisions. The ongoing efforts to identify and preserve memorial’s ability to make informed management beneficial effect on the historic structures of the 

efforts to identify and preserve historic structures make informed management decisions. The historic structures would benefit these resources. The decisions. The ongoing efforts to identify and national memorial. 

would benefit these resources. The overall result ongoing efforts to identify and preserve overall result would be a long-term negligible beneficial preserve historic structures would benefit these 

would be a long-term negligible to minor beneficial historic structures would benefit these effect on the national memorial’s historic structures. resources. The overall result would be a long-term 

effect on the memorial’s historic structures. resources. The overall result would be a long- negligible beneficial effect on the national memorial’s 

term negligible beneficial effect on the national historic structures. 

memorial’s historic structures. 

82
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

American Indians would continue gathering items No action or development in alternative B The lack of development in the form of trail, roads, and The possibility of affecting ethnographic resources The possibility of adversely affecting 

important to their culture on the national would affect known ethnographic resources. buildings in alternative C would protect the national would be greater in alternative D than in some of the ethnographic resources would be greater in 

memorial’s lands. The long-term minor beneficial The various programs and partnerships that memorial’s ethnographic resources from disturbance. other alternatives because there would be greater alternative E than in some of the other alternaeffect from developing inventories for ethnographic the national memorial would develop to Restoring and revegetating areas of powerlines, roads, and access to areas of the national memorial. The actions tives because visitors would have more access to 

resources would be partially offset by a lack of in- emphasize the area’s multicultural heritage nonhistoric structures would make more areas suitable for in this alternative could result in a long-term the grasslands in the national memorial. The acdepth programs, resulting in an overall long-term would result in long-term moderate to major ethnographic use. All these actions combined would result negligible beneficial effect on ethnographic tions of this alternative could have a long-term 

negligible beneficial effect on ethnographic beneficial effects on ethnographic resources. in long-term negligible to minor beneficial effects on resources. negligible adverse impact on ethnographic 

resources. ethnographic resources. resources. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Until the Montezuma Ranch structures were The developments of alternative B would be The limited development proposed in alternative C would The possibility of adversely affecting cultural The possibility of adversely affecting cultural 

removed, they would have short-term negligible minimal, and the impacts on cultural result in the restoration of landscapes to be representative of landscapes would be greater in this alternative than landscapes would be greater in this alternative 

adverse impacts on national memorial views. landscapes would be partially or fully mitigated the time of the Coronado Expedition; therefore, this in some of the other action alternatives because of than in some of the other action alternatives 

Development outside the national memorial could by sensitive siting and design, augmented by alternative would result in long-term negligible to minor the variety of actions (constructing roads, facilities, because of the variety of actions (constructing 

result in minor to moderate short-term and long- other protective measures such as vegetative beneficial effects on cultural landscapes. and trails) that would take place. The actions of roads, facilities, and trails) that would take place. 

term adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. screening. This alternative would result in alternative D would result in a long-term negligible The actions of alternative E would result in a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial effects adverse impact on cultural landscapes. long-term negligible adverse impact on cultural 

on cultural landscapes. landscapes. 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 

Continuing the limitations on access to natural Improving recreational services and facilities in Under alternative C, access via memorial trails to natural Under alternative D, access via memorial trails to Under alternative E, access via memorial trails to 

resources and cultural exhibits for mobility-im- Coronado National Memorial would result in resources and cultural exhibits for visitors with disabilities natural resources and cultural exhibits for visitors natural resources and cultural exhibits for 

paired visitors along the memorial’s trails would negligible to minor short-term and long-term would continue to be limited, a negligible to minor adverse with disabilities would increase, resulting a negligible visitors with disabilities would increase, resulting 

result in long-term negligible adverse impacts. If beneficial effects on the visitor experience. The impact. Ending grazing in the memorial would enable some to minor beneficial effect. Expanding the visitor in minor beneficial effects. The new, larger 

the demand for recreational resources continued to visitor experience also would be enhanced by visitors to use grassland areas that have been little used for center would result in short-term minor to moderate visitor/educational center would help to disperse 

increase and no improvements were made, there resource conservation. Improving interpretive recreation; however, with no trails being developed in the impacts on the visitor experience, but visitor visitors and alleviate congestion, a long-term 

would be local minor to moderate long-term materials and expanding outreach programs allotment areas, the use would remain limited. Expanding congestion would decrease as a result of the added moderate to major beneficial effect on visitor 

adverse impacts on the visitor experience. that emphasize the memorial’s mission, the NPS facilities would result in short-term minor to developments, resulting in long-term moderate to understanding and the visitor experience. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and purpose, and significance would enhance the moderate adverse impacts on the visitor experience, but in major beneficial effects on the visitor experience. Emphasizing the memorial’s interpretive themes 

restoring and revegetating the area would improve 

scenic values and the visitor experience from 

Montezuma Pass, resulting in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on the visitor experience. 

Continued grazing in the memorial would have a 

long-term negligible to minor adverse impact on 

visitors wanting to hike in the allotments. 

opportunities for visitors to learn about and 

understand the memorial’s resources, a 

moderate long-term beneficial effect on the 

visitor experience. 

Eliminating grazing would enable visitors to 

experience the natural resources of the grasslands, a negligible to minor beneficial effect on 

the visitor experience. 

the long term there would be minor to moderate beneficial 

effects resulting from decreased congestion and improved 

views. Using outreach programs alone to emphasize the 

memorial’s interpretive themes would result in only a minor 

beneficial effect on visitor understanding and the visitor 

experience. 

Improving interpretive materials and expanding the 

outreach programs that would emphasize the 

mission, purpose, and significance of the national 

memorial would enhance the opportunities for 

visitors to learn about and understand the memorial’s 

resources, a moderate to major beneficial effect on 

the visitor experience. The new developments would 

affect the viewshed, resulting in long-term minor 

through outreach programs alone would result in 

a minor beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience. 

The new developments that would affect the 

viewshed would result in long-term negligible 

adverse impacts on the visitor experience. Eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring allotment 

would benefit a small number of visitors, a negadverse impacts on the visitor experience. ligible to minor beneficial effect on the visitor 

Eliminating grazing from the Montezuma allotment experience. 

would benefit a small number of visitors who would 

use the trails in the grasslands, resulting in a negligible 

to minor beneficial effect on the visitor experience. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

RECREATIONAL USE 

Recreational use at the national memorial under Alternative B, the preferred alternative, would Improvements in facilities and resource conservation Implementing alternative D, which would involve Alternative E would result in more recreation 

alternative A would be relatively small in result in moderate long-term beneficial effects brought about by implementing alternative C — increased more recreational opportunities than alternative A, opportunities than would be available under 

proportion to the total recreational demand and on recreation by accommodating more recreation services, improved facilities, better controls, and would result in moderate long-term beneficial alternative A; this would be a moderate longrecreational opportunities both in Cochise County recreation than alternative A. enhanced visitor experience — would result in minor long- effects on recreational use. term beneficial effect on recreational use. 

and throughout the Southwest. The effects of this term beneficial effects on recreation. 

alternative on recreational use would be negligible 

both locally and regionally. 

83
Alternative A: Existing Management Direction Alternative B: Enhance Opportunities While Alternative C: Focus on Resource Protection and Fulfill Alternative D: Create an International Experience Alternative E: Enhance Interpretation and 

(No Action) Protecting Resources (Preferred) Memorial’s Mission for Visitors to National Memorial the Efficiency of Operations 

GRAZING 

The long-term effects of grazing on the Ending grazing in the national memorial would Eliminating grazing in the national memorial would result in Eliminating grazing from the Montezuma allotment Ending grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment 

socioeconomic environment under alternative A result in a negligible adverse effect on the a negligible long-term adverse effect on the county’s would result in a minor long-term beneficial effect would cause a minor long-term beneficial effect 

would be negligible. county’s economy from reduced cattle economy from reduced cattle production. on recreational use and a negligible adverse effect on on recreational use and a negligible adverse 

production. the county’s economy from reduced cattle effect on the county’s economy from reduced 

production. cattle production. 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECONOMY 

New jobs and visitor spending associated with 

alternative A would have negligible effects on the 

Implementing alternative B would result in 

negligible beneficial effects on the economy of 

Implementing alternative C would result in negligible 

beneficial effects on the economy of Cochise County 

Implementing alternative D would result in negligible 

beneficial effects on the economy of Cochise County 

Implementing alternative E would result in 

negligible beneficial effects on Cochise County’s 

economy. The ability to provide additional 

personnel trained in fighting wildland fires would 

Cochise County compared to alternative A. 

These effects would result from the direct and 

compared to alternative A. These effects would result from 

the direct and indirect creation of local jobs, increased 

compared to alternative A. These effects would result 

from the direct and indirect creation of local jobs, ineconomy compared to alternative A. These effects would result from the direct and indirect 

be a minor long-term beneficial effect on the 

region. 

indirect creation of local jobs, increased 

spending associated with more visitation, and 

expenditures on construction labor and 

spending associated with increased visitation, and 

expenditures on construction labor and supplies. Negligible 

adverse effects would result from decreased cattle 

creased spending associated with more visitation, 

and expenditures on construction labor and supplies. 

Negligible adverse effects would result from 

creation of local jobs, increased spending 

associated with increased visitation, and 

expenditures on construction labor and supplies. 

supplies. Negligible adverse effects would 

result from decreased cattle production. The 

addition of NPS staff trained in wildland fire 

production. The addition of NPS staff trained in wildland 

fire suppression would result in a minor long-term 

beneficial effect on wildland fire control in the county. 

decreased cattle production. The addition of NPS 

staff trained in wildland fire suppression would result 

in a minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

Negligible adverse effects would result from 

decreased cattle production. The addition of 

NPS staff trained in wildland fire suppression 

suppression would result in a minor long-term 

beneficial effect on wildland fire control in the 

fire control in the county. would result in a minor long-term beneficial 

effect on wildland fire control in the county. 

county. 

84
AFFECTED

ENVIRONMENT
NATURAL RESOURCES

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 

Coronado National Memorial is in the Sierra 

Madrean oak/woodlands transition zone at 

the interface of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan 

Deserts. This location has produced diverse 

natural resources within the memorial. The 

Huachuca Mountains originate near the 

memorial and extend north for about 25 

miles. To the east and west lies a vast expanse 

of grasslands, the San Pedro River Valley, and 

the San Rafael Valley. There are no dams or 

known hazardous materials in the memorial. 

SKY ISLANDS ECOSYSTEM 

The “Sky Islands” of Arizona and New 

Mexico and northern Sonora form a unique 

complex of about 27 mountain ranges whose 

boundaries, at their lowest elevation, are 

desert scrub, grasslands, or oak woodlands. 

The Sky Islands and Sierra Madre region have 

been identified as a center of diversity for 

several groups of species. The great diversity 

of the Mogollon Highlands–Sky Islands– 

Northern Sierra Madre Occidental network 

stems from its location, elevation, and history. 

Trending north and south between the Rocky 

Mountains and the Sierra Madre Occidental 

Mountains of Mexico, the Sky Islands are at 

the meeting point of temperate North American species and warm subtropical species. 

They straddle two floristic provinces — the 

Neotropic and Holarctic — and two faunal 

realms — the Neotropic and Nearctic. They 

also are at the point of convergence of three 

climatic zones: tropical, subtropical, and 

temperate. (Sky Islands Alliance, from 

Internet). 

In southeastern Arizona, the Huachuca, Pinaleño, Chiricahua, and Santa Rita Mountains, 

which have elevations up to 10,000 feet, 

provide a variety of habitats, from deserts and 

grasslands through oak woodlands and pine 

forests. 

PHYSIOGRAPHY 

Vegetation in the memorial is typical of the 

Upper Sonoran Zone and the mountains of 

southeastern Arizona. It includes desert 

grasses and shrubs at lower elevations. At 

higher elevations, forests primarily are made 

up of oak, Mexican piñon pine, and alligator 

juniper. The scientific names for all the plants 

and animals mentioned in this document are 

listed in appendix E. 

The Huachuca Mountains, which are partly 

within the national memorial boundary, 

consist of a primary northwest-southeast 

trending central ridge about 25 miles long and 

4 miles wide. The central ridge is secondarily 

faulted and dissected by numerous canyons 

that drain to the east and west. Miller Peak, 2 

miles north of the memorial, reaches an 

elevation of 9,445 feet (Wallmo 1955; Toolin 

1980; Ruffner and Johnson 1991). 

Elevations in the memorial range from 4,750 

feet in the southeastern corner to 7,825 feet 

along the northwest boundary. Steep terrain 

predominates in the northern and western 

parts of the memorial, particularly in 

Montezuma Canyon, although the eastern 

scarp rises most steeply at higher elevations. 

The southeastern quarter of the memorial is a 

broad grassland plain dissected by numerous 

drainages. The eastern and southern parts of 

the Huachuca Mountains, including Montezuma Canyon, drain into the San Pedro River. 

CLIMATE 

The average yearly precipitation at the 

national memorial ranges from 10 to 33 

inches, with an average of 21 inches. About 

40% of the precipitation in this area falls as 

afternoon thundershowers in July and August, 

and about 25% falls as rain and snow in 

December through February. Normal summer 

temperatures range from 50oF to 90oF; winter, 

87
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

from 30oF to 60oF. Figure 1 displays a 40-year 

average (1961–2000) of precipitation data 

collected at the memorial. 

FIGURE 1: PRECIPITATION DATA, 1961–2000, 

CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

Cave, which is 0.75 mile from the visitor 

center, up a steep trail. Before hiking to the 

cave, visitors must obtain a free permit. 

Coronado Cave is about 600 feet long, 20 feet 

high, and 70 feet wide. There are several 

crawlways and passages, but they are not 

Precipitation (Inches)

extensive. Fewer than 5,000 people visit 5 Coronado Cave each year, which is about 4 5% to 6% of the total yearly visitors. 

3 

2 The limestone in which Coronado Cave 

1 formed is 250–300 million years old. Water 

0 has seeped through cracks in the limestone, Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

slowly dissolving the rock. In the cave can be 

seen tilted bedding planes of limestone, which Month 

CAVE RESOURCES AND 

illustrate the region’s geologic history (NPS 

2000a). The cave contains a beautiful range of 

formations: stalactites (hanging from the 

ABANDONED MINES ceiling), stalagmites (rising from the ground), 

flowstone (calcite that appears to be smooth 

and flowing) and helicites (tiny crystalline Mines shrubs). These formations are still growing. 

Caves and abandoned mines in the memorial 

are important, because of the fauna that use 

them, as well as because of their historic use 

by humans. A number of abandoned mines in 

the memorial are remnants of previous copper 

mining. The National Park Service installed 

bat-friendly gates at the entrances of two 

mines to protect human health and safety, as 

well as protecting the fauna that inhabit the 

mines. These gates are effective in restricting 

visitors from entering the mines while still 

allowing bats and other wildlife species to 

enter them. Some mines are described under 

“Cultural Resources” (see p. 102) because they 

have historic qualities. The mines themselves 

would not be affected by activities associated 

with any alternative. The effects on wildlife 

that each alternative would cause are 

described in the sections headed “Threatened, 

Endangered, or Sensitive Species” and 

“Wildlife” in the “Environmental 

Consequences” chapter. 

Coronado Cave 

Several caves in the memorial have geological 

value, the most prominent being Coronado 

Coronado Cave is home to a diverse 

community of insects: beetles, millipedes, 

spiders, and crickets. Some insect species are 

adapted to the darkness and low-energy 

environment of the inner cave. Mammals that 

use the cave include coatimundis, ringtails and 

bats. These animals usually do not venture far 

into the cave but stay near the entrance where 

there is adequate light. Several bat species 

have been observed in the cave. Bats depend 

on the dark, quiet cave environment for 

sleeping and hibernation (NPS 2000a). 

AIR QUALITY 

Coronado National Memorial is a class II airshed. Under the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) class II designation, there is no 

monitoring for visibility, and some degradation in air quality is allowed. The nearest air 

quality monitoring station is in the town of 

Douglas, also in Cochise County. This station 

monitors ambient air for carbon monoxide 

(CO), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), and two sizes of 

particulate matter, 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and 

10 microns (PM10). There have been no 

88
Natural Resources 

reports that any measured parameters have 

exceeded air quality standards at the monitoring station (AZ Dept. of Env. Qual. 2000a). 

Coronado National Memorial is in a rural 

area; so it is not affected by emission from 

urban traffic or industry. Occasional haze and 

decreased visibility in the memorial are largely 

due to dust and dirt from local sources 

(agricultural fields, dirt roads, or construction 

sites) being picked up by the prevailing winds. 

Tucson, about 75 miles to the northwest, is a 

nonattainment area for air quality, and 

pollution generated there is carried to the 

skies above the memorial. 

Although the National Park Service has little 

direct control over air quality in the region, 

the memorial cooperate with the Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality and the 

Environmental Protection Agency to monitor 

air quality and protect it from degradation. In 

addition, the National Park Service will take 

the following actions to meet legal and policy 

requirements related to air quality: 

• participate in regional air pollution 

control plans and review permit 

applications for major new air pollution 

sources 

• conduct memorial operations in 

compliance with federal, state, and local 

air quality regulations 

Effects on air quality can be short-term or 

long-term. Short-term impacts usually are 

associated with vehicle traffic or construction 

activities and often consist of fumes and 

fugitive dust generated by construction 

equipment. Long-term emissions are those 

caused by stationary, consistent polluters such 

as power plants and industry. 

SOILS 

Soils in Coronado National Memorial are 

variable, with soil depths ranging from less 

than 20 inches on the steeper slopes to more 

than 60 inches on the lower slopes. They 

typically are high in rock fragments. Sandy 

loams and gravelly sandy loams are the most 

frequently encountered surface and subsurface textures. Other textures present include 

coarse sandy loam, clay loam, and gravelly 

clay. 

Table 10 lists the soils in the memorial and 

contains a description of the associated slope, 

elevation, and ecological site. Only soil types 

with potential to be affected by alternative 

actions are included. The table also indicates 

the soils present on each grazing allotment. 

The list is based on a survey of the area 

conducted in 1996 (NRCS, USDA 2000). 

The erosion potential associated with each 

soil complex is shown in table 10. The erosion 

factor (K) indicates the susceptibility of a soil 

to sheet and rill erosion by water. Values of K 

range from 0.02 to 0.69. The higher the value, 

the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill 

erosion by rain. Wind erodibility indicates the 

susceptibility of soil to wind erosion. The 

classification of erodibility groups in the 

memorial ranges from 2 (highly erodible) to 8 

(less subject to wind erosion). Erosion 

potentials for many soils in the memorial fall 

in the high range and should be of concern 

with regard to grazing. High erosion potential 

is compounded by soils that have rapid runoff 

potentials and low water-holding capacity. 

Figure 2 depicts the distribution of memorial 

soils. More detailed descriptions of soils are 

available in USDA 1979 and NRCS, USDA 

2000. 

VEGETATION AND 

RANGE CONDITION 

The vegetation in Coronado National 

Memorial was surveyed and mapped in 1991. 

It was classified into biotic communities, and a 

determination of acreage was made for each 

biotic community (Ruffner and Johnson 

1991). In addition, Parfitt and Christy (1992) 

provided a detailed listing of more than 580 

plant species collected at the memorial and 

housed at Arizona State University. 

89
TABLE 10: SOILS CHARACTERISTICS, CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL, COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA 

Slope Presence on Wind 

Map Range Elevation Grazing Erosion Erodibility 

Unit Soils (%) Ecological Site/Precipitation Zone (feet) Allotment Factor K Group 

Aridic Ustifluvents-Riverwash 

1 complex 4–7 Sandy Bottom (QUHY, QUAR)/ 20–23 inches 5,200–5,800 0.02–0.05 2–6 

2 

Budlamp-Kinockity-Rock 

outcrop complex 8–20 Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,100–6,000 MZ a/ 0.02–0.05 8 

3 Canquya-Rock outcrop complex 50–75 Shallow Hills (QUEM, QUAR, JUDE)/ 20–23 inches 5,600–6,600 JS, MZ 0.05–0.49 6–8 

Canquya-Rock outcrop complex, 

4 warm 50–75 Shallow Hills (QUEM, QUAR, JUDE)/ 20–23 inches 5,600–6,600 JS 0.05–0.49 6–8 

Canquya-Tomarizo-Yarbam Shallow Hills (QUEM, QUAR, JUDE)/ 20–23 

5 complex 35–65 inches; Limestone Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,600–6,800 0.05–0.10 5–6 

Canquya-Zaleska-Morimount 

6 complex 25–50 Shallow Hills (QUEM, QUAR, JUDE)/ 20–23 inches 5,200–5,900 MZ 0.02–0.17 6 

7 Coppercan-Canquya complex 30–60 Shallow Hills 16–20 inches 5,200–6,000 MZ 0.05–0.49 6 

Coppercan-Yarbam-Rock Shallow Upland/ 16–20 inches/ 

8 outcrop complex 6–20 Limy Upland/ 16–20 inches 4,950–5,400 MZ 0.05–0.15 6–8 

Sandyloam Upland (QUAR, QUEM, QUOB)/ 16–20 

9 Gardencan complex 6–10 inches 5,100–5,600 JS, MZ 0.05–0.32 3–5 

10 Gardencan-Larque complex 0–5 Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches 4,825–5,100 JS, MZ 0.05–0.28 3 

Sandyloam Upland/ 16–20 inches/ 

11 Gardencan-Terrarossa complex 2–18 Loamy Upland/ 16–20 inches 4,800–5,400 JS, MZ 0.05–0.32 5–6 

Guaynaka-Costavar-Rock 

12 outcrop complex 30–60 Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,500–5,864 0.05 6–7 

Guaynaka-Costavar-Rock 

13 outcrop complex 65–75 Shallow Hills (QUEM, QUAR, JUDE)/ 20–23 inches 5,800–6,864 0.05 6–7 

Guaynaka- Rock outcrop 

14 complex 45–60 Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,350–6,500 0.05 6–8 

Kinockity-Budlamp-Rock 

15 outcrop complex 45–75 Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,300–6,900 JS 0.02–0.05 8 

Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches/ 

16 Lutzcan-Yarbam complex 25–50 Limestone Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,000–6,000 JS 0.05–0.10 6 

Montcan-Amuzet-Riverwash 

17 complex 3–5 Sandy Bottom/ 16–20 inches 4,850–5,200 JS, MZ 0.02–0.15 2–5 

18 Morgamine-Yaquican complex 3–5 0.02–0.10 6 

19 Rock outcrop-Kinockity complex 50–75 Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,800–7,000 JS 0.02–0.05 8 

Yabamar-Bothompeek-Rock 

20 outcrop complex 60–80 Shallow Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,600–7,300 JS 0.02–0.1 8 

Yarbam-Rock outcrop21 Morimount complex 30–60 Limestone Hills/ 16–20 inches 5,300–6,000 0.02–0.10 6–8 

a/ JS = Joe’s Spring allotment. MZ = Montezuma allotment. 

90
FIGURE 2: CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL SOIL MAP 

(DATA FROM NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, USDA, BY DENNY AND PEACOCK 2000,) 

(See next page for legend.) 

91
FECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Legend for Figure 2. 

Soil Characteristics 

1 Aridic Ustifluvents-Riverwash complex, 4 to 7 percent slopes 

2 Budlamp-Kinockity-Rock Outcrop complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes 

3 Canquya-Rock outcrop complex, 50 to 75 percent slopes 

4 Canquya-Rock outcrop complex, warm, 50 to 75 percent slopes 

5 Canquya-Tomarizo-Yarbam complex, 35 to 65 percent slopes 

6 Canquya-Zaleska-Morimount complex, 25 to 50 percent slopes 

7 Coppercan-Canquya complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes 

8 Coppercan-Yarbam-Rock outcrop complex, 6 to 20 percent slopes 

9 Gardencan complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes 

10 Gardencan-Larque complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes 

11 Gardencan-Terrarossa complex, 2 to 18 percent slopes 

12 Guaynaka-Costavar-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes 

13 Guaynaka-Costavar-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 75 percent slopes 

14 Guaynaka-Rock outcrop complex, 45 to 60 percent slopes 

15 Kinockity-Budlamp-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 75 percent slopes 

16 Lutzcan-Yarbam complex, 25 to 50 percent slopes 

17 Montcan-Amuzet-Riverwash complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes 

18 Morgamine-Yaquican complex, 55 to 70 percent slopes 

19 Rock outcrop-Kinockity complex, 55 to 70 percent slopes 

20 Yabamar-Bothompeek-Rock outcrop complex, 60 to 80 percent slopes 

21 Yarbam-Rock outcrop-Morimount complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes 

92 
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

FIGURE 3: VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS AT CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

AS MAPPED BY RUFFNER AND JOHNSON 1991) 

0.5 0 0.5 1.0 Miles N

123.316 

143.114

223.226

 224.522 

Quercus spp.-Pinus discolor-Juniperus spp. Association 

Boutelua 

Platanus Juglans Quercus spp. Association 

Mixed Short Tree Association 

123.316 -

143.114 - spp. Mixed Grass-Mixed Scrub Association 

223.226 - spp.- spp.-

224.522 - Prosopis glandulosa224.522

Typical plant species are alligator juniper, Arizona white oak, Emory oak, manzanita, Mexican blue oak, mountain mahogany, beargrass, 

desert spoon, and side oats grama. Appendix 

E contains a list of the scientific names for 

these and the other plant species. 

The BMM association is largely a Chihuahuan 

semidesert grassland community dominated 

by perennial grasses and shrubs. Characteristic plant species are fairy duster, rabbit 

brush, hedgehog cactus, Palmer agave, 

Lehmann lovegrass, and blue grama. Lehmann 

lovegrass, a species introduced from South 

Africa, appears to be spreading throughout 

much of southern Arizona to the detriment of 

native grasses that are more palatable to 

grazing animals (Brown 1982). 

Four plant associations have been identified in 

the area: oak-Mexican piñon-juniper association (QPJ), grama species mixed grass-mixed 

scrub association (BMM), sycamore-walnutoak association (PJQ), and honey mesquitemixed short tree association (PMT). QPJ is the 

most common plant association in the 

memorial, covering 3,400 of 4,750 acres. Next 

most common, but far less prevalent is BMM, 

which covers 1,063 acres. See figure 3, from 

Ruffner and Johnson 1991). 

The QPJ association is an open, evergreen 

woodland community. Grasses typically comprise most of the understory. In the memorial, 

this association occurs mostly on north- and 

south-facing slopes of the Huachuca 

Mountains. Dominant species vary with site, 

slope, and exposure. 

93
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

The PJQ association is a mixed-broadleaf 

forest community that often forms a welldeveloped gallery but has sparse understory 

flora. This association occurs along major and 

secondary drainages where water is perennial 

or seasonally intermittent, such as in middle 

and upper Montezuma Canyon. Consequently, this association comprises only about 100 

acres in the memorial. Plant species typical of 

this association are Arizona white oak, 

Arizona rosewood, Arizona sycamore, catclaw 

acacia, manzanita, brickellia, wild grape, and 

needle grass. 

The PMT association is a type of Sonoran 

Desert riparian forest that typically occurs 

below 3,900 feet and is restricted to areas 

around streams, springs, ephemeral drainages, 

and areas that have a shallow water table. 

Trees usually do not form a closed canopy in 

this association. The association, which is a 

minor biotic community in the memorial 

(covering about 224 acres) is found in the 

eastern third of the memorial along drainages 

of lower Montezuma Canyon. Typical species 

in this association are Arizona white oak, 

desert willow, Emory oak, honey mesquite, 

poison ivy, rabbit brush, sumac, cane cholla, 

Lehmann lovegrass, and side oats grama. 

The Joe’s Spring and Montezuma grazing 

allotments cover 39% of Coronado National 

Memorial. The current range condition in the 

grazing allotments varies between and within 

allotments. The Joe’s Spring allotment 

generally has more mature series than the 

Montezuma allotment, probably because the 

steep slopes in the Joe’s Spring allotment limit 

livestock grazing in many areas. 

The most common vegetation associations in 

the grazing allotments are the oak-Mexican 

piñon-juniper and grama species mixed 

grass-mixed shrub associations, which 

constitute 93 percent of the memorial’s total 

vegetation (NPS 2000b). Brady et al. (1989) 

have documented significantly greater native 

plant species richness in ungrazed areas 

compared to those that are grazed. 

The potential natural community is the biotic 

community that would become established if 

all successional sequences were completed 

without interference by humans under the 

present environmental conditions (Soc. for 

Range Mgmt. 1989). In addition to potential 

natural community, standard condition 

classes are early, mid, and late seral. Range 

condition is computed as a number between 0 

and 100, representing the percentage of 

potential vegetation. Ratings of 0 to 25 are 

considered early seral, 26 to 50 are mid seral, 

and 51 to 75 are late seral. Scores above 75 are 

classified as potential natural community. 

Utilization is defined by the Society for Range 

Management (1989) as the “proportion of 

current year’s forage production that is 

consumed or destroyed by grazing animals.” 

Livestock seeking water, succulent forage, and 

shade can spend a disproportionate amount of 

time in riparian communities. Data collected 

in the Joe’s Spring allotment in 1989 indicated 

that the southern part of the allotment had 

utilization levels of more than 30%, with a 

more than 45% use of an area near water. 

Cattle congregating to graze and water at 

ephemeral streambeds trample vegetation and 

compact soils, leading to streambank 

sloughing, soil erosion, and poorer water 

quality (Armour, Duff, and Elmore 1991). The 

presence of cattle in riparian areas leads to 

trampling and overgrazing of streambanks, 

soil erosion, loss of streambank stability, 

declining water quality, and drier conditions. 

Unstable streambanks lead to increased 

sediment load in the water and inferior water 

quality during periods of runoff. These 

changes can lead to reduced habitat for 

riparian plant species and wildlife, thereby 

causing many native species to decline in 

number and density (Belsky, Matzke, and 

Uselman 1999). 

In the most recent inventory (Ogden 1995), 

about 54% of the Joe’s Spring allotment was 

rated as potential natural community. About 

34% was rated as mid seral, and 12% was not 

rated. However, because the range inventory 

did not consider all factors of range health, the 

94
Natural Resources 

condition may have been overestimated. For 

example, neither erosion nor the age 

distribution of plants was considered. 

A positive correlation between slope and 

range condition was noted in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment, indicating that areas on lower 

slopes are more heavily grazed than steeper 

areas. This matched observations that 

livestock use is concentrated on the lower 

slopes in the southern third of the allotment. 

In 1995 and 1996, inspection of the allotment 

showed utilization to be in excess of 50% 

throughout much of the lower portion of the 

pasture (L. Benson, personal observation). 

U.S. Forest Service monitoring data from the 

Montezuma allotment in 1985 showed that a 

third of the allotment had a utilization rate 

greater than 45%. Another third was between 

25% and 45% utilization, and the remainder 

had a utilization rate under 25%. 

There have been no livestock in the 

Montezuma allotment since 1990. In the most 

recent inventory of that allotment (Ogden 

1995), 23% of the area was early seral, 17% 

was mid seral, 43% was late seral, and 16% 

was potential natural community. Much of the 

eastern part of the allotment is dominated by 

Lehmann lovegrass, a nonnative introduced 

grass primarily rated as early seral. Areas with 

limited access because of slope had more 

mature series than did grazed areas. The 

presence of mid to late seral stages in 60% of 

the area indicated that plant recovery was in 

progress several years after livestock removal. 

Under the Livestock Management Plan (NPS 

2000b), grazing management has intensified. 

The goal is to improve the condition of the 

range in the future. Implementation of the 

plan has involved the following: 

• Reducing the animal unit months to 

reduce the effect of grazing on native 

vegetation. 

• Adjusting the season of use to avoid 

grazing during vegetative growing seasons. 

• Implementing a comprehensive vegetation 

monitoring plan. 

• Providing flexibility of use in both number 

of animal unit months and season of use, 

based on environmental indicators. 

An important plant species in Coronado 

National Memorial is the Palmer’s agave 

(Agave palmeri). It is the only agave in the 

national memorial that occurs in sufficient 

numbers to study. All of the information 

presented here is from The Status of Palmer’s 

Agave at Coronado National Memorial 

(Hawks 1997). The nectar of flowering 

Palmer’s agave is an important food source for 

the lesser long-nosed bat and the Mexican 

long-tongued bat, both of which are 

discussed in the next section entitled 

“Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive 

Species.” Hummingbirds also drink the nectar 

produced by the flowers. 

Herbivores such as cattle, white-tailed deer, 

and small rodents eat the newly emerged 

flowering stalks of the plant. Hawks (1997) 

postulates that deer and other wildlife may 

depend on the water and energy obtained by 

eating the flowering stalks, and that the energy 

in the flowering stalks may be especially 

important for pregnant deer. 

Hawks (1997) cites studies by MartinezMorales and Meyer (1985) and by Hodgson 

and DeLamater (1988) that found grazing was 

detrimental to other species of agave, 

including Arizona agave (Agave arizonica) and 

marguay verde (Agave salmiana spp. 

crassispina). She reports that these studies 

attributed adverse effects to the grazing of 

flowering stalks, trampling of young 

individual plants, and soil compaction. 

To determine the effects of cattle grazing on 

Palmer’s agave in Coronado National 

Memorial, Hawks (1997) established four test 

plots in areas that currently are grazed, and 

five test plots in areas in the park that had not 

been grazed for at least seven years. She also 

established two test plots in similar settings at 

95
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

nearby Fort Huachuca that had not been 

grazed for more than 45 years. In presenting 

her conclusions, Hawks cautioned that only 

two years of data were available and that 

additional study should be conducted. She 

then stated: Another objective of this study 

was to determine the extent of herbivore 

predation in Palmer’s agave. Palmer’s agave 

flowering stalks proved to be fairly important 

to the herbivores present in the plant’s range. 

High predation occurred in all the plots, 

grazed and nongrazed. The final objective was 

to determine if grazing was negatively affecting Palmer’s agave. There is no evidence that 

grazing is impacting the population, and no 

significance between recruitment in the two 

treatments was found. It was also determined 

that other herbivores, such as deer, can cause 

as much stalk predation as cattle. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, 

OR SENSITIVE SPECIES 

Several species identified as sensitive at the 

federal or state level are known to exist in 

Coronado National Memorial or may exist in 

the memorial. The large number of sensitive 

species in the region is attributable to the 

diversity of habitats present. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided a 

list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and 

candidate species for Cochise County in 

March 2000 (see appendix F). As is discussed 

below, many of these species do not inhabit 

the memorial because it does not provide 

suitable habitat. Other species historically 

have been observed in the memorial but have 

been extirpated or have not been recorded in 

the area for many years. Table 11 lists the four 

species on the USFWS list that probably exist 

in the memorial (and potentially could be 

affected by the alternative actions). 

Arizona lists two species as species of concern 

that are known to exist in the memorial — the 

barking frog and the elegant trogon. These 

species were not included in this evaluation 

because none of the action alternatives would 

affect them or their habitats. 

Threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate fauna known to have existed 

historically in Coronado National Memorial 

are Mexican wolf, ocelot, bald eagle, Sonora 

Tiger salamander, Arizona shrew, black-tailed 

prairie dog, and jaguar. Although Coronado 

National Memorial has potential habitat for 

these species, they are not known to exist in 

the memorial at this time. 

Jaguarundi have been reported in or near the 

Huachuca Mountains but never have been 

confirmed in Arizona. Potential habitat may 

exist in the memorial, but this area may be 

outside the range of the species. The Yaqui 

TABLE 11: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT MAY EXIST IN CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

Federal Status: Endangered = species in imminent jeopardy of extinction; Threatened = 

species in imminent jeopardy of becoming endangered; Species of Concern = a species that 

may or may not be listed in the future. 

State Status: WC = Wildlife species of concern in Arizona: species whose occurrence in 

Arizona is or may be in jeopardy, or with known or perceived threats or population declines. 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status 

Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae Endangered WC 

Mexican long-tongued 

bat 

Choeronycteris mexicana Species of concern WC 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Species of concern No status 

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened WC 

96
Natural Resources 

topminnow, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, 

and whooping crane are known to exist or 

have existed in Cochise County. However, the 

memorial has little or no potential habitat for 

these species, and they are not known to 

inhabit the memorial. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists three 

plant species as existing in Cochise County: 

Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses (endangered), 

Cochise pincushion cactus (threatened), and 

Huachuca water umbrel (endangered). None 

of these is known to be in the memorial; 

therefore, they were dismissed from further 

consideration. 

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat 

The lesser long-nosed bat was on the federal 

list as endangered on September 22, 1988. It 

also is classified as a state wildlife species of 

special concern. The bat was in jeopardy 

because of disturbance to roost sites and 

direct killing by humans. In addition, the bats 

are threatened by a loss of food sources 

(paniculate agave) because of activities such as 

agave harvesting by the liquor industry in 

Mexico. Studies on the lesser long-nosed bat 

have been conducted by Cockrum and 

Hayward (1962), Howell (1974, 1976, 1980), 

Howell and Roth (1981), and Fleming, Nunez, 

and Sternberg (1993). 

This bat’s size is medium to large, and it has an 

elongated muzzle, a small leaf shaped nose, 

and a long tongue. It is yellowish brown or 

gray above and cinnamon brown below. Its 

tail is minute and appears to be lacking. This 

species usually can be found in Arizona from 

April to September and in Mexico the rest of 

the year. 

The lesser long-nosed bat feeds on agave and 

columnar cacti. In the daytime it roosts in 

caves and abandoned tunnels, where it is 

easily disturbed. By night it forages on nectar 

and pollen from saguaros, organ pipe cactus, 

and agaves. Lesser long-nosed bat roosts have 

been found in southern Arizona, southwest 

New Mexico and throughout Mexico. Surveys 

conducted between 1992 and 1993 indicate 

that the greatest densities of lesser long-nosed 

bats, based on the sizes of roosts, were found 

in northern Mexico and southern Arizona. 

The estimated sizes of roosts in Arizona and 

Mexico during this period ranged from 20 to 

150,000 bats (USFWS 1995c). 

During the reproductive season of April 

through June, lesser long-nosed bats are 

found at lower elevations in southwestern 

Arizona, where they establish maternity 

roosts. At higher elevation sites such as 

Coronado National Memorial, there are no 

sizable aggregations of lesser long-nosed bats 

until the latter part of July. The number of bats 

peaks in mid to late August, and most are gone 

by mid-September. This residency period of 6 

and 8 weeks corresponds well with the 

blooming of Palmer’s agave, which the bats 

use for food (Petryszyn and Alberti n.d.). 

Before it was designated a national memorial, 

the Coronado area was extensively mined. 

This activity produced numerous adits, shafts, 

and prospects. Most of these are potential 

roost sites for bats, as are caves. In 1993 a 

major roost with more than 18,000 bats was 

discovered in the memorial. The bats occupy 

the site from the latter part of July to 

September or October (Petryszyn and Alberti 

n.d.). The population has averaged about 

16,000 bats, fluctuating from a high of 31,000 

in 1999 to a low of 9,000 in 1995. 

Bat management in the memorial includes the 

placement of bat-friendly gates over the 

mouths of abandoned mine tunnels that are 

used as bat roosts. The gates prevent visitors 

from entering the tunnels while providing 

access for the bats. 

Agave stalks are rich in carbohydrates, and as 

they begin to bolt, they are particularly 

palatable to domestic livestock and wild 

herbivores, including deer, javelina, rodents, 

and rabbits (Howell 1996). 

Concern has been expressed about the 

impacts of grazing on agaves, the bats’ primary 

97
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

food source. Some studies found grazing to be 

detrimental to populations of agaves such as 

marguay verde because cattle consume the 

agaves’ flowering stalks and trample young 

plants (Martinez-Morales and Meyer 1985). 

However, Hawkes (1997) found in Coronado 

National Memorial that other herbivores, 

such as deer, can cause as much stalk predation as cattle, and that there was no evidence 

that grazing is impacting the agave population. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred 

that the new allotment management plans for 

Joe’s Spring and Montezuma allotments 

would not be likely to adversely affect the 

lesser long-nosed bat. Both allotment 

management plans include an agave monitoring program to ensure that grazing does 

not reduce the agave population. 

Mexican Long-Tongued Bat 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists the 

Mexican long-tongued bat as a species of 

concern, and the state of Arizona lists it as 

threatened (from the Internet at < 

www.mesc.nbs. 

gov/research/5003230.asp>). It appears to be 

threatened by the loss of food supplies and 

killing by humans. 

The Mexican long-tongued bat is found from 

Central America to the southwestern United 

States, typically living in deep mountain canyons with dense riparian vegetation. In 

Arizona it is found from the lower edge of the 

oak zone to the fir belt. During the day, this 

species roosts in caves, rock fissures, old 

mines, and occasionally in buildings, usually in 

groups of fewer than 12 individuals. In 

Coronado National Memorial, this species has 

been captured in nets at water tanks. It also 

has been observed at several mine adits in the 

area and at hummingbird feeders. Mexican 

long-tongued bats are never found in great 

number, and they may move around from 

roost to roost on a nightly or weekly basis. 

They typically arrive in late spring and remain 

into autumn (Petryszyn and Alberti n.d.). 

Mexican Spotted Owl 

All of Coronado National Memorial is within 

the critical habitat for the Mexican spotted 

owl. A pair of these owls was first found in the 

memorial in 1997, and there were numerous 

sightings in 1998 in a small canyon west of the 

nest site. The pair bred and successfully 

fledged young in 1997 and 1999, using the 

same nest site both times. The memorial is in 

the process of establishing a protected activity 

center for this pair that will be based on 

topography and vegetation in the area 

surrounding the nest site. 

The Mexican spotted owl is on the federal list 

of threatened species. It also is a species of 

special concern in Arizona. This species is 

threatened by habitat loss caused by logging 

and fires, increased predation associated with 

habitat fragmentation, and a lack of adequate 

protective regulations. 

The Mexican spotted owl closely resembles 

the larger barred owl, but the plumage is more 

brown, with numerous white spots above and 

below. The posterior underparts have short, 

horizontal bars or spots rather than long, 

vertical streaks. These are the largest browneyed, tuftless-eared owls in their range. Their 

length usually is about 17.5 inches, and their 

wingspan is about 3.5 feet. 

Mexican spotted owl nesting and roosting 

sites generally consist of multilayered, 

uneven-aged forests with high canopy closure 

or rocky shaded canyons (USFWS 1995b). 

Information is limited on the habitat use by 

foraging owls in southeastern Arizona. 

However, in northern Arizona, Mexican 

spotted owls forage primarily in mixed conifer 

forest on rocky slopes and pine-oak-juniper 

forests (Ganey and Balda 1994). 

The Mexican spotted owl’s geographic range 

covers portions of southwestern United States 

and extends into Mexico. Within this area, the 

Mexican spotted owl recovery team 

delineated six recovery units in the United 

States and five in Mexico. The Huachuca 

98
Natural Resources 

Mountains are included in the Basin and 

Range–West Recovery Unit, which is 

characterized by mountain ranges isolated by 

desert basins. This recovery unit is believed to 

be important habitat because of the high 

number of spotted owls relative to other 

recovery units (USFWS 1995b). 

A survey of mammals in the memorial 

conducted in 1996–1997 (Swann et al. 2000) 

mapped the presence of nocturnal rodents, 

including wood rats (N. albigula) and 

peromyscid mice, the Mexican spotted owls’ 

most likely prey base in this area. Prey species 

of the Mexican spotted owl do not inhabit the 

grasslands of the Montezuma allotment, 

(about 93% of the allotment’s vegetation). 

Prey species are common in the grasslands of 

the Joe’s Spring allotment (68% of the 

allotment’s vegetation) but uncommon in the 

oak woodlands (29%). They are extremely 

common in the riparian areas of both 

allotments (7% of Montezuma allotment 

vegetation; 3% of Joe’s Spring allotment 

vegetation). 

Within 0.5 mile of the protected activity 

center, prey species are extremely common in 

the mosaic of oak woodlands, oak savannas 

with abundant grasses, and oak riparian 

communities in the drainages. Specifically, 

prey species are 4–20 times more common 

there than they are in the grasslands and 

woodlands (which make up 95% of the 

combined allotment vegetated area). Prey 

biomass is also higher near the protected 

activity center because wood rats are more 

abundant in the upper-elevation oak 

savannas. 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Loggerhead shrikes, commonly known as 

butcher birds for their habit of impaling their 

prey on thorns, are a federally listed species of 

concern that has been sighted in the 

memorial. Shrikes are songbirds with hawklike behavior and hook-tipped bills. They 

feed on insects, lizards, mice, or small birds 

(Peterson 1961). 

Loggerhead shrikes are found from southern 

Canada to southern Mexico in open country. 

Common habitat features include lookout 

posts, wires, scattered trees, low scrub, or 

deserts. The shrikes nest in bushes or trees 

and breed from southern British Columbia 

south through the western United States. 

They winter mainly in the southwestern states. 

Loggerhead shrikes are rare in Coronado 

National Memorial, with sightings occurring 

in spring, summer and winter (SW Parks and 

Monuments Assn. 1993). 

The populations of loggerhead shrikes have 

declined drastically. The population decline is 

thought to be due to the following causes: 

• The use of pesticides, which has reduced 

the supply of insects, the shrikes’ main 

food. Pesticides also may have adversely 

affected the birds’ reproductive 

physiology (from the Internet: 

www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/ 

er/factsheets/birds/shrike.htm). 

• The loss of habitat, including wintering 

habitat, due to land development in 

coastal regions (from the Internet: 

www.wbu.com/chipperwoods/photos/ 

logshrike.htm). 

WATER RESOURCES AND 

WATER QUALITY 

Coronado National Memorial is in the Sierra 

Vista subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro 

Basin in southeastern Arizona. The watershed 

encompasses about 950 square miles, extending from the international boundary with 

Mexico to about 27 miles north of Fairbank, 

Arizona (USGS 1999). The subwatershed is 

drained by the San Pedro River, which drains 

about 4,600 square miles. This river extends 

almost 200 miles from its headwaters in 

Sonora, Mexico, to its confluence with the 

Gila River near Winkleman, Arizona. 

99
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Historically, the water quality in the Upper 

San Pedro River basin has been compromised 

when storms have released pollutants from 

tailings or holding ponds and when sewage or 

mining wastes have been released. These have 

severely impacted surface waters in the San 

Pedro River. Regional surface water issues 

involve water quality in the San Pedro River 

and its tributaries. 

Most surface waters in the memorial are 

ephemeral streams, consisting of dry washes, 

arroyos, or continuous and discontinuous 

gullies. Most of these surface water features 

drain toward the southeast. Ephemeral 

streams are dry most of the time, with flow 

generally occurring only for a short time after 

extreme storms. Some streams in the area 

probably were perennial before Tombstone 

(northeast of the memorial) began to divert 

streamflow for municipal use (AZ G&F Dept. 

1954, cited in Ruffner and Johnson 1991). 

Montezuma Canyon is the major drainage in 

the memorial. It receives flow from several 

ephemeral streams before its confluence with 

the San Pedro River. Evidence of streambank 

erosion and downcutting in Montezuma 

Canyon can be seen in areas where 

development and grazing have occurred. In 

addition, large amounts of eroded soils that 

have been transported downstream can be 

seen along drainageways. 

There are at least 21 wells in the memorial. 

The well that provides water for NPS staff and 

visitors appears to have no additional 

capacity. If visitation or NPS staff increased, a 

study might be necessary to determine how to 

get more water or conserve enough to meet 

additional needs. The following other water 

resources are in the national memorial: 

• a few seeps and springs — during wet 

years, Yaqui Springs and other springs will 

trickle much of the year. 

• three stock tanks that have been 

developed for livestock use 

• a water storage tank just north of the 

visitor center and employee residences 

WILDLIFE 

Coronado National Memorial has a great diversity of wildlife species for its size — mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians. This 

probably is due to a number of factors, 

including the presence of thick grassland 

vegetation; the memorial’s location in the Sky 

Island ecosystem; and its connection to other 

natural areas nearby, including Coronado 

National Forest, the San Pedro River, and 

undeveloped areas in Mexico (Swann et al. 

2000). 

Recent inventories of the vertebrate fauna 

have identified 33 reptile and 5 amphibian 

species, 11 bat and 43 terrestrial mammal 

species, and 190 species of birds in memorial 

(Cockrum et al. 1979; Swann et al. 2000; 

(Petryszyn and Alberti n.d.); Swann, Alberti, 

and Schwalbe 2001; plus unpublished 

memorial observation data). Some reptiles in 

the vicinity of the visitor center may be night 

snake, common king snake, mountain 

patchnose snake, Chihuahuan blackhead 

snake, and lyre snake. 

In addition to bats, the mammal species confirmed in the memorial are 1 marsupial, 1 insectivore, 2 rabbits and jackrabbits, 23 

rodents, 13 carnivores, and 3 hoofed animals 

(Swann, Alberti, and Schwalbe 2001). 

Eighteen more mammal species may inhabit 

the memorial but were not confirmed during 

the study, or they were in the memorial in the 

past but probably are not there now. 

Common bird species in the national 

memorial are hummingbirds, warblers, wrens, 

and sparrows. Raptors, including red-tailed 

hawk, Cooper’s hawk, and American kestrel, 

are present but are observed less frequently. 

100
CULTURAL RESOURCES

The following paragraphs contain an overview 

of the history of the region and the memorial, 

recent research, descriptions of the types of 

resources at the site, and inventories of 

specific extant resources. 

THE EXPEDITION 

Coronado National Memorial is the largest of 

28 national memorials in the national park 

system. National memorials that commemorate people or events often have no tangible 

physical objects for visitors to relate to; therefore, interpretive materials are particularly 

important at a national memorial. 

Early in the 16th century, Spain established a 

rich colonial empire in the Americas. From 

Mexico to Peru, gold poured into the Spain’s 

treasury, and new lands were open for settlement. The frontier lay a few hundred miles 

north of Mexico City — beyond was unknown 

land. Antonio de Mendoza, viceroy of New 

Spain (Mexico), wanting to explore the land 

to the north of Mexico, selected Francisco 

Vásquez de Coronado. On January 6, 1540, 

Mendoza commissioned Coronado as 

expedition commander and captain-general 

of all lands he might discover and claim for 

king and country. 

The expedition left Compostela on Mexico’s 

west coast on February 23, 1540, with 336 

Spanish soldiers, four priests, hundreds of 

Mexican-Indian allies, and 1,500 stock 

animals. Supplies were sent north by ship 

under Captain Hernando de Alarcón. After 

reaching Culiacán, Coronado and 100 soldiers 

marched ahead of the slower main army. It is 

most likely that the expedition traveled up the 

San Pedro River Valley, crossing into what 

became the United States just east of the 

present Coronado National Memorial. 

They arrived on July 7, 1540, at Háwikuh, the 

first of the fabled Cities of Cibola. Instead of a 

golden city, they found a rock-masonry 

pueblo crowded with American Indians. After 

unsuccessful negotiations, the Spanish 

attacked and forced the Indians to abandon 

their village. While at Háwikuh, Coronado 

sent his captains out to explore. Don Pedro de 

Tovar traveled to the Hopi Indian villages in 

northeastern Arizona, and Garcia López de 

Cárdenas reached the Grand Canyon of the 

Colorado. Hernando de Alvarado and 20 men 

journeyed east past Acoma and Tiguex 

pueblos to Cicuye (Pecos) pueblo on the 

upper Pecos River. The army spent the winter 

of 1540–41 at Tiguex, where the Indians, at 

first friendly, grew hostile because of Spanish 

violations of hospitality and friendship. Battles 

followed, and the Spaniards killed the 

inhabitants of one pueblo and forced the 

Indians to abandon several others. 

On April 23, 1541, the expedition set out for 

Quivira following an Indian guide. After 40 

days, Coronado sent most of the men back to 

Tiguex and continued on with 30 others. At 

Quivira in central Kansas, they were again 

disillusioned — the houses in the villages were 

made of grass; there were no civilizations rich 

with gold and silver, as the guide had led them 

to believe. Coronado then had his Indian 

guide killed and led his men back to Mexico 

City in the spring of 1542. Although 

discredited, Coronado resumed his position 

as governor of New Galicia. He and his 

captains were called to account for their 

actions, and it was four years before he 

cleared his name. 

Ten years after his return home, Coronado 

died in relative obscurity at 42. His actions 

had brought back knowledge of the northern 

land and its people. This opened a way for 

explorers and missionaries to colonize the 

Southwest and to help develop the distinctive 

culture we know today. 

101
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

AND HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Aboriginal populations have been present in 

the area surrounding Coronado National 

Memorial for the past 10,000 years. PaleoIndian activities took place in the San Pedro 

Valley near the memorial. The Cochise 

Culture (8500 B.C.–300 B.C.) originally was 

defined in the Sulphur Springs Valley to the 

east of the San Pedro. Cochise Culture has 

been divided into three stages: Sulphur 

Springs (7500 B.C.–3500 B.C.), Chiricahua 

(3500 B.C.–1500 B.C.) and San Pedro (1,500 

B.C.–300 B.C.). The Paleo-Indian adaptations 

to the land represented a hunting-gathering 

lifeway. However, some evidence for 

sedentary farm and semipermanent pit house 

villages can be found toward the end of the 

San Pedro stage. Farming methods later 

expanded to include canal irrigation and 

permanent settlements, first in pit houses and 

later in aboveground pueblo form. The San 

Pedro Valley immediately east of the 

memorial displays this cultural history in its 

entirety: Paleo-Indian adaptations, Cochise 

culture, and later agricultural adaptations. 

The Upper Piman and Sobaipuri Indians, who 

followed an agricultural lifestyle in protohistorical times, used the San Pedro and Santa 

Cruz Valleys. Coronado made contact with 

these groups, as did later Spanish explorers 

and missionaries. By A.D. 1500, the Hohokam 

culture was predominant and the Spanish 

settlement of the area began. In the late 18th 

century, the Spanish government gave land 

grants to settlers in the area. Following the 

War with Mexico, Mexican jurisdiction of the 

area ended with the Gadsden Purchase in 

1854. The completion of the Southern Pacific 

Railroad in the 1860s allowed the expansion 

of cattle markets and increased the 

agricultural and mining possibilities. During 

the late 1800s, military posts were established. 

This resulted in extensive cattle ranching, 

farming, and mining by 1885. 

The Huachuca Mountains attracted the 

attention of prospectors and miners. In the 

immediate vicinity of the memorial are several 

claims from this period. Mining in Montezuma Canyon began in the 1880s and continued sporadically over the years, but the 

only operation of any real duration was the 

State of Texas mine in Montezuma Canyon 

near the present northern boundary of the 

memorial. The mine, which produced commercial grade lead-zinc ore, was mined intermittently between 1902 and World War II. 

Ranchers first arrived in the area in the late 

1890s. At that time, water was one of the 

prime factors inviting settlement. Montezuma 

Creek was flowing, although it ceased to be a 

permanent stream shortly after the turn of the 

century. William Ratliff began ranching in the 

area of the memorial. After Ratliff’s death in 

1917, Joe Pyeatt, an heir, began ranching in 

the area at the site of the Montezuma Ranch. 

The ranch went through a series of owners. 

Another activity common in Montezuma 

Canyon was the illegal production of liquor 

during the Prohibition era. The canyon’s 

isolation made it an ideal place for the 

location and operation of stills. In addition, 

mescal was smuggled across the border for 

sale at Fort Huachuca during that period. A 

trail used by smugglers cuts through the 

eastern part of the memorial. 

Coronado National Forest was established in 

the early 1900s. The Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) in the 1930s constructed a road 

in the area of the memorial that went over 

Montezuma Pass. Coronado National Memorial was authorized in 1941 and established in 

1952 by presidential proclamation. It was 

created from U.S. Forest Service lands. 

Archeological surveys of slightly more than 

one-third of the memorial have been completed. Areas not surveyed are places where 

the terrain is too steep to conduct a survey. 

These surveys found both prehistoric and 

historic sites. The prehistoric sites were 

Cochise Culture hunting and gathering sites, 

102
Cultural Resources 

and the historic sites are related to mining and 

ranching activities. A total of 15 sites are listed 

on the NPS Archeological Management 

Information System. 

Seven structures are listed on the list of classified structures for the memorial: International 

Boundary Monuments 100, 101, and 102; the 

ruins of the Doreador and Clark-Smith 

mining sites; graves associated with the former 

Ratliff Ranch; and a road constructed by the 

Civilian Conservation Corps. The resources 

determined eligible for nomination to the 

National Register of Historic Places were 

International Boundary Monuments 100, 101, 

and 102 and the Montezuma Pass Road. 

The Ash Mountain and Sunnyside CCC 

camps were constructed near the Montezuma 

Pass Road between 1933 and 1935. This was a 

rural development project for the purpose of 

shortening distances between ranches from 

103 to 11 miles. The last 2-mile stretch of the 

road in the memorial remains unpaved and 

contains 76 culverts with stone masonry 

headwalls and spillways. In 1998, many of the 

culverts, headwalls, and spillways received 

preservation treatment. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

Information about ethnographic resources in 

the national memorial is limited. On occasion, 

members of the Apache tribe have gathered 

acorns on national memorial lands. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

Three Coronado National Memorial cultural 

landscapes are listed on the NPS cultural 

landscape inventory. A level II cultural 

landscape inventory will not be performed on 

any of these landscapes before 2002. A level I 

cultural landscape inventory has been 

completed for only one, Montezuma Ranch 

(in 1999). On the basis of that information, 

level II inventory is not planned for the ranch. 

The investigation concluded that ranch was of 

local significance, but there are severe 

integrity problems. The inventory concluded 

that the Montezuma Ranch is not eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places as a historic landscape. A level I cultural 

landscape inventory will be completed for 

abandoned mine sites (all sites would be considered one landscape) in 2002 if funding and 

staffing is available. The third landscape, the 

entire memorial viewshed, is scheduled for 

inventory after 2005. That inventory will look 

at previously unevaluated roads, trails, and 

structures to determine if any can be 

identified as being part of a cultural landscape. 

103
VISITOR UNDERSTANDING AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

ACCESS AND VISITOR FACILITIES 

No fee is required to enter Coronado 

National Memorial. Most visitors arrive by 

private vehicle through the east entrance from 

Arizona Highway 92. A small percentage of 

visitors, such as school groups or van tours, 

arrive by bus. Approximate driving times from 

nearby cities to the east entrance of the 

memorial are shown below. 

Sierra Vista

Bisbee

Tucson

Phoenix

0.50 hour

0.50 hour 

1.75 hours 

3.75 hours 

The nearest airport of any size is in Tucson, 

but flights are available to Sierra Vista. 

Travelers can reach the memorial from 

Tucson by taking Interstate Highway 10 

southeast to exit 302, then taking Arizona 

Highway 90 south to Sierra Vista, and then AZ 

92 south to Coronado Memorial Drive, which 

leads to the memorial entrance. An alternate 

route would be to go west from Bisbee on AZ 

92 to Coronado Memorial Drive and follow it 

to the memorial entrance. 

Many visitors are either year-round or 

seasonal residents of southern Arizona who 

make day trips from home. The memorial’s 

increasing visitation reflects population 

growth in the region. Most visitors from 

outside the area come to the memorial as part 

of a larger regional travel itinerary. 

The memorial’s visitor facilities, described 

below, are the visitor center, a picnic area, the 

road from the entrance to Montezuma Pass, 

and a shelter and interpretive waysides at 

Montezuma Pass. Overnight use is not 

permitted at the memorial. 

• The visitor center, near the center of the 

national memorial along the main road, 

offers orientation, information, an 

interpretive trail, and restrooms. The 

parking area holds about 20 cars. 

• The picnic area is just south of the main 

road and across from the visitor center. 

Facilities include tables, water, and 

restrooms. 

• The road climbs from the entrance to the 

top of Montezuma Pass. From the pass 

there is a panoramic view of the San Pedro 

River Valley, where Coronado may have 

entered what is now the United States. 

• The scenic overlook at Montezuma Pass is 

3 miles west of the visitor center. There 

are interpretive waysides along an 

interpretive trail 0.4 mile long leading 

from the pass to Coronado Peak. From 

Coronado Peak, visitors can view the San 

Pedro River Valley to the east and San 

Rafael Valley to the west. 

Coronado Cave, 600 feet long, is accessible by 

a one-way trail 0.75 mile long that begins at 

the west end of the visitor center parking area. 

The trail, formed by water seeping through 

cracks in the limestone, contains numerous 

formations, some of which are still growing. 

The cave has numerous scalloped and tilted 

limestone bedding planes that illustrate the 

tectonic and hydrologic history of the region. 

A permit, free of charge, must be obtained at 

the visitor center before entering the cave. 

VISITATION TRENDS 

Recreational visits to Coronado National Memorial increased by 87% over the past 20 

years, from 47,825 in 1981 to 89,523 in 2000. 

Visitation increased by 58% between 1990 and 

1998, with 1996 the peak year. In the same 

period, the population in Cochise County 

grew 27%. The average yearly visitation over 

the past 10 years was about 85,890. The yearly 

average rises to 91,750 when the most recent 

five years are considered. Increased visitation 

104
to the memorial in 1999 can be attributed to 

an article about Coronado Cave in the January 

1999 issues of Arizona Highways magazine. 

Factors that decreased visits since 1981 were a 

fire in 1988 and U.S. government shutdowns 

in 1995 and 1996. 

Visitation is highest in February, March, and 

April. Many school groups visit in May. The 

busiest week usually is the one between 

Christmas and New Year’s Day. Between 1990 

and 2000, the lowest visitation month was 

June three times, September and October 

twice, and January, February, August, and 

December, once each. 

Figure 4 depicts the annual use of the national 

memorial based on traffic counts. Memorial 

visitation generally rose from 1981 to 1996, 

when visitation reached a high of about 96,000 

visitors. After this period, visitation declined 

slightly, to about 90,000 visitors annually. 

Most visitors go to the higher elevation sites in 

the memorial. The lower grasslands are little 

used for recreation; however, the use of these 

lower elevation areas is increasing because of 

visitor interest in exploring and hiking more 

of the memorial. 

Visitation is expected to continue to increase 

throughout the 15- to 20-year 

implementation of this plan. The following 

factors are expected to contribute to 

increased visitation: 

• increases in local population size 

• increasing urbanization 

• the development of other local tourist 

attractions, which will draw additional 

nonresident visitors into the area 

The trend of increasing use and a growing 

proportion of visitors originating from outside 

the local area, if it continued without corresponding improvements in visitor services, 

might eventually affect the visitor experience 

at Coronado National Memorial. 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 

National Memorial include the cave in their 

visit. Visitation to the cave more than doubled 

between 1990 and 2000, with about 5,000 

visitors in 2000, compared to an estimated 

2,400 visitors in 1990. The dramatic increase 

in cave visitation in 1999 is attributed to the 

Arizona Highways article on Coronado Cave 

mentioned above. Figure 5 depicts visitation 

to Coronado Cave between 1990 and 2000. 

Hiking is a popular visitor activity. Some 

popular trails are described below. The four 

trails in the memorial are predominantly in 

the oak-Mexican piñon-juniper woodland 

association. The trails to the picnic area and to 

Coronado Cave also traverse a portion of the 

Arizona sycamore-Arizona walnut-oak 

riparian association. 

• Joe’s Canyon trail, 3.1 miles long, starts 

just west of the visitor center, passes 

through the saddle at the top of 

Smuggler’s Ridge and joins with the 

Coronado Peak trail to the Montezuma 

Pass parking area. 

• Yaqui Ridge trail, 1 mile long, descends 

from Joe’s Canyon trail to International 

Boundary Marker 102 at the southwestern 

corner of the national memorial. This trail 

is the southernmost point of the 790-mile 

Arizona Trail, described below. 

• Crest Trail, 2 miles long within the 

memorial, extends 24 miles from the 

Montezuma Pass parking area to Fort 

Huachuca. Also part of the Arizona Trail, 

the Crest Trail is a popular route to Miller 

Peak in Coronado National Forest. 

• The 790-mile-long Arizona Trail starts in 

Coronado National Memorial at marker 

102 on the Mexican border and runs the 

entire length of Arizona to the ArizonaUtah state line. Parts of some other trails 

identified above have been incorporated 

into the Arizona Trail route. 

Some visitors use national memorial 

facilities, including the road to Montezuma 

Pass or the Crest Trail, for access into 

Coronado Cave is one of the attractions of the 

memorial. About 5.5% of visitors to Coronado 

105
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Coronado National Forest, which is north and west of the memorial. 

FIGURE 4: VISITATION TO CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL BASED ON TRAFFIC COUNTS 

0 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

19811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000 

Year 

Calendar Year Visitation Calendar Year Visitors 

FIGURE 5: VISITATION TO CORONADO CAVE IN CORONADO NATIONAL MEMORIAL 

Coronado Cave Visitation 

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

Years 

106 
Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 

VISITOR SERVICES AND 

INTERPRETATION 

At the visitor center, a staff member at the 

desk offers orientation, information, and visit 

planning. Coronado’s expedition is described 

in a video and in exhibits of artifacts and 

replicas. The bookstore offers materials about 

the memorial, its natural and cultural 

resources, and the exploration of North 

America. Outside, a short interpretive trail 

identifies some native plants of the area. 

Wayside exhibits about Coronado’s 

expedition are found at Montezuma Pass and 

along the Coronado Peak trail. In addition, the 

staff works extensively on national memorial 

themes with groups and schools through the 

outreach program. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Visitors to the Coronado National Memorial 

can enjoy the visitor center, see views from 

Montezuma Pass and Coronado Peak, and 

picnic, hike, and observe wildlife. About a 

third of the visitors come to the visitor center, 

and about 5.5% visit Coronado Cave. 

The visitor center is too small to 

accommodate the existing level of visitation. 

Constraints include a lack of appropriate 

indoor space for hosting large groups that visit 

the memorial. 

The two grazing allotments cover 39% of the 

national memorial. Interactions between 

visitors and cattle occur in and around the 

grazing areas. During scoping for the Livestock 

Management Plan and for this document, a 

number of complaints were received about 

the conflict between recreational use and 

livestock. It is expected that increasing 

demands for activities such as hiking, birding, 

and biking will result in more visitors being 

present in the grazing allotments. 

VISITOR SAFETY 

The road to Montezuma Pass is paved from 

Arizona Highway 92 to 1 mile west of the 

visitor center. From there to the top of the 

pass, it is a narrow, steep, mountainous dirt 

and gravel road with tight switchbacks. Some 

visitors have said they feel uncomfortable 

driving their vehicles to Montezuma Pass 

because of the winding, rough road and the 

steep dropoffs without guardrails. Despite 

these conditions, accidents are rare on this 

low-speed road, and the few accidents that 

have occurred were not serious. 

The memorial is in an area frequently used for 

smuggling undocumented aliens and illegal 

drugs. This creates a potential danger to 

visitors; however, they usually are unaware of 

these activities except for infrequent 

encounters with undocumented aliens asking 

for rides. There has been only one serious 

incident of visitors encountering smugglers: a 

hiker was assaulted at Montezuma Pass, and 

her vehicle was stolen. 

LOCAL ATTRACTIONS AND 

OTHER RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Several other attractions and recreational 

opportunities in southern Cochise County 

attract visitors to the region. Some of them are 

listed below. People who visit these places 

often include Coronado National Memorial in 

their itinerary. 

Kartchner Caverns State Park, about 35 

miles north of the memorial on Arizona Highway 90, opened to the public in November 

1999. The caverns contain about 13,000 feet of 

passages and two rooms as large as football 

fields. Tours of the caverns and their multicolored formations are available to the public. 

107
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area is about 10 miles east of the 

memorial. The conservation area contains 

about 40 miles of the upper San Pedro River, 

extending from the United States–Mexico 

border north almost to St. David. The national 

conservation area, which was designated by 

Congress on November 18, 1988, is 

administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

The San Pedro Trail parallels the river 

though most of the national conservation 

area. Nonmotorized activities are available 

there, including birding, hiking, bicycling, and 

horseback riding. When completed, it will be 

about 30 miles long. 

Ramsey Canyon Preserve, owned by 

The Nature Conservancy, is known for its 

scenic beauty, diverse plant and animal life, 

and excellent birding opportunities. It is about 

3 miles west of Arizona Highway 92, about 

midway between the national memorial and 

Sierra Vista. 

Tombstone, about 35 miles northeast of 

the memorial, is best known for its silvermining history and the 1881 gunfight at the 

OK Corral. The shootout, symbolizing the 

town’s reputation for lawlessness, is reenacted 

daily. The Tombstone Courthouse (1882) has 

been designated a state historic park, and the 

Tombstone Historic District is a national 

historic landmark. Sites in Tombstone listed 

on the National Register of Historic Places are 

Saint Paul’s Episcopal Church, Tombstone 

City Hall, the Tombstone Courthouse, and 

Tombstone Historic District. 

The Arizona Trail, mentioned 

previously, extends from the Arizona–Utah 

state line to the United States–Mexico border 

at Coronado National Memorial. Trail users 

can hike, ride horseback, cross-country ski, 

and go mountain biking except in wilderness 

and specially managed areas. Numerous 

private, local, state, and federal organizations, 

including the National Park Service, are 

working with the Arizona Trail Association to 

complete the trail. 

Fort Huachuca, established in 1877 as a 

base for American soldiers fighting in the 

Indian Wars, was home to the Buffalo 

Soldiers. That African-American cavalry 

served with General Pershing when he chased 

Mexico revolutionary leader Pancho Villa in 

1916. Areas of the fort outside of the firing 

ranges and impact areas are typically available 

for recreational activities, including birding, 

hiking, horseback riding, golfing, fishing, and 

hunting. 

Coronado National Forest, (mentioned 

earlier) north and west of the memorial, is a 

popular location for hiking, camping, hunting, 

and fishing. 

108
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The socioeconomic study area for this plan TABLE 12: POPULATION OF COCHISE 

primarily includes Cochise County, Arizona. COUNTY, ARIZONA, YEAR 2000 CENSUS 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

AND ECONOMICS 

Cochise County, which encompasses 6,215 

square miles, is as large as Rhode Island and 

Connecticut combined. Most information in 

this section is from the U.S. Bureau of the 

Census. 

The county’s history is tied to mining, chiefly 

in Tombstone and Bisbee, and to agriculture, 

particularly livestock. Fort Huachuca provides 

military employment and also is one of the 

largest civilian employers in southern Arizona. 

Other major industries in the county are 

aerospace, information technology, farming 

and ranching, and tourism. In addition to the 

military, some major employers are the 

University of Arizona, Aegis Communications 

Group, Inc., several engineering firms that 

serve the military (Science Applications 

International Corporation and TRW, Inc.), 

and Wal-Mart. The county also has a large 

retired population; more than 25% of its 

citizens are older than 54. 

The 2000 census showed a population in 

Cochise County of 117,755. This represents 

approximately 3% of the population of 

Arizona. Approximately 60% of county 

residents live within seven cities, as listed in 

table 12. 

Arizona’s population grew 30% between 1990 

and 2000, and the population of Cochise 

County grew by 20.1%. Growth in the county 

was not equally distributed by age; the age 

groups 35–54, 55–64, and 65+ all grew 

between 35% and 40%. The 5–19 age group 

increased by 16%, the 5 and under group grew 

by only 6%, and the 20–34 age group dropped 

by more than 3%. 

Location 

Total 

Population 

% of County 

Population 

Benson 4,711 4.0 

Bisbee 6,090 5.2 

Douglas 14,312 12.2 

Huachuca City 1,751 1.5 

Sierra Vista 37,775 32.1 

Tombstone 1,504 1.3 

Willcox 3,733 3.2 

Smaller towns and 

unincorporated areas 47,879 40.7 

Total 117,755 100.0 

The total employment in Cochise County 

from June 2000 through May 2001 was about 

38,000 people. Countywide unemployment 

during this period varied from 4.1% in 

October 2000 to 5.1% in February 2001. The 

highest unemployment rates, which were in 

Douglas, ranged from 8.5% to 10.5%. Sierra 

Vista and Bisbee, the two cities closest to 

Coronado National Memorial, consistently 

had unemployment rates at or below the 

countywide levels. 

From May 2000 through April 2001, sales in 

Cochise County totaled about $700 million. 

Restaurant and bar sales were 12% to 15% of 

this amount, and the rest was retail sales. 

Coronado National Memorial receives law 

enforcement services from the Cochise 

County Sheriff’s Office and fire protection 

from the U.S. Forest Service, Palominas 

Volunteer Fire Department, and Fry Fire 

Department. The memorial is in the 

Palominas School District. 

Coronado National Memorial Economics 

Yearly administrative costs at the national 

memorial are about $740,000. The current 

national memorial staff comprises 12 full-time 

equivalent positions. 

109
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

In 1995 the National Park Service prepared a 

socioeconomic assessment of Coronado 

National Memorial. The assessment concluded that memorial visitors spend about 

$81.50 per person-day. Based on a multiplier 

of 1.14, visitor spending generated about 47 

jobs in Cochise County. 

Grazing 

The legislation that established Coronado 

National Memorial said that grazing could 

continue if it did not interfere with 

recreational development, as follows: 

Grazing of livestock within the 

memorial area to the extent now 

permitted within the said area when 

such grazing will not interfere with 

recreational development authorized 

by this act; and . . . 

Livestock grazing was eliminated on the 

former Grubstake and Lone Mountain 

allotments in the west part of the memorial 

partly because of conflicts with recreation. 

The two remaining grazing allotments, Joe’s 

Spring and Montezuma, cover 39% of the 

memorial. 

FIGURE 6: GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 

The total area of the Joe’s Spring allotment is 

1,480 acres. This includes 1,143 acres within 

the memorial and 337 acres in U.S. Forest 

Service lands adjacent to the memorial’s 

northeast boundary. The two allotments are 

shown in figure 6, including the U.S. Forest 

Service portion of the Joe’s Spring allotment. 

The memorial boundary is shown in bold. 

The Joe’s Spring allotment, which has been 

active since the 1930s, has been used by a 

single family. Until recently, the annual 

stocking rate for this allotment was 432 animal 

unit months (AUMs). The new Livestock 

Management Plan stipulates that the stocking 

rate in this unit be reduced to 214 animal unit 

months by 2006 (NPS 2000b). 

The Montezuma allotment, which covers 668 

acres, has not been stocked since 1990. The 

new grazing plan would reduce the stocking 

rate for this unit to 126 AUMs if it was 

returned to use. 

Until 1992, the U.S. Forest Service 

administered grazing in Coronado National 

Memorial under a memorandum of 

understanding with the National Park Service. 

That agreement expired in 1992, and since 

then the National Park Service has directly 

managed cattle use and permits within the 

national memorial. 

Cochise County contains about 330 

commercial ranches, with an average cattle 

herd of 225 to 250 head (Arizona Regional 

Image Archive 1999a). This computes to a 

countywide total of 74,250–82,500 head. The 

same source cites an average carrying capacity 

for ranches in the county of 8.9 animal units 

per section (640 acres), which works out to 

one animal unit per 72 acres. 

LAND USE AND TRENDS 

About 41% of Cochise County is privately 

owned (Arizona Regional Image Archive 

1999a). This is high compared to a statewide 

private ownership of 18%. The federal 

government is the primary landowner in both 

the county and the state. 

The most recent forest plan of Coronado National Forest emphasizes improving recreation 

opportunities, wildlife habitats, and watershed 

110
conditions as appropriate (Forest Service, 

USDA 1986a). 

Land east of Coronado National Memorial is 

used primarily for agriculture, with some agricultural land having been converted to 

residential use. According to the Southern San 

Pedro Valley Area Plan (S. San Pedro Citizen 

Planning Committee 2001), residential 

development is mostly made up of large-lot 

developments of 4 acres or more. More 

intensive development is occurring in Miracle 

Socioeconomic Environment 

Valley, Palominas, and the Rancho Palominas 

Subdivision. 

The 2001 Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan 

envisions some growth in rural areas, with 

community character being retained. The plan 

suggests zoning 200 acres for commercial 

development, 180 acres of which currently are 

vacant. The plan contains policies for 

minimizing light pollution and for keeping 

important riparian corridors available for 

groundwater recharge. 

111
ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES
INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND 

The alternatives in this document are 

intended to establish broad management 

guidelines. The general nature of the 

alternatives requires that the analysis of 

impacts also be general. This means that the 

National Park Service can make reasonable 

projections of likely impacts, but these are 

based on assumptions that may prove not to 

be accurate in the future. 

As a result, this General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is programmatic, presenting an overview of the potential 

impacts relating to each alternative. It will 

serve as a basis for NEPA documents prepared 

to assess subsequent developments or 

management actions. If and when specific 

NPS development or other actions are 

proposed as a result of this General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement for Coronado National Memorial, 

NPS staff will determine whether more 

detailed environmental documentation is 

needed, consistent with the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

Following this introduction, the methodology 

used in the environmental impact analysis is 

presented. The impact analysis sections are 

organized by alternative. The first analyzed is 

alternative A (the no-action or existing 

management direction alternative), followed 

by the “action” alternatives B, C, D, and E. 

The potential effects on natural resources are 

discussed, followed by the effects on cultural 

resources, visitor understanding, and the 

socioeconomic environment. Each discussion 

includes cumulative effects and conclusions. 

The environmental effects are compared in 

table 9, page 77. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Definition 

A cumulative effect is described in the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), which implement the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 

4321 et seq.). The CEQ regulations require that 

cumulative effects be assessed in the decisionmaking process for federal projects and that 

there be a description of how the cumulative 

effects for a particular project were determined. A cumulative impact is defined in 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

A “cumulative impact” is the impact on the 

environment which results from the 

incremental impact on the action when 

added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

Plans Considered for 

Cumulative Effects Analysis 

It was necessary to identify other ongoing or 

reasonably foreseeable future projects at 

Coronado National Memorial and in the 

surrounding region. The region, or assessment 

area, covers Cochise County, Coronado 

National Forest, and the San Pedro National 

Conservation Area. Projects were identified 

through correspondence, Internet sites, and 

meetings with county and city governments 

and with other federal land managers. Any 

planning or development activity that is being 

implemented or will be implemented in the 

reasonably foreseeable future was considered 

a cumulative action. The plans considered are 

described below. 

115
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Management Plan (NPS 2000b). 

Since their arrival in the 1500s, livestock made 

a significant impact on the natural landscape 

of southeastern Arizona, particularly during 

the late 1800s and early 1900s. Improper 

livestock management stripped the grasslands 

of their vegetation, increased woody plant 

production, caused massive arroyo cutting, 

and facilitated soil erosion (Hastings and 

Turner 1965). 

A major drought in the late 1800s reduced 

livestock numbers by 50%–75% and 

contributed to the degradation of native 

vegetation. Coronado National Forest was 

established in the early 1900s, making 

available for the first time the means to 

manage livestock use on public lands. 

Allotments were established and fenced. 

Permits generally were issued to the ranchers 

who had traditionally used the areas. 

The National Park Service will work toward 

permanently retiring the remaining grazing 

allotments in the national memorial as 

opportunities arise to do so through mutual 

agreement with the permittees. Until this can 

be accomplished, this plan will serve to 

moderate the effects of grazing. The proposal, 

as described in the Finding of No Significant 

Impact (NPS n.d.) has intensified grazing 

management. The four key components of the 

plan include (a) reducing animal unit months 

so that impacts on native vegetation will be 

more moderate, (b) adjusting the season of use 

to avoid grazing during vegetative growing 

seasons, (c) implementing a comprehensive 

vegetation monitoring plan, and (d) providing 

flexibility of use in both the number of animal 

unit months and the season of use, based on 

environmental indicators. All costs incurred 

by the National Park Service in managing this 

special use are being billed to the permittee. 

Coronado National Forest, Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest 

Service, USDA 1986). The forest lies on the 

north and west sides of Coronado National 

Memorial. Its most recent forest plan contains 

the following major points: 

• Equalize permitted grazing use and range 

carrying capacity within 10 to 15 years, 

and improve rangeland conditions. 

• Improve forest-wide watershed 

conditions. 

• Improve the condition of riparian habitats 

and increase their productivity. 

• Recommend the addition of 62,000 acres 

to the wilderness system, and provide for a 

higher quality of recreational experience. 

• Improve the developed recreational 

experience by increasing coordination 

with other agencies and the private sector 

in constructing new recreation sites, 

rehabilitating existing recreation sites, and 

implementing capacity controls. 

• Enhance dispersed recreation experiences 

with improved public access and 

designation of zoological-botanical areas. 

• Limit motorized vehicle use to designated 

trails and roads. 

• Promote the conservation of state and 

federally listed threatened and 

endangered species. 

• Improve fish and wildlife habitats by balancing successional stages of vegetation 

through commercial timber sales, fuelwood harvest, prescribed burning, 

coordination with other resource 

activities, and direct habitat improvement. 

• Provide a balance between the production 

of commodities such as wood products, 

developed recreation opportunities, 

livestock grazing, mineral production, and 

the protection of amenities such as scenic 

quality, wildlife habitat, diversity, riparian 

condition, wilderness opportunity, 

watershed condition, and dispersed 

recreation opportunities. 

In addition to the actions in the plan, the 

Forest Service is constructing a trail system 

along the eastern side of the Huachuca 

Mountains that may eventually connect to the 

116
Introduction 

memorial’s boundary near its northeast 

corner. 

East Huachucas Strategy Draft (Forest Service, USDA 1997). This plan of the Sierra 

Vista Ranger District, Coronado National 

Forest focuses on the east side of the 

Huachucas from the crest of the mountains on 

the west to the Coronado National Forest 

boundary on the east. The area, which is 

bounded on the north and northwest by Fort 

Huachuca and on the south by Coronado 

National Memorial, covers 22,000 acres, of 

which 12,000 acres (roughly the western half) 

is the congressionally designated Miller Peak 

Wilderness Area. The wilderness area is 

managed with a preservation philosophy 

rather than the multiple resource use policy of 

nonwilderness forestlands. This plan 

identifies actions needed to improve 

recreation and resource conditions on the 

remaining 10,000 nonwilderness acres. In its 

stewardship of this area, the U.S. Forest 

Service has the following goals for the future 

of recreation and resource integrity: 

• Management emphasis for the east side of 

the Huachucas will focus on maintaining 

and improving biological diversity and 

providing high quality recreational 

experiences. 

• Scenic and historic settings will be 

preserved. 

• Urbanization around the foothills of the 

east Huachucas requires planning and 

management that includes consideration 

of biological, sociological, and economic 

needs. 

• Future planning and management must 

recognize and adhere to the boundaries 

set in this plan for scales of development 

so that the desired habitat and recreation 

settings are maintained for future 

generations. 

The following are examples of plan actions: 

• New facilities will be rural or 

semiprimitive in character. 

• Construct a low elevation trail that 

connects the various existing canyon 

trails. This “perimeter” trail would 

provide loop trail opportunities for hiking, 

horseback riding, and mountain biking. 

• Define and delineate low elevation 

camping and picnicking areas. 

• Protect existing wildlife corridors from 

the mountain range to the adjacent land 

during future planning and management. 

• Work with officials from Fort Huachuca 

to provide legal trail access from the fort 

to the forest and vice versa. This would 

open extensive trail opportunities to the 

public. 

The Final Safford District Resource 

Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement (BLM 1990b). This plan of 

the Safford District, Bureau of Land 

Management, describes and analyzes 

alternative plans for managing about 1.4 

million acres of public land in southeastern 

Arizona. It covers all BLM-managed land in 

Graham, Greenlee, and Cochise Counties and 

portions of Pinal, Pima, and Gila Counties. 

The selected plan, alternative A, will guide the 

management of the lands for 15 years. The 

preferred alternative provides a balanced 

approach to multiple use management and 

will protect sensitive resources that cannot 

tolerate disturbance from other activities. It 

also provides for the consumptive use and 

development of other resources, as follows: 

• Three research natural areas of critical 

environmental concern will be designated 

as recommended in the San Pedro River 

Riparian Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 

1989). Management plans will be prepared 

for each area after designation. 

• Portions of the Gila and San Francisco 

Rivers have been recommended by the 

National Park Service for further study as 

potential candidates for designation under 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Suitability 

117
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

determinations will be prepared at a later 

date. 

• The Arizona Wetland Riparian 

Management Strategy (BLM 1990a) has as 

a primary goal “to improve water quality 

and riparian areas to good or better 

ecological conditions by 1997 for 75 

percent of BLM-administered streams by 

implementing grazing systems and 

strategically planned enhancement projects.” The following are examples of how 

BLM policies support the implementation 

of this goal. 

� Achieve riparian area management and 

maintenance objectives through the 

management of existing uses wherever 

feasible. 

� Prescribe the management of riparian 

values based on site-specific 

characteristics and settings. 

� Give special attention to monitoring 

and evaluating management activities 

in riparian areas, and revise 

management practices where sitespecific objectives are not being met. 

� Identify, encourage, and support 

research and studies needed to ensure 

that riparian area management 

objectives can be properly defined and 

met. 

• The Safford plan’s goal for the 

management of riparian areas is to 

maintain or improve 75% of the acreage of 

riparian vegetation on public lands within 

the district in good or excellent condition 

by 1997. 

• The Bureau of Land Management’s goal is 

to minimize soil erosion and rehabilitate 

eroded areas to maintain and enhance 

watershed condition and reduce nonpoint source pollution that can result from 

rangeland management and use activities. 

The Safford plan contains specific actions 

to address soil erosion and salinity 

management. 

• As required by law, the Bureau of Land 

Management will manage vegetation for 

its use while maintaining sufficient ground 

cover to maintain and enhance watershed 

condition and reduce nonpoint source 

pollution from range land management 

and use activities. 

• The Bureau of Land Management will 

designate 13 areas of critical 

environmental concern totaling 40,805 

acres (31,949 acres of public land) to 

protect important natural and cultural 

resources. 

• The plan includes developing coordinated 

resource management plans to direct 

multiple use programs on public lands in 

the Aravaipa Creek Watershed, Muleshoe 

Ranch, and Bear Springs Flat areas to 

direct the development of program 

activities toward the maintenance and 

enhancement of watershed condition. 

• The plan also includes managing cultural 

resources for information potential, public 

values, and conservation. 

San Pedro River Riparian Management 

Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. (BLM 1989). The San Pedro 

riparian area, administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management, contains about 40 miles of 

the upper San Pedro River extending from 

several miles south of Saint David to the 

border with Mexico. It was designated by 

Congress as a national conservation area on 

November 18, 1988. From the eastern 

boundary of the Coronado National 

Memorial, the closest part of the national 

conservation area is about 10 miles to the east. 

This area was set aside to protect and enhance 

the riparian ecosystem and related resources. 

The plan notes four areas of the San Pedro 

that are potential areas of critical environmental concern: San Pedro Riparian, St. David 

Cienega, San Pedro River, and San Rafael. 

The proposed action of the San Pedro River 

plan will permit developed sites outside the 

118
riparian areas to the extent of four large sites 

and seven small ones. Overnight camping by 

permit will be allowed. The proposed action 

emphasizes actions to protect or enhance 

vegetation, wildlife habitat, water, and 

cultural/paleontological resources. Livestock 

grazing on the original acreage has been 

prohibited for the life of the plan. 

Upper San Pedro Partnership. This group is 

a consortium of local, state, and federal 

agencies (including the National Park 

Service), organizations, and landowners 

whose goal, according to its brochure, is to 

“ensure that a long-term groundwater supply 

is available to meet the needs of current and 

future residents and the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area.” The three 

strategies of the partnership are to do the 

following: 

• Reduce water consumption to the 

minimum necessary to meet the needs of 

people and nature. 

• Reclaim used water (effluent) that would 

otherwise be wasted. 

• Augment existing water resources through 

improved rainfall harvesting techniques. 

Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan, 

Public Review Draft (2001). The goal of this 

plan, (produced by the Southern San Pedro 

Valley Area Plan Citizen Planning Committee, 

Cochise County Planning and Management 

Information Systems Staff, Cochise County 

Planning Commission, and Cochise County 

Board of Supervisors) is to provide guidelines 

for the future development of land use in the 

plan area. The boundaries of the Palominas 

Fire District are the boundaries of the plan. 

This plan and land use map will be 

amendments of Cochise County’s 

comprehensive plan. 

At the beginning of the planning process, 

more than 1,200 surveys were mailed to 

property owners in the planning area. Most of 

the responses to the survey expressed a 

Introduction 

preference for retaining the rural character of 

the area. 

Business and Industry — 200 acres zoned; 

180 of which remain vacant. 

Most of this land is on the north side of 

Arizona Highway 92 and on a quarter-section 

on the north of AZ 92 about 0.25 mile east of 

the San Pedro River 

The goal is that new nonresidential 

development would complement the rural, 

small town, recreational and ranching 

character of the valley 

Industrial uses are considered more suitable in 

the Sierra Vista employment center, where 

infrastructure exists to support such activities 

Residential Neighborhoods — Residential 

development is made up of “mostly . . . large 

lot development of 4 acres or larger with the 

exception of the population centers of 

Miracle Valley, Palominas, and the Rancho 

Palominas Subdivision.” 

Densities are defined as follows: 

High density: less than 36,000 square feet 

lot size. 

Medium density: 36,000 square feet but less 

than 4 acres. 

Rural density: 1 residence per 4 acres and 

grazing land for properties likely to remain 

as agricultural uses on a voluntary basis 

The Southern San Pedro Area Plan envisions 

some growth in rural areas while maintaining 

community character. It suggests zoning 200 

acres for commercial development, 180 acres 

of which is vacant. The plan contains policies 

for keeping important wash corridors 

available for groundwater recharge and for 

minimizing light pollution. 

Infrastructure within U.S. Border Patrol, 

Naco-Douglas Corridor, Cochise County, 

Arizona. To help fulfill the U.S. Border 

Patrol’s mission to reduce illegal immigration 

119
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

and drug trafficking along the U.S.–Mexico 

border, infrastructure projects that have been 

approved by the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service have been analyzed 

under the NEPA process through the 

preparation of an environmental assessment. 

The Border Patrol proposes to improve 280 

miles of road along the Mexico border and 

install other infrastructure components. 

Roads would be widened, and culverts, 

bridges, and low-water crossings would be 

added. These actions would promote safer 

driving and enhance the Border Patrol’s 

response capabilities. 

New fencing 10–14 feet high would be erected 

along the border near points of entry to 

prevent illegal passage. Vertical lengths of 4– 

5-inch diameter piping about 3 feet high 

would be placed as vehicle barriers to impede 

illegal entry. These upright barriers would not 

prevent pedestrian or wildlife movement. In 

addition, stadium style lighting and cameras 

would be installed at key infiltration points. 

In the memorial, rail-on-rail barriers would 

be placed in various locations near the U.S.– 

Mexico border, from the memorial’s eastern 

boundary west to Smugglers Wash and at the 

head of Smugglers Wash. The barriers would 

be made of posts 4–5 feet high spaced 4 feet 

apart, with a rail about 3 feet above the ground 

level connecting the posts. 

IMPAIRMENT 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of the preferred alternative and 

other alternatives, NPS policy (Management 

Policies 2001, § 1.4) requires that potential 

effects be analyzed to determine whether or 

not proposed actions would impair the 

resources of the national memorial. 

The fundamental purpose of the national park 

system, established by the Organic Act and 

reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as 

amended, begins with a mandate to conserve 

park resources and values. NPS managers 

must always seek ways to avoid or minimize, 

to the greatest degree practicable, any adverse 

effects on the resources and values of a park 

system unit. However, the laws do give the 

National Park Service the management 

discretion to allow impacts on resources and 

values when necessary and appropriate to 

fulfill the purposes of a national park system 

unit, as long as the impact does not constitute 

impairment of the affected resources and 

values. 

Although Congress has given the National 

Park Service the management discretion to 

allow certain impacts, that discretion is limited 

by the statutory requirement that a park’s 

resources and values must be left unimpaired 

unless a particular law directly and specifically 

provides otherwise. The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional 

judgment of the responsible NPS manager, 

would harm the integrity of the resources and 

values, including the opportunities that 

otherwise would be present for the enjoyment 

of those resources or values. 

Any effect on a resource or value may constitute an impairment, but an action would be 

most likely to constitute an impairment if it 

would result in a major effect on a resource or 

value whose conservation would be (a) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes the park 

unit’s establishing legislation or proclamation, 

(b) key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the park system unit or opportunities to enjoy 

it, or (c) identified as a goal in the general 

management plan of the park system unit or 

other relevant NPS planning documents. 

Impairment could result from NPS activities 

in management, from visitor activities, or from 

activities undertaken by concessioners, contractors, and others operating in the park 

system unit. In this document, a determination about impairment is made in the conclusion section for each appropriate topic in 

the “Environmental Consequences” chapter. 

120
METHODOLOGY

HOW EFFECTS WERE ANALYZED 

This section contains descriptions of the 

methods used to analyze the environmental 

consequences of each alternative. First, the 

methodologies and assumptions common to 

all topics are described, followed by the 

methodologies specific to individual resource 

topics in the following areas: 

Natural Resources: air quality; cave 

resources; soils; vegetation; threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species; water 

quality; and wildlife 

Cultural Resources: archeological 

resources, historic structures, 

ethnographic resources, and cultural 

landscapes 

Visitor Understanding and Recreational 

Resources 

The Socioeconomic Environment 

The potential effects are described in terms of 

type (would the effect be beneficial or 

adverse?) duration (would the effect be short 

term — lasting less than one year — or long 

term — lasting more than a year?), and 

intensity (would the effect be negligible, 

minor, moderate, or major?) The definitions 

of intensity vary by effect; separate intensity 

definitions have been identified for each topic 

analyzed. 

For each resource topic, the context of the 

effect would be local (affecting resources only 

in the national memorial) or regional 

(extending beyond national memorial 

boundaries). This is the general definition for 

local or regional context; any specific aspect of 

what constitutes a local or regional effect for a 

given topic has been defined under “context” 

for that topic’s methodology. 

Where possible, mitigative measures have 

been specified that would avoid, reduce, or 

compensate for potential adverse effects. 

Pursuant to NEPA requirements, the impact 

analyses for alternative A (the existing 

management direction or no-action 

alternative) compare resource conditions that 

would exist in 2020 to existing conditions in 

2000. The analyses of the action alternatives 

(B–E) compare the conditions that would 

result from the alternative in 2020 to those of 

the no-action alternative in 2020. 

It is assumed that annual visitation to the national memorial would increase between 2000 

and 2020. Although the amount of increase is 

not known, it is assumed that the annual 

visitation in 2020 would be the same under all 

the alternatives and that the accommodation 

of annual visitation demand would be the 

same. 

This plan is a management plan, rather than an 

action or implementation plan. It is 

prescriptive, prescribing management actions 

to guide the managers of Coronado National 

Memorial in managing the memorial’s 

resources. 

To present to decision-makers and the public 

an accurate idea of the environmental 

consequences of the alternatives, the analysis 

team identified potential actions that could 

result from the application of the management 

prescriptions under each action alternative 

and analyzed their effects as compared to 

conditions under the no-action alternative. 

The environmental consequences analyses are 

qualitative rather than quantitative, because 

the action alternatives are conceptual. 

121
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

METHODS OF ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

Air Quality 

Air quality refers to the concentration of contaminants present in either indoor or outdoor 

air. The presence of a variety of air pollutants 

is measured and regulated by state agencies 

according to the Clean Air Act. No air quality 

monitoring takes place in the memorial, and 

air quality is analyzed by qualitative estimates 

of the presence of contaminants that could be 

detected by staff and visitors. Parameters 

considered are particulate matter (dust), 

emissions from equipment (fumes), and odor. 

Context — Local effects on air quality 

would be those occurring within the national 

memorial. Regional effects would extend 

beyond the memorial’s boundaries. 

Intensity — The intensity of impacts on 

air quality has been evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: No changes would occur, or 

changes in air quality would be below or 

at the level of detection. If detected, the 

effects would be slight. 

Minor: The changes in air quality would 

be measurable but small and localized. 

No mitigative measures would be 

necessary. 

Moderate: The changes in air quality 

would be measurable and would have 

consequences, although the effect would 

be relatively local. Mitigative measures 

would be necessary and probably would 

be successful. 

Major: The changes in air quality would 

be measurable, would have substantial 

consequences, and would be noticed 

regionally. Mitigative measures would be 

necessary, and their success could not be 

guaranteed. 

Type — Beneficial effects would improve 

air quality by reducing the concentrations of 

pollutants or nuisance dust; adverse effects 

would degrade air quality by increasing the 

presence these contaminants. 

Duration — A short-term effect on air 

quality would be highly transient and persist 

only during activities generating dust or 

fumes. A long-term effect generally would 

result from changes in use patterns or the 

implementation of new actions and would 

persist beyond the period of dust or fume 

generation. 

Cave Resources 

Because caves form over millions of years, and 

because of the fragile nature of the formations 

they contain, caves are managed as 

nonrenewable resources. Any effect on the 

cave environment is considered long term. 

Any interruption or change in the hydrologic 

conditions that have caused the cave to form 

is also considered when assessing impacts on 

caves. 

Context — The cave is relatively small, 

and all effects to the cave and its environment 

would be considered localized. 

Intensity — The intensity of impacts on 

cave resources has been evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: No changes would occur, or 

changes in cave formations and biota 

would be below or at the level of 

detection. If detected, the changes would 

cause effects that would be considered 

slight. 

Minor: The changes in cave formations 

and biota would be measurable but small, 

and localized. No cave resource 

protection measures would be necessary. 

Moderate: The changes in cave 

formations and biota would be 

measurable. Formations would be 

affected by deterioration or changed 

122 
depositional patterns, but the effect 

would be relatively local. Cave resource 

protection measures would be necessary 

and probably would be successful. 

Major: The changes in cave formations 

and biota would be measurable, would 

have substantial consequences, and 

would be noticeable throughout the cave 

system. Cave resource protection 

measures would be necessary, and their 

success could not be guaranteed. 

Type — Beneficial effects would be those 

that would improve cave resources by limiting 

human influence in the cave ecosystem; 

adverse effects would degrade or negatively 

alter cave resources. 

Duration — Any effect on the cave 

environment is considered long term. 

Soils 

Alternatives could affect soils by changing the 

likelihood and rate of erosion. The changes 

have been identified as either beneficial or 

adverse. 

Quantitative analysis of soil erosion is beyond 

the scope of this document because of the 

document’s prescriptive nature. A qualitative 

analysis of the context, intensity, and duration 

of the potential effects is presented here. 

Context — In many cases, local effects 

would extend over a small area in the national 

memorial, such as a few feet beyond a 

construction site. In other cases, such as in 

grazing allotments, local effects could cover 

hundreds of acres in the memorial. Regional 

impacts would affect soils that extend beyond 

the boundaries of the national memorial. 

Intensity — The intensity of soils impacts 

has been evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be detectable 

but would have no discernible effect on 

Methodology 

the rate of soil erosion and/or the ability 

of the soil to support vegetation. 

Minor: The effects would be detectable 

but would not change the ability of soils 

to support vegetation. 

Moderate: The effect would be clearly 

detectable and could appreciably change 

the rate of erosion and/or the ability of 

the soil to support vegetation. Mitigating 

measures would be needed to offset 

adverse effects. 

Major: The action would have a substantial, highly noticeable influence on the 

rate of soil erosion and/or the ability of 

the soil to support vegetation. 

Type — Beneficial effects would improve 

soil resources by restoring areas and limiting 

development; adverse impacts would deplete 

or negatively alter soil resources. 

Duration — A short-term effect on soils 

would be temporary, associated with 

transitional types of activities such as facility 

construction, resulting in effects that would be 

reduced to negligible levels after two or three 

growing seasons. A long-term effect typically 

would last months or years, continuing to be 

apparent after two or three growing seasons. 

Vegetation 

The plant communities considered in a 1991 

analysis (Ruffner and Johnson 1991) were 

grouped into four general vegetation types for 

ease of discussion: oak-Mexican piñonjuniper association, grama species mixed 

grass-mixed shrub association, sycamorewalnut-oak association, and honey mesquitemixed short tree association. The qualitative 

analysis of vegetation relied substantially on 

professional judgment. 

The starting point for assessing impacts is 

natural processes, including the size, physical 

foundation, and components of the natural 

123
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

communities and ecosystems. The relative 

extent of a plant community is determined by 

comparing its size to that of other similar 

communities within a defined area. Larger 

areas of intact vegetation create larger areas 

for wildlife and for ecosystem function. 

Therefore, new areas of development, 

however small, within otherwise intact and 

undisturbed areas constitute a greater impact 

on the overall vegetation of the area than the 

direct impact on that particular acreage. 

In efforts to restore overall vegetative integrity 

and ecosystem health, small areas of 

restoration surrounded by existing or new 

development would constitute a lesser 

beneficial effect than would restoring a small 

area adjacent to a larger intact community or 

restoring large areas with little to no 

surrounding impact. Radiating effects (effects 

resulting from human use spreading out 

beyond developments, including parking, 

housing areas, and trails) can affect plant 

community size and continuity: soils can be 

disturbed and compacted, native vegetative 

cover can be trampled, and the potential for 

the introduction and establishment of 

nonnative species can be increased. 

The natural structure of a plant community is 

measured by the presence or absence of nonnative species, the opportunity for natural 

processes such as fire and flood to occur, and 

the presence or absence of natural structural 

layers, or strata. Biotic integrity can be defined 

as the ability to support and maintain a 

balanced, integrated, adaptive community of 

organisms having species composition, 

diversity, and functional organization 

comparable to that of a natural habitat of the 

region. Diversity and productivity are 

important for vegetation communities as a 

whole because the interaction of species and 

presence of different components provides 

for ecosystem health and habitat for other 

species. 

The measure of these parameters includes the 

ability to control, eradicate, or prevent the 

establishment of nonnative plant species and 

the ability to manage vegetation with a full 

range of management options to maintain 

natural structure and diversity. For example, 

the presence of nonnative species decreases 

the value of any particular area of vegetation 

by altering the contribution the vegetation 

makes toward habitat for wildlife and other 

organisms. Nonnative species also alter the 

effects of natural processes such as flooding or 

fire by changing the physical characteristics of 

the plant community. 

Context — A local effect would occur 

within the memorial’s boundaries. Local 

effects would cause changes in a limited area, 

such as constructing a parking lot or similar 

facilities. Regional effects would extend 

beyond the boundaries of the national 

memorial. 

Intensity — The intensity of effects on 

vegetation has been evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would result in no 

measurable or perceptible changes in the 

size, integrity, or continuity of the plant 

community. 

Minor: The action would have a measurable or perceptible and localized effect 

within a relatively small area, but the 

overall viability of the plant community 

would not be affected. 

Moderate: The action would cause a 

change in the size, integrity, or continuity 

of the plant community, but the impact 

would remain localized. The change 

would be measurable and perceptible, but 

it could be reversed. 

Major: The effect would be substantial, 

highly noticeable, and could permanently 

affect the size, integrity, continuity, 

productivity, and structure of the plant 

community. 

Type — Beneficial effects would improve 

conditions necessary to support native 

vegetation by restoring areas and limiting 

124
development; adverse impacts would deplete 

or negatively alter native vegetation. 

Duration — A short-term effect on 

vegetation would be temporary (typically 

lasting days or weeks) and would be 

associated with transitional types of activities 

such as the generation of dust during facility 

construction. A long-term effect typically 

would last months or years. 

Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive 

Species 

The National Park Service is mandated to 

protect the natural abundance and diversity of 

the memorial’s naturally occurring 

communities. The ability to complete a 

quantitative analysis is limited by the 

prescriptive nature of the alternatives. To 

assess the effects on threatened or endangered 

species and species of special concern, the 

following had to be determined: 

(a) which species are found in areas likely to 

be affected by management actions associated with the alternatives 

(b)the habitat loss or alteration that would 

be caused by each alternative 

(c) the displacement and disturbance 

potential of the actions and the species’ 

potential to be affected by the activities 

(d)the compensating or offsetting effects of 

proposed mitigating measures that would 

be associated with the alternative. 

The information in this analysis was based on 

professional judgment and literature review. 

Context —A local effect would occur 

within the memorial’s boundaries, causing 

changes in a limited area; for example, constructing a parking lot or similar facilities. Regional effects would extend beyond the 

national memorial’s boundaries. 

Intensity — The intensity of effects on 

threatened or endangered species or species 

of concern has been evaluated as follows: 

Methodology 

Negligible: No federally listed or sensitive 

species would be affected, or the action 

would affect an individual of a listed species or its critical habitat, but the change 

would be so small that it would not be of 

any measurable or perceptible 

consequence to the protected individual 

or its population. A negligible effect 

would equate with a “no effect” 

determination in U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service terms. 

Minor: The action would affect an individual(s) of a listed or sensitive species or 

its critical habitat, but the change would 

be small. A minor effect would equate 

with a “may effect” determination in U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service terms and 

would be accompanied by a statement of 

“likely” or “not likely” to adversely affect 

the species. 

Moderate: An individual or population of 

a or sensitive species, or its critical 

habitat, would be noticeably affected. 

The effect would have consequences to 

the individual, population, or habitat. A 

moderate effect would equate with a 

“may effect” determination in U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service terms and would be 

accompanied by a statement of “likely” or 

“not likely” to adversely affect the 

species. 

Major: An individual or population of a 

listed or sensitive species, or its critical 

habitat, would be noticeably affected with 

a vital consequence to the individual, 

population, or habitat. A major effect 

would equate to a determination in U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service terms of “may 

effect” or “is likely to adversely affect” 

the species or critical habitat. 

Type —Beneficial effects would 

protect threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species or improve their habitats 

by restoring areas and limiting 

development; adverse impacts would 

deplete or negatively alter habitat for 

125
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species. 

Duration — A short-term effect on 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species 

would be temporary (typically lasting days or 

weeks) and would be associated with 

transitional types of activities facility 

construction. A long-term effect typically 

would last months or years. 

Water Quality 

Water quality refers to the suitability of 

surface water for recreational use and wildlife 

habitat. Analyzing effects on water quality 

deals particularly with the enhancement or 

degradation of the water’s quality. NPS 

Management Policies 2001 require that the 

National Park Service take “all necessary 

actions to maintain or restore the quality of 

surface waters and ground waters within the 

parks consistent with the Clean Water Act and 

all other applicable federal, state, and local 

laws and regulations.” The Clean Water Act 

requires that federal agencies “comply with all 

Federal, State, interstate, and local 

requirements, administrative authority, and 

process and sanctions respecting the control 

and abatement of water pollution.” In this 

document, particular consideration has been 

given to actions with the potential to affect the 

natural hydrology and surface water quality of 

the ephemeral streams and drainages in the 

memorial. 

Context — A local effect would occur 

within the memorial’s boundaries. Local 

effects would cause changes in a limited area, 

such as constructing a parking lot or similar 

facilities. Regional effects would extend 

beyond the boundaries of the national 

memorial. 

Intensity — The intensity of effects on 

water quality has been evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would not be 

detectable and would not result in a 

discernible change in water quality. 

Minor: The effect would be slightly 

detectable but would not result in an 

overall change in water quality. 

Moderate: The action would cause a 

change that would be clearly detectable 

and could have an appreciable effect on 

water quality. 

Major: The action would result in a 

substantial, highly noticeable influence 

on water quality. 

Type — Beneficial effects would lead to 

improved water quality; adverse effects would 

result in poorer water quality or the reduced 

ability of water to meet its beneficial use. 

Duration — Short-term effects would 

occur during the time that the alternative was 

being implemented and usually would last less 

than two years (such as construction projects). 

A long-term effect would last more than two 

years, remaining after the alternative had been 

implemented. Since the full implementation of 

an alternative would take place over a number 

of years, rather than considering the effects 

during the full implementation of the 

alternative, frequently the duration of the 

effects of individual actions of the alternative 

(restoring a trail, constructing a visitor center) 

have been assessed. 

Wildlife 

Information from literature was used to assess 

the probable impacts on wildlife from the 

alternatives. Surveys of terrestrial mammals 

(Swann et al. 2000) and amphibians and 

reptiles (Swann, Alberti, and Schwalbe 2001) 

were relied upon for the distribution of 

species in the memorial and their relative 

abundance. Qualitative analysis relies 

substantially on professional judgment to 

reach reasonable conclusions. 

126
The analysis of effects on wildlife was based 

on the following assumptions: 

• The more developed an area becomes, the 

less valuable it is as wildlife habitat. New 

development would increase human presence and the potential for disturbance of 

soils, vegetation, and wildlife. The 

potential for negative wildlife interactions 

(such as human injury from wildlife and 

the introduction of unnatural food 

sources) also would increase. Removing 

development from an area would increase 

the value of the habitat. 

• The effects of human food on the 

behavior, distribution, and abundance of 

wildlife species would continue in existing 

developments and would begin in new 

developments unless adequate facilities, 

education, and enforcement were 

available. 

• Development and activities near sensitive 

habitat may adversely affect adjacent 

natural communities. 

• Disturbance in or near hydrological 

features might reduce the productive 

capability associated with natural 

communities. Modifications that result in 

soil compactions, loss of riparian 

vegetation, and accelerated erosion and 

sediment transport influence important 

habitat characteristic such as substrate 

type, location, and cover. These physical 

aspects often determine the composition 

of vegetative and wildlife communities. 

• Roads and trails generally form barriers 

for wildlife and fragment habitat. 

Context — A local effect would occur 

within the memorial’s boundaries. Local 

effects would cause changes in a limited area, 

such as constructing a parking lot or similar 

facilities. Regional effects would extend 

beyond the boundaries of the national 

memorial. 

Intensity — Effects on biological 

resources are considered beneficial if an 

Methodology 

action causes no detrimental effect and results 

in an increase in species or habitat 

components, native ecosystem processes, 

native species richness/diversity, or native 

habitat quantity and quality. The intensity of 

effects on wildlife has been evaluated as 

follows: 

Negligible: The action would not be 

detectable and would have no principal 

effect on biological resources. 

Minor: The effect on wildlife would be 

slightly detectable but would not be 

expected to have an overall effect on the 

natural community structure. 

Moderate: The effect would be clearly 

detectable and could cause an 

appreciable change in individual species, 

community ecology (for example, the 

different kinds of amphibians present), or 

natural processes such as fire. 

Major: The action would result in a substantial, highly noticeable effect on 

natural resources. This would include 

substantial effects on individual species, 

community ecology, or natural processes. 

Type — Beneficial effects would protect 

wildlife or improve their habitats by restoring 

natural processes and limiting development; 

adverse impacts would deplete or negatively 

alter wildlife resources. 

Duration — A short-term effect on 

wildlife typically would last days or weeks and 

would be associated with transitional types of 

activities such as facility construction. A longterm effect typically would last months or 

years. 

METHODS OF ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON CULTURAL 

RESOURCES 

The effects on archeological resources, 

historic structures, ethnographic resources, 

127
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

and cultural landscapes were assessed as 

described in the following paragraphs. 

The cultural resource impact analysis is described in terminology consistent with the 

regulations of the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), and it is intended to comply 

with the requirements of both the National 

Environmental Policy Act and section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The assessment of effects on cultural 

resources is based on the regulations of the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 

CFR 800), which require federal agencies to 

consider the effects of actions on properties 

included on, or eligible for inclusion on, the 

National Register of Historic Places and to 

give the advisory council a reasonable 

opportunity to comment. The potential effects 

on cultural resources were identified and 

evaluated by: (a) identifying the areas that 

could be affected, (b) identifying cultural 

resources present in the area of potential 

effects that either are listed on or eligible for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places, (c) identifying the extent and type of 

effect, (d) assessing those effects to avoid, 

reduce, or mitigate adverse effects according 

to procedures established in the advisory 

council’s regulations, and (e) considering 

ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate adverse 

effects. 

This also applies to properties not formally 

determined eligible, but which are considered 

to meet eligibility criteria. All NPS undertakings affecting historic properties are 

subject to the provisions of the 1995 

programmatic agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers. Applicable legislation and regulations and specific management procedures 

regarding cultural resources are detailed in the 

NPS Director’s Order 28, “Cultural 

Management Guideline” (NPS 1998a). 

Under the advisory council’s regulations, a 

determination of either “adverse effect” or 

“no adverse effect” must be made for affected 

cultural resources eligible for listing on the 

national register. An adverse effect occurs 

whenever an action alters, directly or 

indirectly, any characteristic of a cultural 

resource. Examples of alteration would be 

diminishing the integrity of the resource’s 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects 

also include reasonably foreseeable effects 

that would be caused by the preferred alternative that would occur later in time, be 

farther removed in distance, or be cumulative 

(36 CFR 800.5, “Assessment of Adverse 

Effects”). A determination of “no adverse 

effect” means that there would be an effect, 

but the effect would not diminish in any way 

the characteristics of the cultural resource that 

qualify it for inclusion on the national register. 

CEQ regulations and the NPS Director’s 

Order 12, Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis and Decisionmaking also call for a discussion of the 

appropriateness of mitigation, as well as an 

analysis of how effective the mitigation would 

be in reducing the intensity of a potential 

impact (for example, reducing an impact from 

major to moderate or minor). However, any 

resultant reduction in the intensity of an 

impact from mitigation would be an estimate 

of the effectiveness of the mitigation under the 

National Environmental Policy Act only. This 

would not suggest that the level of effect as 

defined by section 106 would be similarly 

reduced. Although adverse effects under 

section 106 may be mitigated, the effect would 

remain adverse. 

A section 106 summary is included in the 

analysis of effects. These summaries are 

intended to meet the requirements of section 

106 by assessing the effects of the actions on 

cultural resources that are either listed on or 

eligible to be listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places, on the basis of the criteria of 

effect and adverse effect in the advisory 

council’s regulations. 

128
This methodology applies to four types of 

cultural resources: archeological resources, 

historic structures, ethnographic resources, 

and cultural landscapes. 

Context — The affected area is the 

memorial and Cochise County. Cultural 

resources impacts should not extend beyond 

these areas. 

Type — Beneficial effects on cultural resources would be greater protection and 

preservation of the resource. Adverse effects 

would occur whenever an action would 

directly or indirectly alter any characteristic of 

a cultural resource that would qualify it for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places (for example, by diminishing the 

integrity of its location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or 

association). This definition follows the 

regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.5). 

Duration (except for ethnographic 

resources) — Short-term impacts would be 

less than one year because most construction 

is generally completed within a year’s time and 

would last only until all construction-related 

action items were completed. Long-term 

impacts would extend beyond one year and 

have a permanent effect on cultural resources. 

Archeological Resources 

Certain important research questions about 

human history can be answered only by the 

actual physical material of cultural resources. 

Archeological resources have the potential to 

answer such research questions in whole or 

part. Archeological resources typically are 

considered eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places because 

they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, 

information important in history or 

prehistory. An archeological site can be 

nominated to the national register in one of 

three historic contexts or levels of 

significance: local, state, or national (National 

Methodology 

Register Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National 

Register Criteria for Evaluation.) 

For the purposes of analyzing the effects on 

archeological resources, thresholds of change 

for the intensity of an impact are based on the 

potential of each site to yield information 

important in prehistory or history, as well as 

on the probable historic context of the site. 

The intensity of impacts on archeological 

resources also relates to the importance of the 

information they contain and the extent of 

disturbance or degradation. 

Intensity — Consistent with CEQ 

regulations, the intensity of the effects on 

archeological resources has been evaluated as 

follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be so slight as 

to be barely measurable with no 

perceptible consequences and no 

meaningful implications. It would be 

confined to a small area, or the area 

affected would be a single contributing 

element of a larger national register 

district or archeological site(s) with low 

data potential. 

Minor: The action would affect an 

archeological site with little or no 

potential to yield information important 

in history or prehistory. The affected 

archeological resource generally would 

be ineligible to be listed on the national 

register. The effect would be perceptible 

and measurable but would remain local 

and confined to a single contributing 

element of a larger national register 

district or archeological site. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily 

apparent. The action would affect an 

archeological site or sites with local or 

state context and with potential to yield 

information important in history or 

prehistory. 

Major: The effect would be severe or of 

exceptional benefit. The action would 

129 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

affect an archeological site or sites with 

national historic context and with 

potential to yield important information 

about human history or prehistory. 

Historic Structures 

To be listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places, a structure must be associated 

with an important historic context; that is, it 

must possess significance (the meaning or 

value ascribed to the structure), and it must 

have integrity of the features necessary to 

convey its significance: location, design, 

setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and 

association (as described in National Register 

Bulletin 15, How to Apply the National Register 

Criteria for Evaluation). 

Intensity — The intensity of the potential 

impacts on historic structures has been 

evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be at the 

lowest levels of detection; it would be 

barely perceptible and not measurable. 

Minor: The action would not affect the 

character-defining features of a structure 

listed on or eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places. 

Moderate: The effect would be an alteration of character-defining features of a 

structure, but the integrity of the resource 

would not be diminished to the extent 

that its national register eligibility would 

be jeopardized. 

Major: The action would alter a 

character-defining feature of a structure, 

diminishing its integrity to the extent that 

it would no longer be eligible for listing 

on the national register. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Ethnographic resources are resources that 

and are important in maintaining the 

continuing cultural identity of the community 

and to which communities ascribe cultural 

significance. Only members of the community 

to which the resources hold cultural value can 

identify ethnographic resources and 

determine the potential effects on them. 

Ethnographic resources are considered eligible for inclusion on the national register as 

traditional cultural properties when they are 

rooted in a community’s history and meet the 

criteria for evaluation and integrity. 

After initial consultation meetings with representatives of American Indian tribes with possible traditional associations with lands and 

resources in Coronado National Memorial, 

the National Park Service has determined that 

the tribes listed on this page are most closely 

associated with resources of the memorial that 

could be affected by NPS actions. 

Duration — Because the ethnographic 

resources identified by the tribes are 

important in each tribe’s history and because 

the resources are interconnected with places 

and resources located throughout customary 

tribal lands, any impacts on ethnographic 

resources would be regional in scope. Effects 

on the resources also would affect the 

communities to which they are perpetually 

tied. Therefore, the duration of impacts on 

ethnographic resources would be long term. 

Tribes Associated with Resources 

in Coronado National Memorial 

Community 

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Hopi Tribe 

Mescalero Apache Tribe 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona 

Pueblo of Zuni 

Community 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Tonto Apache Tribe 

White Mountain Apache Tribe 

Ak-chin Indian Community 

Fort McDowell Mojave-Apache 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

130
Methodology 

Yavapai-Apache Tribe 

Intensity — The intensity of effects on 

ethnographic resources may relate to access 

and use of, as well as changes to, traditionally 

important places. Although the tribes 

themselves did not identify the intensity of 

potential impacts on ethnographic resources, 

the National Park Service has defined the 

intensity as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be at the 

lower levels of detection. 

Minor: The effect would be slight, but 

detectable. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily 

apparent. 

Major: The effect would be severely 

adverse or exceptionally beneficial. 

Any adverse impacts on ethnographic 

resources would be readily apparent to the 

tribes to which the resources hold cultural 

significance. In most cases, because effects on 

these resources would affect cultural identity 

and ways of life, the intensity of most effects, 

whether positive or adverse, would be 

moderate to major. 

Coronado National Memorial contains no 

traditional cultural properties (ethnographic 

resources eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places); therefore, the 

impact sections for this topic in each 

alternative will not contain a “Section 106 

Summary.” 

Cultural Landscapes 

Cultural landscapes impart a living record of 

an area’s past, a visual chronicle of its history. 

Shaped through time by historical land 

management practices, by politics and 

property laws, by levels of technology and 

economic conditions, cultural landscapes are 

the result of long interaction between people 

and the land, the influence over time of 

human beliefs and actions on the natural 

landscape. However, the dynamic nature of 

modern human life contributes to the 

continual reshaping of cultural landscapes, 

making them a good source of facts about 

specific times and places. At the same time, the 

long-term preservation of cultural landscapes 

is a challenge. 

For a cultural landscape to be listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places, it must 

possess significance (the meaning or value 

ascribed to the landscape) and have integrity 

of the features necessary to convey its 

significance. The character-defining features 

of a cultural landscape are its spatial 

organization and land patterns, structures and 

buildings, site furnishings and objects, 

circulation patterns, topography, vegetation, 

and water features (USDI 1996). 

Intensity — The intensity of effects on 

cultural landscapes has been evaluated as 

follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be at the 

lowest levels of detection; it would be 

barely perceptible and not measurable. 

Minor: The action would not affect the 

character-defining features of a cultural 

landscape listed on or eligible for listing 

on the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Moderate: The action would alter a character-defining feature of the cultural 

landscape but would not diminish the 

integrity of the cultural landscape to the 

extent that its national register eligibility 

would be jeopardized. 

Major: The action would alter a 

character-defining feature of a the 

cultural landscape, diminishing its 

integrity to the extent that it would no 

longer be eligible for listing on the 

national register. 

131 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Mitigation and Section 106 

Mitigation for NEPA purposes in this environmental impact statement includes 

avoiding, rectifying, or compensating for the 

impact. Every effort would be made to avoid 

adverse impacts on cultural resources. When 

avoidance was neither feasible nor prudent 

and the undertaking could result in adverse 

impacts, a number of mitigating measures 

might be employed. 

The Council on Environmental Quality calls 

for a discussion of the appropriateness of 

mitigation, and the NPS Handbook to 

Director’s Order 12, Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making requires an analysis of the effect of 

mitigation. The resulting reduction in 

intensity from mitigation is an estimate of the 

effectiveness of mitigation under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. It does not suggest 

that the level of effect as comprehended by 

section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act be similarly reduced. Although 

adverse effects under section 106 may be 

mitigated, for example, the effect remains 

adverse. 

The “Effects on Cultural Resources” section 

of this chapter (beginning on p. 192) includes 

an analysis, conclusion, and “section 106 

summary” for each subtopic. The section 106 

summary, which is intended to meet the 

requirements of section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, assesses the effects 

of the undertaking (implementing the 

alternative) on historic properties. This 

summary is based on the criterion of effect 

and criteria of adverse effect found in 

council’s implementing regulations. 

METHODS OF ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON VISITOR 

UNDERSTANDING AND 

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 

The visitor experience in Coronado National 

Memorial encompasses a spectrum of 

elements, including access to recreational 

opportunities, the availability of such 

opportunities, and access to interpretation 

and orientation programs. For each 

alternative, three aspects of the visitor experience were evaluated: access to resources, 

interpretation and orientation, and visitor 

numbers and recreation. Every visitor to the 

national memorial brings unique expectations; 

thus, each visitor has a unique experience. The 

ways in which the actions and management 

prescriptions of each alternative might alter 

the quality of the visitor experience were 

considered. 

Developing a quantitative analysis of the 

potential effects on the visitor experience is 

not feasible because the plan is prescriptive. In 

the qualitative analysis, professional judgment 

was used to reach reasonable conclusions as 

to the intensity and duration of potential 

impacts. 

The following assumptions were used in the 

analysis: 

• Visitor demand would be the same in all 

the alternatives. 

• There would be no fundamental change in 

visitor access by private vehicle to the 

national memorial. 

For access to resources, interpretation, and 

orientation, the impact analysis was based on 

whether the actions and management 

prescriptions of each alternative would 

change the availability of the existing range of 

interpretation programs and orientation and 

information sources and services throughout 

the memorial. 

The impact analysis for visitor numbers and 

recreation was based on whether an 

alternative would result in a complete loss of 

recreational opportunity, a change in access to 

or availability of a recreational opportunity, or 

a change in the aggregate of recreational 

opportunities for visitors. This assessment is 

specifically concerned with whether the 

132
availability of some aspect of visitor use would 

be altered. The change in the characteristics or 

quality of the experience was not considered 

in determining the intensity of an impact. 

Context — Local effects would be those 

confined to Coronado National Memorial and 

Cochise County. Regional effects would 

extend beyond this geographic region to other 

counties or across the Mexican border to the 

south. 

Intensity — The intensity of effects on 

the visitor experience and recreational 

resources has been evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The effect would be barely detectable, would not occur in primary resource areas, or would affect few visitors. 

Minor: The effect would be slight but detectable, would not occur in primary 

resource areas, or would affect few 

visitors. 

Moderate: The effect would be readily 

apparent, would occur in primary 

resource areas, or would affect many 

visitors. 

Major: The effect would be severely adverse or exceptionally beneficial, would 

occur in primary resource areas, or would 

affect the majority of visitors. 

Type —Beneficial effects would consist 

of greater access to or availability of a 

recreational experience or an opportunity for 

interpretation or orientation programs. 

Adverse effects would involve less availability 

of recreational resources or fewer 

opportunities for interpretation or orientation 

programs. 

Duration — A short-term effect on 

visitor services, the visitor experience, or 

recreation would be temporary and associated 

with transitional types of effects such as dust 

generation during facility construction. A 

Methodology 

long-term effect would last longer and might 

permanently affect the visitor experience. 

METHODS OF ASSESSING 

EFFECTS ON THE 

SOCIOECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

The effects of the alternatives on the local and 

regional economy were analyzed. Quantitative 

analysis of potential effects on the 

socioeconomic environment was not feasible 

because the plan is prescriptive. Therefore, 

the analysis of effects was qualitative, and 

professional judgment was used to reach 

reasonable conclusions as to the context, 

intensity, type, and duration of potential 

impacts. 

Context — The context of the analysis is 

local and regional, covering the national 

memorial, Cochise County, and the 

communities within the county. It is not 

expected that socioeconomic impacts would 

extend in Arizona beyond Cochise County or 

across the border into Mexico. 

Intensity — The intensity of 

socioeconomic effects has been evaluated as 

follows: 

Negligible: The action would not have an 

effect on the socioeconomic environment 

that would be distinguishable from 

changes that were occurring from other 

social and economic activities within the 

county and its communities. 

For grazing, the effects of the action 

could not be distinguished from effects 

on the number of cattle raised locally 

associated with factors such as season, 

climate, or market prices. For the 

socioeconomic effects of recreation use, 

the effects of the action could not be 

distinguished from effects resulting from 

factors such as the price of gasoline, the 

exchange rates between dollars and 

133 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

pesos, and the occurrence of a national 

expansion or recession. 

Minor: The effect on socioeconomic 

conditions would be small but 

measurable in nearby communities such 

as Palominas, Hereford, and Bisbee. They 

would not be distinguishable from 

changes that were occurring from other 

social and economic activities in larger or 

more distant towns (such as Sierra Vista 

and Douglas) or on a county-wide basis. 

For grazing, a change in the number of 

cattle raised locally could be discerned 

from changes caused by other factors, but 

a county-wide change could not be 

detected. 

For the socioeconomic effects of 

recreation use, the effects of the action in 

small, nearby communities could be 

discerned from those resulting from 

broad economic influences, but such 

changes could not be established on a 

county-wide basis. 

Moderate: The effect on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent and 

widespread in nearby, small 

communities. Changes would be 

detectable in larger cities such as Sierra 

Vista and Douglas, and throughout 

Cochise County. County-wide changes 

in cattle production could be detected. It 

could be established that county-wide 

socioeconomic effects from changes in 

recreation use were attributable to 

management actions in the monument. 

Major: Major effects on socioeconomic 

conditions would be readily apparent and 

would substantially change the economy 

or social services in Cochise County. 

Type — A beneficial socioeconomic 

effect would increase economic activity or 

improve social services or conditions in the 

affected area. Adverse socioeconomic effects 

would decrease economic activity or cause 

social services or conditions in the affected 

area to deteriorate. 

Duration — A short-term 

socioeconomic effect would be temporary, 

and often it would be related to a specific 

action such as construction. It would not 

extend for more than a month or two beyond 

the completion of that action. Any 

socioeconomic effect that would extend for 

more than a year would be a long-term effect. 

134
EFFECTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES

ALTERNATIVE A 

Air Quality 

Analysis. Alternative A probably would not 

result in any change in air quality at the memorial. There would be few or no changes to 

visitor facilities, and no roads or trails would 

be constructed. No construction equipment 

would be present in the memorial, and no 

fugitive dust would be generated. Visitation 

would continue to increase at the current 

rates. Under these circumstances, there would 

be no measurable effects on air quality. The 

memorial would continue to attain the 

prescribed air quality. 

Cumulative Effects. The implementation of 

other projects and plans at the national 

memorial would not adversely affect air 

quality. Regionally, the population of Cochise 

County increased by just over 20 percent from 

1990 to 2000. The memorial’s air quality 

would be more likely to be affected by local 

population growth and development and by 

wind-borne pollution from distant sources 

than by management activities in the 

memorial. The no action alternative would 

not contribute to regional effects on air 

quality. 

Conclusion. Alternative A would result in no 

measurable effects on the air quality at 

Coronado National Memorial. 

Cave Resources 

Analysis. There are a number of caves in the 

national memorial, with Coronado Cave being 

the most prominent and accessible (0.75 mile 

from the visitor center). This has resulted in a 

visitation, by permit, of between 5% and 6% 

of the people that currently come to the 

memorial. The cave contains various 

limestone formations (stalactites, stalagmites, 

flowstone, and helicites) and provides habitat 

for animals. Occasionally visitors might cause 

slight damage to cave resources. In any one 

year, the damage results in negligible to minor 

adverse effects on cave resources. However, 

the loss of resources year after year could 

eventually result in minor long-term adverse 

effects on cave resources. 

Cumulative Effects. The opening of 

Kartchner Caverns State Park about 35 miles 

north of the memorial has increased the 

interest of the visitors in caves. This interest 

added to the accessibility of Coronado Cave 

has resulted in a slight increase in visitation to 

the memorial’s cave. This increased interest in 

caves has resulted in a slight loss of sensitive 

cave resources in the area of Cochise County. 

Conclusion. Cave resources would continue 

to be impacted by visitors and time with the 

result of a long-term minor adverse effect. 

Soils 

Analysis. Removing the Montezuma Ranch 

structures would affect Gardencan-Larque 

complex soils, which are associated with 

shallow hills and sandy-loam uplands. The 

area affected would be about 25 acres, or less 

than 1% of the national memorial’s grassland 

habitat. The slope of these soils is low, ranging 

from 0% to 10%, and the erosion potential in 

this area is low. Local impacts on soils from 

removing the structures would be short term 

and negligible to minor because mitigative 

measures would be used to minimize erosion 

and to limit construction activities to the 

immediate area. Furthermore, the area would 

be revegetated. 

Removing nonnative species and restoring 

and revegetating the area after the structures 

were removed would reduce soil compaction 

and increase permeability, improving soil 

properties. This would hold soils in place and 

reduce wind erosion. These long-term 

135
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

beneficial effects would be negligible to 

minor. 

Livestock grazing has been shown to affect 

soil structure and function, including soil 

porosity, chemistry, microbiology, nutrient 

cycles, productivity, and erosion rates 

(Roberson 1996). The gravelly, sandy-loam 

soils in the grazing allotments are subject to 

erosion caused by the loss of vegetative cover 

or the occurrence of infrequent torrential 

rains. Retaining the current levels of grazing 

would result in cattle hooves continuing to 

disturb cryptobiotic crusts (soil organisms 

that bind the soils and prevent soil loss), 

subjecting soils to wind and water erosion. 

Soils would continue to be susceptible to 

erosion when loosened by trampling or by the 

removal of vegetation (which stabilizes soils). 

Erosion potentials are high on approximately 

60% of the Joe’s Spring allotment, where 

slopes exceed 30% (NRCS, USDA 2000). The 

steep slopes present in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment however limits grazing in these 

areas. A positive correlation between slope 

and range condition has been noted in the 

Joe’s Spring allotment, indicating that areas on 

lower slopes are more heavily grazed than 

steeper areas. Livestock use is concentrated 

on the lower slopes in the southern third of 

this allotment. This area has slopes that range 

from 0 to 10% with erosion factors ranging up 

to 0.32, indicating a medium level of 

susceptibility to sheet or rill erosion by water 

(NRCS, USDA 2000). Erosion problems such 

as soil compaction and soil loss have 

developed during more than 50 years of 

continuous grazing. Although there have been 

no livestock in the Montezuma allotment for 

several years, in this no-action alternative the 

possibility exists that the allotment might be 

used for grazing in the future. Accelerated 

erosion (as compared with most of the 

allotment) could occur on the relatively small 

parts of the Montezuma allotment that exceed 

a 20% slope. 

With continued grazing soil compaction 

would occur. Evidence indicates that areas in 

the Joe’s Spring allotment have become 

compacted with use (D. Robinett, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, pers. comm.). 

This is particularly evident in the southeastern 

corner of the allotment where the cattle tend 

to congregate and in areas where they water. 

The Montezuma allotment, which has not 

been grazed since 1990, may be put back into 

use for livestock grazing at any time. In 

contrast to current conditions, the effects on 

soils from livestock use of this allotment 

would be clearly detectable. Increased soil 

compaction caused by livestock in those areas 

where they congregate, such as near water 

sources, would reduce soil fertility, which 

would lead to reduced plant productivity and 

changes in plant composition. 

Implementing the Livestock Management Plan 

(NPS 2000b) is reducing the impacts on soils 

from grazing. Management activities such as 

reducing grazing intensity, shortening the 

season of use, limiting the use of riparian 

areas, controlling water sources, and using salt 

blocks are helping to mitigate impacts and 

protect soils. In addition, grazing management 

in the national memorial is now based on an 

adaptive management approach. A monitoring 

program developed to assess the condition of 

resources in the grazing allotments is used to 

adjust livestock numbers to protect resources. 

The adverse impacts on soils in these 

allotments that would result from grazing 

under the no-action alternative would be 

minor and long term. 

Cumulative Effects. Because the national 

memorial is on a smuggling route for undocumented people and illegal drugs, such use has 

resulted in the creation of many footpaths, 

especially along drainages. The construction 

of a fence by the U.S. Border Patrol at the 

United States–Mexican border might funnel 

foot traffic westward into the memorial, 

which would create more footpaths, 

degrading soils and vegetation. In addition, 

soils in the memorial would be affected to a 

negligible degree by visitor use of trails and 

picnic areas. Soil compaction and erosion 

would occur along existing trails and by the 

136
creation of social trails. Similar effects result 

from the development of game trails by 

wildlife in the area. These activities, along with 

the activities associated with the no-action 

alternative, would result in minor adverse 

impacts on soils throughout the national 

memorial. 

Conclusion. No expansion would be 

planned for the visitor center vicinity. Offroad parking (mainly during peak periods) 

and social trails would continue to compact 

soils. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would result in negligible to minor short-term 

local adverse impacts on soils. Mitigating 

measures would be employed to avoid or 

reduce effects. Restoration of this site would 

offset any adverse effects and result in up to 

minor long-term benefits. 

The effects on soils from continued grazing on 

the allotments would be reduced through an 

adaptive management approach that would 

monitor impacts on soils and vegetation and 

adjust the number of livestock accordingly. 

Erosion and compaction caused by continuing 

grazing on both allotments would result in 

minor adverse impacts on soils. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Removing the Montezuma Ranch 

structures would affect grama grass-mixed 

grass-mixed shrub vegetation types by 

trampling, uprooting, and crushing vegetation. 

Removing the structures would expose soils to 

wind and rain erosion with the potential to 

adversely affect riparian areas. The ranch area 

is adjacent to drainages that contain riparian 

vegetation of the western honey mesquitemixed short tree woodland association. The 

area of potential affect is about 25 acres. The 

slope of the soils is this area is low, ranging 

from 0% to 10%, with a low erosion potential. 

Local impacts on vegetation from removing 

the structures would be short term and 

negligible to minor because mitigative 

measures would be used to minimize erosion 

Effects on Natural Resources 

and to limit construction activities to the 

immediate area. 

In addition, the area would be restored with 

native plant species. Restoring and 

revegetating the ranch area after the structures 

were removed would reduce compaction and 

wind erosion and increase soil permeability. It 

also would restore the overall integrity of the 

vegetative community. These long-term 

beneficial effects would be negligible to 

minor. 

Vegetation within the grazing allotments 

consists predominantly of grasses; however 

riparian vegetation of honey mesquite-mixed 

short tree woodland is supported along the 

drainages. The most common vegetative 

communities in the grazing allotments are 

oak-Mexican piñon-juniper association and 

grama species mixed grass-mixed shrub 

association. Nonnative and cool season 

grasses have replaced native warm season 

grasses in some parts of the allotments; this 

would continue (D. Robinett, Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, pers. com.). 

Even though grazing would continue in both 

allotments under this no-action alternative, 

the impacts from grazing on vegetation and in 

riparian areas is being reduced by the recent 

implementation of the Livestock Management 

Plan (NPS 2000b). Some of the measures that 

are reducing the effects of grazing include 

reducing grazing intensity, shortening the 

season of use, controlling water sources, and 

placing salt blocks away from riparian zones. 

Improvements will continue as these measures 

allow the riparian community to recover from 

past stresses associated with grazing. 

Reducing stocking levels and modifying the 

season of use is allowing native grass species 

to increase, which in turn is improving the 

range condition ratings in the allotments. 

Modifying the season of use is helping to 

protect important areas of agaves during the 

growing season, increasing survival and 

improving the vegetation condition over time. 

(Cattle grazing on agave plants is of concern 

because the plants are important food for 

137
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

nectarivorous bat species and for native 

herbivores, including pregnant white-tailed 

deer [Hawks, 1997].) The long-term 

beneficial effects on vegetation from implementing the actions of the Livestock Management Plan (NPS 2000b) are expected to be 

negligible to minor. 

Monitoring has already started to improve the 

protection of vegetation. Modifying the 

grazing schedule during drought and after fire 

are maintaining and improving vegetative 

conditions. The cover and density of plants, 

especially warm season grasses, are expected 

to increase measurably after several years of 

Livestock Management Plan implementation. 

Bock et al. (1984) found that grass cover in an 

area excluded from grazing was substantially 

higher than in grazed areas. Brady et al. (1989) 

found no difference in plant cover within 

grazing exclosures but reported significantly 

higher cover of tall grasses such as plains 

lovegrass. 

Although improvements to vegetation and 

range condition on the allotments will 

continue to occur, alternative A would 

continue grazing in the memorial resulting in a 

minor adverse effect on vegetative 

communities including riparian areas 

compared to alternatives that involve 

eliminating the grazing allotments. The 

diversity and cover of palatable grasses could 

change, with the species composition and 

overall abundance of vegetation cover being 

determined by the livestock management 

practices that are implemented. If 

management actions are loosely enforced, the 

abundance of palatable herbaceous species 

could decrease, and the distribution and 

abundance of woody shrub species and less 

palatable grasses and forbs could increase. 

The converse could occur with more 

aggressive livestock management according to 

the plan provisions. The speed of vegetative 

improvements would primarily depend on the 

grazing intensity that is permitted and the 

natural cycle of precipitation. Recovery would 

increase with lower livestock grazing intensity 

and more rain during the growing season. 

Cumulative Effects. The footpaths along 

drainages resulting from the smuggling route 

for undocumented people and illegal drugs, 

along with the creation of more footpaths 

resulting from the construction of a fence by 

the U.S. Border Patrol, could degrade 

vegetation. This, along with the actions of the 

no-action alternative, would result in minor 

adverse impacts on vegetation throughout the 

memorial. 

In June 1988 Coronado National Memorial 

was affected by the Peak Fire. In the 

memorial, the oak-Mexican piñon pinejuniper woodland association was most 

affected by the fast-moving, intense fire in 

continuous grass fuels because about 2,600 

acres of the 3,700 acres that burned were in 

this habitat. Most of this biotic community 

was burned moderately, but some areas in the 

western part of the memorial were severely 

burned. However, by August 1989 many trees 

had resprouted either from the roots or from 

undamaged areas of the trunk. 

The species composition of the woodland 

understory was significantly changed after the 

fire, probably because of the influx of 

nutrients or appropriate conditions for the 

germination of numerous herbaceous species 

that were either rare or absent before the fire. 

The grama grass-mixed grass-mixed shrub 

association was relatively unaffected by the 

fire because little fuel was present to sustain a 

high temperature. Consequently, the effect of 

the fire on this habitat was largely ephemeral 

because most of these species are fire-adapted 

and quickly resprout from roots. Under 

alternative A, vegetation would be disturbed, 

which would affect mainly grassland habitats; 

therefore, these disturbances would 

contribute little cumulatively to the past 

impacts of the 1988 wildfire. 

Regionally, wildland fire is an increasing 

threat in scale and severity. Developing a fire 

management plan would reduce hazardous 

fuels in the memorial, diminishing the 

potential for wildland fire in the memorial and 

beyond its boundaries. A future fire 

138
management plan, in combination with similar 

plans for Coronado National Forest and Fort 

Huachuca, would result in long-term minor 

benefits for vegetation in the region. 

The encroachment of woody species into 

grasslands in the upper San Pedro Basin is a 

factor in regional decreases in the amount and 

ecological functioning of native grasslands 

and in their fragmentation into small, 

disconnected patches. Regional urban 

development also results in a loss of grassland 

acreage. Continuing grazing in the memorial 

would increase native shrubs, contributing to 

these cumulative adverse regional effects. 

Experimental investigation and treatments of 

Lehmann lovegrass are being conducted on 

Fort Huachuca. The no-action alternative 

would not contribute cumulatively to regional 

impacts on grasslands. 

Conclusion. No expansion would be 

planned for the visitor center vicinity. Offroad parking (mainly during peak periods) 

and social trails would continue to impacts 

vegetation. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would result in negligible to minor adverse 

short-term local impacts on vegetation. Mitigating measures would be used to avoid or 

reduce effects. Restoration and revegetation 

with native species would have a long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effect. 

The impacts on vegetation from continued 

grazing in the allotments is being reduced 

through an adaptive management approach 

that monitors the impacts on vegetation and 

adjusts the number of livestock accordingly. 

Minor adverse impacts on vegetation, 

including riparian vegetation, and range 

condition would result from erosion and 

compaction caused by continuing grazing on 

both allotments. However, modifying grazing 

management according to the Livestock 

Management Plan will improve range 

conditions compared to those that existed 

before the plan was implemented. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Threatened, Endangered, 

or Sensitive Species 

Analysis. The Montezuma Ranch is about 2 

miles from the roosting site of lesser longnosed bats. Removing the ranch structures 

would have no effect on those roosting sites or 

on other abandoned mines in the memorial 

that are used for roosting sites by the Mexican 

long-tongued bat. Removing the structures 

might result in the loss of individual agave 

plants that are forage for the federally listed 

endangered lesser long-nosed and Mexican 

long-tongued bats and could displace small 

mammals that are prey to the loggerhead 

shrike (federally listed as a species of 

concern). Because the area disturbed would 

be small (about 25 acres) and the impacts from 

construction activity short-term and local, the 

adverse effects on the populations of either 

agaves or small mammals in the memorial 

would be negligible to minor. The effects on 

these listed or sensitive species from removing 

the ranch structures would be negligible. 

The area that would be affected by removing 

the ranch structures (at a lower elevation on 

relatively level terrain vegetated largely with 

mixed grass and scrub) is outside the Mexican 

spotted owl’s prime nesting and foraging 

habitat, which usually is found on slopes with 

gradients greater than 40 percent (USFWS 

1995b). A survey of small mammals in the 

memorial (Swann et al. 2000) indicated a low 

availability of wood rats and peromyscid mice 

in the area of the ranch. Removing the 

structures would not be likely to adversely 

affect the Mexican spotted owl. 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch might 

result in the establishment of more agave 

plants, which would benefit the nectarfeeding bats. Restoring the area also would 

increase the habitat available for small rodents 

and insects, which would result in negligible 

to minor beneficial effects on the loggerhead 

shrike. 

Under alternative A, grazing would continue 

on both grazing allotments according to the 

139
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Livestock Management Plan (NPS 2000b). 

However, at present only the Joe’s Spring 

allotment is being grazed. A mammal survey 

conducted in 1996–1997 indicated that the 

prey species of the Mexican spotted owl do 

not inhabit the grasslands of the Montezuma 

allotment. In the Joe’s Spring allotment, the 

prey species are common in the grasslands but 

not common in the oak woodlands, which 

constitute about 29% of the vegetation. The 

prey species are common in the riparian areas 

of both allotments. 

Because the grazing allotments lack suitable 

habitat for Mexican spotted owls, higher 

energy costs are necessary to reach the 

allotments, and the allotments have relatively 

low prey density and biomass, it is unlikely 

that the owls use the allotments. The National 

Park Service has determined, and the USFWS 

concurred that grazing under the Livestock 

Management Plan might affect but would not 

be likely to adversely affect Mexican spotted 

owls (Nov. 2, 2000). 

The decline in agave plant populations 

throughout the range of the nectar-feeding 

bats has been cited as one of the reasons for 

federally listing the lesser long-nosed bat as 

endangered (USFWS 1994). Some studies 

found that cattle grazing is detrimental to 

agave, resulting in predation of flowering 

stalks and death of individual plants by 

trampling (Martinez-Morales and Meyer 

1985; Hodgson and DeLamater 1988). 

However, in subsequent studies in Coronado 

National Memorial, Hawk (1997) found no 

significant differences in agave populations or 

flower stalk predation between grazed and 

ungrazed area. Instead, she found that high 

flower stalk predation occurred in all plots, 

and that native herbivores, including whitetailed deer, ate most of the flower stalks in 

areas where cattle were absent. Based on these 

findings, continued grazing in the memorial 

under alternative A would result in negligible 

effects on nectar-feeding bats. Alternative A 

would not be likely to adversely affect the 

lesser long-nosed bat. 

Continuing grazing in the memorial would 

cause minor effects on wildlife species such as 

rodents, reptiles, small birds, and insects that 

are prey for the loggerhead shrike (also see 

“Wildlife,” p. 143). Although grazing probably 

would not directly eliminate wildlife species, 

the population densities of some species might 

decline, and other generalist species could 

increase. Grazing probably would not change 

the overall availability of prey for loggerhead 

shrikes. Continuing grazing in the memorial 

might alter loggerhead shrike food sources, 

resulting in negligible direct and indirect 

adverse effects. 

Cumulative Effects. A loss of trees in the memorial since 1978 and the resultant growth of 

high-elevation grasses since the wildfire of 

1988 have resulted in an increase in rodent 

species and their predators (Ruffner and 

Johnson 1991). Continuing this trend would 

increase the prey availability of the loggerhead 

shrike, a minor beneficial effect for this 

species. 

Forest vegetation provides habitat for species 

that require large areas of suitable forest cover 

and structure to maintain viable populations, 

most notably the threatened Mexican spotted 

owl. Wildfire is the primary threat to this 

species. The loss of about 2,600 acres of oakpine-juniper woodlands in the memorial 

during the 1988 wildfire reduced nesting and 

foraging habitat. Without an active fire 

management program, woody fuels continue 

to accumulate in the memorial, increasing the 

potential for future wildland fire, which 

threatens the spotted owl habitat in the 

memorial and on adjacent lands. If there 

should be a catastrophic wildfire in the future 

that could not be suppressed, combined with 

previous adverse effects from fire on the owl 

habitat in the memorial, the impacts from 

wildfire would represent a moderate to major 

threat to the Mexican spotted owl. Actions to 

reduce hazardous fuel loads in Coronado 

National Forest that would be identified in a 

future fire management plan and that are now 

underway on Fort Huachuca would 

140
cumulatively benefit the owl through reduced 

potential for habitat alteration. 

The restoration of the grassland at Fort 

Huachuca would improve the ecological 

integrity and function of native grasslands and 

might increase the number agave plants, 

which would benefit nectar-feeding bats in 

the region. However, development in adjacent 

areas would continue to reduce grasslands, 

which could adversely affect agave 

populations. Implementing the Livestock 

Management Plan (NPS 2000b) is expected to 

result in an incremental increase in grassland 

and agave populations, which would locally 

benefit the national memorial but would not 

measurably affect the region. 

Fort Huachuca and Coronado National 

Forest have developed plans to prevent the 

introduction of nonnative species, control the 

spread of others, and protect agaves on their 

lands. These efforts would increase the 

number of agave plants in the region, a minor 

to moderate benefit for the region’s nectarfeeding bats. However, increasing 

development and continued grazing in 

adjacent areas would offset these benefits. 

The effects that would result from alternative 

A, combined with the effects from other 

activities in the region, would result in 

cumulative adverse effects on critical habitat 

and on threatened, endangered, and special 

status species ranging from moderate to 

major. Implementing alternative A would 

contribute negligibly to the overall cumulative 

effect. 

Conclusion. Current maintenance and 

operations activities would continue to have a 

negligible impact on wildlife. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would disturb a small area, and the effects 

would be short-term and local, causing 

negligible to minor adverse effects on the 

populations of either agaves that are a food 

source for nectar-feeding bats or small 

mammals that are prey for the loggerhead 

Effects on Natural Resources 

shrike. The adverse effects to listed species 

would be negligible. The ranch area is not in 

prime foraging or nesting habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl, and there is low 

availability of the owl’s prey species in this 

location; therefore, removing the ranch 

structures would not adversely affect these 

owls. 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch area 

might result in more agave plants, increasing 

the available food for nectar-feeding bats. 

Revegetating the area probably would 

increase the habitat and prey species of the 

loggerhead shrikes. Thus, there would be 

beneficial effects on the lesser long-nosed bat, 

the Mexican long-tongued bat, and the 

loggerhead shrike, and the restoration would 

not be likely to adversely affect these species. 

Because of the small portion of the national 

memorial affected, this alternative might affect 

the lesser long-nosed and Mexican longtongued bat and the loggerhead shrike but 

would not be likely to adversely affect these 

species. 

It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use 

the grazing allotments. Continued grazing in 

the memorial under alternative A, with the use 

of the Livestock Management Plan, would not 

be likely to adversely affect this species. 

Alternative A also would not be likely to 

adversely affect the endangered lesser longnosed bat. 

Livestock grazing in the memorial under 

alternative A might adversely affect the 

loggerhead shrike by adversely affecting prey 

habitat for species that the loggerhead shrike 

relies on. These effects would be negligible. 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Removing the structures of the 

Montezuma Ranch (which is near a drainage 

but not directly adjacent to it) would expose 

soils to wind and rain erosion, and these soils 

could be deposited in the nearby drainage. 

141
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Because the soils are compacted, the slope of 

the area is low (0%–10%), and best 

management practices would be used to 

control erosion and site restoration, the 

short-term adverse effect on water quality 

from removing the structures would be 

negligible. 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch area 

after the structures were removed would take 

place some distance from the riparian area, so 

the beneficial effects on water quality would 

be negligible, even though soil compaction 

would be reduced and permeability increased. 

Wind erosion would be reduced by the 

development of root systems through 

revegetation; this could benefit water quality. 

Reducing the grazing intensity and shortening 

the season of use is improving watershed conditions by increasing vegetative cover along 

stream corridors. These practices also 

improve water quality by decreasing 

sedimentation, fecal coliform, and other 

microbes. However, grazing, even at reduced 

levels, would continue to degrade watersheds, 

causing soil erosion, reduced plant cover, and 

altered plant communities. The long-term 

adverse effects on water quality from 

continued grazing would be minor. 

Cumulative Effects. Recreation, cattle 

grazing, ranching, road construction, water 

diversion, and urban development in the 

region all cumulatively affect soils, vegetation, 

and riparian environments, and consequently 

water quality. 

Livestock grazing in riparian areas in upland 

communities would continue to affect water 

quality downstream on a reduced basis by 

reducing water infiltration and increasing 

runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity. 

The compaction of soils in grazed areas would 

continue to lead to reduced water infiltration 

and increased runoff, erosion, and sediment 

delivery to streams. 

Continued grazing in the national memorial 

would contribute cumulatively to adverse 

effects on water quality. However, with the 

Livestock Management Plan in use, the effects 

of grazing in the memorial would be minimal 

in relation to other development and 

agricultural activities in the area. The effects 

on soils, vegetation, and riparian habitat in the 

memorial resulting from the actions of 

alternative A would add little to the regional 

cumulative effects on water quality compared 

to the disturbance occurring in other parts of 

the region. 

Both allotments in the national memorial 

drain into the San Pedro River in either the 

United States or Mexico. The Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

monitors water quality in the San Pedro River 

at a station approximately 9 miles east of the 

memorial and less than 4 miles north of the 

international boundary. The Environmental 

Protection Agency has classified portions of 

the San Pedro River between the Mexico 

border and Charleston Arizona as impaired 

under section 303d of the Clean Water Act 

because of turbidity levels that exceed water 

quality standards (AZ Dept. of Env. Qual. 

1998). Over five years, 10%–25% of the 

samples taken exceeded the turbidity standard 

for the designated uses of aquatic life, wildlife, 

full body contact, and agriculture irrigation/ 

livestock water. However, the sources have 

been attributed to natural processes and 

grazing outside Arizona’s jurisdiction. 

The paths that have been created near the 

smuggling route for undocumented aliens and 

illegal drugs would continue to adversely 

affect riparian habitats through trampling of 

vegetation and increased erosion. This, 

coupled with the adverse impacts from 

grazing, would continue under alternative A, 

cumulatively affecting riparian habitat and 

consequently water quality. 

Conclusion. Current memorial maintenance 

and operation actions would continue to 

result in a gradual, long-term beneficial 

impact on the memorial’s water quality. 

142
Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would not measurably affect water quality 

because the action would not be near 

drainages, and mitigative measures would be 

used to contain or reduce soil erosion. 

Restoration of the site would offset any 

adverse effects of the removal. 

Reducing livestock numbers consistent with 

the Livestock Management Plan is improving 

water quality by reducing sedimentation, fecal 

coliform, and other microbes, but grazing, 

even at reduced levels, would continue to 

degrade watersheds, This would cause soil 

erosion, decrease plant cover, and alter plant 

communities. The long-term adverse effects 

on water quality from continued grazing 

would be minor. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Under alternative A, allowing the 

ranch structures to deteriorate would have no 

effect on wildlife species in the memorial. If 

the structures are removed, the activities 

associated with structural removal, such as the 

use of large trucks and the potential for 

ground disturbance, could adversely affect 

wildlife species in that location. Mobile 

animals would move to similar habitat during 

removal, but slow or sedentary animals might 

be lost. There would be negligible effects on 

common or highly mobile animal species 

(such as rabbit and deer) from the removal; 

however, the effects from removing the structures would be greater on populations of slow 

or sedentary rare or uncommon species 

known to have occupied the ranch area. 

A 1998 survey found the secretive 

underground-dwelling desert shrew, 

uncommon in the memorial. Uncommon 

species of amphibians and reptiles occurring 

in the ranch area (barred tiger salamander, 

Madrean alligator lizard, short-horned lizard, 

prairie lizard, great plains skink, and 

blackneck garter snakes) also would be adversely affected by a loss of habitat or 

individuals, and individuals of rare or 

Effects on Natural Resources 

uncommon species might be lost from the 

memorial. With mitigative measures to reduce 

the adverse effects on these rare species, the 

overall short-term effect from removing the 

ranch structures would be negligible to minor. 

These activities would not be expected to 

result in any effect at the population or 

community level. 

The adverse effects associated with the 

removal of structures at the ranch would be 

offset by restoration efforts that would restore 

natural wildlife habitat in the area. After 

structure removal, restoring the area to 

natural contours and revegetating it would 

improve grassland habitat, which would 

benefit wildlife species. An increase in rodent 

species in the memorial from 1978 was 

attributed to an increase in grasses and grass 

seed, which is favorable to small rodents. The 

increase in numbers and diversity of small 

rodents also has led to an increase in western 

diamondback rattlesnakes (Swann et al. 2000). 

Because only about 25 acres would be 

affected, the long-term beneficial effects on 

wildlife would be negligible. 

The impacts on wildlife from cattle grazing are 

being reduced from pre-plan conditions by 

the recent implementation of the Livestock 

Management Plan (NPS 2000b). However, 

continued grazing in both allotments under 

this no-action alternative would continue to 

have adverse localized effects on wildlife, 

albeit at lower levels than occurred in the past. 

Compared to ungrazed conditions, ongoing 

effects from cattle grazing would include: 

Decreased availability of vegetation as a 

food source for wildlife as forage plants 

continued to be consumed by cattle. 

Changes in the composition of bird 

communities (Bock and Webb 1984, Bock 

et al. 1984). Ground-nesting birds would 

continue to be limited by the absence of 

suitable habitat because cover vegetation 

had been eaten or trampled by cattle. 

143 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Changes in the composition of lizard 

species (Bock, Smith, and Bock 1990). 

Decreased productivity of grasshoppers 

(Jepson-Innes and Bock 1989), which are 

an important food source for many wildlife 

species. 

Reduced plant cover would favor wildlife 

species adapted to open habitats. Although 

grazing probably would not directly eliminate 

wildlife species, population densities would be 

lower than those occurring in an ungrazed 

situation. Habitat generalists and species 

associated with disturbed or early seral 

conditions would be favored. The effect on 

wildlife communities from grazing under the 

no-action alternative would be minor, 

adverse, and long term. 

Cumulative Effects. A fence built by the U.S. 

Border Patrol at the southern edge of 

Coronado National Memorial, newly installed 

lighting, and improvements to the dirt road 

there would have the potential to affect 

wildlife migration, access to water, and the 

movements of nocturnal species in local areas. 

Changes in the road would make travel at 

greater speeds possible, posing a threat to 

wildlife by collision. This project could 

adversely affect wildlife in the memorial, 

especially larger species adapted to moving 

over large tracts of land. Implementing 

alternative A would not contribute 

cumulatively to the adverse effects of the 

Border Patrol project. 

Development, grazing, and loss of habitat in 

areas adjacent to the national memorial and in 

the San Pedro River valley might result in the 

loss of more wildlife species from the 

memorial, as has been documented for other 

western units of the national park system. The 

construction of roads in nearby areas would 

increase the number of accidental wildlife 

deaths and continue to fragment wildlife 

habitat. Timber harvesting in the adjacent 

Coronado National Forest would reduce 

available wildlife habitat. Hunting in the 

adjacent Coronado National Forest would remove small numbers of animals. 

National parks have become vulnerable to 

poaching or collecting of valuable wildlife. 

Recent arrests of snake poachers in Arizona 

indicate that snakes are being collected in 

Chiricahua National Monument and 

Coronado National Memorial, but collecting 

in the national memorial appears to be 

infrequent and not to be affecting the 

memorial’s reptile populations (Swann, 

Edwards, and Schwalbe 1999). The poaching 

of rare species, combined with the adverse 

effects of removing the Montezuma Ranch, 

would result in cumulatively adverse impacts 

on these populations in the memorial and 

regionally. 

Conclusion. Removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures and restoring and 

revegetating the area would result in more 

ground cover and habitat for small rodent 

species. The structure removal would cause 

short-term negligible adverse effects on 

wildlife. Mitigating measures would be used to 

prevent or reduce the effects on rare or 

uncommon wildlife species. Restoring and 

revegetating the site with native vegetation 

after the structures were removed would 

offset the adverse impacts on soils and 

improve grassland habitat, benefiting wildlife 

species. 

Ongoing implementation of the Livestock 

Management Plan is improving wildlife habitat 

in the two allotments. However, continued 

grazing in the national memorial would result 

in minor long-term adverse impacts on some 

wildlife species from habitat loss and forage 

reduction. 

Impairment 

The resources and values of Coronado 

National Memorial would not be impaired 

because there would be no major adverse 

effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

144
purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

air quality, cave resources, soils; vegetation; 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; 

water quality; or wildlife would result from 

implementing alternative A. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Air Quality 

Analysis. In alternative B, two kinds of action 

would adversely affect air quality: 

(a) ground disturbance from restoration/revegetation efforts or from construction 

and road and trail improvements, either 

of which would result in wind-borne 

dust caused by the loosening of soils, 

which would produce occasional fugitive 

dust 

(b)emissions produced by auto traffic and 

construction equipment 

Vehicular emissions are transient, and no parameters in excess of established air quality 

criteria have been recorded in Cochise 

County. The increased visitation and the 

short-term presence of construction 

equipment that would occur under alternative 

B would not be likely to result in measurable 

changes to local air quality. Both the dust from 

ground disturbance and the emissions would 

result in negligible short-term transient 

effects on local air quality. 

Cumulative Effects. Implementing projects 

and plans at the national memorial would not 

adversely affect air quality, which would be 

more likely to be affected by local 

development and pollution from distant 

sources than by the memorial’s management 

activities. The construction activities and 

increased traffic of alternative B would 

Effects on Natural Resources 

contribute negligibly to transient local effects 

on air quality and would not affect regional air 

quality. 

Conclusion. The construction activities and 

increased traffic from more visitation in 

alternative B would cause negligible local 

short-term adverse effects on local air quality 

at the memorial but would not affect regional 

air quality. 

Cave Resources 

Analysis. There are a number of caves in the 

national memorial, with Coronado Cave being 

the most prominent and accessible (0.75 mile 

from the visitor center). This has resulted in a 

visitation, by permit, of between 5% and 6% 

of the people that currently come to the 

memorial. The cave contains various limestone formations (stalactites, stalagmites, 

flowstone, and helicites) and provides habitat 

for animals. Occasionally visitors might cause 

slight damage to cave resources. In any one 

year, the damage results in negligible to minor 

adverse effects on cave resources. Developing 

a carrying capacity for Coronado Cave would 

result in the establishment of a monitoring 

system that would measure any loss of cave 

resources so that corrective measures could 

be taken. However, the loss of resources year 

after year could eventually result in minor 

long-term adverse effects on cave resources. 

Cumulative Effects. The opening of 

Kartchner Caverns State Park about 35 miles 

north of the memorial has increased the 

interest of the visitors in caves. This interest 

added to the accessibility of Coronado Cave 

has resulted in a slight increase in visitation to 

the memorial’s cave. This increased interest in 

caves has resulted in a slight loss of sensitive 

cave resources in the area of Cochise County. 

Conclusion. There would be beneficial 

effects on Coronado Cave. The intensity of 

these effects would be difficult to quantify 

before the carrying capacity is determined, but 

145
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

the effects would be long term and probably 

would be negligible to minor. 

Soils 

Analysis. Establishing a program to inventory, 

document, and interpret natural resources in 

the memorial would improve the memorial 

staff’s ability to protect soil resources. 

Developing more interpretive materials and 

programs would help the public understand 

the memorial’s resources of the memorial and 

the impacts associated with human activity. 

This understanding could facilitate NPS 

efforts to reduce visitors’ effects on soil 

resources such as the creation of social trails 

or paths. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on soils could result from 

these programs. 

Alternative B would involve ground 

disturbance for building an annex to the 

visitor center, adding parking, pullouts, and 

new trails and trailheads. The annex and 

parking area would be developed in a 

previously disturbed area where soil 

susceptibility to erosion is low. Construction 

activities associated with developing up to 

three new pullouts and waysides would result 

in the loss of soil through compaction and 

wind and water erosion. There would be 

short-term impacts on soils during 

construction. The long-term effects of these 

developments would be negligible to minor, 

considering the small size of the area affected, 

the low erosion potential of the areas, and the 

use of mitigative measures. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of soils from erosion and 

compaction. However, the area affected 

would be small (less than 1 acre). Soils that 

have been excavated and/or covered by 

impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. 

Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of 

this development on soils would be negligible 

to minor, and mitigative measures would be 

used to minimize erosion and to limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

Developing three trails in the grassland area 

north of the main road would disturb the 

Gardencan complex soils with erosion 

potentials ranging from low to moderate (see 

table 10, p. 90). The soils in the area that 

would be used for the accessible trail to be 

developed in the picnic area have a low 

erosion potential and moderate slopes. 

(Accessible trails must be at least 36 inches 

wide to accommodate wheelchairs and have 

turning areas of 60 inches wide every 200 

feet.) The need to construct areas of the trail 

that would cross a drainage with a shallow 

slope for the creation of a ramp might 

necessitate routing the trail so that it would 

not rise or fall too steeply when crossing a 

drainage. This would reduce the impacts on 

soils. Where possible, the footprint of one of 

the existing trails or social trails would be used 

to develop the new accessible trail. Soil 

erosion would increase on and along the 

edges of these trails from visitor use. 

Development and visitor use of new trails 

would result in soil erosion and compaction, 

but the long-term effects would be negligible 

to minor because the locations have been 

previously disturbed, soil erosion potentials 

are low, and best management practices 

would minimize the impacts. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

under alternative B, reestablishing the natural 

contours, and revegetating the area with 

native species would result in effects on soils 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

Restoring and revegetating East Forest Lane 

and the area where powerlines would be 

removed would benefit soils in the national 

memorial; that is, revegetation would improve 

soil properties by reducing soil compaction 

and increasing permeability. Revegetation also 

would result in the development of root 

systems, which would hold soils in place. The 

total area revegetated would directly affect 

less than 50 acres of soils. Restoring these sites 

146
and Montezuma Ranch would result in longterm negligible to minor beneficial effects on 

soil resources. 

Eliminating grazing from the national 

memorial would reduce some soil erosion and 

compaction and improve permeability. 

Furthermore, it would reduce the disturbance 

of soils and vegetation in the riparian areas 

and along dry streambeds in the allotments, 

which would reduce the amount of sediment 

being added to the stream channel. The 

beneficial effects on soils from eliminating 

grazing in the memorial would be long term 

and minor. 

Cumulative Effects. The ground-disturbance 

associated with development under 

alternative B would affect less than 1% of the 

soils in the memorial. These adverse impacts 

would add cumulatively to the adverse 

impacts associated with illegal drug trafficking 

and immigration in the national memorial. 

Eliminating grazing on the allotments would 

result in a beneficial effect on 1,811 acres of 

soils in the national memorial. Restoring previously disturbed soils would offset any 

adverse effects associated with development. 

Coronado National Memorial is on a 

smuggling route for undocumented people 

and illegal drugs. The illegal entry across the 

United States border into the memorial has 

resulted in soil compaction and erosion 

resulting from the development of numerous 

footpaths. In addition, soils in the memorial 

would be affected to a negligible degree by 

visitor use of trails and picnic areas. Visitor 

use results in soil compaction and erosion 

along existing trails and the creation of social 

trails that results in uprooting and damage to 

vegetation in the local area. These activities, 

along with the development of additional 

employee housing, would result in negligible 

to minor adverse impacts on soils and 

vegetation throughout the national memorial. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

Effects on Natural Resources 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial would enhance public 

awareness of the natural environment, which 

would benefit all natural resources. 

Cochise County plans for increased growth in 

the Southern San Pedro Valley, with some restrictions on the scale and density of the 

development. Grazing occurs on private lands 

and in the Coronado National Forest adjacent 

to the national memorial. The beneficial 

effects on soils from alternative B would have 

little cumulative effect on a regional scale 

when compared to adverse effects offering to 

soils from increasing urban development and 

from agriculture in areas surrounding the 

national memorial. 

Conclusion. Expanding the visitor center and 

adding parking, pullouts, and new trails and 

trailheads would affect less than 1 acre of 

soils, and mitigative measures would be used. 

These overall effects would be negligible to 

minor because of the small size of the area 

affected, the low erosion potential of the soils, 

and the implementation of mitigation 

measures. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would erode and compact soils. The local adverse impacts on soils would be short-term 

and negligible to minor because mitigative 

measures would be employed to minimize 

erosion and limit construction activities to the 

immediate area. The adverse effects would be 

offset by beneficial effects from restoring and 

revegetating the site, which would improve 

the ecosystem’s health and integrity by 

reducing nonnative vegetation and increasing 

the number of native species, a negligible to 

minor long-term beneficial effect. This 

alternative would reduce soil compaction and 

increase permeability and soil retention, a 

long-term negligible to minor beneficial effect 

on soil resources. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

147
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

adverse effects on soils, and mitigation 

measures would be employed to reduce 

erosion. Programs to interpret, document, and 

inventory memorial resources and uses would 

result in long-term negligible benefits to soils 

in the memorial. 

Eliminating grazing from the memorial would 

result in long-term minor beneficial effects on 

soils by reducing nonnative species and 

reestablishing native vegetation. Overall, the 

beneficial effects of this alternative would 

offset any adverse impacts associated with 

development. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Establishing a program to inventory, 

document, and interpret natural resources in 

the memorial would improve the memorial 

staff’s ability to protect vegetation. 

Developing more interpretive materials and 

programs would help the public understand 

the memorial’s resources of the memorial and 

the impacts associated with human activity. 

This understanding could facilitate NPS 

efforts to reduce visitors’ effects on vegetative 

communities such as the creation of social 

trails. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on vegetation could result 

from these programs. 

Less than 1 acre of oak-Mexican piñonjuniper woodland association would be 

disturbed by the construction of the visitor 

center annex and added parking; this 

association accounts for 3,363 acres of the 

memorial’s vegetation. In the past, the 

vegetation in these areas has been fragmented 

and the integrity compromised on a small 

scale by the development of the visitor center 

and the picnic area. Therefore, these 

developments would result in long-term 

negligible to minor local adverse impacts, 

which would be mitigated by limiting 

maintenance activities to the immediate area 

and revegetating the areas after construction. 

Expanding the pullout near the end of the 

main road to add a picnic area and wayside in 

part of the Montezuma Canyon drainage 

would disturb a small area of oak-Mexican 

piñon-juniper woodland association. The 

location of these pullouts has not been 

determined, but sensitive areas such as 

riparian habitat would be avoided. The 

amount of vegetation affected by these 

pullouts would be small in relation to the size 

of the memorial. Associated construction 

activities would result in a long-term loss of 

vegetation through trampling and uprooting. 

The overall effects of these developments and 

up to three new pullouts and waysides and 

would be negligible to minor because the 

affected areas would be small and mitigative 

measures would be used. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of vegetation from erosion 

and compaction as well as from the uprooting 

and loss of individual plants. However, the 

area affected would be small (less than 1 acre). 

Soils that have been excavated and/or covered 

by impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of this 

development on vegetation would be negligible to minor, and mitigative measures would 

be used to minimize erosion and to limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

Developing four new trails and trailheads, 

some with restrooms, with three trails being in 

the grasslands, would affect less than 1% of 

the total grassland habitat in the national 

memorial, which constitutes 22% of the 

memorial’s total vegetation. The grasslands 

have been disturbed in the past by grazing, 

and one trail would use the existing footprint 

of the Windmill Road. Developing an 

accessible trail in oak-Mexican piñon-juniper 

woodland association of the picnic area would 

affect less than 1% of this type of vegetation. 

Widening the trail to comply with accessibility 

requirements would necessitate removing 

vegetation and would compact more soils. 

148
The widening and hardening of trails for 

accessibility would result in the compaction of 

soils and the loss of riparian vegetation where 

trails cross drainages. The local adverse effects 

of all trail development would be minor 

because the areas have been previously 

disturbed, and the effects throughout the 

memorial would be negligible because the 

affected area would be small. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

reestablishing the natural contours, and 

revegetating the area with native species 

would result in effects on soils and vegetation 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

Restoring and revegetating East Forest Lane, 

which crosses an ephemeral streambed, and 

removing powerlines along the Montezuma 

Pass road would affect vegetation in the mixed 

grasses and oak-Mexican piñon-juniper 

woodland and the honey mesquite–mixed 

short-tree woodland associations. Removing 

nonnative species and restoring native 

vegetation adjacent to a larger intact 

vegetative community would help to restore 

overall vegetative integrity and ecosystem 

health. Restoring these sites and Montezuma 

Ranch would affect less than 50 acres of 

vegetative habitat; therefore, the long-term 

beneficial effects would be negligible to 

minor. 

Eliminating grazing from the national 

memorial might reduce the potential for 

nonnative species to invade and spread, which 

could occur by seeds being dispersed in fur 

and dung, by soils being disturbed (which 

creates conditions favorable to weedy species 

and reduces the potential for the 

establishment of native species) and by cattle 

consuming native species, reducing competition (Fleischner 1994). Ending grazing also 

might improve cover and the density of plants, 

especially warm season grasses. This would 

result in long-term minor beneficial effects on 

vegetation. 

In addition, eliminating grazing from the memorial would result in a long-term gradual 

Effects on Natural Resources 

shift in forage plant species from a community 

dominated by less palatable species to one 

with predominantly palatable species. The 

availability of water would allow riparian areas 

in the grazing allotments to recover sooner 

than upland areas. Soil erosion in allotment 

areas would be reduced over time because of 

an increase in vegetation and plant litter. 

Noticeable improvements in range condition 

would take 25 to 50 years because soils and 

vegetation recover slowly in arid environments. The long-term beneficial effect on 

range condition from ending grazing in the 

memorial would be minor. 

As described in the “Affected Environment” 

chapter, the studies of the effects of grazing on 

agave plants are conflicting. Two studies 

found that the trampling of young plants and 

eating of flowering stalks by cattle are 

detrimental to agave populations (MartinezMorales and Meyer 1985; Hodgson and 

DeLemater 1988). However, a study 

conducted in the memorial found no difference between the allotment that continues 

to be grazed and the one that has not been 

grazed since 1990 (Hawks 1997). This was 

attributed to the predation of agaves by native 

herbivores, including white-tailed deer, in the 

ungrazed area. Bock et al. (1984) found that 

grass cover was substantially higher in an area 

excluded from grazing than in grazed areas. 

Brady et al. (1989) found no difference in 

plant cover within grazing exclosures, but 

reported significantly higher cover of tall 

grasses such as plains lovegrass. 

Cumulative Effects. The encroachment of 

woody species throughout grasslands in the 

upper San Pedro Basin is a factor in regional 

decreases in the amount and ecological 

functioning of native grasslands and in their 

fragmentation into small, disconnected 

patches. Urban development in the region 

also has resulted in a loss of grassland acreage. 

Another regional issue is the intrusion of 

nonnative plant species. Fort Huachuca and 

Coronado National Forest are trying to 

prevent the introduction of such species and 

control their spread. Fort Huachuca is con149
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

ducting experimental investigation and treatments of Lehmann lovegrass. Ending grazing 

in the national memorial would benefit the 

grassland habitat, and restoring native species 

under alternative B would benefit vegetation. 

However, the actions of alternative B would 

not offset the loss of grasslands from 

development or the invasion of nonnative 

plants in the region, and implementing the 

alternative would contribute little 

cumulatively to regional effects. 

Coronado National Memorial is on a 

smuggling route for undocumented people 

and illegal drugs. The illegal entry across the 

United States border into the memorial has 

resulted in soil compaction and erosion 

resulting from the development of numerous 

footpaths. In addition, vegetation in the 

memorial would be affected to a negligible 

degree by visitor use of trails and picnic areas. 

Visitor use results in soil compaction and 

erosion along existing trails and the creation 

of social trails, which results in uprooting and 

damage to vegetation in the local area. These 

activities, along with the development of 

additional employee housing, would result in 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on soils 

throughout the national memorial. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial would enhance public 

awareness of the natural environment, which 

would benefit all natural resources. 

Conclusion. Expanding the visitor center and 

adding parking, pullouts, and trailheads would 

affect less than 1 acre of vegetation, and 

mitigative measures would be used. The 

impacts would be negligible to minor because 

of the small size of the area affected, the low 

erosion potential of the soils, and the use of 

mitigation. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on vegetation, and mitigation 

measures would be employed. Programs to 

interpret, document, and inventory memorial 

resources and uses would result in long-term 

negligible benefits to vegetation in the 

memorial. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would result in local adverse impacts on vegetation, which would be short term and 

negligible to minor because mitigative 

measures would be used to minimize soil 

erosion, limit construction activities to the 

immediate area, and accelerate restoration of 

native plant species. The adverse effects 

would be offset by beneficial effects from 

restoring and revegetating the site, which 

would improve the ecosystem’s health and 

integrity by reducing nonnative vegetation 

and increasing the number of native species, a 

negligible to minor long-term beneficial 

effect. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would result 

in long-term minor beneficial effects on 

vegetative communities and range condition 

by reducing nonnative species and 

reestablishing native vegetation. Overall, the 

beneficial effects of this alternative would 

offset any adverse impacts associated with 

development. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

or Sensitive Species 

Analysis. The knowledge gained through 

establishing an inventory program would 

enable NPS personnel to better protect 

sensitive resources such as threatened and 

endangered species. Educating the public 

through new interpretive materials could help 

to reduce the adverse impacts on resources 

that sensitive species rely on. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. 

150
Expanding the visitor center and adding 

hiking trails, parking lots, and pullouts would 

not directly affect federally listed or sensitive 

species in the memorial. The developmentrelated activities of alternative B would not 

affect the roosting sites of lesser long-nosed 

bats or Mexican long-tongued bats. Those 

activities might indirectly affect listed or 

sensitive species by disturbing prey species 

and vegetation. With mitigation to transplant 

agaves in construction sites (to prevent the 

loss of important food sources for nectarfeeding bats), the development activities of 

alternative B would not be expected to alter 

the population of agave plants. Because the 

area disturbed would be minimal and 

construction activities would be short-term, 

there would be no measurable effect on small 

mammal populations in grassland habitats, 

which are the prey base of the loggerhead 

shrike. Therefore, implementing alternative B 

might indirectly affect the lesser long-nosed 

and Mexican long-tongued bat and the 

loggerhead shrike but would not be likely to 

adversely affect these species. 

Developing trails in the grassland areas at 

lower elevations would be unlikely to affect 

Mexican spotted owls because these 

grasslands and scrub areas lack suitable 

habitat for nesting and have relatively low 

prey density and biomass. Expanding the 

visitor center parking lot, developing a new 

trail near the current picnic area, upgrading 

the interpretive trail near the visitor center, 

and developing new housing would take place 

in pine-oak-juniper forests that are potential 

foraging habitat for the owls. Developing and 

expanding recreational facilities in this area 

might alter the foraging habitat and the use of 

this habitat by the owl (USFWS 1995b). However, since these developments would take 

place in previously disturbed areas that are 

frequently used by visitors, it is likely that the 

owls avoid this area when foraging. The 

effects on owl foraging habitat outside 

protected activity centers from development 

would be short-term, indirect, and negligible, 

Effects on Natural Resources 

and the species would not be likely to be 

adversely affected. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring the area would result in longterm indirect minor beneficial effects on 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

Long-term indirect minor beneficial effects 

would result from increasing the prey habitat 

of the lesser long-nosed bat, the Mexican 

long-tongued bat, and the loggerhead shrike. 

The ranch area is not in prime owl foraging or 

nesting habitat; therefore, removing the ranch 

buildings would not adversely affect the 

Mexican spotted owl. 

Restoring and revegetating East Forest Lane 

might increase loggerhead shrike habitat and 

the shrike’s prey species (small mammals, 

insects, and reptiles), a long-term benefit for 

the shrike. Revegetating the road also might 

establish more agave plants, which would have 

a beneficial effect on the agave population and 

subsequently the nectar-feeding bats. 

However, the area involved would be only a 

small part of the memorial; therefore, these 

restoration activities would not be likely to 

adversely affect the lesser long-nosed or 

Mexican long-tongued bat or the loggerhead 

shrike; rather, they would cause negligible to 

minor beneficial effects. 

Part of the powerline that parallels the road to 

Montezuma Pass is in the proposed protected 

activity center for Mexican spotted owls. The 

powerline to be removed and revegetated is in 

the pine-oak-juniper forest, which is foraging 

habitat for the owl. Removing the powerline 

could result in short-term indirect negligible 

effects resulting from human presence and 

activity, which probably would cause owls to 

avoid the area. Restricting the powerline removal activity in the protected activity center 

during the breeding season would mitigate 

these effects. However, revegetating the area 

would produce a negligible to minor benefit 

for the species by increasing habitat available 

for its prey species. Any short-term 

disturbance of the owls’ foraging habitat 

151
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

caused by removing the powerline would be 

offset by the benefits. 

Eliminating grazing in the memorial might increase the prey base and nesting habitat for 

the loggerhead shrike. Bock et al. (1984) found 

a negative correlation between grazing and 

overall rodent densities in desert environments, and studies in the memorial have 

shown that increased grassland habitat resulted in increases in small mammal diversity 

and in their predators such as the western 

diamondback rattlesnake (Swann, Alberti, and 

Schwalbe 2001). Studies by Hawks (1997) in 

Coronado National Memorial showed that 

grazing had little effect on agave populations, 

or the predation of flower stalks of Palmer’s 

agave, which are an important food source for 

nectar-eating bats. Therefore, eliminating 

grazing probably would have a negligible 

effect on the long-nosed bat. 

Alternative B would not be likely to adversely 

affect the endangered lesser long-nosed bat. 

Because the grazing allotments lack suitable 

habitat for Mexican spotted owls, higher 

energy costs are necessary to reach the 

allotments, and the allotments have relatively 

low prey density and biomass, it is unlikely 

that the owls use the allotments. Ending 

grazing in the memorial would not be likely to 

adversely affect Mexican spotted owls. 

Cumulative Effects. Efforts by the National 

Park Service to educate the public about the 

natural environment would support other 

local and regional entities’ efforts to conserve 

and enhance the protection of natural 

resources in the area. Natural areas adjacent 

to the memorial such as the national forests, 

the national conservation area, and state parks 

offer interpretive programs and provide 

visitor information related to the unique 

natural environment found in the region. 

These programs along with enhanced 

interpretation and inventorying of memorial 

resources that enhance public awareness and 

understanding of the natural environment 

would benefit all natural resources. 

A loss of trees in the memorial and the 

resultant growth of high elevation grasses 

since the wildfires of 1988 have resulted in an 

increase in rodent species, which has 

increased the availability of prey for the 

loggerhead shrike, a minor beneficial effect 

for the shrikes and their prey. Eliminating 

grazing under alternative B would increase 

grassland habitat and small mammal habitat, 

which would increase the prey abundance for 

the shrike. Ending grazing in the memorial, 

combined with the effects of the past fire, 

would result in a minor cumulative benefit to 

the loggerhead shrike. 

As has been mentioned, wildfire is the primary 

threat to the persistence and recovery of the 

Mexican spotted owl (USFWS 1995b). The 

loss of owl habitat in the memorial from the 

1988 wildfire, together with the potential for 

future catastrophic fire, represents a moderate 

to major threat to this species. Limiting the 

removal of powerlines in the proposed 

protected activity center to a time not in the 

owl’s breeding season would cause negligible 

effects on the species. This activity, combined 

with habitat loss from wildfire, would cause 

moderate to major effects on the Mexican 

spotted owl. Actions to reduce hazardous fuel 

loads in Coronado National Forest, which 

would be identified in a future fire management plan and are currently underway on Fort 

Huachuca, would cumulatively benefit the 

owls by reducing the likelihood of habitat 

alteration. 

The restoration of grassland on Fort 

Huachuca is improving the ecological 

integrity and function of native grasslands. 

Prescribed burns on private and public lands 

are being used to maintain grasslands, which 

might increase the region’s agave population, 

a minor to moderate benefit for nectarfeeding bats in the region. Alternative B would 

make a negligible contribution to these 

beneficial effects on grasslands and nectarfeeding bats. The overall beneficial cumulative 

effect on listed and sensitive bat species in the 

region would range up to moderate. 

152
Conclusion. Programs to interpret, 

document, and inventory memorial resources 

and uses would result in a long-term 

negligible benefits to threatened and 

endangered or sensitive species in the 

memorial. 

Enlarging the visitor center and adding trails, 

parking areas, and pullouts would cause 

indirect effects on lesser long-nosed bats, 

Mexican long-tongued bats, and loggerhead 

shrikes by disturbing vegetation and small 

mammals that are food sources for the 

shrikes. The developments would not 

measurably affect the population of agaves, a 

food source for the lesser long-nosed bat and 

the Mexican long-tongued bat, nor would it 

alter the populations of small mammals in 

grassland habitats, which are the prey base of 

loggerhead shrikes. 

The development activity near the visitor 

center would occur in pine-oak-juniper 

forests that is primary foraging habitat of the 

Mexican spotted owl. These actions would 

take place in areas previously disturbed and 

frequently used by visitors. The owls often 

avoid those areas. The developments in owl 

foraging habitat outside the protected activity 

center would be short-term, indirect, and 

negligible and would not be not likely to 

adversely affect the species. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would disturb about 25 acres (less than 1% of 

the memorial’s acreage), causing negligible to 

minor adverse effects on the food base of the 

lesser long-nosed bat, the Mexican longtongued bat, and the loggerhead shrike. 

Therefore, removing the structures might 

indirectly affect but would not be likely to 

adversely affect those listed or sensitive 

species. The ranch area is not in prime 

foraging or nesting habitat for the Mexican 

spotted owl, and there is low availability of the 

owl’s prey species in this location; therefore, 

removing the ranch structures would not be 

likely to adversely affect this species. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch area 

after removing the structures might increase 

the number of agave plants, resulting in more 

available food for nectar-feeding bats. 

Revegetating the area probably would 

increase the habitat and prey species of the 

loggerhead shrikes. Thus, there would be 

beneficial effects on the lesser long-nosed and 

Mexican long-tongued bat and the 

loggerhead shrike, and the restoration would 

not be likely to adversely affect these species. 

Because only a small part the memorial would 

be affected, this alternative might affect the 

lesser long-nosed and Mexican long-tongued 

bats and the loggerhead shrike but would not 

be likely to adversely affect these species. 

It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use 

the grazing allotments; therefore 

discontinuing grazing would likely not affect 

these owls. 

Alternative B would not be likely to adversely 

affect the endangered lesser long-nosed bat. 

Eliminating grazing from the memorial might 

increase the prey base and nesting habitat for 

loggerhead shrike. It would have a negligible 

effect on the lesser long-nosed and Mexican 

long-tongued bat. 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Better protection of soils and 

vegetation through a monitoring program 

would lead to better protection of water 

quality, an overall beneficial effect on water 

quality under this alternative. Developing new 

employee housing would not affect riparian 

habitat, and mitigative measures would 

include actions to minimize erosion by 

stabilization with structures or vegetation. 

Therefore, there would be no adverse impact 

on water quality from building new housing. 

The short-term effects on water quality from 

constructing the visitor center annex and a 

new parking area would negligible because the 

construction would not be in riparian habitat, 

153
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

and best management practices would be used 

to reduce soil erosion into the adjacent environment and to limit construction activity to 

the immediate area. Expansion of an existing 

pullout near the end of the park road would 

provide for a picnic area and wayside and 

would occur along a small portion of the 

Montezuma Canyon drainage. Two more 

pullouts would be developed to take 

advantage of park views, however the location 

of these is undetermined. The constructionrelated activities would result in increased soil 

erosion and a loss of vegetation in the riparian 

area. The area affected by pullout development would be small and mitigated by 

measures to limit erosion through structures 

or revegetation of the area. The short-term 

effects on water quality of these developments 

would be localized and negligible to minor 

and would lessen with the reestablishment of 

streambank vegetation after construction. 

Developing four new trails, with one trail, 

including part of the old Windmill Road, 

widened and hardened for accessibility, 

would result in the compaction of soils, with a 

short-term increase in soil erosion and 

sedimentation into the streambed during 

construction. It also would cause a loss of 

riparian vegetation where trails cross 

drainages. Parts of two accessible trails would 

cross drainages and might need to be adjusted 

for slope requirements, which would reduce 

soil erosion in the riparian habitat. Because an 

existing footprint would be used for parts of 

the trails and mitigating measures would be 

used to prevent trampling and the loss of riparian vegetation, the adverse effects on water 

quality from trail development would be 

limited, since the areas disturbed would be 

small. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

under alternative B, reestablishing the natural 

contours, and revegetating the area with 

native species would result in effects on water 

quality similar to those described for 

alternative A. 

Restoring natural contours and vegetation in 

areas now occupied by abandoned powerlines 

in the Montezuma Canyon drainage would 

increase soil erosion, subsequently increasing 

stream sedimentation and turbidity. This 

would cause the loss of some riparian 

vegetation, a short-term adverse effect that 

would be offset by revegetating these areas. 

The long-term effects on water quality would 

be negligible because the affected area would 

be small. In addition, best management 

practices would be used to control soil 

erosion. 

Reclaiming East Forest Lane, which crosses a 

drainage along its course, would increase 

riparian vegetation and decrease soil erosion 

and sedimentation into the adjacent drainage. 

Revegetating riparian areas and closing this 

road would result in minor beneficial longterm effects on water quality. 

Eliminating grazing from the national 

memorial would end the livestock disturbance 

of soils and vegetation in riparian areas along 

dry streambeds, reducing streambank erosion 

and the amount of sediment being added to 

the stream channel. The long-term beneficial 

effects on water quality in the memorial would 

be minor. 

Cumulative Effects. Recreation, cattle 

grazing, ranching, road construction, water 

diversion, and urban development in the 

region all cumulatively affect soils, vegetation, 

and riparian environments, and consequently 

water quality. Developing additional 

employee housing in the memorial would not 

contribute to the cumulative effects of these 

other activities occurring in the region. 

Erosion and pollution control measures at 

Fort Huachuca and Coronado National 

Forest would reduce potential water quality 

impacts in the San Pedro River basin. 

Implementing alternative B at Coronado National Memorial would reduce erosion, 

consequently reducing a potential source of 

sediment and turbidity in the San Pedro River 

channels. The actions of alternative B also 

154
would support the goals of the Upper San 

Pedro Partnership to manage drainages in the 

Upper San Pedro River basin so as to decrease 

erosion from runoff, adding cumulatively to 

the beneficial effects on water quality from 

actions by other public agencies. 

Conclusion. No adverse effects on water 

quality would be anticipated from developing 

additional employee housing. The establishment of monitoring programs in the memorial 

to monitor activities such as grazing would 

benefit overall water quality in the memorial. 

Adding an annex to the visitor center and 

developing new parking and pullouts would 

affect less than 1 acre, resulting in long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on water 

quality. Mitigative measures would be used to 

reduce soil erosion and the loss of vegetation 

along streams. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

have negligible effects on water quality. 

Restoring East Forest Lane and the site where 

powerlines would be removed would restore 

native riparian vegetation, reducing soil 

erosion and sedimentation. The long-term 

beneficial effects on water quality from those 

activities would be negligible to minor. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would 

improve water quality by decreasing 

sedimentation and reducing fecal coliform 

and other microbes, a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on riparian habitats and water 

quality. Overall, the beneficial effects on water 

quality from this alternative would offset any 

adverse impacts associated with development. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Through knowledge gained from an 

inventory and monitoring program, national 

memorial staff could better protect wildlife 

habitat. Educating the public with interpretive 

materials could reduce impacts on wildlife 

Effects on Natural Resources 

and habitat from visitor use. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on wildlife. 

The effects on wildlife in the memorial from 

expanding the visitor center, new employee 

housing, and adding a pullout near the end of 

the paved main road would be negligible for 

mobile species, but slow or sedentary species, 

particularly amphibians and reptiles, would be 

more susceptible to adverse effects from 

construction. Individuals of these populations 

might be lost. However, with mitigation to 

reduce impacts on rare or uncommon species, 

the short-term adverse effects on wildlife 

from alternative B would be negligible to 

minor. 

The effects of roads and trails on wildlife are 

diverse. These effects include mortality, 

restricted movement, introduction of exotic 

plants (which could affect wildlife habitat), 

habitat fragmentation and edge effect, and 

increased human access to wildlife habitats 

(Colorado State Parks 1998, Forman 2000, 

Forman and Alexander 1998). Trails and 

roads in the memorial bring people into 

wildlife habitat. People hiking or driving along 

roads disturb wildlife species, and wildlife 

sometimes react to the presence of people or 

the noise of or their machines with an 

increased expenditure of energy, which could 

lead to increased mortality. Escape responses 

to human disturbance can be energetically 

“expensive” to wildlife for two reasons: 

feeding animals stop eating when disturbed, 

and disturbed animals use energy to run or 

otherwise move away from the disturbance 

(Colorado State Parks 1998, Knight and 

Gutzwiller 1995). 

Developing new trails in the grasslands where 

recreation activity has been minimal in the 

past might adversely affect some individual 

wildlife, family groups, or nesting colonies 

because of noise or passive disturbance by the 

presence of humans. Because survey data 

indicates a lack of rare or uncommon species 

and the area affected by trail development 

would affect a small portion of the wildlife 

155
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

habitat available in the memorial, the impacts 

of trail use by visitors in these grassland areas 

would be negligible to minor. Some benefits to 

individual animals in the memorial might 

result from trail development. Animals such as 

mule deer and white-tailed deer might use the 

trails and roads to facilitate movement within 

the habitat. Ease of movement might benefit 

individuals of those species by reducing 

energy expenditures. The long-term benefits 

would likely be negligible. 

Widening and paving Windmill Road to 

convert it to an accessible trail would result in 

negligible adverse effects on wildlife species. 

Developing an accessible trail in the picnic 

area would remove some wildlife habitat and 

displace of some species; however, the impact 

would be negligible because the area affected 

would be small. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

reestablishing the natural contours, and 

revegetating the area with native species 

would result in effects on wildlife similar to 

those described for alternative A. 

Restoring and revegetating East Forest Lane 

and removing the powerline along the main 

road would increase habitat and food for 

many species of small mammals, nesting birds, 

and reptiles, benefiting wildlife in the long 

term. Restoring the powerline area would 

improve oak woodland and riparian habitats, 

which would benefit rare and uncommon 

species such as Woodhouse’s toad and the 

Sonoran Mountain king snake. East Forest 

Lane traverses many plant associations, 

grassland, oak woodland and riparian areas, 

so its restoration would benefit the prairie 

lizard, the big bend patchnose snake, and the 

Mojave rattlesnake. The areas restored would 

constitute only a small part of the national 

memorial; therefore, the long-term beneficial 

effects on wildlife would be negligible to 

minor. 

Closing East Forest Lane to vehicles would 

decrease the potential for road kill and reduce 

the indirect effects of human presence, and 

revegetating the road would provide more 

continuous habitat for animal migration. The 

absence of the road would benefit larger 

animals in the memorial such as predators and 

deer. The wash draining the east slope of the 

memorial represents the best potential 

conduit for wildlife (Hass 2000); therefore, 

eliminating this road would result in a longterm negligible to minor beneficial effect on 

migrating species. 

Eliminating grazing from the national 

memorial would reduce the impacts on soils 

and vegetation, benefiting some wildlife 

species by making more food and cover 

available. Ground cover would be increased, 

making more and better grassland available 

for bird nesting. The quality of habitat for 

most wildlife under alternative B would be 

better than under alternative A. Studies in the 

memorial have shown that more grassland 

habitat has led to an increase in small mammal 

diversity and in their predators, such as the 

western diamondback rattlesnake (Swann, 

Alberti, and Schwalbe 2001). 

Ending grazing in the memorial might result in 

the loss of some species that prefer more 

open, desertlike habitat created by grazing. 

The coachwhip was the second most 

abundant snake species at Coronado in 1979 

(Cockrum et al. 1979); however, in a recent 

survey, the species was found to be rare 

(Swann et al. 2000). The decline was attributed 

to a lack of grazing on the Montezuma 

allotment, which altered the habitat. The 

reduced impact on riparian vegetation would 

increase cover and nesting habitat, beneficially 

affecting species such as migrating birds, deer, 

and predators that use the drainages on the 

allotments as corridors. Overall, eliminating 

grazing under alternative B would result in 

minor long-term beneficial effects on wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects. Grassland restoration in 

Fort Huachuca is being used to improve the 

ecological integrity and function of native 

grasslands, and prescribed burning on private 

and public lands in the area is used to 

maintain grasslands. The actions of alternative 

156
B would contribute cumulatively to these 

regional beneficial effects on grasslands. 

In combination with forest conservation 

actions in the isolated mountains of 

southeastern Arizona and in the San Pedro 

River National Conservation Area, the actions 

of alternative B would benefit both migratory 

birds and larger, dispersing animals that 

require more forest habitat to sustain viable 

populations. The Upper San Pedro Valley is a 

major neotropical migrant bird corridor. 

Woodlands and forest habitats in the 

Huachuca Mountains and in the San Pedro 

River National Conservation Area are 

important habitat resources for migrating 

birds. 

Proposed management actions at Fort 

Huachuca and activities in the Coronado 

National Forest (such as snag and nest tree 

protection and wildfire management) would 

sustain biologically and structurally diverse 

habitat for migrating or dispersing wildlife in 

the Huachuca Mountains. The actions of 

alternative B would complement these efforts 

to maintain wildlife corridors and riparian 

areas and conserve native grasslands. 

Developments by the border patrol to 

improve roads and install fencing and lighting 

adversely affect wildlife by impeding 

movement, altering feeding patterns, and 

reducing habitat quality for nesting and 

feeding. Development, grazing, and loss of 

habitat in areas adjacent to the national 

memorial and in the San Pedro River valley 

might result in the loss of more wildlife 

species from the memorial. Timber harvesting 

and hunting in the adjacent Coronado 

National Forest would reduce available 

wildlife habitat, alter animal behaviors, and 

results in the removal of individuals. Although 

thought to be rare in the memorial, poaching 

of reptiles and amphibians results in a loss of 

individuals and may reduce populations of 

rare or uncommon species in the region. 

Development within the national memorial 

including new employee housing which would 

result in the loss of a small portion of wildlife 

Effects on Natural Resources 

habitat would contribute negligibly to the 

adverse cumulative effects of these other 

regional activities. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial that enhance public awareness 

of the natural environment help to protect 

sensitive areas such as riparian areas. 

Protection of these areas conserve wildlife 

habitat and benefit wildlife within the region. 

Conclusion. Programs to interpret, 

document, and inventory memorial resources 

and uses would result in a long-term 

negligible benefits on threatened and 

endangered or sensitive species in the 

memorial. Loss of a small portion of wildlife 

habitat and the potential for loss of sedentary 

individual animals from development of new 

employee housing would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse effects. 

Expanding the visitor center and building 

trails would result in more public access to 

wildlife habitat, resulting in negligible to 

minor adverse effects. Trails and roads might 

benefit some species by facilitating movement. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

with mitigating measures to reduce impacts on 

rare or uncommon species, would result in 

long-term negligible adverse effects on 

wildlife. Restoring the ranch area to natural 

contours and revegetating it would improve 

grassland habitat, resulting in a long-term 

negligible to minor benefit for wildlife species. 

Ending grazing in the national memorial 

would improve habitat and forage, benefiting 

wildlife. 

Impairment 

The resources and values of Coronado 

National Memorial would not be impaired 

157
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

because there would be no major adverse 

effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

air quality; cave resources, soils; vegetation; 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; 

water quality; or wildlife would result from 

implementing alternative B. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Air Quality 

Analysis. Limited amounts of fugitive dust 

would be generated in alternative C by 

restoration and revegetation activities, 

upgrading the interpretive trail, and 

renovations at the visitor center. This would 

not affect visitors or staff to a notable degree. 

Visitation and traffic would continue to 

increase at current rates. The short-term 

adverse effects on air quality from these 

activities would be negligible and localized. 

Other plans and management activities of the 

national memorial would not adversely affect 

air quality. 

Cumulative Effects. Population growth and 

development outside the national memorial 

would be more likely to affect air quality than 

the management activities of the memorial. In 

addition, emissions from Tucson and Mexico 

are carried to the memorial by prevailing 

winds. Alternative C, in conjunction with 

other actions, would contribute negligibly to 

short-term local adverse effects on air quality 

but would not affect regional air quality. 

Conclusion. The construction activities and 

increased traffic from more visitation in 

alternative C would cause negligible local 

short-term adverse effects on local air quality 

at the memorial but would not affect regional 

air quality. 

Cave Resources 

Analysis. There are a number of caves in the 

national memorial, with Coronado Cave being 

the most prominent and accessible (0.75 mile 

from the visitor center). This has resulted in a 

visitation, by permit, of between 5% and 6% 

of the people that currently come to the 

memorial. The cave contains various limestone formations (stalactites, stalagmites, 

flowstone, and helicites) and provides habitat 

for animals. Occasionally visitors might cause 

slight damage to cave resources. In any one 

year, the damage results in negligible to minor 

adverse effects on cave resources. Developing 

a carrying capacity for Coronado Cave would 

result in the establishment of a monitoring 

system that would measure any loss of cave 

resources so that corrective measures could 

be taken. However, the loss of resources year 

after year could eventually result in minor 

long-term adverse effects on cave resources. 

Cumulative Effects. The opening of 

Kartchner Caverns State Park about 35 miles 

north of the memorial has increased the 

interest of the visitors in caves. This interest 

added to the accessibility of Coronado Cave 

has resulted in a slight increase in visitation to 

the memorial’s cave. This increased interest in 

caves has resulted in a slight loss of sensitive 

cave resources in the area of Cochise County. 

Conclusion. There would be beneficial 

effects on Coronado Cave. The intensity of 

these effects would be difficult to quantify 

before the carrying capacity is determined, but 

the effects would be long term and probably 

would be negligible to minor. 

Soils 

Analysis. Establishing a program to inventory, 

document, and interpret natural resources in 

the memorial would improve the memorial 

staff’s ability to protect soil resources. 

158
Developing more interpretive materials and 

programs would help the public understand 

the memorial’s resources of the memorial and 

the impacts associated with human activity. 

This understanding could facilitate NPS 

efforts to reduce visitors’ effects on soil 

resources such as the creation of social trails 

or paths. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on soils could result from 

these programs. 

Adding parking spaces for four buses or 

recreational vehicles in the picnic area would 

result in long-term negligible to minor 

impacts on soils in a previously disturbed area 

where the soils have a low susceptibility to 

erosion (see table 10, p. 90). Best management 

practices would be used to reduce or eliminate 

impacts. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of soils from erosion and 

compaction. However, the area affected 

would be small (less than 1 acre). Soils that 

have been excavated and/or covered by 

impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. 

Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of 

this development on soils would be negligible 

to minor, and mitigative measures would be 

used to minimize erosion and to limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

Widening the interpretive trail and 

compacting soils to create a hardened surface 

for better accessibility would affect local soils. 

The long-term effects would be negligible to 

minor because the area affected would be 

small and the existing trail footprint would be 

used. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

reestablishing the natural contours, and 

revegetating the area with native species under 

alternative C would result in effects on soils 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Reestablishing and restoring natural contours 

and vegetation in areas now occupied by 

abandoned powerlines, roads, the 

Montezuma Ranch structures, the former 

fiesta grounds, the dirt storage area, and social 

trails and nonhistoric structures would affect 

about 50 acres. Restoring and revegetating 

these sites would improve soil properties by 

reducing soil compaction and increasing 

permeability, and it would restore overall 

vegetative integrity and ecosystem health. 

Such restoration would result in larger areas 

of unbroken habitat for wildlife, the removal 

of nonnative species, and the development of 

root systems that would hold soils in place. 

The local long-term beneficial effects on soils 

would be negligible to minor. 

Eliminating grazing from the national 

memorial under alternative C would result in 

effects on soils similar to those described for 

alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects. The ground-disturbance 

associated with development under 

alternative C, similar to alternative B, would 

affect less than 1% of the soils in the 

memorial. These adverse impacts would add 

cumulatively to the adverse impacts associated 

with illegal drug trafficking and immigration 

in the national memorial. Eliminating grazing 

on the allotments would result in a beneficial 

effect on 1,811 acres of soils in the national 

memorial. Restoring previously disturbed 

soils would offset any adverse effects 

associated with development. 

Coronado National Memorial is on a 

smuggling route for undocumented people 

and illegal drugs. The illegal entry across the 

United States border into the memorial has 

resulted in soil compaction and erosion 

resulting from the development of numerous 

footpaths. In addition, soils in the memorial 

would be affected to a negligible degree by 

visitor use of trails and picnic areas. Visitor 

use results in soil compaction and erosion 

along existing trails and the creation of social 

trails that results in uprooting and damage to 

vegetation in the local area. These activities, 

159
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

along with the development of additional 

employee housing, would result in negligible 

to minor adverse impacts on soils and 

vegetation throughout the national memorial. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial would enhance public 

awareness of the natural environment, which 

would benefit all natural resources. 

Cochise County plans for increased growth in 

the Southern San Pedro Valley, with some restrictions on the scale and density of the 

development. Grazing occurs on private lands 

and in the Coronado National Forest adjacent 

to the national memorial. The beneficial 

effects on soils from alternative B would have 

little cumulative effect on a regional scale 

when compared to adverse effects offering to 

soils from increasing urban development and 

from agriculture in areas surrounding the 

national memorial. 

Conclusion. The impacts on soil resources 

from development under alternative C, such 

as visitor parking and trails improvements, 

would be long term and negligible because of 

the limited amount of development, the small 

size of the area affected (less than 1 acre), and 

the low soil erosion potential of the areas 

affected. Mitigative measures would be used 

to minimize erosion and to limit construction 

activities to the immediate area. 

Montezuma Ranch and other areas in the 

memorial would be restored and revegetated 

under alternative C than under the other 

alternatives. Restoring sites would improve 

soil properties by reducing soil compaction 

and increasing permeability, causing local 

long-term negligible to minor beneficial 

effects on soils. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on soils, and mitigation 

measures would be employed to reduce 

erosion. Programs to interpret, document, and 

inventory memorial resources and uses would 

result in long-term negligible benefits to soils 

in the memorial. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would have a 

long-term minor beneficial effect on soils because nonnative vegetative species would be 

reduced and native vegetation would increase. 

Overall, the beneficial effects of alternative C 

would offset any adverse impacts associated 

with the limited development. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Establishing a program to inventory, 

document, and interpret natural resources in 

the memorial would improve the memorial 

staff’s ability to protect vegetation. Developing more interpretive materials and programs 

would help the public understand the 

memorial’s resources of the memorial and the 

impacts associated with human activity. This 

understanding could facilitate NPS efforts to 

reduce visitors’ effects on vegetative 

communities such as the creation of social 

trails. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on vegetation could result 

from these programs. 

Adding parking spaces for four buses or 

recreational vehicles in the picnic area would 

result in long-term negligible to minor 

impacts on vegetation in a previously 

disturbed area where the soils have a low 

susceptibility to erosion. Best management 

practices would be used to reduce or eliminate 

impacts. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of vegetation from erosion 

and compaction as well as from the uprooting 

and loss of individual plants. However, the 

area affected would be small (less than 1 acre). 

Soils that have been excavated and/or covered 

by impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

160
lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. 

Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of 

this development on vegetation would be 

negligible to minor, and mitigative measures 

would be used to minimize erosion and to 

limit construction activities to the immediate 

area. 

Widening the interpretive trail and 

compacting soils to create a hardened surface 

for better accessibility would affect local 

vegetation. The long-term effects would be 

negligible to minor because the area affected 

would be small and the existing trail footprint 

would be used. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

reestablishing the natural contours, and 

revegetating the area with native species under 

alternative C would affect vegetation in ways 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

Restoring natural contours and vegetation in 

areas now occupied by abandoned 

powerlines, roads, the Montezuma Ranch 

structures, the former fiesta grounds, the dirt 

storage area, and social trails and nonhistoric 

structures would affect less than 50 acres. 

Restoring and revegetating these sites would 

restore overall vegetative integrity and 

ecosystem health. It would result in larger 

areas of unbroken habitat for wildlife, the 

removal of nonnative species, and the 

development of root systems to hold soils in 

place. The local long-term beneficial effects 

on vegetation would be negligible to minor. 

Restoring the Montezuma Ranch and roads 

would take place adjacent to a larger intact 

vegetative community, and the revegetation 

would help to restore overall vegetative 

integrity and ecosystem health. The resulting 

long-term beneficial effects would be similar 

to those described for alternative A. 

Ending grazing in the national memorial 

would result in effects on vegetation and 

range condition similar to those described for 

alternative B. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Cumulative Effects. Similar to alternative B, 

the encroachment of woody species 

throughout grasslands in the upper San Pedro 

Basin is a factor in regional decreases in the 

amount and ecological functioning of native 

grasslands and in their fragmentation into 

small, disconnected patches. Urban development in the region also has resulted in a 

loss of grassland acreage. Another regional 

issue is the intrusion of nonnative plant 

species. Fort Huachuca and Coronado 

National Forest are trying to prevent the 

introduction of such species and control their 

spread. Fort Huachuca is conducting 

experimental investigation and treatments of 

Lehmann lovegrass. Ending grazing in the 

national memorial would benefit the grassland 

habitat, and restoring native species under 

alternative B would benefit vegetation. 

However, the actions of alternative B would 

not offset the loss of grasslands from 

development or the invasion of nonnative 

plants in the region, and implementing the 

alternative would contribute little 

cumulatively to regional effects. 

Coronado National Memorial is on a 

smuggling route for undocumented people 

and illegal drugs. The illegal entry across the 

United States border into the memorial has 

resulted in soil compaction and erosion 

resulting from the development of numerous 

footpaths. In addition, vegetation in the 

memorial would be affected to a negligible 

degree by visitor use of trails and picnic areas. 

Visitor use results in soil compaction and 

erosion along existing trails and the creation 

of social trails, which results in uprooting and 

damage to vegetation in the local area. These 

activities, along with the development of 

additional employee housing, would result in 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on soils 

throughout the national memorial. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

161
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

the memorial would enhance public 

awareness of the natural environment, which 

would benefit all natural resources. 

Conclusion. Adding more visitor parking 

would result in long-term negligible effects on 

vegetation because the development would be 

limited and the area affected would be less 

than 1 acre. Mitigative measures would be 

used to minimize erosion and to limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on vegetation, and mitigation 

measures would be employed. Programs to 

interpret, document, and inventory memorial 

resources and uses would result in long-term 

negligible benefits to vegetation in the 

memorial. 

More areas in the memorial would be restored 

and revegetated under alternative C than 

under the other alternatives. The impacts 

from development under alternative C would 

be long term and negligible because of the 

limited amount of development and the small 

size of the area affected (less than 1 acre). 

Restoring sites would improve ecosystem 

health and integrity by reducing nonnative 

species and reestablishing native plant species, 

a long-term local negligible to minor 

beneficial effect on vegetation. 

Eliminating grazing from the memorial would 

have a long-term minor beneficial effect on 

vegetation and range condition because 

nonnative vegetative species would be 

reduced and native vegetation would increase. 

Overall, the beneficial effects of this 

alternative would offset any adverse impacts 

associated with the limited development. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

or Sensitive Species 

Analysis. The knowledge gained through 

establishing an inventory program would 

enable NPS personnel to better protect 

sensitive resources such as threatened and 

endangered species. Educating the public 

through new interpretive materials could help 

to reduce the adverse impacts on resources 

that sensitive species rely on. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. 

Adding parking for buses or recreational 

vehicles on previously disturbed land would 

affect only a small area in the memorial and 

would not measurably affect vegetation or 

wildlife in grassland habitat. Since these 

activities would not affect grassland 

vegetation or wildlife habitat; they would not 

disturb the food sources of the nectar-feeding 

bats or the loggerhead shrike and would not 

affect the roosting sites of lesser long-nosed 

bats or Mexican long-tongued bats. 

Therefore, these activities would not result in 

any direct effects on the lesser long-nosed 

bat, the Mexican long-tongued bat, or the 

loggerhead shrike. 

The added parking facilities, the upgraded 

interpretive trail, and the housing 

development would be in pine-oak-juniper 

forests, potential foraging habitat of the 

Mexican spotted owl. The development and 

the expanded recreational facilities of 

alternative C might alter the foraging habitat 

and its use by the owl (USFWS 1995b). However, since these developments would take 

place in previously disturbed areas that are 

frequently used by visitors, it is likely that the 

owls avoid these areas when foraging. 

Therefore, the effects from the developments, 

which would not be in the proposed protected 

activity center, would be short-term, indirect, 

and negligible, and the species would not be 

likely to be adversely affected. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring the area would result effects 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

Long-term indirect minor beneficial effects 

would result from increasing the prey habitat 

of the lesser long-nosed bat, the Mexican 

long-tongued bat, and the loggerhead shrike. 

162
Because the ranch area is not in prime owl 

foraging or nesting habitat, removing the 

ranch structures would not adversely affect 

the Mexican spotted owl. 

Restoring and revegetating East Forest Lane 

would result in the same effects on the lesser 

long-nosed bat, the Mexican long-tongued 

bat, and the loggerhead shrike as those 

described for Alternative A. The structure 

removal probably would increase habitat and 

prey species for the loggerhead shrike and 

increase the number of agave plants, a food 

source of the nectar-feeding bats. These 

actions would not be likely to adversely affect 

these species but would result in long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effects. 

Removing the powerlines along the road to 

Montezuma Pass and revegetating the area 

would result in the same effects on the 

Mexican spotted owl as described for 

alternative B. Short-term indirect negligible 

effects could result from human presence and 

activity, which probably would cause the owls 

to avoid the area when foraging. However, 

revegetating the area would cause a negligible 

to minor benefit for the species by increasing 

available habitat for its prey. With mitigation 

to limit powerline removal to a time not in the 

owl’s breeding season, this activity might 

affect but would not be likely to adversely 

affect this species. 

Eliminating grazing from the memorial under 

alternative C would cause the same effects on 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species as 

those described for alternative B. Ending 

grazing would not be likely to adversely affect 

the endangered lesser long-nosed bat. 

Because suitable nesting and foraging habitat 

for the Mexican spotted owl is lacking in the 

grazing allotments, it is unlikely that the owls 

use these areas. Therefore, stopping grazing in 

the memorial would not be likely to adversely 

affect this species. 

Cumulative Effects. As in alternative B, 

efforts by the National Park Service to educate 

the public about the natural environment 

Effects on Natural Resources 

would support other local and regional 

entities’ efforts to conserve and enhance the 

protection of natural resources in the area. 

Natural areas adjacent to the memorial such as 

the national forests, the national conservation 

area, and state parks offer interpretive 

programs and provide visitor information 

related to the unique natural environment 

found in the region. These programs along 

with enhanced interpretation and 

inventorying of memorial resources that 

enhance public awareness and understanding 

of the natural environment would benefit all 

natural resources. 

A loss of trees in the memorial and the 

resultant growth of high elevation grasses 

since the wildfires of 1988 have resulted in an 

increase in rodent species, which has 

increased the availability of prey for the 

loggerhead shrike, a minor beneficial effect 

for the shrikes and their prey. Eliminating 

grazing under alternative C would increase 

grassland habitat and small mammal habitat, 

which would increase the prey abundance for 

the shrike. Ending grazing in the memorial, 

combined with the effects of the past fire, 

would result in a minor cumulative benefit to 

the loggerhead shrike. 

As has been mentioned, wildfire is the primary 

threat to the persistence and recovery of the 

Mexican spotted owl (USFWS 1995b). The 

loss of owl habitat in the memorial from the 

1988 wildfire, together with the potential for 

future catastrophic fire, represents a moderate 

to major threat to this species. Limiting the 

removal of powerlines in the proposed 

protected activity center to a time not in the 

owl’s breeding season would cause negligible 

effects on the species. This activity, combined 

with habitat loss from wildfire, would cause 

moderate to major effects on the Mexican 

spotted owl. Actions to reduce hazardous fuel 

loads in Coronado National Forest, which 

would be identified in a future fire management plan and are currently underway on Fort 

Huachuca, would cumulatively benefit the 

owls by reducing the likelihood of habitat 

alteration. 

163
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

The restoration of grassland on Fort 

Huachuca is improving the ecological 

integrity and function of native grasslands. 

Prescribed burns on private and public lands 

are being used to maintain grasslands, which 

might increase the region’s agave population, 

a minor to moderate benefit for nectarfeeding bats in the region. Alternative C would 

make a negligible contribution to these 

beneficial effects on grasslands and nectarfeeding bats. The overall beneficial cumulative 

effect on listed and sensitive bat species in the 

region would range up to moderate. 

Conclusion. Programs to interpret, 

document, and inventory memorial resources 

and uses would result in a long-term 

negligible benefits to threatened and 

endangered or sensitive species in the 

memorial. 

Adding parking for buses and recreational 

vehicles would not affect the long-nosed bat, 

the Mexican long-tongued bat or the 

loggerhead shrike because these actions 

would not take place in the grassland areas of 

the memorial, where the predominant forage 

for these species is found. The developments 

would be placed in owl foraging habitat 

outside the protected activity centers, and 

they would be in areas already used by 

visitors, so it is likely that the owls avoid these 

areas when foraging. Therefore, the effects 

from the developments would be short-term, 

indirect, and negligible, and these species 

would not be likely to be adversely affected. 

Removing powerlines in the proposed 

protected activity center for the Mexican 

spotted owl at a time not in the owl’s breeding 

season might cause the owls to avoid the area 

when foraging but it would not adversely 

affect the species. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would disturb a small area and might result in 

the loss of individual agave plants, the food 

base of the lesser long-nosed and Mexican 

long-tongued bat. The action also might 

displace prey species of the loggerhead shrike. 

Therefore, removing the structures might 

indirectly affect but would not be likely to 

adversely affect these listed or sensitive 

species. The ranch area is not in prime 

foraging or nesting habitat for the Mexican 

spotted owl, and there is low availability of the 

owl’s prey species in this location; therefore, 

removing the ranch structures would not be 

likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted 

owl. 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch area 

after removing the structures might increase 

the number of agave plants, resulting in more 

available food for nectar-feeding bats. 

Revegetating the area probably would 

increase the habitat and prey species of the 

loggerhead shrikes. Thus, there would be 

beneficial effects on the lesser long-nosed and 

Mexican long-tongued bat and the 

loggerhead shrike, and the restoration would 

not be likely to adversely affect these species. 

Because only a small part the memorial would 

be affected, this alternative might affect the 

lesser long-nosed and Mexican long-tongued 

bats and the loggerhead shrike but would not 

be likely to adversely affect these species. 

It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use 

the grazing allotments; therefore discontinuing grazing would likely not affect these owls. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would have a 

negligible effect on nectar-feeding bats. but 

would not be likely to adversely affect these 

species. 

Ending grazing in the memorial might increase 

the prey base and nesting habitat for 

loggerhead shrikes. 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Better protection of soils and 

vegetation through a monitoring program 

would lead to better protection of water 

quality, an overall beneficial effect on water 

quality under this alternative. Developing new 

employee housing would not affect riparian 

164
habitat, and mitigative measures would 

include actions to minimize erosion by 

stabilization with structures or vegetation. 

Therefore, there would be no adverse impact 

on water quality from building new housing. 

Adding parking spaces for four buses or 

recreational vehicles in an existing footprint 

would result in negligible effects on water 

quality because the development would not 

take place in riparian areas or adjacent to a 

stream channel. 

The effects on water quality from removing 

the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

reestablishing the natural contours, and 

revegetating the area with native species 

would be similar to those described for 

alternative A. 

Restoring abandoned roads, the dirt storage 

area, the former fiesta grounds, and social 

trails to natural contours and revegetating the 

areas would affect water quality in ways 

similar to those described for alternative B. 

Ending grazing in the memorial under 

alternative C would result in effects on water 

quality similar to those described for 

alternative B. 

Cumulative Effects. Similar to alternative B, 

recreation, cattle grazing, ranching, road 

construction, water diversion, and urban 

development in the region all cumulatively 

affect soils, vegetation, and riparian 

environments, and consequently water 

quality. Developing additional employee 

housing in the memorial would not contribute 

to the cumulative effects of these other 

activities occurring in the region. 

Erosion and pollution control measures at 

Fort Huachuca and Coronado National 

Forest would reduce potential water quality 

impacts in the San Pedro River basin. Implementing alternative B at Coronado National 

Memorial would reduce erosion, consequently reducing a potential source of sediment and 

turbidity in the San Pedro River channels. The 

Effects on Natural Resources 

actions of alternative B also would support the 

goals of the Upper San Pedro Partnership to 

manage drainages in the Upper San Pedro 

River basin so as to decrease erosion from 

runoff, adding cumulatively to the beneficial 

effects on water quality from actions by other 

public agencies. 

Conclusion. No adverse effects on water 

quality would be anticipated from developing 

additional employee housing. The establishment of monitoring programs in the memorial 

to monitor activities such as grazing would 

benefit overall water quality in the memorial. 

The effects on water quality from adding a few 

more parking spaces in an existing footprint 

would be negligible because the area affected 

would be small, the actions would not take 

place in riparian habitat or adjacent to a 

stream channel, and mitigating measures 

would be used to reduce impacts. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

have negligible effects on water quality. 

Restoring and revegetating more sites than in 

the other action alternatives would result in 

negligible to minor improvements in water 

quality by reducing sedimentation into 

drainages. Ending grazing in the memorial 

would result in a long-term minor beneficial 

effect on water quality. Overall, the beneficial 

effects of alternative C on water quality would 

offset any adverse impacts associated with the 

limited development. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would 

improve water quality by decreasing 

sedimentation and reducing fecal coliform 

and other microbes, a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on riparian habitats and water 

quality. Overall, the beneficial effects on water 

quality from this alternative would offset any 

adverse impacts associated with development. 

165
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Through knowledge gained from an 

inventory and monitoring program, national 

memorial staff could better protect wildlife 

habitat. Educating the public with interpretive 

materials could reduce impacts on wildlife 

and habitat from visitor use. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on wildlife. 

New employee housing would affect wildlife 

in that mobile animals would move during 

development to similar adjacent habitats, and 

slow or sedentary animals such as some 

reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals 

might be lost. For animal species that are 

common in the memorial, the construction 

would have negligible adverse effects. The 

rare or uncommon species that are slow or 

sedentary, particularly amphibians and 

reptiles, would be more susceptible to adverse 

effects from construction. However, with 

mitigating measures to reduce the potential 

loss of individuals of rare or uncommon 

species, the long-term adverse effects on 

wildlife would be negligible to minor. 

Developing more parking spaces for buses and 

recreational vehicles would cause negligible 

adverse effects on wildlife similar to those 

described for alternative B, as would 

upgrading the interpretive trail and making it 

accessible. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

under alternative C would result in shortterm negligible adverse effects on wildlife; 

reestablishing the natural contours and 

revegetating the area with native species 

would result in more ground cover and 

habitat for small rodent species, which with 

mitigation measures, would offset these 

adverse impacts in a manner similar to that 

described in alternative A. 

Restoring and revegetating East Forest Lane 

and removing the powerline along the main 

road would increase habitat and food for 

many wildlife species. The long-term benefits 

to wildlife species from the restoration would 

range from negligible to minor, because the 

size of area that would be restored is small 

relative to the size of the memorial. 

Ending grazing in the national memorial 

under alternative C would result in effects on 

wildlife similar to those described for 

alternative B. 

Similar to the effects described in alternative 

B, eliminating grazing from the national 

memorial would reduce the impacts on soils 

and vegetation, benefiting some wildlife 

species by making more food and cover 

available. Ground cover would be increased, 

making more and better grassland available 

for bird nesting. The quality of habitat for 

most wildlife under alternative C would be 

better than under alternative A. Studies in the 

memorial have shown that more grassland 

habitat has led to an increase in small mammal 

diversity and in their predators, such as the 

western diamondback rattlesnake (Swann, 

Alberti, and Schwalbe 2001). 

Ending grazing in the memorial, as described 

in alternative B, might result in the loss of 

some species that prefer more open, desertlike 

habitat created by grazing. The coachwhip 

was the second most abundant snake species 

at Coronado in 1979 (Cockrum et al. 1979); 

however, in a recent survey, the species was 

found to be rare (Swann et al. 2000). The 

decline was attributed to a lack of grazing on 

the Montezuma allotment, which altered the 

habitat. The reduced impact on riparian 

vegetation would increase cover and nesting 

habitat, beneficially affecting species such as 

migrating birds, deer, and predators that use 

the drainages on the allotments as corridors. 

Overall, eliminating grazing under alternative 

C would result in minor long-term beneficial 

effects on wildlife. 

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects 

of alternative C on wildlife would be similar to 

those described for alternative B. These 

include the adverse effects of poaching and 

collecting in the memorial and on nearby 

166
public lands, the effects on animal movement 

from the border patrol infrastructure project, 

the results of timber harvest in the Coronado 

National Forest, and increased grazing and 

roadbuilding on adjacent properties. Other 

cumulative effects would be the beneficial 

effects from the restoration of grasslands at 

Fort Huachuca and from the forest conservation actions in the mountains of southeastern 

Arizona and the Upper San Pedro Valley. 

Implementing alternative C would make a 

minor long-term contribution to local beneficial effects on wildlife species. 

Developments by the border patrol to 

improve roads and install fencing and lighting 

adversely affect wildlife by impeding movement, altering feeding patterns, and reducing 

habitat quality for nesting and feeding. 

Development, grazing, and loss of habitat in 

areas adjacent to the national memorial and in 

the San Pedro River valley might result in the 

loss of more wildlife species from the memorial. Timber harvesting and hunting in the 

adjacent Coronado National Forest would 

reduce available wildlife habitat, alter animal 

behaviors, and results in the removal of 

individuals. Although thought to be rare in the 

memorial, poaching of reptiles and amphibians results in a loss of individuals and may 

reduce populations of rare or uncommon 

species in the region. Development within the 

national memorial including new employee 

housing which would result in the loss of a 

small portion of wildlife habitat would 

contribute negligibly to the adverse cumulative effects of these other regional activities. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural environment would support other local and regional 

entities efforts to conserve and enhance the 

protection of natural resources in the area. 

Programs within the region including the 

memorial that enhance public awareness of 

the natural environment help to protect 

sensitive areas such as riparian areas. 

Protection of these areas conserve wildlife 

habitat and benefit wildlife within the region. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Conclusion. Programs to interpret, document, and inventory memorial resources and 

uses would result in a long-term negligible 

benefits on threatened and endangered or 

sensitive species in the memorial. Loss of a 

small portion of wildlife habitat and the 

potential for loss of sedentary individual 

animals from development of new employee 

housing would have long-term negligible to 

minor adverse effects. 

Adding parking for buses and recreational 

vehicles would result in negligible effects on 

wildlife in the memorial. The long-term 

adverse effects on wildlife from removing the 

Montezuma Ranch structures would be negligible with the implementation of mitigating 

measures to reduce impacts on rare or 

uncommon species. Restoring and 

revegetating areas in the memorial would 

improve grassland habitat, benefiting wildlife 

species. Ending grazing in the memorial would 

improve habitat and forage, a long-term 

minor beneficial effect on wildlife. 

Impairment 

The wildlife resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

air quality; cave resources, soils; vegetation; 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; 

water quality; or wildlife would result from 

implementing alternative C. 

167
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Air Quality 

Analysis. Alternative D would affect local air 

quality through the fugitive dust and 

emissions that would result from restoration 

and revegetation, trail development, road and 

parking lot improvements, installing a new 

viewing structure, re the visitor center, and 

building a new educational facility. The effects 

on local air quality would be highly transient 

but could be noticeable to visitors and NPS 

staff. The adverse effects on local air quality 

would be negligible to minor. None of these 

activities would affect regional air quality. 

Cumulative Effects. The actions of 

alternative D would not adversely affect air 

quality. The air quality would be more likely 

to be affected by the population growth in 

Cochise County and the pollution brought by 

prevailing winds. The construction activities 

and increased traffic that would occur under 

alternative D would result in local negligible to 

minor transient effects on air quality, and 

there would be no effects on regional air 

quality from alternative D 

Conclusion. The construction and revegetation of alternative D, along with more traffic 

generated by increased visitation, would cause 

short-term negligible to minor adverse effects 

on local air quality at Coronado National 

Memorial, but the actions of alternative D 

would not affect regional air quality. 

Cave Resources 

Analysis. There are a number of caves in the 

national memorial, with Coronado Cave being 

the most prominent and accessible (0.75 mile 

from the visitor center). This has resulted in a 

visitation, by permit, of between 5% and 6% 

of the people that currently come to the 

memorial. The cave contains various limestone formations (stalactites, stalagmites, 

flowstone, and helicites) and provides habitat 

for animals. Occasionally visitors might cause 

slight damage to cave resources. In any one 

year, the damage results in negligible to minor 

adverse effects on cave resources. Developing 

a carrying capacity for Coronado Cave would 

result in the establishment of a monitoring 

system that would measure any loss of cave 

resources so that corrective measures could 

be taken. However, the loss of resources year 

after year could eventually result in minor 

long-term adverse effects on cave resources. 

Cumulative Effects. The opening of 

Kartchner Caverns State Park about 35 miles 

north of the memorial has increased the 

interest of the visitors in caves. This interest 

added to the accessibility of Coronado Cave 

has resulted in a slight increase in visitation to 

the memorial’s cave. This increased interest in 

caves has resulted in a slight loss of sensitive 

cave resources in the area of Cochise County. 

Conclusion. There would be beneficial 

effects on Coronado Cave. The intensity of 

these effects would be difficult to quantify 

before the carrying capacity is determined, but 

the effects would be long term and probably 

would be negligible to minor. 

Soils 

Analysis. Establishing a program to inventory, 

document, and interpret natural resources in 

the memorial would improve the memorial 

staff’s ability to protect soil resources. 

Developing more interpretive materials and 

programs would help the public understand 

the memorial’s resources of the memorial and 

the impacts associated with human activity. 

This understanding could facilitate NPS 

efforts to reduce visitors’ effects on soil 

resources such as the creation of social trails 

or paths. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on soils could result from 

these programs. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding 

picnic sites would result in adverse impacts on 

soils, but the impacts would be negligible to 

minor because about 70% of the development 

168
would be in previously disturbed areas, the 

size of the area affected would be limited, and 

the erosion potential of the soils that would be 

affected is low. 

Mitigating measures would limit erosion and 

confine construction activities to the 

immediate area. Therefore, the impacts would 

be negligible to minor. 

Widening and paving East Forest Lane to accommodate recreational vehicles and other 

large vehicles, paving parking areas, and 

paving the road to Montezuma Ranch would 

compact the soils and reduce soil permeability. This would lead to more surface runoff, 

making slopes more vulnerable to erosion, 

which would increase the amount of soil 

eroded along the dry stream channel. This 

would cause higher rates of stream 

sedimentation in the short term. Mitigating 

measures would minimize erosion and limit 

construction activity to the immediate area. 

The soils associated with the East Forest Lane 

road have a low erosion potential except 

where the road traverses the drainage, where 

wind erosion potentials are high (map unit 17, 

table 10, p. 90). The total area that would be 

affected by paving the road is less than 20 

acres. Therefore, the local short-term and 

long-term adverse effects on soils would be 

negligible to minor, and the effects would 

diminish over time as the area revegetates. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of soils from erosion and 

compaction. However, the area affected 

would be small (less than 1 acre). Soils that 

have been excavated and/or covered by 

impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. 

Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of 

this development on soils would be negligible 

to minor, and mitigative measures would be 

used to minimize erosion and to limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Development and use of four new trails in 

previously grazed areas in the memorial’s 

grasslands would erode and compact soils as 

described for alternative B. Placing three of 

the four trails on existing social paths or in an 

existing footprint such as Windmill Road 

would limit the disturbance of soils because 

these areas have been disturbed previously 

either by grazing or by foot traffic. Short-term 

and long-term adverse impacts would result 

from new trail construction in the grassland 

habitat. Because of the small area affected in 

relation to the size of the national memorial, 

the low erosion potentials of the soils, and the 

use of best management practices, the impacts 

would negligible to minor. 

Adapting the Montezuma Ranch structures 

for use as an educational center would result 

in negligible adverse impacts on soils because 

the area has been previously disturbed, and 

existing roads and walkways could be used to 

park construction vehicles and staging 

equipment. 

Removing the existing ranch structures and 

building new structures would result in more 

impacts than adapting the existing buildings 

for this use because more ground disturbance 

would be necessary. Soils would be 

compacted and erosion increased during the 

construction of the educational center, but 

because the site has been previously disturbed 

and the susceptibility of the soils to erosion is 

low, the short-term and long-term adverse 

impacts on soils would be negligible to minor. 

Eliminating grazing from the Montezuma 

allotment and continuing it on the Joe’s Spring 

allotment (1,143 acres, or 25% of the national 

memorial) under alternative D would affect 

soils in ways similar to those described for 

alternative A. Allowing grazing on only one 

allotment would reduce the area of the 

national memorial grazed compared to the 

no-action alternative. 

The ongoing implementation of the Livestock 

Management Plan (NPS 2000b) is improving 

conditions in both grazing allotments com169
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

pared to pre-plan conditions. Alternative D, 

which would eliminate grazing in the Montezuma allotment, would further improve soil 

conditions in this area. This would be a longterm minor beneficial effect compared to the 

no-action alternative. However, the adverse 

effects of grazing on soils in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would continue under alternative D. 

Cumulative Effects. Similar to alternative A, 

because the national memorial is on a 

smuggling route for undocumented people 

and illegal drugs, such use has resulted in the 

creation of many footpaths, especially along 

drainages. The construction of a fence by the 

U.S. Border Patrol at the United States– 

Mexican border might funnel foot traffic 

westward into the memorial, which would 

create more footpaths, degrading soils and 

vegetation. In addition, soils in the memorial 

would be affected to a negligible degree by 

visitor use of trails and picnic areas. Soil 

compaction and erosion would occur along 

existing trails and by the creation of social 

trails. Similar effects result from the 

development of game trails by wildlife in the 

area. These activities, along with the activities 

associated with the no-action alternative, 

would result in minor adverse impacts on soils 

throughout the national memorial. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial would enhance public 

awareness of the natural environment, which 

would benefit all natural resources. 

Conclusion. Expanding the visitor center and 

adding picnic sites with low erosion potential 

would result in negligible to minor adverse effects on soils because these actions would take 

place in small previously disturbed areas. 

Mitigative measures would minimize erosion 

and limit construction to the immediate area. 

The short-term and long-term adverse effects 

on soils from paving roads, developing 

parking areas and trails, and developing an 

educational center at Montezuma Ranch 

would be negligible to minor because the area 

affected would be small, and best management 

practices would be used to reduce soil 

impacts. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on soils, and mitigation 

measures would be employed to reduce 

erosion. Programs to interpret, document, and 

inventory memorial resources and uses would 

result in long-term negligible benefits to soils 

in the memorial. 

Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would result in minor long-term 

adverse impacts on soils, but they would be 

offset by eliminating grazing from the 

Montezuma allotment. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Establishing a program to inventory, 

document, and interpret natural resources in 

the memorial would improve the memorial 

staff’s ability to protect vegetation. Developing more interpretive materials and programs 

would help the public understand the 

memorial’s resources of the memorial and the 

impacts associated with human activity. This 

understanding could facilitate NPS efforts to 

reduce visitors’ effects on vegetative 

communities such as the creation of social 

trails. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on vegetation could result 

from these programs. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding 

picnic sites would adversely affect vegetation, 

but the effects would be negligible to minor 

because about 70% of the development would 

be in previously disturbed areas and the size of 

the affected area would be limited. There 

would be fewer impacts on vegetation than 

would be caused by construction in 

170
undisturbed sites. Plant communities that 

have been fragmented and disturbed have a 

greater potential for the presence of nonnative 

species, reducing the ecological health and 

integrity of the area. Mitigating measures 

would limit erosion and limit construction 

activities to the immediate area, so the impacts 

would be negligible to minor. 

Widening and paving East Forest Lane, which 

parallels and traverses a drainage, would result 

in the removal of riparian vegetation in the 

western honey mesquite–mixed short tree 

woodland association, further increasing 

erosion into the stream channel, which would 

contribute to higher rates of stream sedimentation. The local long-term adverse impacts on 

riparian vegetation would be minor because 

only a small area would be affected and 

mitigating measures would be implemented to 

reduce erosion and reestablish vegetation. 

Vegetation along the road and in the parking 

areas would be adversely affected. Only the 

vegetation in the area adjacent to the development would be affected, and mitigating 

measures would minimize erosion and limit 

construction activity to the immediate area. 

The loss of individual plants from trampling 

and uprooting and the potential for more 

nonnative plants to invade disturbed areas 

would be a short-term adverse effect. The 

total area that would be paved is less than 20 

acres; therefore, the local short-term and 

long-term adverse effects on vegetation 

would be negligible to minor. The adverse 

effects would diminish over time as the area 

revegetated. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of vegetation from erosion 

and compaction as well as from the uprooting 

and loss of individual plants. However, the 

area affected would be small (less than 1 acre). 

Soils that have been excavated and/or covered 

by impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of this 

Effects on Natural Resources 

development on vegetation would be negligible to minor, and mitigative measures would 

be used to minimize erosion and to limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

Developing four new trails in previously 

grazed areas in the grasslands would result in 

the same effects on vegetation as those 

described for alternative B. Placing three of 

the four trails on existing social paths or in an 

existing footprint such as Windmill Road 

would limit the disturbance of soils and 

vegetation because these areas have been 

disturbed previously either by grazing or foot 

traffic. Short-term and long-term adverse 

impacts would result from new trail construction in the grassland habitat. Because of the 

small area affected in relation to the size of the 

national memorial, the low erosion potentials 

of the soils, and the use of best management 

practices, the impacts would negligible to 

minor. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and replacing them with new buildings or 

adapting them for use as an educational center 

would result in the disturbance, trampling, 

and uprooting of grassland vegetation from 

the use and staging of construction equipment. Mitigating measures would reduce 

erosion and limit equipment to the immediate 

vicinity, so that the local adverse impacts on 

vegetation would be negligible to minor. 

Adapting the existing structures for use as the 

educational center would cause fewer impacts 

on vegetation in the immediate area than 

would building new structures because there 

would be less construction. The local adverse 

effects would be negligible, and the overall 

effects on vegetation throughout the memorial 

from either scenario would be negligible 

because only a small area would be affected. 

Eliminating grazing from the Montezuma 

allotment and continuing it in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would cause impacts on vegetation 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

The vegetative communities affected would be 

those that are predominantly oak-Mexican 

piñon-juniper and grama species mixed 

171
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

grass-mixed shrub associations, which 

constitute 93% of the memorial’s total 

vegetation. However, allowing grazing on only 

one allotment would reduce by 14% the area 

of the national memorial grazed compared to 

the no-action alternative. The long-term 

adverse impacts on vegetation from grazing 

would be minor. As under the no-action 

alternative, the effects would be partially 

mitigated by reducing grazing intensity and 

shortening the season of use, and livestock use 

of riparian areas would be mitigated by 

controlling water sources, using salt blocks, 

and following an adaptive management 

approach. The effects of continued grazing on 

range condition would be similar to those of 

alternative A, but slightly fewer. 

Cumulative Effects. Similar to alternative A, 

the footpaths along drainages resulting from 

the smuggling route for undocumented 

people and illegal drugs, along with the 

creation of more footpaths resulting from the 

construction of a fence by the U.S. Border 

Patrol, could degrade vegetation. This, along 

with the actions of the no-action alternative, 

would result in minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation throughout the memorial. 

In June 1988 Coronado National Memorial 

was affected by the Peak Fire. In the 

memorial, the oak-Mexican piñon pinejuniper woodland association was most 

affected by the fast-moving, intense fire in 

continuous grass fuels because about 2,600 

acres of the 3,700 acres that burned were in 

this habitat. Most of this biotic community 

was burned moderately, but some areas in the 

western part of the memorial were severely 

burned. However, by August 1989 many trees 

had resprouted either from the roots or from 

undamaged areas of the trunk. 

The species composition of the woodland 

understory was significantly changed after the 

fire, probably because of the influx of 

nutrients or appropriate conditions for the 

germination of numerous herbaceous species 

that were either rare or absent before the fire. 

The grama grass-mixed grass-mixed shrub 

association was relatively unaffected by the 

fire because little fuel was present to sustain a 

high temperature. Consequently, the effect of 

the fire on this habitat was largely ephemeral 

because most of these species are fire-adapted 

and quickly resprout from roots. Under 

alternative D, vegetation would be disturbed, 

which would affect mainly grassland habitats; 

therefore, these disturbances would 

contribute little cumulatively to the past 

impacts of the 1988 wildfire. 

Regionally, wildland fire is an increasing 

threat in scale and severity. Developing a fire 

management plan would reduce hazardous 

fuels in the memorial, diminishing the 

potential for wildland fire in the memorial and 

beyond its boundaries. A future fire 

management plan, in combination with similar 

plans for Coronado National Forest and Fort 

Huachuca, would result in long-term minor 

benefits for vegetation in the region. 

The encroachment of woody species into 

grasslands in the upper San Pedro Basin is a 

factor in regional decreases in the amount and 

ecological functioning of native grasslands 

and in their fragmentation into small, disconnected patches. Regional urban development 

also results in a loss of grassland acreage. 

Continuing grazing in the memorial would 

increase native shrubs, contributing to these 

cumulative adverse regional effects. Experimental investigation and treatments of 

Lehmann lovegrass are being conducted on 

Fort Huachuca. The no-action alternative 

would not contribute cumulatively to regional 

impacts on grasslands. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial would enhance public 

awareness of the natural environment, which 

would benefit all natural resources. 

172
Conclusion. Expanding the visitor center and 

adding picnic sites with low erosion potential 

would result in negligible to minor adverse effects on vegetation because these actions 

would take place in previously disturbed areas 

and the areas would be small. Mitigative 

measures would minimize erosion and limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on vegetation, and mitigation 

measures would be employed. Programs to 

interpret, document, and inventory memorial 

resources and uses would result in long-term 

negligible benefits to vegetation in the 

memorial. 

Individual plants would be trampled and uprooted during the paving of roads and parking 

areas and the development of trails. The 

short-term and long-term adverse impacts on 

vegetation from paving roads, developing 

parking areas and trails, and developing an 

educational center would be negligible to 

minor because the area affected would be 

small and best management practices would 

be used to reduce impacts. Only the 

vegetation in the area adjacent to the 

development would be affected. The adverse 

effects would diminish over time as the area 

revegetated. 

Grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment would 

continue to adversely affect vegetation in the 

memorial, but the minor long-term adverse 

effects would be offset by the beneficial effects 

from ending grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

or Sensitive Species 

Analysis. The knowledge gained through 

establishing an inventory program would 

enable NPS personnel to better protect 

sensitive resources such as threatened and 

endangered species. Educating the public 

through new interpretive materials could help 

Effects on Natural Resources 

to reduce the adverse impacts on resources 

that sensitive species rely on. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. 

Placing about 70% of the development (visitor 

center expansion, added trails, parking lots, 

pullouts) in previously disturbed areas would 

not directly affect any listed or sensitive 

species. The development would disturb the 

food sources of the lesser long-nosed bat, the 

Mexican long-tongue bat and the loggerhead 

shrike, resulting in indirect negligible effects. 

Individuals of small mammal or reptile species 

that are prey for loggerhead shrikes might be 

displaced by development activities, an 

adverse effect, but there would not be any 

measurable effect on population densities. 

Vegetative resources would be most affected 

by widening and paving East Forest Lane 

road. The adverse effects of road construction 

on vegetation would be minor to moderate in 

the road area but negligible as related to the 

overall national memorial. With mitigation to 

transplant agaves in construction sites to 

prevent the loss of important food sources for 

nectar-feeding bats, the development 

activities of alternative D would not alter the 

population of agave plants. 

Development activities might affect the lesser 

long-nosed and Mexican long-tongued bat 

and the loggerhead shrike but would not be 

likely to adversely affect these species. 

Because the area where the development 

would occur is not in prime foraging or 

nesting habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, 

these activities would not be likely to 

adversely affect this species. 

Adapting the Montezuma Ranch structures 

for use as an educational center or removing 

them and building new buildings would result 

in negligible to minor adverse effects on listed 

or sensitive species similar to the effects of 

removing the ranch structures described for 

alternative A. Adapting the existing structures 

for use as the educational center would result 

173
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

in fewer impacts on sensitive species in the 

immediate area than would building new 

buildings. The indirect effects on the longnosed bat, the Mexican long-tongued bat, and 

the loggerhead shrike would be negligible, and 

the activities would not be likely to adversely 

affect these species. 

The adverse impacts of grazing on vegetation 

and wildlife would continue in the Joe’s 

Spring allotment under alternative D, causing 

indirect effects on the loggerhead shrike 

similar to those described for alternative A. 

Alternative D would have a negligible effect 

on nectar-feeding bats and would not be 

likely to adversely affect the lesser long-nosed 

bats. 

Because suitable nesting and foraging habitat 

for the Mexican spotted owl is lacking in the 

Joe’s Spring allotment, it is unlikely that the 

owls use that allotment. Continued grazing in 

the Joe’s Spring allotment under alternative D 

might affect, but would not be likely to 

adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl. 

Cumulative Effects. Similar to alternative B, 

efforts by the National Park Service to educate 

the public about the natural environment 

would support other local and regional 

entities’ efforts to conserve and enhance the 

protection of natural resources in the area. 

Natural areas adjacent to the memorial such as 

the national forests, the national conservation 

area, and state parks offer interpretive 

programs and provide visitor information 

related to the unique natural environment 

found in the region. These programs along 

with enhanced interpretation and 

inventorying of memorial resources that 

enhance public awareness and understanding 

of the natural environment would benefit all 

natural resources. 

A loss of trees in the memorial and the 

resultant growth of high elevation grasses 

since the wildfires of 1988 have resulted in an 

increase in rodent species, which has 

increased the availability of prey for the 

loggerhead shrike, a minor beneficial effect 

for the shrikes and their prey. Eliminating a 

portion of the grazing under alternative D 

would increase grassland habitat and small 

mammal habitat, which would increase the 

prey abundance for the shrike. Ending some 

grazing in the memorial, combined with the 

effects of the past fire, would result in a minor 

cumulative benefit to the loggerhead shrike. 

As has been mentioned, wildfire is the primary 

threat to the persistence and recovery of the 

Mexican spotted owl (USFWS 1995b). The 

loss of owl habitat in the memorial from the 

1988 wildfire, together with the potential for 

future catastrophic fire, represents a moderate 

to major threat to this species. Limiting the 

removal of powerlines in the proposed 

protected activity center to a time not in the 

owl’s breeding season would cause negligible 

effects on the species. This activity, combined 

with habitat loss from wildfire, would cause 

moderate to major effects on the Mexican 

spotted owl. Actions to reduce hazardous fuel 

loads in Coronado National Forest, which 

would be identified in a future fire 

management plan and are currently underway 

on Fort Huachuca, would cumulatively 

benefit the owls by reducing the likelihood of 

habitat alteration. 

The restoration of grassland on Fort 

Huachuca is improving the ecological 

integrity and function of native grasslands. 

Prescribed burns on private and public lands 

are being used to maintain grasslands, which 

might increase the region’s agave population, 

a minor to moderate benefit for nectarfeeding bats in the region. Alternative D 

would make a negligible contribution to these 

beneficial effects on grasslands and nectarfeeding bats. The overall beneficial cumulative 

effect on listed and sensitive bat species in the 

region would range up to moderate. 

Conclusion. Programs to interpret, 

document, and inventory memorial resources 

and uses would result in a long-term 

negligible benefits to threatened and 

endangered or sensitive species in the 

memorial. 

174
The development-related activities of 

alternative D north of the main memorial road 

would not alter the population of agave plants, 

which are the food source of the lesser longnosed and Mexican long-tongued bats. 

However, individual plants might be disturbed 

by building trails in grasslands or by paving 

roads and parking areas. These activities 

would not alter the populations of small 

mammals and reptiles that are the prey base of 

the loggerhead shrike There might be indirect 

negligible effects, but it is not likely that there 

would be adverse effects on these species. 

The developments north of the main memorial road would not be in prime Mexican 

spotted owl foraging or nesting habitat, and 

the availability of the owl’s prey species in this 

area is low. Therefore, the developments of 

alternative D would not be likely to adversely 

affect the Mexican spotted owl. 

Adapting the Montezuma Ranch structures 

for use as an educational center or removing 

them and building new buildings would 

disturb agave plants and small mammals that 

are food sources for loggerhead shrikes, lesser 

long-nosed bats, and Mexican long-tongued 

bats, resulting in negligible to minor indirect 

effects on these species. Adapting the 

structures would not be likely to adversely 

affect these species. 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch area 

after the area is developed as an educational 

center would result in about the same number 

of agave plants as currently. Revegetation of 

the area probably would maintain the habitat 

and prey species of the loggerhead shrikes. 

Thus there would be long-term negligible 

effects on these species. 

It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use 

the grazing allotments. Therefore, gazing 

associated with this alternative would not be 

likely to adversely affect this species. 

Grazing associated with alternative D would 

have a negligible effect on nectar-feeding bats 

Effects on Natural Resources 

and would not be likely to adversely affect the 

lesser long-nosed bat. 

Continued grazing on the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would disturb the food sources of 

the loggerhead shrike, indirectly affecting this 

species. 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Better protection of soils and 

vegetation through a monitoring program 

would lead to better protection of water 

quality, an overall beneficial effect on water 

quality under this alternative. Developing new 

employee housing would not affect riparian 

habitat, and mitigative measures would 

include actions to minimize erosion by 

stabilization with structures or vegetation. 

Therefore, there would be no adverse impact 

on water quality from building new housing. 

Expanding the visitor center and pullouts and 

adding more picnic sites under alternative D 

would affect water quality in ways similar to 

those described for alternative B. The adverse 

effects would be negligible to minor because 

most of the development would be in 

previously disturbed areas, the developments 

would be located away from stream channels, 

and mitigative measures would limit 

construction activities to the immediate area 

and minimize erosion and sedimentation. 

Widening and paving East Forest Lane, which 

parallels and traverses a drainage, would 

compact the soils, reducing soil permeability. 

This would lead to more surface runoff, which 

would make slopes more vulnerable to 

erosion, increasing sedimentation during 

construction. The widening and paving also 

would result in the removal of riparian 

vegetation in the western honey mesquitemixed short tree woodland association, 

further increasing erosion into the stream 

channel, which would contribute to higher 

rates of stream sedimentation. The shortterm adverse impacts on water quality would 

be minor because the area affected would be 

175
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

small, and the effects would lessen over time 

with the reestablishment of vegetation, so that 

the long-term effects would be negligible. 

Developing three new trails, if they were designed to cross drainages, would affect a small 

part of the riparian habitat, causing the loss of 

riparian vegetation and soils, consequently affecting water quality. The short-term adverse 

effects on water quality from new trail 

development would be minor with the 

implementation of mitigating measures to 

reduce the disturbance of streambanks and 

vegetation, and the long-term effects would 

be reduced by the reestablishment of riparian 

vegetation, which would reduce streambank 

erosion and sedimentation. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and building an educational center or converting the existing buildings to an educational center would not take place near 

drainages or riparian habitats, and best 

management practices would be used to 

reduce soil erosion. Therefore, the effects on 

water quality would be negligible. 

Ending grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

and continuing it in the Joe’s Spring allotment 

would result in adverse effects on water 

quality similar to those described for 

alternative A; however, there would be offsetting beneficial effects from ending grazing 

in the Montezuma allotment. As in the noaction alternative, the impacts would be 

partially mitigated by the actions of the Livestock Management Plan: resting pastures every 

three years, controlling water sources, using 

salt blocks, and using an adaptive management approach. The long-term adverse 

effects on water quality from grazing would be 

minor. 

Cumulative Effects. As in alternative A, 

recreation, cattle grazing, ranching, road 

construction, water diversion, and urban 

development in the region all cumulatively 

affect soils, vegetation, and riparian environments, and consequently water quality. 

Livestock grazing in riparian areas in upland 

communities would continue to affect water 

quality downstream on a reduced basis by 

reducing water infiltration and increasing 

runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity. 

The compaction of soils in grazed areas would 

continue to lead to reduced water infiltration 

and increased runoff, erosion, and sediment 

delivery to streams. 

Continued grazing in the national memorial, 

even though grazing would be eliminated 

from one allotment, would contribute 

cumulatively to adverse effects on water 

quality. However, with the Livestock 

Management Plan in use, the effects of grazing 

in the memorial would be minimal in relation 

to other development and agricultural 

activities in the area. The effects on soils, 

vegetation, and riparian habitat in the 

memorial resulting from the actions of 

alternative D would add little to the regional 

cumulative effects on water quality compared 

to the disturbance occurring in other parts of 

the region. 

Both allotments in the national memorial 

drain into the San Pedro River in either the 

United States or Mexico. The Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

monitors water quality in the San Pedro River 

at a station approximately 9 miles east of the 

memorial and less than 4 miles north of the 

international boundary. The Environmental 

Protection Agency has classified portions of 

the San Pedro River between the Mexico 

border and Charleston Arizona as impaired 

under section 303d of the Clean Water Act 

because of turbidity levels that exceed water 

quality standards (AZ Dept. of Env. Qual. 

1998). Over five years, 10%–25% of the 

samples taken exceeded the turbidity standard 

for the designated uses of aquatic life, wildlife, 

full body contact, and agriculture irrigation/ 

livestock water. However, the sources have 

been attributed to natural processes and 

grazing outside Arizona’s jurisdiction. 

The paths that have been created near the 

smuggling route for undocumented aliens and 

176
illegal drugs would continue to adversely 

affect riparian habitats through trampling of 

vegetation and increased erosion. This, 

coupled with the adverse impacts from 

grazing, would continue under alternative A, 

cumulatively affecting riparian habitat and 

consequently water quality. 

Developing additional employee housing in 

the memorial would not contribute to the 

cumulative effects of these other activities 

occurring in the region. 

Conclusion. No adverse effects on water 

quality would be anticipated from developing 

additional employee housing. The establishment of monitoring programs in the memorial 

to monitor activities such as grazing would 

benefit overall water quality in the memorial. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding 

picnic sites in previously disturbed areas 

would result in negligible to minor effects on 

water quality because the development would 

not take place in riparian habitat or near 

drainages. Mitigating measures would minimize erosion and limit construction to the 

immediate area. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and replacing them with new buildings or 

adapting them for use as an educational center 

would not affect water quality. 

Paving East Forest Lane and developing trails 

would result in short-term minor adverse impacts on water quality because construction 

would increase soil erosion and 

sedimentation. The long-term impacts would 

be negligible because riparian vegetation 

would recover along the streambank. 

Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would continue to affect water 

quality adversely through continued 

streambank erosion and sedimentation, but 

ending grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

would offset these effects. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Through knowledge gained from an 

inventory and monitoring program, national 

memorial staff could better protect wildlife 

habitat. Educating the public with interpretive 

materials could reduce impacts on wildlife 

and habitat from visitor use. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on wildlife. 

New employee housing would affect wildlife 

in that mobile animals would move during 

development to similar adjacent habitats, and 

slow or sedentary animals such as some 

reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals 

might be lost. For animal species that are 

common in the memorial, the construction 

would have negligible adverse effects. The 

rare or uncommon species that are slow or 

sedentary, particularly amphibians and 

reptiles, would be more susceptible to adverse 

effects from construction. However, with 

mitigating measures to reduce the potential 

loss of individuals of rare or uncommon 

species, the long-term adverse effects on 

wildlife would be negligible to minor. 

Expanding the visitor center and adding 

picnic sites in previously disturbed areas 

would result in effects on wildlife similar to 

those described for alternative B. 

Paving parking areas and building a paved 

road to Montezuma Ranch would result in the 

loss of wildlife habitat and individuals, but the 

areas affected would be small; therefore, the 

adverse effects would be negligible. 

Rebuilding and paving East Forest Lane could 

result in increased human presence, possibly 

preventing migrating species, particularly 

predators, from using the area. The drainage 

that the road crosses represents the best 

potential conduit for wildlife from the 

Huachuca Mountains. Roads can significantly 

affect wildlife demographics and movements, 

can cause loss of habitat, and can have detrimental effects on large animals through road 

kill and avoidance behaviors that fragment 

177
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

populations (Trombulak and Frissel 2000). 

Indirect effects can include more human 

access into areas, which further exacerbates 

the effect of the roads (Hass 2000). Therefore, 

paving this road, which would bring more 

visitors into the area, would result in longterm minor adverse effects on wildlife 

populations. 

Developing four new trails in the grassland 

would result in impacts similar to those described for alternative B. Wildlife would be 

disturbed, but the long-term adverse effects 

would be negligible to minor because only a 

small portion of available wildlife habitat in 

the memorial would be disturbed. 

Some benefits to individual animals in the 

memorial might result from trail and road 

development. Animals such as mule deer and 

white-tailed deer might use the trails and 

roads to facilitate movement within the 

habitat. Ease of movement might benefit 

individuals of those species by reducing 

energy expenditures. The long-term benefits 

would likely be negligible. 

Removing the existing Montezuma Ranch 

structures and building an educational center 

would adversely affect wildlife in ways similar 

to the effects of removing the ranch structures 

described for alternative A. Adapting the 

existing structures for use as the educational 

center would result in fewer impacts on 

wildlife in the immediate area than would the 

construction of a new center. The local 

adverse effects on wildlife would be negligible. 

Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment and ending grazing in the 

Montezuma allotment would reduce the area 

grazed by 14%, increasing grassland habitat 

and forage. This would benefit wildlife, 

particularly small mammals and their 

predators. The reduced impacts on riparian 

vegetation would increase cover and nesting 

habitat, benefiting such species as migrating 

birds, deer, and predators because the 

drainages in the allotment are used as wildlife 

corridors. The long-term beneficial effects on 

the national memorial’s wildlife would be 

minor. 

Cumulative Effects. Developments by the 

border patrol to improve roads and install 

fencing and lighting adversely affect wildlife 

by impeding movement, altering feeding 

patterns, and reducing habitat quality for 

nesting and feeding. Development, grazing, 

and loss of habitat in areas adjacent to the 

national memorial and in the San Pedro River 

valley might result in the loss of more wildlife 

species from the memorial. Timber harvesting 

and hunting in the adjacent Coronado 

National Forest would reduce available 

wildlife habitat, alter animal behaviors, and 

results in the removal of individuals. Although 

thought to be rare in the memorial, poaching 

of reptiles and amphibians results in a loss of 

individuals and may reduce populations of 

rare or uncommon species in the region. 

Development within the national memorial 

including new employee housing which would 

result in the loss of a small portion of wildlife 

habitat would contribute negligibly to the 

adverse cumulative effects of these other 

regional activities. 

As described in alternative B, grassland 

restoration in Fort Huachuca is being used to 

improve the ecological integrity and function 

of native grasslands, and prescribed burning 

on private and public lands in the area is used 

to maintain grasslands. The actions of 

alternative D would contribute cumulatively 

to these regional beneficial effects on 

grasslands except that one grazing allotment 

would remain active. 

As described in alternative B, in combination 

with forest conservation actions in the 

isolated mountains of southeastern Arizona 

and in the San Pedro River National 

Conservation Area, the actions of alternative 

D would benefit both migratory birds and 

larger, dispersing animals that require more 

forest habitat to sustain viable populations. 

The Upper San Pedro Valley is a major 

neotropical migrant bird corridor. Woodlands 

and forest habitats in the Huachuca 

178
Mountains and in the San Pedro River 

National Conservation Area are important 

habitat resources for migrating birds. 

Conclusion. Programs to interpret, 

document, and inventory memorial resources 

and uses would result in a long-term 

negligible benefits on threatened and 

endangered or sensitive species in the 

memorial. Loss of a small portion of wildlife 

habitat and the potential for loss of sedentary 

individual animals from development of new 

employee housing would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse effects. 

The adverse effects on wildlife from 

expanding the visitor center and adding picnic 

sites in previously disturbed areas would be 

negligible to minor. Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures and using mitigative 

measures to reduce impacts on rare or 

uncommon species would result in long-term 

negligible adverse effects on wildlife. 

Developing trails in the memorial would result 

in short-term adverse effects on wildlife, but 

the effects would be negligible to minor 

because the areas affected would be small. 

Trails and roads might benefit some species by 

facilitating movement. 

Widening and paving East Forest Lane road, 

with the resultant increased visitor access, 

would cause long-term minor adverse local 

effects on wildlife from increased potential for 

roadkill and the continued fragmentation of 

habitat. These actions also would degrade the 

value of the drainages as migration corridors. 

Ending grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

would increase grassland forage and improve 

riparian habitat, resulting in long-term minor 

beneficial effects for wildlife. 

Impairment 

The resources and values of Coronado 

National Memorial would not be impaired 

because there would be no major adverse 

effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

Effects on Natural Resources 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, 

alternative D would not result in any 

impairment of resources or values related to 

air quality; cave resources, soils; vegetation; 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; 

water quality; or wildlife. 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Air Quality 

Analysis. Dust and construction equipment 

emissions would be produced under 

alternative E from revegetation, trail 

improvements, and the construction of a new 

visitor center. The effects from these actions 

on local air quality would be transient, shortterm and local, but they could be noticeable to 

visitors and NPS staff. The short-term 

adverse effects on local air quality would be 

negligible to minor. None of these activities 

would affect regional air quality. 

Traffic emissions from vehicles would 

increase with growing visitation, but the 

memorial would continue to meet all 

applicable air quality criteria. The changes in 

emissions would result in negligible shortterm adverse effects. Other plans and 

management activities of the national 

memorial would not adversely affect air 

quality. 

Cumulative Effects. Population growth and 

development outside the national memorial 

would be more likely to affect air quality than 

the management activities of the memorial. In 

addition, emissions from Tucson and Mexico 

are carried to the memorial by prevailing 

winds. Alternative E, in conjunction with 

other actions, would contribute negligibly to 

short-term local adverse effects on air quality 

but would not affect regional air quality. 

179
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Conclusion. The construction activities and 

increased traffic from more visitation in 

alternative E would cause negligible local 

short-term adverse effects on local air quality 

at the memorial but would not affect regional 

air quality. 

Cave Resources 

Analysis. There are a number of caves in the 

national memorial, with Coronado Cave being 

the most prominent and accessible (0.75 mile 

from the visitor center). This has resulted in a 

visitation, by permit, of between 5% and 6% 

of the people that currently come to the 

memorial. The cave contains various limestone formations (stalactites, stalagmites, 

flowstone, and helicites) and provides habitat 

for animals. Occasionally visitors might cause 

slight damage to cave resources. In any one 

year, the damage results in negligible to minor 

adverse effects on cave resources. Developing 

a carrying capacity for Coronado Cave would 

result in the establishment of a monitoring 

system that would measure any loss of cave 

resources so that corrective measures could 

be taken. However, the loss of resources year 

after year could eventually result in minor 

long-term adverse effects on cave resources. 

Cumulative Effects. The opening of 

Kartchner Caverns State Park about 35 miles 

north of the memorial has increased the 

interest of the visitors in caves. This interest 

added to the accessibility of Coronado Cave 

has resulted in a slight increase in visitation to 

the memorial’s cave. This increased interest in 

caves has resulted in a slight loss of sensitive 

cave resources in the area of Cochise County. 

Conclusion. There would be beneficial 

effects on Coronado Cave. The intensity of 

these effects would be difficult to quantify 

before the carrying capacity is determined, but 

the effects would be long term and probably 

would be negligible to minor. 

Soils 

Analysis. Building a new visitor center and a 

hardened parking area in the area now 

occupied by the Joe’s Spring allotment (in the 

grassland area about 1 mile north of the main 

road) would result in soil erosion and 

compaction. The land where the visitor center 

would be developed has been grazed 

previously, and the grassland habitat where 

the facilities would be built has a low potential 

for soil erosion. Ground disturbance would be 

concentrated north of the main road. About 

10% of these actions would take place in 

previously disturbed areas and 90% would 

occur in undisturbed areas. 

Removing vegetation or surface layers or 

compacting soils to prepare for the 

development would result in negligible to 

minor short-term and long-term adverse 

impacts on soils, which would be lessened by 

the use of mitigative measures to minimize 

erosion and limit construction activities to the 

immediate area. 

Widening and paving Windmill Road to 

accommodate large vehicles and creating a 

hardened parking area near the new visitor 

center would compact the soils and reduce 

soil permeability. This would result in more 

surface runoff, which would make adjacent 

slopes more vulnerable to erosion. Paving the 

part of Windmill Road that parallels a dry 

streambed might increase the amount of soil 

eroded along the stream channel, resulting in 

higher rates of stream sedimentation. The 

short-term and long-term adverse impacts on 

soils from these actions of alternative E would 

be negligible to minor. 

In alternative E, establishing a program to 

inventory, document, and interpret natural 

resources in the memorial would improve the 

memorial staff’s ability to protect soil 

resources. Developing more interpretive 

materials and programs would help the public 

understand the memorial’s resources of the 

memorial and the impacts associated with 

human activity. This understanding could 

180
facilitate NPS efforts to reduce visitors’ effects 

on soil resources such as the creation of social 

trails or paths. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on soils could result from 

these programs. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of soils from erosion and 

compaction. However, the area affected 

would be small (less than 1 acre). Soils that 

have been excavated and/or covered by 

impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of this 

development on soils would be negligible to 

minor, and mitigative measures would be used 

to minimize erosion and to limit construction 

activities to the immediate area. 

Developing three new trails in the grassland 

areas would disturb or remove vegetation, resulting in effects on soils similar to those described for trail development in alternative D. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring the area would result in 

beneficial effects on soils similar to those 

described for alternative A. 

Ending grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment 

and continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment (668 acres, or 14% of the national 

memorial) would result in impacts similar to 

those described for alternative A. However, 

allowing grazing on only one allotment would 

reduce by 25% the area of the national 

memorial grazed compared to the no-action 

alternative. The local long-term adverse 

impacts on soils from grazing would be minor, 

and they would be offset by the minor 

beneficial effects from ending grazing in the 

Joe’s Spring allotment. As under the noaction alternative, the effects would be 

partially mitigated by resting the pastures once 

every three years, and the use of riparian areas 

would be mitigated by controlling water 

sources, using salt blocks, and following an 

adaptive management approach. 

Effects on Natural Resources 

Cumulative Effects. Similar to alternative A, 

because the national memorial is on a 

smuggling route for undocumented people 

and illegal drugs, such use has resulted in the 

creation of many footpaths, especially along 

drainages. The construction of a fence by the 

U.S. Border Patrol at the United States– 

Mexican border might funnel foot traffic 

westward into the memorial, which would 

create more footpaths, degrading soils and 

vegetation. In addition, soils in the memorial 

would be affected to a negligible degree by 

visitor use of trails and picnic areas. Soil 

compaction and erosion would occur along 

existing trails and by the creation of social 

trails. Similar effects result from the 

development of game trails by wildlife in the 

area. These activities, along with the activities 

associated with the no-action alternative, 

would result in minor adverse impacts on soils 

throughout the national memorial. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial would enhance public 

awareness of the natural environment, which 

would benefit all natural resources. 

Conclusion. Developing a new visitor center 

under alternative E would result in ground 

disturbance, which would cause local shortterm and long-term adverse effects on soils. 

These effects would be negligible to minor 

because the area affected would be small and 

mitigating measures would be used. Paving 

roads, adding parking areas, and developing 

trails would result in short-term and longterm negligible to minor adverse effects on 

soils. Those short-term effects would 

diminish over time with the recovery of 

vegetation along the road. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would result in short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on soils, which would be 

offset by long-term beneficial effects from 

181
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

restoring and revegetating the site, which 

would improve soils by reducing compaction 

and increasing permeability. This would result 

in local long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

adverse effects on soils, and mitigation measures would be employed to reduce erosion. 

Programs to interpret, document, and inventory memorial resources and uses would 

result in long-term negligible benefits to soils 

in the memorial. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment (14% of the national memorial) 

would result in minor long-term adverse 

impacts on soils, but they would be offset by 

eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Building a new visitor center and a 

hardened parking area in the area now 

occupied by the Joe’s Spring allotment would 

result in soil erosion and compaction on 

previously grazed land. The soil erosion 

potential is low in the grassland where the 

facilities would be built. The ground 

disturbance would be concentrated north of 

the main road. About 10% of these actions 

would take place in previously disturbed areas 

and 90% would occur in undisturbed areas. 

Removing vegetation or surface layers or 

compacting soils to prepare for the 

development would adversely affect 

vegetation, which would be lessened by the 

use of mitigative measures to minimize 

erosion and limit construction activities to the 

immediate area. Those adverse impacts on 

vegetation would be negligible to minor with 

the use of mitigating measures. 

Widening and paving Windmill Road to 

accommodate large vehicles and creating a 

hardened parking area near the new visitor 

center would result in the trampling and 

uprooting of plants and compact the soils, 

reducing soil permeability. Paving the part of 

Windmill Road that parallels a dry streambed 

might increase the amount of soil eroded 

along the stream channel, resulting in higher 

rates of stream sedimentation. 

The local short-term adverse effects on 

vegetation (similar to those described for 

alternative D) would be negligible to minor 

because the area affected would be small and 

best management practices would be followed 

to reduce their intensity. The effects would 

diminish over time as vegetation along the 

road recovered. 

Establishing a program to inventory, 

document, and interpret natural resources in 

the memorial would improve the memorial 

staff’s ability to protect vegetation. 

Developing more interpretive materials and 

programs would help the public understand 

the memorial’s resources of the memorial and 

the impacts associated with human activity. 

This understanding could facilitate NPS 

efforts to reduce visitors’ effects on vegetative 

communities such as the creation of social 

trails. Overall, a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on vegetation could result 

from these programs. 

Adding new employee housing in the current 

residential area north of the visitor center 

could lead to a loss of vegetation from erosion 

and compaction as well as from the uprooting 

and loss of individual plants. However, the 

area affected would be small (less than 1 acre). 

Soils that have been excavated and/or covered 

by impervious surfaces such as roads, parking 

lots, or buildings may lack typical physical, 

biological, and chemical properties. Therefore, the long-term adverse impacts of this 

development on vegetation would be negligible to minor, and mitigative measures would 

be used to minimize erosion and to limit 

construction activities to the immediate area. 

Developing three new trails in the grassland 

areas would disturb or remove vegetation, re182
Effects on Natural Resources 

sulting in effects on soils and vegetation 

similar to those described for trail development in alternative D. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring the area would result in 

beneficial effects on vegetation similar to 

those described for alternative A. 

Eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment and continuing grazing in the 

Montezuma allotment (668 acres, or 14% of 

the national memorial) would result in 

impacts similar to those described for 

alternative A, but the area grazed would be 

reduced by 25% compared to alternative A. 

The local long-term adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the memorial from grazing 

would be minor, and they would be offset by 

the minor beneficial effects of ending grazing 

in the Joe’s Spring allotment. As under the 

no-action alternative, the effects would be 

partly mitigated by resting the pastures once 

every three years, and the use of riparian areas 

would be mitigated by controlling water 

sources, using salt blocks, and following an 

adaptive management approach. The effects 

on range condition would be similar to those 

described for alternative D, but the area 

affected would be slightly (11%) smaller. 

Cumulative Effects. The encroachment of 

woody species throughout grasslands in the 

upper San Pedro Basin is a factor in regional 

decreases in the amount and ecological 

functioning of native grasslands and in their 

fragmentation into small, disconnected 

patches. Urban development in the region 

also has resulted in a loss of grassland acreage. 

Another regional issue is the intrusion of 

nonnative plant species. Fort Huachuca and 

Coronado National Forest are trying to 

prevent the introduction of such species and 

control their spread. Fort Huachuca is conducting experimental investigation and treatments of Lehmann lovegrass. Ending grazing 

in the national memorial would benefit the 

grassland habitat, and restoring native species 

under alternative B would benefit vegetation. 

However, the actions of alternative B would 

not offset the loss of grasslands from 

development or the invasion of nonnative 

plants in the region, and implementing the 

alternative would contribute little 

cumulatively to regional effects. 

Coronado National Memorial is on a 

smuggling route for undocumented people 

and illegal drugs. The illegal entry across the 

United States border into the memorial has 

resulted in soil compaction and erosion 

resulting from the development of numerous 

footpaths. In addition, vegetation in the 

memorial would be affected to a negligible 

degree by visitor use of trails and picnic areas. 

Visitor use results in soil compaction and 

erosion along existing trails and the creation 

of social trails, which results in uprooting and 

damage to vegetation in the local area. These 

activities, along with the development of 

additional employee housing, would result in 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on soils 

throughout the national memorial. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities’ efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial would enhance public awareness of the natural environment, which would 

benefit all natural resources. 

Conclusion. Developing a new visitor center 

would cause ground disturbance, which 

would lead to local short-term and long-term 

adverse effects on vegetation. These effects 

would be negligible to minor because the area 

affected would be small and mitigating 

measures would be used. Paving roads, adding 

parking areas, and developing trails would 

result in short-term and long-term negligible 

to minor adverse impacts on grassland 

vegetation. Those short-term effects would 

diminish over time as vegetation along the 

road recovered. 

The development of new employee housing 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

183
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

adverse effects on vegetation, and mitigation 

measures would be employed. Programs to 

interpret, document, and inventory memorial 

resources and uses would result in long-term 

negligible benefits to vegetation in the 

memorial. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would result in short-term negligible to minor 

adverse impacts on vegetation. This would be 

offset by long-term beneficial effects from restoring and revegetating the site, which would 

reduce compaction and increase permeability, 

resulting in local long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial effects. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment (14% of the memorial) would result 

in minor long-term adverse impacts on 

vegetation, but they would be offset by 

eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment. 

Threatened, Endangered, 

or Sensitive Species 

Analysis. The knowledge gained through 

establishing an inventory program would 

enable NPS personnel to better protect 

sensitive resources such as threatened and 

endangered species. Educating the public 

through new interpretive materials could help 

to reduce the adverse impacts on resources 

that sensitive species rely on. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on threatened, 

endangered, or sensitive species. 

About 90% of the development in alternative 

E — a new visitor center, parking areas, trails, 

and paving Windmill road — would be carried 

out in previously undisturbed areas and 10% 

in previously disturbed areas. These activities 

would result in indirect effects on lesser longnosed and Mexican long-tongued bats and 

loggerhead shrikes by disturbing their prey 

base. Development also would cause the loss 

of habitat and food for small mammal species 

that serve as prey for the loggerhead shrike 

and might displace individuals of these prey 

species, but it is not likely that there would be 

a change in the overall availability of prey for 

the shrike. 

With mitigation to transplant agaves in 

construction sites to prevent the loss of 

important food sources for nectar-feeding 

bats, the development activities of alternative 

E would not alter the population of agave 

plants, and the effects on the memorial’s 

overall agave population would be negligible 

to minor. Development would affect an area 

smaller than 5 acres (less than 1% of the 

memorial’s total acreage); therefore, 

alternative E might indirectly affect the lesser 

long-nosed and Mexican long-tongued bats 

and the loggerhead shrike but would not be 

likely to adversely affect these species. 

Because the area where the development 

would occur is not in prime owl foraging or 

nesting habitat, these activities would not be 

likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted 

owl. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

restoring the area’s natural contours, and 

revegetating it would result in effects on 

sensitive species similar to those described for 

alternative A. 

Ending grazing in the Joe’s Spring allotment 

and continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment (a 25% reduction in area compared 

to the no-action alternative) would continue 

to affect vegetation that serves as habitat and 

cover for loggerhead shrikes. It would have a 

negligible effect on nectar-feeding bats. 

Continued grazing on the Montezuma 

allotment would not be likely to adversely 

affect the lesser long-nosed bat. 

Because suitable nesting and foraging habitat 

for the Mexican spotted owl is lacking in the 

Montezuma allotment, it is unlikely that the 

owls use that allotment. Continued grazing on 

the Montezuma allotment under alternative E 

might affect, but would not be likely to 

adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl. 

184
Cumulative Effects. Efforts by the National 

Park Service to educate the public about the 

natural environment would support other 

local and regional entities’ efforts to conserve 

and enhance the protection of natural 

resources in the area. Natural areas adjacent 

to the memorial such as the national forests, 

the national conservation area, and state parks 

offer interpretive programs and provide 

visitor information related to the unique 

natural environment found in the region. 

These programs along with enhanced 

interpretation and inventorying of memorial 

resources that enhance public awareness and 

understanding of the natural environment 

would benefit all natural resources. 

A loss of trees in the memorial and the 

resultant growth of high elevation grasses 

since the wildfires of 1988 have resulted in an 

increase in rodent species, which has 

increased the availability of prey for the 

loggerhead shrike, a minor beneficial effect 

for the shrikes and their prey. Eliminating 

some grazing under alternative E would 

increase grassland habitat and small mammal 

habitat, which would increase the prey 

abundance for the shrike. Ending some 

grazing in the memorial, combined with the 

effects of the past fire, would result in a minor 

cumulative benefit to the loggerhead shrike. 

As has been mentioned, wildfire is the primary 

threat to the persistence and recovery of the 

Mexican spotted owl (USFWS 1995b). The 

loss of owl habitat in the memorial from the 

1988 wildfire, together with the potential for 

future catastrophic fire, represents a moderate 

to major threat to this species. Limiting the 

removal of powerlines in the proposed 

protected activity center to a time not in the 

owl’s breeding season would cause negligible 

effects on the species. This activity, combined 

with habitat loss from wildfire, would cause 

moderate to major effects on the Mexican 

spotted owl. Actions to reduce hazardous fuel 

loads in Coronado National Forest, which 

would be identified in a future fire 

management plan and are currently underway 

on Fort Huachuca, would cumulatively 

Effects on Natural Resources 

benefit the owls by reducing the likelihood of 

habitat alteration. 

The restoration of grassland on Fort 

Huachuca is improving the ecological 

integrity and function of native grasslands. 

Prescribed burns on private and public lands 

are being used to maintain grasslands, which 

might increase the region’s agave population, 

a minor to moderate benefit for nectarfeeding bats in the region. Alternative C would 

make a negligible contribution to these 

beneficial effects on grasslands and nectarfeeding bats. The overall beneficial cumulative 

effect on listed and sensitive bat species in the 

region would range up to moderate. 

Conclusion. Programs to interpret, 

document, and inventory memorial resources 

and uses would result in a long-term 

negligible benefits to threatened and 

endangered or sensitive species in the 

memorial. 

The ground-disturbing activities of 

developing buildings and trails and more road 

access into grasslands north of the main road 

would disturb vegetation and small mammals 

and reptiles. This would indirectly affect the 

lesser long-nosed bat, the Mexican longtongued bat, and the loggerhead shrike, but it 

is unlikely that these species would be 

adversely affected. 

The activities and developments of alternative 

E would take place in areas unsuited for 

Mexican spotted owl nesting and foraging 

habitat; therefore, implementing alternative E 

might affect, but would be unlikely to 

adversely affect, the Mexican spotted owl. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

result in more habitat for agave plants and 

more ground cover and habitat for small 

rodent species. This would indirectly benefit 

nectar-feeding bats and loggerhead shrikes by 

increasing their available food. 

185
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Restoring and revegetating the ranch area 

after removing the structures might increase 

the number of agave plants, resulting in more 

available food for nectar-feeding bats. 

Revegetating the area probably would 

increase the habitat and prey species of the 

loggerhead shrikes. Thus, there would be 

beneficial effects on the lesser long-nosed and 

Mexican long-tongued bat and the 

loggerhead shrike, and the restoration would 

not be likely to adversely affect these species. 

Because only a small part the memorial would 

be affected, this alternative might affect the 

lesser long-nosed and Mexican long-tongued 

bats and the loggerhead shrike but would not 

be likely to adversely affect these species. 

It is unlikely that Mexican spotted owls use 

the grazing allotments. Therefore, gazing 

associated with this alternative would not be 

likely to adversely affect this species. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would continue negligible to minor 

adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife on 

which listed or sensitive species rely for food 

and habitat. Implementing alternative E would 

not be likely to adversely affect the lesser 

long-nosed bat. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would continue negligible to minor 

adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife on 

which listed or sensitive species rely for food 

and habitat. 

Water Quality 

Analysis. Better protection of soils and 

vegetation through a monitoring program 

would lead to better protection of water 

quality, an overall beneficial effect on water 

quality under this alternative. Developing new 

employee housing would not affect riparian 

habitat, and mitigative measures would 

include actions to minimize erosion by 

stabilization with structures or vegetation. 

Therefore, there would be no adverse impact 

on water quality from building new housing. 

Developing a new visitor center would 

remove vegetation, resulting in soil erosion 

and compaction in the immediate area of 

development. This would not be done in a 

riparian area, and erosion into any nearby 

drainages would be mitigated by the use of 

structures or vegetation. Therefore, the 

adverse effects on water quality would be 

negligible. Adding parking for recreational 

vehicles and buses would result in effects on 

water quality similar to those described for 

alternative C. 

Expanding and paving Windmill Road and 

creating a hardened parking area would 

compact the soils and reduce soil 

permeability, leading to more surface runoff, 

which would make slopes more vulnerable to 

erosion. Paving the part of Windmill Road 

that parallels and traverses a stream channel 

might increase erosion into the channel, 

causing higher rates of stream sedimentation, 

which could cause short-term adverse effects 

on water quality. Those impacts would be 

minor, and there would be fewer long-term 

adverse effects on water quality because vegetation along the stream channel would 

recover. 

Developing three new trails in grassland areas 

might affect water quality if the trails crossed 

drainages. Such trail development would lead 

to increased streambank erosion and 

sedimentation. The short-term and longterm adverse effects of new trail development 

on water quality would be negligible to minor 

because the trails would be in previously 

disturbed areas, and the areas affected would 

be small. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

result in effects similar to those described for 

alternative A. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would result in long-term minor 

adverse impacts on water quality similar to 

those described for alternative A; however, 

there would be offsetting beneficial effects 

186
from ending grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment. The adverse impacts from grazing 

would be partially mitigated by resting the 

pastures once every three years, controlling 

water sources and salt blocks, and using an 

adaptive management approach. 

Cumulative Effects. Recreation, cattle 

grazing, ranching, road construction, water 

diversion, and urban development in the 

region all cumulatively affect soils, vegetation, 

and riparian environments, and consequently 

water quality. 

Livestock grazing in riparian areas in upland 

communities would continue to affect water 

quality downstream on a reduced basis by 

reducing water infiltration and increasing 

runoff, erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity. 

The compaction of soils in grazed areas would 

continue to lead to reduced water infiltration 

and increased runoff, erosion, and sediment 

delivery to streams. 

Continuing some grazing in the national 

memorial would contribute cumulatively to 

adverse effects on water quality. However, 

with the Livestock Management Plan in use, 

the effects of grazing in the memorial would 

be minimal in relation to other development 

and agricultural activities in the area. The 

effects on soils, vegetation, and riparian 

habitat in the memorial resulting from the 

actions of alternative E would add little to the 

regional cumulative effects on water quality 

compared to the disturbance occurring in 

other parts of the region. 

Both allotments in the national memorial 

drain into the San Pedro River in either the 

United States or Mexico. The Arizona 

Department of Environmental Quality 

monitors water quality in the San Pedro River 

at a station approximately 9 miles east of the 

memorial and less than 4 miles north of the 

international boundary. The Environmental 

Protection Agency has classified portions of 

the San Pedro River between the Mexico 

border and Charleston Arizona as impaired 

under section 303d of the Clean Water Act 

Effects on Natural Resources 

because of turbidity levels that exceed water 

quality standards (AZ Dept. of Env. Qual. 

1998). Over five years, 10%–25% of the 

samples taken exceeded the turbidity standard 

for the designated uses of aquatic life, wildlife, 

full body contact, and agriculture 

irrigation/livestock water. However, the 

sources have been attributed to natural 

processes and grazing outside Arizona’s 

jurisdiction. 

The paths that have been created near the 

smuggling route for undocumented aliens and 

illegal drugs would continue to adversely 

affect riparian habitats through trampling of 

vegetation and increased erosion. This, 

coupled with the adverse impacts from 

grazing, would continue under alternative E, 

cumulatively affecting riparian habitat and 

consequently water quality. 

Conclusion. No adverse effects on water 

quality would be anticipated from developing 

additional employee housing. The establishment of monitoring programs in the memorial 

to monitor activities such as grazing would 

benefit overall water quality in the memorial. 

The long-term effects on water quality from 

developing a new visitor center would be 

negligible because the development would not 

take place in a riparian area or along 

drainages, and mitigative measures would reduce soil erosion. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

result in negligible long-term beneficial 

effects on water quality. 

Paving Windmill Road would result in minor 

long-term adverse impacts on water quality 

because the amount of stream channel 

affected would be small. Road and trail 

development would result in negligible to 

minor long-term adverse impacts on water 

quality. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment would result in minor long-term 

187
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

adverse impacts on riparian habitats and 

consequently on water quality, but the effects 

would be offset by eliminating grazing in the 

Joe’s Spring allotment. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Through knowledge gained from an 

inventory and monitoring program, national 

memorial staff could better protect wildlife 

habitat. Educating the public with interpretive 

materials could reduce impacts on wildlife 

and habitat from visitor use. Overall, 

developing interpretive programs would 

result in a beneficial effect on wildlife. 

New employee housing would affect wildlife 

in that mobile animals would move during 

development to similar adjacent habitats, and 

slow or sedentary animals such as some 

reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals 

might be lost. For animal species that are 

common in the memorial, the construction 

would have negligible adverse effects. The 

rare or uncommon species that are slow or 

sedentary, particularly amphibians and 

reptiles, would be more susceptible to adverse 

effects from construction. However, with 

mitigating measures to reduce the potential 

loss of individuals of rare or uncommon 

species, the long-term adverse effects on 

wildlife would be negligible to minor. 

Developing a new visitor center about 1 mile 

north of the main road would not affect any 

rare or uncommon species, which do not 

inhabit that area, according to national 

memorial surveys. Construction would 

compact soils and remove vegetation, which 

would result in the loss of habitat and foods 

for wildlife, but the short-term adverse effects 

on wildlife would be negligible because the 

affected area would be small. 

Widening and paving Windmill Road would 

adversely affect wildlife in ways similar to 

those described for East Forest Lane in 

alternative D. Developing two new trails in the 

grassland north of the main road would cause 

negligible effects on wildlife; no rare or 

uncommon species are known to inhabit this 

area. However, wildlife would be adversely 

affected by increased human presence made 

possible by the access to the new visitor 

center, the paved road, and the new trails. 

There has been little previous human use of 

this habitat, and the presence of people and 

vehicles would cause animals to use more 

energy, so increased road access might cause 

the loss of individual animals and the 

fragmentation of populations. Thus, these 

developments in previously undisturbed areas 

would result in a loss of habitat value, but the 

area is small and does not contain uncommon 

species, so the adverse effects of alternative E 

on wildlife would be negligible to minor. 

Some benefits to individual animals in the 

memorial might result from trail and road 

development by facilitating movement within 

the memorial, which might reduce individual 

animal’s energy expenditure. The long-term 

benefits to wildlife from these developments 

would likely be negligible. 

As in alternative B, removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures and restoring and revegetating the area would result in more ground 

cover and habitat for small rodent species. 

The structure removal would cause shortterm negligible adverse effects on wildlife. 

Mitigating measures would be used to prevent 

or reduce the effects on rare or uncommon 

wildlife species. Restoring and revegetating 

the site with native vegetation after the 

structures were removed would offset the 

adverse impacts on soils and improve 

grassland habitat, benefiting wildlife species. 

Eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment and continuing it in the Montezuma 

allotment (reducing the area grazed in the 

memorial by 25%) would increase grassland 

habitat and forage for wildlife, particularly 

benefiting small mammals and their predators. 

The reduced effects on riparian vegetation 

from reduced grazing would increase cover 

and nesting habitat, benefiting such species as 

migrating birds, deer, and predators that use 

drainages as wildlife corridors. The long-term 

188
effects on wildlife in the national memorial 

would be minor. 

Cumulative Effects. A fence built by the U.S. 

Border Patrol at the southern edge of 

Coronado National Memorial, newly installed 

lighting, and improvements to the dirt road 

there would have the potential to affect 

wildlife migration, access to water, and the 

movements of nocturnal species in local areas. 

Changes in the road would make travel at 

greater speeds possible, posing a threat to 

wildlife by collision. This project could 

adversely affect wildlife in the memorial, 

especially larger species adapted to moving 

over large tracts of land. Implementing 

alternative A would not contribute 

cumulatively to the adverse effects of the 

Border Patrol project. 

Developments by the border patrol to 

improve roads and install fencing and lighting 

adversely affect wildlife by impeding 

movement, altering feeding patterns, and 

reducing habitat quality for nesting and 

feeding. Development, grazing, and loss of 

habitat in areas adjacent to the national 

memorial and in the San Pedro River valley 

might result in the loss of more wildlife 

species from the memorial. Timber harvesting 

and hunting in the adjacent Coronado 

National Forest would reduce available 

wildlife habitat, alter animal behaviors, and 

results in the removal of individuals. Although 

thought to be rare in the memorial, poaching 

of reptiles and amphibians results in a loss of 

individuals and may reduce populations of 

rare or uncommon species in the region. 

Development within the national memorial 

including new employee housing which would 

result in the loss of a small portion of wildlife 

habitat would contribute negligibly to the 

adverse cumulative effects of these other 

regional activities. 

The efforts by the National Park Service to 

educate the public about the natural 

environment would support other local and 

regional entities efforts to conserve and 

enhance the protection of natural resources in 

Effects on Natural Resources 

the area. Programs within the region including 

the memorial that enhance public awareness 

of the natural environment help to protect 

sensitive areas such as riparian areas. 

Protection of these areas conserve wildlife 

habitat and benefit wildlife within the region. 

As described in alternative B, grassland 

restoration in Fort Huachuca is being used to 

improve the ecological integrity and function 

of native grasslands, and prescribed burning 

on private and public lands in the area is used 

to maintain grasslands. The actions of 

alternative E would contribute cumulatively to 

these regional beneficial effects on grasslands 

except that one grazing allotment would 

remain active. 

As described in alternative B, in combination 

with forest conservation actions in the 

isolated mountains of southeastern Arizona 

and in the San Pedro River National 

Conservation Area, the actions of alternative E 

would benefit both migratory birds and larger, 

dispersing animals that require more forest 

habitat to sustain viable populations. The 

Upper San Pedro Valley is a major neotropical 

migrant bird corridor. Woodlands and forest 

habitats in the Huachuca Mountains and in 

the San Pedro River National Conservation 

Area are important habitat resources for 

migrating birds. 

Proposed management actions at Fort 

Huachuca and activities in the Coronado 

National Forest (such as snag and nest tree 

protection and wildfire management) would 

sustain biologically and structurally diverse 

habitat for migrating or dispersing wildlife in 

the Huachuca Mountains, as described in 

alternative B. The actions of alternative E 

would complement these efforts to maintain 

wildlife corridors and riparian areas and 

conserve native grasslands. 

Conclusion. Programs to interpret, 

document, and inventory memorial resources 

and uses would result in a long-term 

negligible benefits on threatened and 

endangered or sensitive species in the 

189
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

memorial. Loss of a small portion of wildlife 

habitat and the potential for loss of sedentary 

individual animals from development of new 

employee housing would have long-term 

negligible to minor adverse effects. 

Developing buildings, trails, and roads under 

alternative E would result in the loss of habitat 

and individual animals and the fragmentation 

of populations. This represents a loss of 

habitat value, but because the affected grassland area would be small and does not contain 

uncommon species, the adverse effects on 

wildlife would be negligible. Trails and road 

development might benefit individuals of 

some species by facilitating movement. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

with mitigation to reduce the adverse effects 

on rare or uncommon species, would result in 

long-term negligible adverse effects on 

wildlife. Restoring and revegetating the ranch 

area would improve grassland habitat, 

benefiting wildlife. Eliminating grazing from 

the Joe’s Spring allotment would increase 

forage and habitat in grassland and riparian 

areas, a long-term beneficial effect for 

wildlife. 

Impairment 

The resources and values of Coronado 

National Memorial would not be impaired 

because there would be no major adverse 

effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

air quality; cave resources, soils; vegetation; 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; 

water quality; or wildlife would result from 

implementing alternative E. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE 

IMPACTS 

All the alternatives would result in adverse 

impacts on soils, with the level of impact 

varying at the site level. However, when the 

impacts on soils are compared to the size of 

the memorial, they would be negligible, 

because less than 1% of memorial soils would 

be affected in all alternatives. 

Vegetation and soils would be removed when 

small areas were graded to build new facilities, 

expand existing structures, add parking lots 

and pullouts, or pave roads and develop trails. 

Alternatives B, C, D, and E would result in 

these unavoidable adverse effects with varying 

degrees, depending on the amount of 

development. 

None of the alternatives would result in 

unavoidable adverse impacts on the 

endangered Mexican spotted owl or longnosed bat, or on species of special concern, 

including the Mexican long-tongued bat and 

the loggerhead shrike. 

Water quality would be adversely affected by 

development or by upgrading trails in 

alternatives B, C, and D. The loss of riparian 

vegetation and increased soil erosion in each 

of these alternatives would cause negligible to 

minor adverse impacts on water quality. Road 

construction in alternatives D and E would 

adversely affect water quality, but the effects 

would be negligible to minor because the 

areas affected would be small and mitigating 

measures would control erosion. Grazing in 

riparian habitats would continue to affect 

water quality in alternative A, and to a lesser 

extent in alternatives D and E, in which only 

one allotment would be grazed. 

Construction would disturb wildlife species 

under all the action alternatives. Paving roads 

and parking areas under alternatives D and E 

would adversely affect wildlife. Developing a 

new visitor center in a previously undisturbed 

190
grassland area (alternative E) would result in 

minor adverse effects on wildlife. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

The erosion of soils that would result from 

developing facilities and trails, installing 

impervious surfaces, or removing Montezuma 

Ranch structures would be an irreversible loss 

because soils in this area form slowly. 

RELATIONSHIPS OF SHORTTERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Developing trails, constructing visitor and 

operation facilities, and demolishing 

structures could cause short-term adverse 

impacts on soils when soils were exposed to 

wind or rain, resulting in higher rates of 

erosion. However, in the long term, restoring 

and revegetating sites in alternatives A, B, C, 

and E and eliminating some or all grazing 

from the memorial under alternatives B, C, D, 

and E would result in long-term saving of 

resources and enhance the preservation of 

soils. All the alternatives would result in longterm beneficial effects on soils, with the 

beneficial effects from alternative C being the 

greatest. 

Developments or expanding and upgrading 

existing facilities would permanently remove 

vegetation. Vegetation also could be degraded 

by continuing grazing (alternatives A, D, and 

E) and by constructing new facilities or trails 

in previously undeveloped areas (alternatives 

B, D, and E). However, these effects would 

not result in the loss of long-term 

Effects on Natural Resources 

productivity of vegetation in the memorial. 

Although vegetation would be lost under all 

the alternatives, there would be no adverse 

impacts on agave populations or common 

small mammal species (which, if they were to 

occur, could adversely affect the productivity 

of lesser long-nosed bats, Mexican longtongued bats, or loggerhead shrikes). 

Short-term adverse impacts on water quality 

and riparian habitat could result from 

developing or upgrading trails (alternatives B, 

C, D, and E) or roads (alternatives D and E), 

when soils and vegetation in riparian habitats 

were disturbed. However, restoring and 

revegetating sites (alternatives A, B, C, and E) 

and eliminating some or all grazing from the 

national memorial (alternatives B, C, D, and E) 

would save resources and enhance the 

national memorial’s water quality and the 

preservation of wetland resources in the long 

term. 

Building a new visitor center in the grasslands 

under alternative E would permanently 

remove wildlife habitat. Developing roads and 

trails to provide access to areas previously 

little used by visitors would degrade wildlife 

habitat under alternatives B, D, and E. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Building new structures would increase 

energy requirements. Long-term energy 

demands would be mitigated by designing all 

structures to be energy efficient. Alternatives 

D and E, with the most structures to be 

maintained and used, would result in the 

greatest energy requirements. 

191
EFFECTS ON CULTURAL RESOURCES

ALTERNATIVE A 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. A series of archeological surveys has 

been and continues to be undertaken at the 

national memorial to meet the requirements 

of EO 11593. These surveys have identified 

prehistoric lithic scatter plots, isolated 

artifacts, and historic sites throughout the 

national memorial. These sites have not been 

completely evaluated, but NPS personnel 

continue to complete site research to identify 

and protect archeological features. These 

surveys and resource documentation are 

improving the national memorial’s ability to 

make informed management decisions about 

the identification and location of archeological resources. The continuing identification and location of archeological resources 

would result in their being preserved in place, 

a negligible long-term beneficial effect. 

Some archeological surveys of the 82-acre 

Montezuma Ranch have been completed in 

the orchards and the pool area. The area 

around the main ranch structures has been 

altered by ground-disturbing activities caused 

by the development of dude ranch facilities, 

working ranch structures, and a large modern 

residence now under construction. Other 

ground-disturbing activities in that area over 

the years have been the construction of roads 

and corridors for water and electrical utilities, 

as well as the planting of an orchard and 

various ornamental trees and shrubs. 

Coronado National Memorial would conduct 

an archeological survey of the area. The 

identification and location of any 

archeological resources in the ranch area 

would result in their being preserved in place, 

a negligible long-term beneficial effect. 

Grazing on the two allotments (1,811 acres) 

has disturbed archeological sites by livestock. 

The recently implemented Livestock 

Management Plan (NPS 2000b) is reducing but 

will not eliminate disturbance to archeological 

sites by cattle. The continued disturbance of 

archeological sites by cattle would result in a 

long-term minor to moderate adverse impact 

on archeological resources. 

Cumulative Effects. Cattle grazing, which 

began before the national memorial was 

established, continues to disturb surface 

archeological resources, affecting such 

resources in the memorial’s land. Coronado 

National Forest plans to continue developing 

inventories to use in preserving and 

interpreting cultural resources. The Bureau of 

Land Management plans to protect and 

conserve cultural resources in the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area. Cochise 

County plans for increased growth in the 

Southern San Pedro Valley, with some 

restriction on the scale and density of the 

development. These actions, added to the 

limited scope of Coronado National 

Memorial’s efforts in preservation and 

development, could result in long-term 

negligible beneficial effects on the area’s 

archeological resources. 

Conclusion. An archeological survey would 

be undertaken at the Montezuma Ranch. 

Research and resource documentation are 

improving the national memorial’s ability to 

make informed management decisions. The 

ongoing efforts to identify and protect 

archeological resources would benefit 

archeological resources, but such resources 

would be adversely affected by the continuation of grazing. The overall result would be a 

long-term negligible adverse impact on the 

national memorial’s archeological resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

192
purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of archeological resources or 

values would result from implementing 

alternative A. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of 

effect and adverse effect, the National Park 

Service finds that the survey work and continuing preservation work of the national 

memorial under alternative A would have an 

effect that would not be adverse. All national 

memorial resources that have been 

determined eligible for nomination to the 

National Register of Historic Places 

(International Boundary Monuments 100, 

101, and 102 and the Montezuma Pass road) 

would not be adversely affected by the actions 

of this alternative. 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. The Montezuma Ranch structures 

have not been evaluated for eligibility for 

listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The national memorial is consulting 

with the Arizona state historic preservation 

office about this, but a formal determination 

of eligibility has not been completed. The staff 

of the national memorial is gathering 

documentation to submit to the Arizona state 

historic preservation office so that a formal 

determination of eligibility can be completed 

for the ranch structures. After completion of 

the determination, the structures not eligible 

for listing would be torn down; this would 

result in no effect. The structures determined 

to be eligible, if any, would be stabilized and 

preserved, resulting in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on archeological resources. 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

The existing visitor center has not been 

formally evaluated for its eligibility for 

national register listing, but its status as a 

“Mission 66” structure makes it potentially 

eligible. At present there are no plans to do 

anything other than routine maintenance on 

the visitor center. If any substantial work was 

to be done on the visitor center, the national 

memorial staff would undertake the determination of its national register eligibility. If it 

was determined not to be eligible, the work 

would result in no effect. If it was determined 

to be eligible, the structure would be 

preserved, resulting in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Before the Historic 

Preservation Act was passed in 1966, various 

mining and ranch structures on lands now in 

the national memorial were removed or 

neglected, but since the act was passed, the 

memorial has identified historic structures 

and now works toward their preservation. 

Coronado National Forest plans to continue 

developing inventories to use in preserving 

and interpreting cultural resources. The 

Bureau of Land Management plans to protect 

and conserve cultural resources in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

These actions, added to the limited scope of 

Coronado National Memorial’s preservation 

efforts, could result in long-term negligible 

beneficial effects on the area’s historic 

structures. 

Conclusion. Before taking any action 

regarding the Montezuma Ranch structures, 

the national memorial staff would pursue a 

formal determination of the structures’ 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic 

Places. Research and resource documentation 

are improving the national memorial’s ability 

to make informed management decisions. The 

ongoing efforts to identify and preserve 

historic structures would benefit these 

resources. The overall result would be a longterm negligible to minor beneficial effect on 

the memorial’s historic structures. 

193
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

historic structures would result from 

implementing alternative A. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the survey 

work and continuing preservation work of the 

national memorial under alternative A would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. The national memorial staff would 

continue to develop inventories for 

ethnographic resources to understand and 

manage these resources. As areas for gathering 

acorns and other items important to the 

American Indian culture become scarce, the 

use of the national memorial by American 

Indians might increase. There would be no 

change in the way American Indian groups are 

accommodated at the memorial; therefore, the 

result would be a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect. 

Under this no-action alternative, the current 

programs of the national memorial would 

continue. These programs lack depth and 

range; therefore, visitors would continue to 

receive a limited understanding and 

appreciation of the Indian and Hispanic 

viewpoints about the Coronado Expedition. 

Cumulative Effects. Until recently, 

Coronado National Memorial has made no 

attempt to identify ethnographic resources; 

however, it is now in the process of identifying 

and protecting those resources. Cochise 

County plans for increased growth in the 

southern San Pedro Valley, but with guidelines on the scale, density, location, and type 

of development. However, growth might 

adversely affect ethnographic resources. The 

county has identified scenic corridors and 

conservation easement areas that could 

protect ethnographic resources. These 

actions, added to the limited scope of the 

national memorial’s preservation efforts, 

could result in a long-term negligible adverse 

impact on the area’s ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. American Indians would 

continue gathering items important to their 

culture on the national memorial’s lands. The 

long-term minor beneficial effect from 

developing inventories for ethnographic 

resources would be partially offset by a lack of 

in-depth programs, resulting in an overall 

long-term negligible beneficial effect on 

ethnographic resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of ethnographic resources or 

values would result from implementing 

alternative A. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. The national memorial would 

continue routine maintenance activities on its 

facilities and infrastructure (roads, picnic 

194
areas, housing, administrative and visitor 

facilities, buildings). No new structures, roads, 

or trails would be added under this no-action 

alternative, but old structures would be 

rehabilitated as funding became available. 

This would preserve any potential cultural 

landscapes. One of the three cultural 

landscapes has been formally evaluated — a 

level I cultural landscape inventory has been 

completed for the Montezuma Ranch. The 

present actions of the national memorial to 

provide only maintenance would result in a 

long-term beneficial effect on cultural 

landscapes. 

An evaluation of abandoned mining areas (all 

sites considered one landscape) and the entire 

memorial viewshed would be completed in 

future years. However, it is recognized 

through legislation that the views from 

Montezuma Pass are important to the national 

memorial’s mission. Construction in the 

memorial would be done in a way that would 

protect the views from Montezuma Pass. 

Outside the national memorial, development 

of various types in the United States and 

Mexico threatens to degrade the views from 

Montezuma Pass. As funding permitted, the 

national memorial’s cultural landscapes would 

be identified, and treatment would be 

developed for the preservation of these landscapes. The preservation of the memorial’s 

cultural landscapes would be a long-term 

minor beneficial effect. 

A cultural landscape inventory has been completed at the 82-acre Montezuma Ranch. NPS 

cultural landscape experts have made a 

preliminary determination that the ranch’s 

cultural landscape lacks integrity and would 

not meet the criteria for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places. The 

national memorial is consulting with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office 

about this, but a formal determination of eligibility has not been completed for this site. 

The Montezuma Ranch structures, which can 

be seen from Montezuma Pass, are visually 

intrusive on views from the national memorial 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

into Mexico. Removing the structures would 

result in a long-term minor beneficial effect 

on the views from Montezuma Pass. 

Cumulative Effects. Coronado National Memorial has recognized the importance of the 

CCC roadwork from the past and is treating 

the Montezuma Pass road as a significant 

cultural landscape. Coronado National Forest 

plans to maintain and enhance visual resource 

integrity. Cochise County plans for increased 

growth in the southern San Pedro Valley, but 

with guidelines on the scale, density, location, 

and type of the development to lessen the 

visual impact. In addition, the county has 

identified scenic corridors and conservation 

easement areas. The Bureau of Land 

Management plans to protect and conserve 

cultural resources in the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area. These actions, 

added to the limited preservation efforts in 

the national memorial, could result in longterm negligible to minor beneficial effects on 

the region’s cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. Until the Montezuma Ranch 

structures were removed, they would have 

short-term negligible adverse impacts on 

national memorial views. Development 

outside the national memorial could result in 

minor to moderate short-term and long-term 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of cultural landscapes would 

result from implementing alternative A. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

195
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the activities 

of the national memorial under alternative A 

would have an effect on cultural landscapes 

that would not be adverse. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. The ground-disturbing activities of 

alternative B — building an annex to the 

visitor center, adding parking facilities, 

developing new trails — would disturb little 

new area. Surveys have not found any 

archeological sites that could not be avoided 

in the areas of these developments, but 

currently unknown archeological resources 

could exist there. If archeological resources 

were found, actions would be taken to protect 

them (see “Mitigating Measures,” p. 65). 

Building the annex to the visitor center would 

not affect archeological resources. At the beginning of design planning, further evaluation 

of the developments would be necessary, with 

archeological surveys of the areas selected for 

development. Based on these surveys, 

development would be designed not to affect 

archeological resources. 

Eliminating grazing from the memorial (1,811 

acres) would end the disturbances of 

archeological resources by cattle. Compared 

to the no-action alternative, this would result 

in a long-term minor beneficial effect on 

archeological resources. 

The management prescriptions of alternative 

B, with more than 75% of the national 

memorial in the conservation prescription and 

15 % in the education prescription, with 

development concentrated in previously 

disturbed areas, would cause little disturbance 

of archeological sites. These management 

prescriptions would result in long-term minor 

beneficial effects on archeological resources. 

Cumulative Effects. Cattle grazing would 

continue to disturb surface archeological 

resources outside the memorial. Coronado 

National Forest plans to continue developing 

inventories and using them to preserve and 

interpret cultural resources. Cochise County 

plans for increased growth in the southern 

San Pedro Valley, with some restriction on the 

scale and density of the development. The 

Bureau of Land Management plans to protect 

and conserve cultural resources in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

These actions, added to the limited development that would take place in the national 

memorial under alternative B, could result in 

long-term negligible adverse impacts on 

archeological resources in the region. 

Conclusion. New development in the 

national memorial under alternative B would 

be minor, taking place primarily in previously 

disturbed areas. The impacts on archeological 

resources would be partially or fully mitigated 

by sensitive siting and by designing facilities in 

relation to the resources. Ending grazing in 

the national memorial would help to conserve 

archeological resources. Therefore, alternative B would result in a long-term negligible to 

minor beneficial effect on archeological 

resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or to opportunities for visitor enjoyment, 

or (3) identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Consequently, no impairment of 

archeological resources or values would result 

from implementing alternative B. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of 

effect and adverse effect, the National Park 

196
Service finds that the activities of alternative B 

would not have an adverse effect on 

archeological resources. All national memorial 

resources that have been determined eligible 

for nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places (International Boundary 

Monuments 100, 101, and 102 and the 

Montezuma Pass road) would not be adversely affected by the actions of alternative B. 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. A formal determination of eligibility 

for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places has not been completed for the various 

Montezuma Ranch structures. The staff of the 

national memorial is consulting with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office 

about evaluating the structures for their 

eligibility. The staff is gathering documentation to submit to the Arizona state historic 

preservation office so that a formal 

determination of eligibility can be completed. 

Any structures found ineligible for listing 

would be torn down; this would result in no 

effect. The structures determined to be 

eligible, if any, would be stabilized and 

preserved, resulting in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on this archeological 

resource. 

The memorial’s visitor center has not been 

formally evaluated for its eligibility for listing 

on the national register, but its status as a 

“Mission 66” structure makes it potentially 

eligible. The structure would be evaluated for 

eligibility before any rehabilitation work could 

begin. If it was found eligible, the rehabilitation and construction proposed in this alternative would be done in a way that would not 

adversely effect significant features and 

values. 

Cumulative Effects. Before the Historic 

Preservation Act was passed in 1966, various 

mining and ranch structures on lands now in 

the national memorial were removed or 

neglected, but since the act was passed, the 

memorial has identified historic structures 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

and now works toward their preservation. 

Coronado National Forest plans to continue 

developing inventories to use in preserving 

and interpreting cultural resources. The 

Bureau of Land Management plans to protect 

and conserve cultural resources in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

These actions, added to the limited scope of 

Coronado National Memorial’s preservation 

efforts, could result in long-term negligible 

beneficial effects on the area’s historic 

structures. 

Conclusion. Before taking any action 

regarding the visitor center or the Montezuma 

Ranch structures, the national memorial staff 

would pursue a formal determination of the 

structures’ eligibility for the National Register 

of Historic Places. Research and resource 

documentation are improving the national 

memorial’s ability to make informed management decisions. The ongoing efforts to 

identify and preserve historic structures 

would benefit these resources. The overall 

result would be a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on the national memorial’s 

historic structures. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Therefore, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

historic structures would result from 

implementing alternative B. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the survey 

work and continuing preservation work of the 

197
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

national memorial under alternative B would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. The emphasis on developing various 

partnerships for understanding the cultural 

impacts of the Coronado Expedition would 

add to the appreciation of ethnographic 

resources in the vicinity. Festival and events 

sponsored by the national memorial would 

help to foster appreciation and understanding 

of various cultures; the effects of this would 

reach beyond the national memorial’s 

boundaries The memorial’s educational and 

interpretive programs would promote the 

protection of tangible and intangible resources in the vicinity. These actions would result 

in a long-term moderate to major beneficial 

effect. 

The actions in alternative B would not affect 

known ethnographic uses of national 

memorial resources. New developments 

would be minor, and any effect they would 

have on ethnographic resources would be 

partially or fully mitigated by sensitive siting 

and design of facilities. Managing most of the 

national memorial lands in the conservation 

(75%) or education (15%) prescriptions 

would protect and preserve ethnographic 

resources. Therefore, the long-term beneficial 

effects of alternative B on ethnographic resources would be moderate to major. 

Cumulative Effects. Until recently, 

Coronado National Memorial has made no 

attempt to identify ethnographic resources; 

however, it is now in the process of identifying 

and protecting those resources. Cochise 

County plans for increased growth in the 

southern San Pedro Valley, but with 

guidelines on the scale, density, location, and 

type of development. However, growth might 

affect ethnographic resources. The county has 

identified scenic corridors and conservation 

easement areas, and this could protect ethnographic resources. These actions, added to the 

national memorial’s efforts to preserve ethnographic resources, could result in longterm moderate to major beneficial effects on 

the understanding and appreciation of 

ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. No action or development in 

alternative B would affect known ethnographic resources. The various programs and 

partnerships that the national memorial 

would develop to emphasize the area’s 

multicultural heritage would result in longterm moderate to major beneficial effects on 

ethnographic resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or 

to opportunities for visitor enjoyment, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Consequently, no impairment of 

ethnographic resources would result from 

implementing alternative B. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. Removing the Montezuma Ranch 

structures and restoring and revegetating the 

area would enhance the views from Montezuma Pass, making them more representative 

of the time of the Coronado Expedition. 

Revegetating abandoned roads and powerline 

areas would improve cultural landscapes. The 

visitor center annex would be designed not to 

affect cultural landscapes, and a cultural 

landscape report would be undertaken before 

the building was designed so that areas of the 

national memorial containing cultural landscapes could be determined and treatment 

procedures recommended. This report also 

would guide the location and design of 

employee housing so as to minimize the 

effects on cultural landscapes. 

198
None of the proposed development would 

affect NPS structures and features already 

identified on the national memorial’s list of 

classified structures as meriting preservation. 

Managing most of the national memorial 

lands in the conservation (75%) or education 

(15%) prescriptions would protect and preserve potential cultural landscapes. The longterm beneficial effects on cultural landscapes 

from alternative B would be minor to 

moderate. 

Cumulative Effects. Coronado National Memorial has recognized the importance of the 

CCC roadwork from the past and is now 

treating the Montezuma Pass road as a 

significant cultural landscape. Coronado 

National Forest plans to maintain and 

enhance the integrity of visual resources. 

Cochise County plans for increased growth in 

the southern San Pedro Valley, but with 

guidelines on the scale, density, location, and 

type of the development to reduce visual 

impacts, and the county has identified scenic 

corridors and conservation easement areas. 

The Bureau of Land Management plans to 

protect and conserve cultural resources in the 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area. Less development would reduce but not 

eliminate impacts on cultural landscapes. 

These actions, added to the national 

memorial’s efforts to preserve and enhance 

cultural landscapes, could result in long-term 

minor beneficial effects on the area’s cultural 

landscapes. 

Conclusion. The developments of alternative 

B would be minimal, and the impacts on 

cultural landscapes would be partially or fully 

mitigated by sensitive siting and design, 

augmented by other protective measures such 

as vegetative screening. This alternative would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects on cultural landscapes. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of cultural landscapes would 

result from implementing alternative B. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of 

effect and adverse effect, the National Park 

Service finds that the actions of alternative B 

would not adversely affect cultural 

landscapes. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Limiting ground-disturbing 

activities to previously disturbed areas and 

keeping 90% of the national memorial in the 

conservation prescription would make it 

possible to preserve resources for future 

scientific study. This would be a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effect. 

Eliminating grazing from the memorial would 

relieve archeological resources in both allotments (1,811 acres) from disturbance by 

cattle, a long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Cattle grazing would 

continue to disturb surface archeological 

resources outside the memorial. Coronado 

National Forest plans to continue inventories 

and use the information to preserve and 

interpret cultural resources. Cochise County 

plans for increased growth in the southern 

San Pedro Valley, with some restriction on the 

scale and density of the development. The 

Bureau of Land Management plans to protect 

and conserve cultural resources in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

These actions, along with the national 

199
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

memorial’s limited development, could result 

in long-term negligible to minor beneficial 

effects on the area’s archeological resources. 

Conclusion. Archeological resources 

probably would not be affected under 

alternative C, with development in the 

national memorial limited and most of it 

taking place in previously disturbed areas. 

Therefore, alternative C would result in longterm negligible to minor beneficial effects on 

archeological resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of archeological resources would 

result from implementing alternative C. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the actions of 

alternative C would not adversely affect 

archeological resources. All national memorial 

resources that have been determined eligible 

for nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places (International Boundary 

Monuments 100, 101, and 102 and the 

Montezuma Pass road) would not be 

adversely affected by the actions of this 

alternative. 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. A formal determination of eligibility 

for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places has not been completed for the various 

Montezuma Ranch structures. The staff of the 

national memorial is consulting with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office 

about evaluating the structures for their 

eligibility. The staff is gathering documentation to submit to the Arizona state historic 

preservation office so that a formal 

determination of eligibility can be completed. 

Any structures found ineligible for listing 

would be torn down; this would result in no 

effect. The structures determined to be 

eligible, if any, would be stabilized and 

preserved, resulting in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on this historic resource. 

The memorial’s visitor center has not been 

formally evaluated for its eligibility for listing 

on the national register, but its status as a 

“Mission 66” structure makes it potentially 

eligible. A determination of its eligibility 

would be completed to guide the rehabilitation work on the building’s interior. If it was 

found not to be eligible, there would be no 

effect. If it was found eligible, the rehabilitation proposed in this alternative would result 

in a long-term moderate beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Before the Historic 

Preservation Act was passed in 1966, various 

mining and ranch structures on lands now in 

the national memorial were removed or 

neglected, but since the act was passed, the 

memorial has identified historic structures 

and now works toward their preservation. 

Coronado National Forest plans to continue 

developing inventories to use in preserving 

and interpreting cultural resources. The 

Bureau of Land Management plans to protect 

and conserve cultural resources in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

These actions, added to the limited scope of 

Coronado National Memorial’s preservation 

efforts, could result in long-term negligible 

beneficial effects on the area’s historic 

structures. 

Conclusion. Before taking any action 

regarding the visitor center or the Montezuma 

Ranch structures, the national memorial staff 

would pursue a formal determination of the 

200
structures’ eligibility for the National Register 

of Historic Places. Research and resource 

documentation are improving the national 

memorial’s ability to make informed 

management decisions. The ongoing efforts to 

identify and preserve historic structures 

would benefit these resources. The overall 

result would be a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on the national memorial’s 

historic structures. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

historic structures would result from 

implementing alternative C. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the survey 

work and continuing preservation work of the 

national memorial under alternative C would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. None of the actions of alternative C, 

which would involve little development, 

would interfere with the primary ethnographic use of the national memorial by 

American Indians. Restoring natural contours 

and vegetation could make more areas 

suitable for ethnographic use. Therefore, 

alternative C would result in long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effects on 

ethnographic resources. 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

Cumulative Effects. Until recently, 

Coronado National Memorial has made no 

attempt to identify ethnographic resources; 

however, it is now in the process of identifying 

and protecting those resources. Cochise 

County plans for increased growth in the 

southern San Pedro Valley, but with 

guidelines on the scale, density, location, and 

type of the development. However, such 

growth might adversely affect ethnographic 

resources. The county has identified scenic 

corridors and conservation easement areas, 

which could protect ethnographic resources. 

The Bureau of Land Management plans to 

protect and conserve cultural resources in the 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area. These actions, along with the national 

memorial’s preservation efforts and minimal 

development under alternative C (which 

would avert the disturbance of ethnographic 

resources) could result in long-term 

negligible to minor beneficial effects on the 

area’s ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. The lack of development in the 

form of trail, roads, and buildings in 

alternative C would protect the national 

memorial’s ethnographic resources from 

disturbance. Restoring and revegetating areas 

of powerlines, roads, and nonhistoric 

structures would make more areas suitable for 

ethnographic use. All these actions combined 

would result in long-term negligible to minor 

beneficial effects on ethnographic resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to the 

natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or 

to opportunities for visitor enjoyment, or (3) 

identified as a goal in this General Management Plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents. Consequently, no impairment of 

ethnographic resources would result from 

implementing alternative C. 

201
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. Having more than 90% of the 

national memorial in the conservation 

management prescription under alternative C 

would mean that areas would be managed to 

preserve resources for future scientific study. 

This alternative would restore cultural 

landscapes to their condition at the time of the 

Coronado Expedition, a long-term negligible 

to minor beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Coronado National Memorial has recognized the importance of the 

CCC roadwork from the past and is now 

treating the Montezuma Pass road as a 

significant cultural landscape. Coronado 

National Forest plans to maintain and 

enhance visual resource integrity. Cochise 

County plans for increased growth in the 

southern San Pedro Valley, but with guidelines on the scale, density, location, and type 

of the development to reduce visual impacts, 

and the county has identified scenic corridors 

and conservation easement areas. The Bureau 

of Land Management plans to protect and 

conserve cultural resources in the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area. These 

actions, added to the national memorial’s 

efforts to preserve and enhance cultural 

landscapes, could result in long-term minor 

beneficial effects on the region’s cultural 

landscapes. 

Conclusion. The limited development 

proposed in alternative C would result in the 

restoration of landscapes to be representative 

of the time of the Coronado Expedition; 

therefore, this alternative would result in 

long-term negligible to minor beneficial 

effects on cultural landscapes. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of cultural landscapes would 

result from implementing alternative C. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the actions of 

alternative C would not have an adverse effect 

on cultural landscapes. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Surveys at the national memorial 

have not found any archeological sites that 

could not be avoided by careful planning for 

the following ground-disturbing actions of 

alternative D: 

removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and building an educational center or 

adaptively using the structures 

adding a paved parking area and road to the 

ranch site 

rebuilding and paving East Forest Lane 

building a paved parking area and a 

commemorative feature at the end of East 

Forest Lane 

expanding the visitor center and adding 

more parking 

upgrading the road to the picnic area and 

adding picnic sites 

developing four new trails 

About 70% of these actions would take place 

in previously disturbed areas and the rest in 

undisturbed areas. There could be unknown 

archeological resources in the areas that 

would be disturbed, and if any were found, 

actions would be taken for their protection. 

(see “Mitigating Measures,” p. 65). None of 

202
the above actions would be expected to affect 

known archeological resources. 

The increased accessibility by trail and paved 

road in the grasslands could result in 

vandalism to archeological resources in those 

areas. Further evaluation would be necessary 

when design planning for the developments 

was begun, with archeological surveys 

undertaken in the areas selected for 

development. The designs of developments 

would be based on the surveys to minimize 

the impacts on resources. The continuing 

identification and location of archeological 

resources would result in their being 

preserved in place, a negligible long-term 

beneficial effect. 

Continuing grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment (1,143 acres) would make it possible 

that archeological resources, mainly lithic 

scatters, could be disturbed by cattle, but 

eliminating grazing from the Montezuma 

allotment would remove the possibility of 

grazing disturbance on 668 acres. Ground 

disturbance would be limited by the management prescriptions of this alternative, with 

more than 80% of the national memorial in 

the conservation prescription and 10 % in the 

education prescription. The actions of 

alternative D would result in a negligible to 

minor long-term adverse impact on 

archeological resources. 

Cumulative Effects. Cattle grazing would 

continue to disturb surface archeological 

resources outside the memorial. Coronado 

National Forest plans to continue 

inventorying, preserving, and interpreting 

cultural resources. Cochise County plans for 

increased growth in the southern San Pedro 

Valley, with some restriction on the scale and 

density of the development. The Bureau of 

Land Management plans to protect and 

conserve cultural resources in the San Pedro 

Riparian National Conservation Area. These 

actions, added to increased development in 

the national memorial, could result in longterm minor adverse impacts on the area’s 

archeological resources. 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

Conclusion. Much of the new development 

in Coronado National Memorial under 

alternative D would be limited to previously 

disturbed areas. The large number of grounddisturbing actions in this alternative would 

increase the possibility of affecting 

archeological resources. Overall, the actions 

of this alternative would result in a long-term 

negligible adverse impact on archeological 

resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of archeological resources would 

result from implementing alternative D. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the criteria of 

effect and adverse effect, the National Park 

Service finds that the actions of alternative D 

would not have an adverse effect on archeological resources. All national memorial 

resources that have been determined eligible 

for nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places (International Boundary 

Monuments 100, 101, and 102 and the 

Montezuma Pass road) would not be adversely affected by the actions of alternative 

D. 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. A formal determination of eligibility 

for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places has not been completed for the various 

Montezuma Ranch structures. The staff of the 

national memorial is consulting with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office 

203
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

about evaluating the structures for their 

eligibility. The staff is gathering documentation to submit to the Arizona state historic 

preservation office so that a formal 

determination of eligibility can be completed. 

Any structures found ineligible for listing 

would be torn down; this would result in no 

effect. The structures determined to be 

eligible, if any, would be stabilized and 

preserved, resulting in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on this resource. 

The memorial’s visitor center has not been 

formally evaluated for its eligibility for listing 

on the national register, but its status as a 

“Mission 66” structure makes it potentially 

eligible. A determination of its eligibility 

would be completed to guide the 

rehabilitation work on the building’s interior. 

If it was found not to be eligible, there would 

be no effect. If it was found eligible, the 

rehabilitation proposed in this alternative 

would result in a long-term moderate 

beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Before the Historic 

Preservation Act was passed in 1966, various 

mining and ranch structures on lands now in 

the national memorial were removed or 

neglected, but since the act was passed, the 

memorial has identified historic structures 

and now works toward their preservation. 

Coronado National Forest plans to continue 

developing inventories to use in preserving 

and interpreting cultural resources. The 

Bureau of Land Management plans to protect 

and conserve cultural resources in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

These actions, added to Coronado National 

Memorial’s limited preservation efforts, could 

result in long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the area’s historic structures. 

Conclusion. Before taking any action 

regarding the visitor center or the Montezuma 

Ranch structures, the national memorial staff 

would pursue a formal determination of the 

structures’ eligibility for the National Register 

of Historic Places. Research and resource 

documentation are improving the national 

memorial’s ability to make informed 

management decisions. The ongoing efforts to 

identify and preserve historic structures 

would benefit these resources. The overall 

result would be a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on the national memorial’s 

historic structures. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

historic structures would result from 

implementing alternative D. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the survey 

work and continuing preservation work of the 

national memorial under alternative D would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. New and upgraded trails and roads 

under alternative D would improve access to 

and within the national memorial, bringing 

visitors to previously little visited areas. 

Restoring natural contours and revegetating 

the areas of powerlines and abandoned roads 

would not interfere with the ethnographic use 

of the national memorial by American Indians. 

The long-term effects of alternative D on 

ethnographic resources would be negligible 

and beneficial. 

Cumulative Effects. Until recently, 

Coronado National Memorial has made no 

204
attempt to identify ethnographic resources; 

however, it is now in the process of identifying 

and protecting those resources. Coronado 

National Forest plans to protect ethnographic 

resources. Cochise County plans for increased 

growth in the southern San Pedro Valley, but 

with guidelines on the scale, density, location, 

and type of the development; however, such 

growth might adversely affect ethnographic 

resources. The county has identified scenic 

corridors and conservation easement areas 

that could protect ethnographic resources. 

The Bureau of Land Management plans to 

protect and conserve cultural resources in the 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area. These actions, added to the actions of 

Coronado National Memorial under 

alternative D, would result in long-term 

negligible beneficial effects on the area’s 

ethnographic resources. 

Conclusion. The possibility of affecting 

ethnographic resources would be greater in 

alternative D than in some of the other 

alternatives because there would be greater 

access to areas of the national memorial. The 

actions in this alternative could result in a 

long-term negligible beneficial effect on 

ethnographic resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of ethnographic resources would 

result from implementing alternative D. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. Reestablishing natural contours and 

revegetating the areas of abandoned 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

powerlines and roads could affect cultural 

landscapes, as could road and trail building 

and removing nonhistoric structures. None of 

the roads, trails, or structures has been 

identified as being part of cultural landscapes; 

therefore, these actions would not cause 

effects on cultural landscapes. 

With more than 80% of the national memorial 

in the conservation prescription and 10 % in 

the education prescription, the views that 

represent the way the country looked to the 

Coronado Expedition would be perpetuated. 

Even though the siting, design, and vegetative 

screening of the new facilities and roads 

would be done with care, vehicles on the 

roads and in the parking lots still could be 

visually intrusive from Montezuma Pass. 

Cultural landscapes would be protected 

during the expansion and rehabilitation of the 

visitor center and the construction of employee housing. The actions of alternative D 

would result in a negligible long-term adverse 

effect on cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Effects. Coronado National Memorial has recognized the importance of the 

CCC roadwork from the past and is now 

treating the Montezuma Pass road as a 

significant cultural landscape. Coronado 

National Forest plans to maintain and 

enhance the integrity of its visual resources. 

Cochise County plans for increased growth in 

the southern San Pedro River Valley, but with 

guidelines on the scale, density, location, and 

type of the development to reduce visual 

impacts. In addition, the county has identified 

scenic corridors and conservation easement 

areas. The Bureau of Land Management plans 

to protect and conserve cultural resources in 

the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. These actions, added to the national 

memorial’s actions under alternative D that 

might adversely affect cultural landscapes, 

could result in long-term negligible adverse 

impacts on the area’s cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. The possibility of adversely 

affecting cultural landscapes would be greater 

in this alternative than in some of the other 

205
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

action alternatives because of the variety of 

actions (constructing roads, facilities, and 

trails) that would take place. The actions of 

alternative D would result in a long-term 

negligible adverse impact on cultural 

landscapes. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of cultural landscapes would 

result from implementing alternative D. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the actions of 

alternative D would not adversely affect 

cultural landscapes. 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Surveys at the national memorial 

have not found any archeological sites that 

could not be avoided by careful planning for 

the ground-disturbing actions of alternative E 

— building a new visitor/educational center

about 0.7 mile north of the Montezuma 

Canyon Road, adding a paved parking area 

and road to the site, removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures, and developing four new 

trails. There could be unknown archeological 

resources in the areas that would be disturbed, 

and if any were found, actions would be taken 

for their protection. (see “Mitigating 

Measures,” p. 65). The continuing identification and location of archeological 

resources would result in their being 

preserved in place, a negligible long-term 

beneficial effect. 

With about 85% of the national memorial in 

the conservation prescription under this 

alternative, and with the other 15% in the 

education prescription, the ground 

disturbance would be limited. Most of the 

ground disturbance would take place in 

grasslands north of the main road, about 10% 

of it in previously disturbed areas; the other 

90% in previously undisturbed areas. Because 

the area that would be developed in this 

alternative contains relatively undisturbed 

areas, there would be a greater likelihood of 

finding previously unknown resources than in 

the other alternatives. 

The increased accessibility by trail and paved 

road in the grasslands could result in vandalism to archeological resources in those areas. 

Further evaluation would be necessary when 

design planning for the developments was 

begun, with archeological surveys undertaken 

in the areas to be developed. Designs of 

developments would be based on the surveys 

to minimize the impacts on resources. 

Continuing grazing in the Montezuma 

allotment (668 acres) would make it possible 

that archeological resources, mainly lithic 

scatters, could be disturbed by cattle, but 

eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would remove the possibility of 

grazing disturbances on 1,143 acres. The 

continued disturbance of archeological sites 

by cattle would result in a long-term minor to 

moderate adverse impact on archeological 

resources. 

Cumulative Effects. Cattle grazing would 

continue to disturb surface archeological 

resources outside the memorial. Coronado 

National Forest plans to continue inventorying resources and using the inventories to 

preserve and interpret cultural resources. 

Cochise County plans for increased growth in 

the southern San Pedro Valley, with some 

restriction on the scale and density of the 

206
development. The Bureau of Land 

Management plans to protect and conserve 

cultural resources in the San Pedro Riparian 

National Conservation Area. These actions, 

added to increased development in Coronado 

National Memorial under alternative E, could 

result in long-term minor adverse impacts on 

the area’s archeological resources. 

Conclusion. Much of the new development 

in Coronado National Memorial under 

alternative E would take place in previously 

undisturbed areas. The variety of grounddisturbing actions in this alternative would 

increase the possibility of affecting 

archeological resources. Overall, the actions 

of this alternative would result in a long-term 

negligible to minor adverse impact on 

archeological resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of archeological resources would 

result from implementing alternative E. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the national 

memorial’s actions under alternative E would 

not have an adverse effect on archeological 

resources. All national memorial resources 

that have been determined eligible for 

nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (International Boundary 

Monuments 100, 101, and 102 and the 

Montezuma Pass road) would not be 

adversely affected by the actions of this 

alternative. 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. A formal determination of eligibility 

for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places has not been completed for the various 

Montezuma Ranch structures. The staff of the 

national memorial is consulting with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office 

about evaluating the structures for their 

eligibility. The staff is gathering documentation to submit to the Arizona historic 

preservation office so that a formal 

determination of eligibility can be completed. 

Any structures found ineligible for listing 

would be torn down; this would result in no 

effect. The structures determined to be 

eligible, if any, would be stabilized and 

preserved, resulting in a long-term minor 

beneficial effect on this archeological 

resource. 

The memorial’s visitor center has not been 

formally evaluated for its eligibility for listing 

on the national register, but its status as a 

“Mission 66” structure makes it potentially 

eligible. A determination of its eligibility 

would be completed to guide the rehabilitation work on the building’s interior. If it was 

found not to be eligible, there would be no 

effect. If it was found eligible, the rehabilitation proposed in this alternative would result 

in a long-term moderate beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects. Before the Historic 

Preservation Act was passed in 1966, various 

mining and ranch structures on lands now in 

the national memorial were removed or 

neglected, but since the act was passed the 

memorial has identified historic structures 

and now works toward their preservation. 

Coronado National Forest plans to continue 

developing inventories to use in preserving 

and interpreting cultural resources. The 

Bureau of Land Management plans to protect 

and conserve cultural resources in the San 

Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. 

These actions, added to Coronado National 

Memorial’s limited preservation efforts, could 

result in long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the area’s historic structures. 

207
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Conclusion. Research and resource 

documentation are improving the national 

memorial’s ability to make informed 

management decisions. The ongoing efforts to 

identify and preserve historic structures 

would benefit these resources. The overall 

result would be a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect on the historic structures of 

the national memorial. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of resources or values related to 

historic structures would result from 

implementing alternative E. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the survey 

work and continuing preservation work of the 

national memorial under alternative E would 

have an effect that would not be adverse. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. New and upgraded trails and roads 

under alternative E would improve access to 

and within the national memorial, bringing 

visitors to previously little visited areas. 

Restoring natural contours and revegetating 

areas of powerlines and abandoned roads 

would not interfere with the ethnographic use 

of the memorial by American Indians. The 

long-term beneficial effects of alternative E 

on ethnographic resources would be 

negligible. 

Cumulative Effects. Until recently, 

Coronado National Memorial has made no 

attempt to identify ethnographic resources; 

however, it is now in the process of identifying 

and protecting those resources. Coronado 

National Forest plans to protect ethnographic 

resources. Cochise County plans for increased 

growth in the southern San Pedro Valley, but 

with guidelines on the scale, density, location, 

and type of the development; however, such 

growth might adversely affect ethnographic 

resources. The county has identified scenic 

corridors and conservation easement areas 

that could protect ethnographic resources. 

The Bureau of Land Management plans to 

protect and conserve cultural resources in the 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area. These actions, added to the actions of 

Coronado National Memorial under alternative E, would result in long-term negligible 

adverse effects on the area’s ethnographic 

resources. 

Conclusion. The possibility of adversely 

affecting ethnographic resources would be 

greater in alternative E than in some of the 

other alternatives because visitors would have 

more access to the grasslands in the national 

memorial. The actions of this alternative could 

have a long-term negligible adverse impact on 

ethnographic resources. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the memorial or to opportunities for visitor enjoyment, 

or (3) identified as a goal in this General 

Management Plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents. Consequently, no impairment of ethnographic resources would 

result from implementing alternative E. 

208
Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. Reestablishing natural contours and 

revegetating the areas of abandoned 

powerlines and roads could affect cultural 

landscapes, as could road and trail building 

and removing nonhistoric structures. 

However, because none of the roads, trails, or 

structures have been identified as being part 

of cultural landscapes, no effects on cultural 

landscapes would result from these actions. 

With about 85% of the national memorial in 

the conservation prescription and 15 % in the 

education prescription, the views that 

represent the way the country looked to the 

Coronado Expedition would be perpetuated 

under alternative E. Even though the siting, 

design, and vegetative screening of the new 

facilities and roads would be done with care, 

vehicles on the roads and in the parking lots 

still could be visually intrusive from 

Montezuma Pass. The actions of alternative E 

would result in a negligible long-term adverse 

effect on cultural landscapes. 

Cumulative Effects. Coronado National Memorial has recognized the importance of the 

CCC roadwork from the past and is now 

treating the Montezuma Pass road as a 

significant cultural landscape. Coronado 

National Forest plans to maintain and 

enhance visual resource integrity. Cochise 

County plans for increased growth in the 

southern San Pedro Valley, but with 

guidelines on the scale, density, location, and 

type of development to reduce visual impacts. 

In addition, the county has identified scenic 

corridors and conservation easement areas. 

The Bureau of Land Management plans to 

protect and conserve cultural resources in the 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation 

Area. These actions, along with NPS actions 

under alternative E (which could possibly 

have a beneficial effect on cultural landscapes) 

could result in long-term negligible beneficial 

effects on the area’s cultural landscapes. 

Conclusion. The possibility of adversely 

affecting cultural landscapes would be greater 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

in this alternative than in some of the other 

action alternatives because of the variety of 

actions (constructing roads, facilities, and 

trails) that would take place. The actions of 

alternative E would result in a long-term negligible adverse impact on cultural landscapes. 

Impairment. The resources and values of 

Coronado National Memorial would not be 

impaired because there would be no major 

adverse effects on a resource or value whose 

conservation is (1) necessary to fulfill specific 

purposes identified in the establishing 

legislation of the national memorial, (2) key to 

the natural or cultural integrity of the 

memorial or to opportunities for visitor 

enjoyment, or (3) identified as a goal in this 

General Management Plan or other relevant 

NPS planning documents. Consequently, no 

impairment of cultural landscapes would 

result from implementing alternative E. 

Section 106 Summary. Under the regulations 

of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (36 CFR 800.5) addressing the 

criteria of effect and adverse effect, the 

National Park Service finds that the actions of 

alternative E would not adversely affect 

cultural landscapes. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE 

IMPACTS 

The long-term adverse impacts on cultural 

resources that would result from 

accommodating visitors and their vehicles 

would be negligible. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

The construction of facilities and other 

ground-disturbing activities could result in 

the loss of some archeological values through 

surface disturbance, inadvertent damage, or 

possible vandalism. This would vary slightly 

by site and by alternative. 

209
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

RELATIONSHIPS OF SHORTTERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Constructing trails, roads, and facilities for 

visitors and operations could result in slight 

short-term adverse effects on archeological or 

ethnographic resources or cultural landscapes, as could demolishing structures or 

revegetating areas. This would occur before 

and during construction or revegetation, 

when the site would be vulnerable to 

vandalism or other destructive activities. 

However, in the long term, completing these 

actions would save resources and enhance the 

preservation of the memorial’s cultural resources. These long-term beneficial effects 

would occur in all the action alternatives, with 

the greatest effects in alternative B. 

The various partnerships that would help to 

foster public appreciation and preservation of 

cultural resources, resulting in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects. These 

beneficial effects would be greatest under 

alternatives B and D. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Energy requirements would increase with the 

construction of new structures. This would be 

mitigated by designing all structures to be 

energy-efficient. Alternatives D and E would 

require the most energy of all the alternatives 

because of the number of structures that 

would be maintained and used. 

210
EFFECTS ON VISITOR UNDERSTANDING AND RECREATIONAL 

RESOURCES

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Visitation to Coronado Cave nearly doubled 

between 1990 and 2000. Nearly 6 % of the 

people who visit Coronado National 

Memorial include exploring Coronado Cave 

in their visit. To protect cave resources, in all 

the action alternatives the national memorial 

would determine the cave’s carrying capacity 

and restrict visitation when the limit was 

exceeded. Overall, setting limits on cave 

visitation would result in a negligible adverse 

impact on visitor understanding because only 

a small percentage of memorial visitors go to 

the cave. However, for people whose primary 

interest in the memorial is to visit the cave, 

setting a carrying capacity (with the potential 

that some visitors would not be allowed to use 

the cave when that capacity was reached) 

would result in a long-term moderate adverse 

effect. 

Offering more intensive interpretation in the 

Montezuma Pass area would enhance visitor 

understanding and the visitor experience by 

offering opportunities to understand and 

appreciate the memorial’s significant natural 

and cultural resources. Because visitors’ use of 

the memorial’s trails is minimal, this beneficial 

effect on visitor experience would be 

negligible to minor. 

Developing interpretive media to support the 

national memorial’s interpretive themes and 

focus on the memorial’s mission, purpose, and 

significance would help to foster in visitors a 

greater appreciation of the memorial’s 

resources. This would result in a minor to 

moderate beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience. 

ALTERNATIVE A 

Analysis 

Access to Resources. The opportunity for 

visitors to experience the memorial’s 

resources would be unchanged under 

alternative A, with most visitors spending one 

to two hours at the visitor center collections, 

the interpretive trail, the picnic area, and the 

Montezuma Pass overlook. Access for visitors 

with disabilities would be unchanged. Thus, 

visitors’ ability to experience valuable 

resources would be limited, resulting in a 

negligible to minor adverse effect on the 

visitor experience. 

Interpretation and Orientation. Continuing 

the existing displays of artifacts and paintings 

at the visitor center, wayside exhibits, and 

sales publications, as well as interpretive 

services such as self-guiding trails, volunteer 

interpretive programs, and occasional cultural 

demonstrations would be moderately 

important in conveying information to visitors 

and decreasing physical impacts on natural 

and cultural resources. Crowding at the visitor 

center would continue, adversely affecting the 

quality of the visitor experience. The longterm adverse effects on the visitor experience 

would be moderate. 

Visitor Numbers and Recreation. If the 

overall use of the national memorial continued to increase, and if the proportion of 

visitors from outside the local area kept increasing, the visitor experience might 

eventually be affected unless there was a 

corresponding improvement in visitor services. Recreational use in the memorial would 

be adversely affected by the deterioration of 

the memorial’s facilities and attractions from 

overuse, by the deferment of maintenance to 

divert funds to recreation-serving priorities, 

and by a possible decrease in long-term 

211
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

visitation owing to the memorial’s becoming 

less attractive as a recreation site. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

would make it possible to offer visitors an uninterrupted view of the San Pedro Valley from 

the Montezuma Peak scenic lookout. This 

would improve scenic values and result in a 

long-term minor to moderate beneficial effect 

on visitor understanding and the visitor 

experience. 

Increasing visitor interest in exploring more of 

the memorial and complaints about the 

livestock in the grazing allotments indicate 

that reduced aesthetics and disturbed habitats 

degrade the visitor experience. With the local 

population growing and the demands for 

recreation and opportunities to observe wildlife and vegetation, increasing, continuing 

grazing would be likely to meet with more 

objections. Objections to continued grazing in 

this relatively small unit of the national park 

system also could come from people interested in having the memorial managed as a 

preserve for native plant and animal life in a 

region heavily used by the livestock industry. 

Therefore, continuing grazing would result in 

a long-term minor to moderate adverse impact on the visitor experience for those who 

would like to experience natural resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

Developments of various kinds outside the 

memorial boundaries in the United States and 

Mexico threaten to degrade the views from 

Montezuma Pass. Cochise County plans for 

increased growth in the southern San Pedro 

Valley, but with guidelines on the scale, 

density, location and type of development to 

reduce visual impacts. In addition, the county 

has identified scenic corridors and conservation easements. Coronado National Forest 

plans to maintain and enhance visual resource 

integrity. Continued protection of the viewshed in the national memorial, combined with 

these activities, would result in beneficial 

effects on regional visitors. 

Accessible campsites and interpretive facilities 

in Coronado National Forest offer recreational opportunities for mobility-impaired 

visitors. These facilities, along with other 

recreational opportunities in adjacent areas 

like state parks and the national conservation 

area, make it possible for visitors to experience the region’s natural and cultural 

resources. These entities also offer orientation, visitor information, and other services to 

help acquaint the visitors with the area. Local 

chambers of commerce, private museums, and 

attractions also offer interpretation. These 

available regional recreational and interpretive resources would result in a moderate 

beneficial effect on visitor understanding in 

the region, and regional opportunities would 

help to offset the minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on the visitor experience that would 

result from alternative A. 

Actions of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Border Patrol, 

along with Cochise County, to reduce illegal 

immigration and drug traffic along the 

smuggling route in the national memorial 

(such as fences along the international border) 

might reduce the potential for national 

memorial visitors to encounter smugglers, 

thereby enhancing visitor safety and the 

visitor experience. 

Conclusion 

Continuing the limitations on access to 

natural resources and cultural exhibits for 

mobility-impaired visitors along the 

memorial’s trails would result in long-term 

negligible adverse impacts. If the demand for 

recreational resources continued to increase 

and no improvements were made, there 

would be local minor to moderate long-term 

adverse impacts on the visitor experience. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

improve scenic values and the visitor 

experience from Montezuma Pass, resulting in 

a long-term minor beneficial effect on the 

visitor experience. Continued grazing in the 

212
memorial would have a long-term negligible 

to minor adverse impact on visitors wanting to 

hike in the allotments. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Analysis 

Access to Resources. Developing four new 

trails and making two of them accessible for 

mobility-impaired visitors under alternative B 

would give visitors better access to natural resources and cultural exhibits. Ending grazing 

in the memorial would enable visitors to reach 

previously undervisited grassland habitats 

more easily, so that these areas would be more 

available for hiking and birding. The longterm benefits to visitor access would be 

negligible to minor because only a small 

percentage of the people who visit the 

memorial hike the trails. 

Adding more parking spaces at the visitor 

center and parking spaces for buses and 

recreational vehicles would reduce 

congestion, as would adding more pullouts. 

The new pullouts also would afford easier and 

safer access to views of the national memorial 

resources. These actions would result in longterm minor to moderate beneficial effects on 

visitor understanding and the visitor 

experience, which would vary depending on 

the level of visitation. 

Interpretation and Orientation. Expanding 

the visitor center and updating interpretive 

materials would reduce congestion and 

improve the memorial’s ability to convey the 

story of Coronado National Memorial’s 

natural and cultural resources, improving 

visitor understanding and the visitor 

experience. Offering more in-depth interpretation at the rehabilitated visitor center 

and at Montezuma Pass and adding 

interpretive media in other locations, along 

with events sponsored by the national 

memorial, would give more visitors an 

opportunity to appreciate and understand the 

story of the memorial. Working with other 

Effects on Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 

groups on interpretive programs and activities 

to support appreciation of the memorial’s 

natural and cultural resources and improving 

interpretive materials would enhance the 

visitor experience. These actions would 

encourage increased participation in 

interpretation and educational programs, 

which would result in a moderate beneficial 

effect on the visitor experience. 

Visitor Numbers and Recreation. As the 

actions in this alternative are implemented, 

visitation numbers could gradually increase to 

nearly 40,000 visitors per year. Developing a 

group picnic area would reduce congestion in 

the current picnic area, especially during high 

visitation times. There would be minor shortterm adverse effects on recreation from construction activities (noise, area closures), but 

the enlarged facilities would accommodate 

larger numbers of visitors, helping to disperse 

them and reducing crowding, which would 

result in long-term minor to moderate 

beneficial effects on the visitor experience. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating that area and 

East Forest Lane would enable visitors to 

enjoy an uninterrupted view of the San Pedro 

Valley from the Montezuma Peak scenic 

lookout, improving scenic values, a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

Various kinds of development in Mexico and 

the United States (outside the memorial 

boundaries) threaten to degrade the views 

from Montezuma Pass. Cochise County plans 

for increased growth in the southern San 

Pedro Valley, but with guidelines on the scale, 

density, location and type of development to 

reduce visual impacts. In addition, the county 

has identified scenic corridors and 

conservation easements. Coronado National 

Forest plans to maintain and enhance visual 

resource integrity. Continued protection of 

the viewshed in the memorial, combined with 

213
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

these activities, would result in beneficial 

cumulative effects for visitors to the region. 

Accessible campsites and interpretive facilities 

in Coronado National Forest offer recreational opportunities for mobility-impaired 

visitors. These facilities, along with other 

recreational opportunities in adjacent areas 

like state parks and the national conservation 

area, make it possible for visitors to experience the region’s natural and cultural 

resources. These entities also offer orientation, visitor information, and other services to 

help acquaint the visitors with the area. Local 

chambers of commerce, private museums, and 

attractions also offer interpretation. These 

available regional recreational and interpretive resources would combine with increased 

recreational opportunities in the memorial 

under alternative B to result in cumulative 

beneficial effects on the visitor experience. 

The potential for national memorial visitors to 

encounter smugglers might be reduced by actions taken by the U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, the U.S. Border Patrol, 

and Cochise County to reduce illegal 

immigration and drug traffic along the 

smuggling route (such as fences along the 

international border). This would enhance 

visitor safety and the visitor experience. 

Conclusion 

Improving recreational services and facilities 

in Coronado National Memorial would result 

in negligible to minor short-term and longterm beneficial effects on the visitor 

experience. The visitor experience also would 

be enhanced by resource conservation. 

Improving interpretive materials and 

expanding outreach programs that emphasize 

the memorial’s mission, purpose, and 

significance would enhance the opportunities 

for visitors to learn about and understand the 

memorial’s resources, a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect on the visitor experience. 

Eliminating grazing would enable visitors to 

experience the natural resources of the grasslands, a negligible to minor beneficial effect on 

the visitor experience. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Analysis 

Access to Resources. Upgrading the trail at 

the visitor center and making it accessible to 

mobility-impaired visitors would enhance 

visitor access to natural exhibits. Ending 

grazing in the memorial might result in 

increased use of the allotment areas by 

visitors, but not developing new trails might 

restrict recreational activity compared to 

alternative B. These actions would result in 

negligible beneficial effects on the visitor 

experience. The beneficial effects from 

improving the visitor center trail would be 

negligible because the trail is small. 

Developing more parking at the visitor center 

and adding parking for buses and recreational 

vehicles would reduce congestion. The beneficial effects of these actions on visitor understanding and the visitor experience would 

vary, depending on the level of visitation; they 

would be negligible to minor because the size 

of these developments in alternative C would 

be smaller than the changes in alternative B. 

Interpretation and Orientation. 

Emphasizing work with other groups to tell 

the memorial’s story and reach beyond the 

boundary would result in effects similar to 

those described for alternative B; however, 

because interpretation in the memorial would 

not be enhanced in alternative C, the benefits 

would be fewer. Only a minor beneficial effect 

on visitor understanding and the visitor 

experience would result from using outreach 

programs alone. 

Visitor Numbers and Recreation. As the 

actions in this alternative are implemented, 

visitation numbers could gradually increase to 

nearly 40,000 visitors per year. The 

214
Effects on Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 

recreational opportunities available under 

alternative C would be similar to those 

described for alternative A. Upgrading the 

interpretive trail at the visitor center would 

broaden opportunities, mainly for mobilityimpaired visitors. Removing the Montezuma 

Ranch structures and restoring and 

revegetating the area would enable visitors to 

enjoy an uninterrupted view of the San Pedro 

Valley from the Montezuma Peak scenic 

lookout, improving scenic values, a long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of alternative C on the 

visitor experience would be similar to those 

described for alternative A. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative C, access via memorial trails 

to natural resources and cultural exhibits for 

visitors with disabilities would continue to be 

limited, a negligible to minor adverse impact. 

Ending grazing in the memorial would enable 

some visitors to use grassland areas that have 

been little used for recreation; however, with 

no trails being developed in the allotment 

areas, the use would remain limited. 

Expanding the NPS facilities would result in 

short-term minor to moderate adverse 

impacts on the visitor experience, but in the 

long term there would be minor to moderate 

beneficial effects resulting from decreased 

congestion and improved views. Using 

outreach programs alone to emphasize the 

memorial’s interpretive themes would result 

in only a minor beneficial effect on visitor 

understanding and the visitor experience. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Analysis 

Access to Resources. Eliminating grazing 

from the Montezuma allotment would enable 

people to visit grassland habitats that 

previously were little used by visitors. The 

beneficial effect on the visitor experience 

would be negligible to minor because only a 

small percentage of the people who visit the 

memorial hike the trails. Upgrading some 

trails for accessibility would result in negligible to minor beneficial effects for visitors with 

disabilities by improving their access to the 

memorial’s natural and cultural resources. 

Establishing a commemorative feature at the 

end of East Forest Lane would result in a 

major attraction, offering visitors an opportunity to understand and appreciate the 

Coronado Expedition and fostering international amity. Paving East Forest Lane for 

vehicle access to the new feature in an area 

previously restricted to vehicles would enable 

visitors to experience the natural resources of 

the grasslands. This development would result 

in a long-term moderate to major beneficial 

effect on the visitor experience. 

Adding parking spaces at the visitor center 

and the picnic area and developing more 

pullouts and picnic sites would reduce 

congestion in these high use areas, and the 

new pullouts would make it easier and safer to 

reach areas where views can be seen. These 

developments would result in long-term 

minor to moderate beneficial effects on the 

visitor experience, which would vary 

depending on the level of visitation. 

Interpretation and Orientation. Interpretive 

emphasis on the memorial’s international 

themes at the visitor center, the educational 

center, and the border commemorative 

feature would result in moderate beneficial 

effects on visitor understanding and the 

visitor experience. Moderate beneficial effects 

also would result from NPS sponsorship of 

events at universities and in the memorial and 

from offering exhibits and interpretive 

programs at the visitor and educational center. 

NPS participation in increasing outreach 

educational programs also would result in 

moderate beneficial effects on visitor 

understanding and the visitor experience. 

215
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

Visitor Numbers and Recreation. As the 

actions in this alternative are implemented, 

visitation numbers could gradually increase to 

nearly 40,000 visitors per year. Developing an 

educational center on the Montezuma Ranch 

site, combined with displaying and interpreting the national memorial’s themes at the 

visitor center, would reduce congestion and 

improve the visitor experience. Congestion 

also would be reduced, especially at high 

visitation times, by the addition of a group 

picnic area. 

Building roads and constructing facilities and 

trails would increase the possibility of 

adversely affecting the viewshed, but 

vegetative screening and design planning 

would mitigate adverse impacts on the visitor 

experience, so that the long-term adverse 

effects would be minor. 

Noise from construction equipment and the 

temporary closure of some areas would result 

in short-term minor to moderate adverse 

effects on the visitor experience. After 

facilities were expanded, more visitors would 

be accommodated and crowding reduced, 

improving visitor understanding and the 

visitor experience, a moderate to major 

beneficial effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of alternative D on the 

visitor experience would be similar to those 

described for alternative A. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative D, access via memorial trails 

to natural resources and cultural exhibits for 

visitors with disabilities would increase, 

resulting a negligible to minor beneficial 

effect. Expanding the visitor center would 

result in short-term minor to moderate 

impacts on the visitor experience, but visitor 

congestion would decrease as a result of the 

added developments, resulting in long-term 

moderate to major beneficial effects on the 

visitor experience. 

Improving interpretive materials and expanding the outreach programs that would emphasize the mission, purpose, and significance of 

the national memorial would enhance the 

opportunities for visitors to learn about and 

understand the memorial’s resources, a 

moderate to major beneficial effect on the 

visitor experience. The new developments 

would affect the viewshed, resulting in longterm minor adverse impacts on the visitor 

experience. Eliminating grazing from the 

Montezuma allotment would benefit a small 

number of visitors who would use the trails in 

the grasslands, resulting in a negligible to 

minor beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience. 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Analysis 

Access to Resources. Eliminating grazing 

from the Joe’s Spring allotment would enable 

people to visit grassland habitats that 

previously were little used by visitors. The 

beneficial effect on visitor understanding and 

the visitor experience from closing the 

allotment to grazing would be negligible to 

minor because only a small percentage of the 

people who visit the memorial hike the trails. 

Likewise, developing three new trails in the 

grasslands would result in negligible to minor 

long-term beneficial effects on the visitor 

experience because only a small portion of 

visitors to the memorial use the trails. 

Building a new visitor center north of the main 

road would make possible a panoramic view 

of the landscape and the valley, adding a major 

attraction that could offer visitors an 

opportunity to understand and appreciate the 

human and natural history of the memorial. 

Adding a paved road leading to the new visitor 

center would offer access to an area not 

previously accessible by vehicles, which would 

benefit most visitors, a long-term moderate to 

216
Effects on Visitor Understanding and Recreational Resources 

major beneficial effect on visitor 

understanding and the visitor experience. 

Adding more parking for buses and 

recreational vehicles would reduce 

congestion, resulting in negligible beneficial 

effects on the visitor experience, which would 

vary depending on the level of visitation. 

Interpretation and Orientation. 

Emphasizing work with various groups to tell 

the national memorial’s international stories 

and reach beyond the boundary would result 

in a minor beneficial effect on the visitor 

experience similar to that described for 

alternative C. 

Visitor Numbers and Recreation. As the 

actions in this alternative are implemented, 

visitation numbers could gradually increase to 

nearly 40,000 visitors per year. Developing a 

visitor/educational center to display and 

interpret the national memorial’s themes 

would accommodate more visitors and reduce 

congestion, improving the visitor experience, 

a long-term moderate to major beneficial 

effect. Designing the visitor center to blend 

into the environment and siting it so as to 

preserve the views from Montezuma Pass into 

the San Pedro Valley would minimize adverse 

effects on the viewshed, making the longterm adverse effects on recreation negligible. 

Removing the Montezuma Ranch structures 

and restoring and revegetating the area would 

enable visitors to enjoy an uninterrupted view 

of the San Pedro Valley from the Montezuma 

Peak scenic lookout, improving scenic values, 

a long-term minor to moderate beneficial 

effect on the visitor experience. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of alternative E on the 

visitor experience would be similar to those 

described for alternative A. 

Conclusion 

Under alternative E, access via memorial trails 

to natural resources and cultural exhibits for 

visitors with disabilities would increase, 

resulting in minor beneficial effects. The new, 

larger visitor/educational center would help to 

disperse visitors and alleviate congestion, a 

long-term moderate to major beneficial effect 

on visitor understanding and the visitor 

experience. Emphasizing the memorial’s 

interpretive themes through outreach 

programs alone would result in a minor 

beneficial effect on the visitor experience. 

The new developments that would affect the 

viewshed would result in long-term negligible 

adverse impacts on the visitor experience. 

Eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would benefit a small number of 

visitors, a negligible to minor beneficial effect 

on the visitor experience. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

There would not be any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that would 

affect the visitor experience. 

RELATIONSHIPS OF SHORTTERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Constructing roads, trails, or visitor and 

operational facilities; demolishing structures, 

and revegetating areas could cause noise or 

the closure of areas in the short term, which 

would result in slight short-term adverse 

effects on the visitor experience. However, in 

the long term much of this work would 

conserve resources and enhance the 

preservation and interpretation of the 

memorial’s resources, causing long-term 

beneficial effects. This would be true for all 

217
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

alternatives, with the greatest effect brought 

about by alternative B. 

Developing various partnerships would result 

in public appreciation and preservation of the 

memorial’s resources, a long-term minor to 

moderate beneficial effect. Alternative B or D 

would result in the greatest of these benefits. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Energy requirements would increase with the 

construction of new structures. This would be 

mitigated by designing all structures to be 

energy-efficient. Alternatives D and E would 

require the most energy of all the alternatives 

because of the number of structures that 

would be maintained and used. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE 

IMPACTS 

The experience of recreational users under 

alternative A would be degraded over time as 

recreational use in the national memorial 

continued to increase without improvements 

in the quality and maintenance of visitor 

facilities and recreational opportunities. The 

visitor experience could be adversely affected 

by developing educational and visitor centers, 

trails, or roads in the viewshed, particularly 

the view from Montezuma Pass. These 

adverse effects would be negligible under 

alternatives D and E because the new facilities, 

roads, and trails would be designed to blend in 

with the natural landscape. 

218
EFFECTS ON THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

ALTERNATIVE A 

Recreational Use 

Analysis. With few improvements in recreational facilities in the national memorial under 

alternative A, participation in recreational 

activities would increase at a rate approximately equal to the increases in visitation. 

Visitors would continue to hike, go to the 

visitor center, picnic, go birding, or go 

spelunking. 

As the overall visitation to the national 

memorial increased, not adding improvements would lead to the deterioration of 

facilities and attractions through overuse and 

deferred maintenance as funds were diverted 

to recreation-serving priorities. This might 

cause a decrease in visitation as the memorial 

became a less appealing recreation site. This 

adverse long-term effect on recreational use 

would not be distinguishable from other 

factors that could cause changes in the 

number of visits or the amount spent per 

recreation visit. Therefore, it would have a 

negligible effect on both a countywide and 

local basis. 

Cumulative Effects. Coronado National 

Forest serves local and regional recreational 

demand on lands adjacent to the memorial. As 

recreational use in the area continued to 

increase under the no-action alternative, the 

pressures on the national forest also would 

increase. Minor deterioration of the 

recreational experience in the national 

memorial might displace recreationists to the 

national forest, causing increased use of the 

forest. However, because federal lands with 

public access are widely available in Cochise 

County and throughout the state, this would 

have a negligible effect on recreational use. 

Conclusion. Recreational use at the national 

memorial under alternative A would be 

relatively small in proportion to the total 

recreational demand and recreational 

opportunities both in Cochise County and 

throughout the Southwest. The effects of this 

alternative on recreational use would be 

negligible both locally and regionally. 

Grazing 

Analysis. Continuing grazing in the national 

memorial under alternative A would not result 

in any economic changes relating to grazing 

fees or cattle production. Because the number 

of cattle grazing in the memorial would not 

change, the economic effect of this alternative 

on grazing would be negligible. 

Cumulative Effects. Cattle production in 

Cochise County has been declining in recent 

years, and the contribution of grazing to the 

local economy has likewise been diminishing. 

Implementing alternative A would not reduce 

grazing opportunities in the county and would 

not contribute to the cumulative effects of a 

reduction in local or regional grazing 

revenues. 

Conclusion. The long-term effects of grazing 

on the socioeconomic environment under 

alternative A would be negligible. 

Local and Regional Economy 

Analysis. Coronado National Memorial contributes to the local and regional economy by 

employing people and by attracting visitors 

from the local area and from outside the 

region, including the entire United States and 

Mexico. Approximately 90,000 visitors to the 

memorial in 2000 spent about $l81.50 per 

person per day (1995 data), adding about $7.3 

million to the local economy. This level of 

visitation generates about 47 local-area jobs. 

It also contributes to the local economy 

through the direct employment of 12 fulltime equivalent positions at the memorial. 

219
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

In the past 20 years, visitation at the memorial 

increased from 47,825 in 1981 to 89,523 in 

2000, (an increase of 87%). For this socioeconomic analysis of alternative A, it was assumed 

that the increase has been linear throughout 

this period and that visitation will continue to 

increase at the same rate. Using this approach, 

visitation would increase by about 65% during 

the 15- to 20-year life of this General 

Management Plan. This would produce annual 

visitation of about 150,000 in the year 2017. 

The national memorial would have a staff of 

about 20 people, and about 78 local-area jobs 

would be generated by visitation. In 1995 

dollars, increases in visitation would add 

about $5 million in sales to Cochise County. 

These changes would have a negligible effect 

on the county’s economy. The increase in 38 

jobs generated directly (7) and indirectly (31) 

by the memorial would represent less than 

0.1% of the employment of the county in 

2000. Likewise, $5 million in additional 

spending would represent only about 0.07% 

of sales in the county in 2000. 

This no-action alternative would result in 

negligible adverse effects on community 

services such as schools, sewers, water, and 

police. The demand for these services related 

to increased visitation at the memorial would 

be readily accommodated in a county that 

grew by 20% in the past decade. Tax revenues 

from new jobs and from purchases from retail 

merchants and restaurants by additional 

visitors would offset the costs of the 

additional services. 

NPS staff members often are trained in 

fighting wildland fires, and the memorial 

already cooperates with the U.S. Forest 

Service in fire protection. The addition of 

seven trained personnel at the memorial 

would result in a minor long-term beneficial 

effect on wildland fire control in the county. 

Cumulative Effects. Under the no-action 

alternative, actions at the national memorial 

would have negligible effects on social 

services and the economy of nearby 

communities and the county. 

Conclusion. New jobs and visitor spending 

associated with alternative A would have 

negligible effects on the economy. The ability 

to provide additional personnel trained in 

fighting wildland fires would be a minor longterm beneficial effect on the region. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Recreational Use 

Analysis. It is assumed that improved facilities 

and opportunities at Coronado National 

Memorial under alternative B would increase 

visitation in 2017 by 25%, compared to the 

no-action alternative (A). This would include 

visits to the memorial and visitor participation 

in offsite opportunities such as cultural 

festivals and regional ecosystem preservation 

activities. The socioeconomic effects of this 

level of recreation compared to the no-action 

alternative are shown in table 13. 

Using this assumption, the national memorial 

and its outreach programs would lead to approximately 188,000 visits or recreation-days 

per year, compared to about 150,000 under 

the no-action alternative. The visitor service 

enhancements, resource conservation 

measures, and outreach programs included in 

alternative B would enable the memorial to 

handle this level of recreation without 

reducing the quality of recreation experienced 

by visitors. The ability to accommodate an 

additional 38,000 recreational visits per year 

compared to the no-action alternative would 

be a moderate long-term beneficial effect on 

recreation use in Cochise County. 

220
Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

TABLE 13: SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES IN 2017 

Alternative 

Feature A B C D E 

Visitation increase compared 

to no-action alternative — 25% 25% 50% 50% 

Annual visitation 150,000 188,000 188,000 225,000 225,000 

Memorial employment (FTE) 20 29.5 25 29.5 29.5 

Indirect jobs from visitation 

(FTE) 

78 98 98 117 117 

Spending by visitors (1995 

dollars) 

$12.3 million $15.4 million $15.4 million $18.4 million $18.4 million 

Grazing level (AUMs) 340 0 0 214 126 

Implementation cost (2000 

dollars) 

— $2 million $1.6 million $3.6 million $4.7 million 

Annual cost for labor and 

materials (first 5 years only) — $400,000 $320,000 $720,000 $940,000 

Cumulative Effects. The national memorial’s 

increased capacity to provide recreational 

opportunities would help accommodate some 

of the increased demand for recreation that is 

expected to occur in Cochise County and 

southern Arizona over the next 15 years. 

Because of the improvements from alternative 

B, visitation would not be limited to the extent 

that visitors would seek other recreation 

opportunities such as visits to the nearby 

Coronado National Forest. In addition, by 

educating more visitors to the values of the 

natural and human history of the area, alternative B would help reduce the effects of the 

increasing demand for recreation throughout 

the area. Cumulatively with other nearby 

recreation facilities, the actions of alternative 

B would result in minor long-term beneficial 

effects on recreational use in the area. 

Conclusion. Alternative B, the preferred 

alternative, would result in moderate longterm beneficial effects on recreation by 

accommodating more recreation than 

alternative A. 

Grazing 

Analysis. Ending grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

and Montezuma allotments would eliminate 

340 AUMs of grazing capacity, which the 

ranchers would be unable to replace. 

However, this 340 AUMs of grazing capacity 

amounts to only a tiny portion of the forage 

needed to support the current livestock 

population of Cochise County (74,250–82,500 

head of cattle). In addition, cattle production 

represents just a small part of the county’s 

diverse economy. Although eliminating 340 

animal unit months of grazing capacity would 

be an adverse effect on the individual ranchers 

affected, the economic effect both locally and 

on a countywide basis would be negligible. 

Closing the grazing allotments would reduce 

conflicts between cattle and national 

memorial visitors and would facilitate the 

placement of recreational amenities in the 

parts of the memorial previously used for 

grazing. This would contribute to an overall 

increase in the memorial’s ability to offer 

recreational opportunities, resulting in a 

minor beneficial effect on recreational use. 

Grazing fees paid to the National Park Service 

represents a small percentage of the national 

memorial’s annual operating budget. Therefore ending the payment of grazing fees to the 

National Park Service would be a negligible 

221
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

adverse effect on the memorial’s operating 

budget. 

Cumulative Effects. A century ago, cattle 

production, along with mining, provided the 

economic foundation of Cochise County. 

However, the importance of cattle production 

has diminished as the human population has 

grown and other sources of income have been 

developed. Regardless of actions taken by the 

national memorial, rangelands will continue 

to be converted to other uses, cattle 

production in the county will continue to 

decline, and the percentage that ranching 

contributes to the county economy will 

diminish. Implementing alternative B would 

make a negligible contribution to this decline. 

Conclusion. Ending grazing in the national 

memorial would result in a negligible adverse 

effect on the county’s economy from reduced 

cattle production. 

Local and Regional Economy 

Analysis. If visitation to the national 

memorial increased 25% by 2017 under 

alternative B, compared to alternative A, 

annual spending by visitors would be about 

$15.4 million, or about $3 million more than 

visitor spending under alternative A. The 

memorial would have 9.5 more staff members 

and would indirectly produce 20 additional 

local area jobs compared to the no-action 

alternative. These changes, which would 

increase employment and sales in the county 

by less than 0.1% of the year 2000 values, 

would have a negligible beneficial effect on 

the economy of Cochise County. The demand 

for community services such as schools, 

sewers, water, and police would result in a 

negligible adverse effect compared to 

alternative A. Tax revenues from the new jobs 

and retail and restaurant purchases by the 

additional visitors would offset the costs of 

the added services. 

The facility construction, rehabilitation, and 

revegetation called for by alternative B would 

involve costs of slightly more than $2 million 

for labor and materials. That amount would 

be spent over 15 years, with most of the 

construction taking place in the first 5 years. 

In addition, in the first 5 years about $400,000 

per year would be spent for labor and 

materials. Most of these funds probably would 

be spent in Cochise County and the surrounding region. These expenditures, which 

would represent less than 0.1% of the 

county’s year 2000 sales, would have a 

negligible short-term beneficial effect on the 

economy of Cochise County. Construction 

employment in Cochise County is approximately 1,200 (Arizona DES 2001). The 

construction activity required to implement 

alternative B would be within the capabilities 

of the local construction labor force. 

Closing the grazing allotments in the national 

memorial would reduce grazing production 

by 340 AUMs per year. Currently a 6- to 8-

month-old weaned calf sells for $250 (heifer) 

to $350 (steer) (Ax and Armer 1993). Grazing 

in the two allotments would produce 

approximately 50 such calves annually. The 

loss of this production capacity would result 

in a long-term negligible adverse effect on the 

county economy of about $12,500 to $17,500 

(50 calves x cost per calf). 

NPS staff members often are trained in 

fighting wildland fires, and the memorial 

already cooperates with the U.S. Forest 

Service in fire protection. The addition of nine 

trained personnel at the memorial compared 

to the no-action alternative would have a 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

Cumulative Effects. Cochise County has a 

diverse economy that employed about 38,000 

people in 2000 and produced sales of about 

$700 million. The growing population of 

southern Arizona and national economic 

trends will drive socioeconomic conditions in 

the county, with little effect from the amount 

contributed by Coronado National Memorial. 

During the first five years, alternative B would 

add 10 to 12 jobs to the local economy, 

222
compared to the no-action alternative. After 

the construction phase was completed, this 

number would drop to about 5 additional 

jobs. This would be a negligible beneficial 

effect when compared to the total 

employment in Cochise County. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative B 

would result in negligible beneficial effects on 

the economy of Cochise County compared to 

alternative A. These effects would result from 

the direct and indirect creation of local jobs, 

increased spending associated with more 

visitation, and expenditures on construction 

labor and supplies. Negligible adverse effects 

would result from decreased cattle 

production. The addition of NPS staff trained 

in wildland fire suppression would result in a 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Recreational Use 

Analysis. Improved facilities and opportunities at Coronado National Memorial under 

alternative C would increase visitation in 2017 

by 25%, compared to the no-action 

alternative (A). This would include visits to 

the memorial and visitor participation in 

offsite opportunities generated through 

outreach programs. The socioeconomic 

effects of this level of recreation compared to 

the no-action alternative are shown in table 

13, page 221. 

The effects on local and regional recreation 

from implementing alternative C would be 

similar to those described for alternative B. 

The visitor service enhancements, resource 

conservation measures, and outreach efforts 

included in alternative C would enable the 

memorial to manage this level of recreation 

without adverse effects on the quality of 

recreation experienced by visitors. The 

memorial’s ability to accommodate more 

recreational use than in alternative A would 

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

produce a moderate long-term beneficial 

effect on recreation in Cochise County. 

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects 

from alternative C would be similar to those 

described for alternative B. 

Conclusion. Improvements in facilities and 

resource conservation brought about by 

implementing alternative C — increased 

recreation services, improved facilities, better 

controls, and enhanced visitor experience — 

would result in minor long-term beneficial 

effects on recreation. 

Grazing 

Analysis. Ending grazing in the two 

allotments in the memorial would result in the 

same effects as described for alternative B. 

Eliminating 340 AUMs of grazing capacity 

would adversely affect the individual ranchers 

who would lose that amount of grazing 

capacity, but the countywide economic effect 

would be negligible. Eliminating grazing on 

the memorial’s allotments would contribute to 

an overall increase in the memorial’s ability to 

offer recreational opportunities; however, 

since no new trails would be developed to 

facilitate visitor access into the grassland 

areas, the beneficial effect on recreational use 

would be negligible. The effect of ending the 

payment of grazing fees to the National Park 

Service would be similar to that described for 

alternative B and would have a negligible 

adverse effect on the memorial’s operating 

budget. 

Cumulative Effects. Eliminating grazing from 

the national memorial would slightly reduce 

the number of cattle raised annually in 

Cochise County. Although the individual 

ranchers would be adversely affected, the 

countywide economic effect from alternative 

C would be negligible. 

Conclusion. Eliminating grazing in the 

national memorial would result in a negligible 

223
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

long-term adverse effect on the county’s 

economy from reduced cattle production. 

Local and Regional Economy 

Analysis. If visitation to the national 

memorial increased by 25% under alternative 

C by 2017, compared to the no-action 

alternative, annual spending by visitors would 

be about $15.4 million, or about $3 million 

more than visitor spending under alternative 

A. The memorial would have 5 more staff 

members and would indirectly produce 20 

more local area jobs compared to alternative 

A. These changes, which would increase 

employment and sales in the county by less 

than 0.1% of the year 2000 values, would 

cause a negligible beneficial effect on the 

economy of Cochise County. The demand for 

community services such as schools, sewers, 

water, and police would result in a negligible 

adverse effect compared to alternative A. Tax 

revenues from the new jobs and from retail 

and restaurant purchases by the additional 

visitors would offset the costs of the 

additional services. 

The facility construction, rehabilitation, and 

revegetation called for by alternative C would 

involve costs of $1.6 million for labor and materials. That amount would be spent over 15 

years, with most of the construction taking 

place in the first 5 years. In addition, in the 

first 5 years about $320,000 per year would be 

spent for labor and materials. Most of these 

funds probably would be spent in Cochise 

County and the surrounding region. The level 

of construction brought about by alternative 

C would be within the capabilities of the local 

construction labor force. These expenditures, 

which would represent less than 0.1% of the 

county’s year 2000 sales, would have a 

negligible short-term beneficial effect on the 

economy of Cochise County. 

Closing the grazing allotments in the national 

memorial would reduce grazing production 

by 340 AUMs per year. This loss of 

production capacity would be similar to those 

described for alternative B and would result in 

a long-term negligible adverse effect on the 

county economy. 

NPS staff members often are trained in 

fighting wildland fires, and the memorial 

already cooperates with the U.S. Forest 

Service in fire protection. The addition of five 

trained personnel at the memorial compared 

to the no-action alternative would have a 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

Cumulative Effects. During the first five 

years, alternative C would add 10 to 12 jobs to 

the local economy, compared to the noaction alternative. After the construction 

phase was completed, this number would 

drop to about 5 additional jobs. This would be 

a negligible beneficial effect when compared 

to the total employment in Cochise County. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative C 

would result in negligible beneficial effects on 

the economy of Cochise County compared to 

alternative A. These effects would result from 

the direct and indirect creation of local jobs, 

increased spending associated with increased 

visitation, and expenditures on construction 

labor and supplies. Negligible adverse effects 

would result from decreased cattle production. The addition of NPS staff trained in 

wildland fire suppression would result in a 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Recreational Use 

Analysis. Improved opportunities and 

facilities added to the national memorial 

under alternative D (a new educational center, 

the commemorative feature) would increase 

visitation in 2017 by 50%, compared to the 

no-action alternative. This would include 

visits to the memorial and visitor participation 

in offsite opportunities such as Coronadorelated events at various universities. The 

224
socioeconomic effects of this level of recreation compared to alternative A are shown in 

table 13, page 221. 

Using this assumption, the national memorial 

and its outreach programs would provide 

about 225,000 visits or recreation-days per 

year, compared to about 150,000 in alternative 

A. The enhanced visitor services, resource 

conservation measures, and outreach efforts 

included in alternative D would enable the 

memorial to accommodate this increased 

visitation without adverse effect to the quality 

of recreation experienced by visitors. The 

ability to accommodate the increased recreational use compared to the no-action alternative would result in a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect on recreation in Cochise 

County. 

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects 

on recreational use from alternative D would 

be similar to those described for alternative A. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative D, 

which would involve more recreational 

opportunities than alternative A, would result 

in moderate long-term beneficial effects on 

recreational use. 

Grazing 

Analysis. Eliminating grazing from the 

Montezuma allotment would remove 126 

AUMs of grazing capacity from the memorial, 

and the ranchers who would lose this grazing 

capacity would not be able to replace it. The 

126 AUMs of grazing capacity is only a small 

portion of the grazing required to support the 

current livestock population of Cochise 

County (74,250–82,500 head of cattle). 

Although eliminating these AUMs would have 

an adverse effect on individual ranchers, the 

countywide adverse effect would be 

negligible. Eliminating grazing fees to the 

National Park Service for the Montezuma 

allotment would have a negligible adverse 

effect on the memorial’s operating budget. 

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

Ending grazing in the Montezuma allotment 

would reduce conflicts between visitors and 

cattle and enable the National Park Service to 

place recreational amenities south of the main 

road, including an educational center and a 

commemorative feature. This would allow the 

national memorial to offer more recreational 

opportunities, resulting in a minor beneficial 

effect on recreational use. 

Cumulative Effects. Regardless of actions 

taken in the memorial, cattle production in the 

county would continue to decline, both in the 

number of cattle produced and its percentage 

of contribution to the county economy. Eliminating 126 AUMs under alternative D would 

make a negligible contribution to this decline. 

Conclusion. Eliminating grazing from the 

Montezuma allotment would result in a minor 

long-term beneficial effect on recreational use 

and a negligible adverse effect on the county’s 

economy from reduced cattle production. 

Local and Regional Economy 

Analysis. If visitation to the national memorial increased by 50% under alternative D by 

2017, compared to the no-action alternative, 

annual spending by visitors would be about 

$18.4 million, or about $6 million more than 

visitor spending under alternative A. The memorial would have 10 more staff members and 

would indirectly produce 39 additional local 

area jobs compared to the no-action alternative. These changes, which would increase 

employment and sales in the county by less 

than 0.1% of the year 2000 values, would 

result in a negligible beneficial effect on the 

economy of Cochise County. The demand for 

community services such as schools, sewers, 

water, and police would result in a negligible 

adverse effect compared to alternative A. Tax 

revenues from the new jobs and retail and 

restaurant purchases by the additional visitors 

would offset the costs of the added services. 

The facility construction, rehabilitation, and 

revegetation called for by alternative D would 

225
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

involve costs of $3.6 million for labor and materials. That amount would be spent over 15 

years, with most of the construction taking 

place in the first 5 years. In addition, in the 

first 5 years about $720,000 per year would be 

spent for labor and materials. Most of these 

funds probably would be spent in Cochise 

County and the surrounding region. The level 

of construction brought about by alternative 

D would be within the capabilities of the local 

construction labor force. These expenditures, 

which would represent less than 0.1% of the 

county’s year 2000 sales, would have a 

negligible short-term beneficial effect on the 

economy of Cochise County. 

Eliminating grazing from the Montezuma 

allotment would reduce grazing production 

by 126 AUMs per year. This loss of 

production capacity would result in a longterm negligible adverse effect on the county 

economy of about $4,500 to $6,300 (18 calves 

x cost per calf). 

NPS staff members often are trained in 

fighting wildland fires, and the memorial 

already cooperates with the U.S. Forest 

Service in fire protection. The addition of ten 

trained personnel at the memorial compared 

to the no-action alternative would have a 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

Cumulative Effects. Cochise County has a 

diverse economy that employed about 38,000 

people in 2000 and produced sales of about 

$700 million. The growing population of 

southern Arizona and national economic 

trends will drive socioeconomic conditions in 

the county, with little effect from the amount 

contributed by Coronado National Memorial. 

Alternative D would result in a negligible 

beneficial effect on the total economy of 

Cochise County. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative D 

would result in negligible beneficial effects on 

the economy of Cochise County compared to 

alternative A. These effects would result from 

the direct and indirect creation of local jobs, 

increased spending associated with more 

visitation, and expenditures on construction 

labor and supplies. Negligible adverse effects 

would result from decreased cattle 

production. The addition of NPS staff trained 

in wildland fire suppression would result in a 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

ALTERNATIVE E 

Recreational Use 

Analysis. Improved facilities such as the new 

visitor center and opportunities at Coronado 

National Memorial under alternative E would 

increase visitation in 2017 by 50%, compared 

to alternative A. This would include visits to 

the memorial and visitor participation in 

offsite opportunities. The socioeconomic 

effects of this level of recreation compared to 

alternative A are shown in table 13, page 221. 

Using this assumption, the national memorial 

and its outreach programs would provide approximately 225,000 visits or recreation-days 

per year, compared to about 150,000 under 

the no-action alternative. The improved 

facilities, enhanced visitor services, resource 

conservation measures, and outreach programs that would be included in alternative E 

would enable the memorial to accommodate 

this increased visitation without reducing the 

quality of recreation experienced by visitors. 

The ability to accommodate the increased 

level of recreational use compared to the noaction alternative would cause a moderate 

long-term beneficial effect on recreation in 

Cochise County. 

Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects 

on recreational use from alternative E would 

be similar to those described for alternative A. 

Conclusion. Alternative E would result in 

more recreation opportunities than would be 

available under alternative A; this would be a 

moderate long-term beneficial effect on 

recreational use. 

226
Grazing 

Analysis. Ending grazing in the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would remove 214 AUMs of grazing 

capacity from the memorial, and the ranchers 

who would lose this grazing capacity would be 

unable to replace it. The 214 AUMs of grazing 

capacity is only a small portion of the grazing 

required to support the current livestock 

population of Cochise County (74,250–82,500 

head of cattle). Although eliminating these 

AUMs would have an adverse effect on 

individual ranchers, the countywide effect 

would be negligible. Ending the payment of 

one allotment’s grazing fees to the National 

Park Service would be a negligible adverse 

effect on the memorial’s operating budget. 

Eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would reduce conflicts between 

visitors and cattle and would enable the 

National Park Service to place recreational 

amenities north of the main road, including a 

new visitor center. This would allow the 

national memorial to offer more recreational 

opportunities, resulting in a minor beneficial 

effect on recreational use. 

Cumulative Effects. Regardless of actions 

taken in the memorial, cattle production in the 

county would continue to decline, both in the 

number of cattle produced and its percentage 

of contribution to the county economy. Eliminating 214 AUMs under alternative E would 

make a minor contribution to this decline. 

Conclusion. Ending grazing in the Joe’s 

Spring allotment would cause a minor longterm beneficial effect on recreational use and 

a negligible adverse effect on the county’s 

economy from reduced cattle production. 

Local and Regional Economy 

Analysis. If visitation to the national 

memorial increased by 50% under alternative 

E by 2017, compared to the no-action 

alternative, annual spending by visitors would 

be about $18.4 million, or about $6 million 

Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

more than visitor spending under alternative 

A. The memorial would have 10 more staff 

members and would indirectly produce 39 

additional local area jobs compared to the noaction alternative. These changes, which 

would increase employment and sales in the 

county by less than 0.1% of the year 2000 

values, would have a negligible beneficial 

effect on the economy of Cochise County. 

The demand for community services such as 

schools, sewers, water, and police would 

increase, resulting in a negligible adverse 

effect. Tax revenues from the new jobs and 

from retail and restaurant purchases by the 

added visitors would offset the costs of the 

additional services. 

The facility construction, rehabilitation, and 

revegetation called for by alternative E would 

involve costs of $4.7 million for labor and materials. That amount would be spent over 15 

years, with most of the construction taking 

place in the first 5 years. In addition, in the 

first 5 years about $940,000 per year would be 

spent for labor and materials. Most of these 

funds probably would be spent in Cochise 

County and the surrounding region. The level 

of construction in alternative E would be 

within the capabilities of the local construction labor force. These expenditures, which 

would represent less than 0.1% of the 

county’s year 2000 sales, would have a 

negligible short-term beneficial effect on the 

economy of Cochise County. 

Eliminating grazing from the Joe’s Spring 

allotment would reduce grazing production 

by 214 AUMs per year. This loss of production capacity would result in a long-term 

negligible adverse effect on the county 

economy of about $8,000 to $11,200 (32 calves 

x cost per calf). 

NPS staff members often are trained in 

fighting wildland fires, and the memorial 

already cooperates with the U.S. Forest 

Service in fire protection. The addition of ten 

trained personnel at the memorial compared 

to the no-action alternative would have a 

227
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

Cumulative Effects. Cochise County has a 

diverse economy that employed about 38,000 

people in 2000 and produced sales of about 

$700 million. The growing population of 

southern Arizona and national economic 

trends will drive socioeconomic conditions in 

the county, with little effect from the amount 

contributed by Coronado National Memorial. 

Alternative E would result in a negligible 

beneficial effect on the total economy of 

Cochise County. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative E 

would result in negligible beneficial effects on 

Cochise County’s economy compared to 

alternative A. These effects would result from 

the direct and indirect creation of local jobs, 

increased spending associated with increased 

visitation, and expenditures on construction 

labor and supplies. Negligible adverse effects 

would result from decreased cattle 

production. The addition of NPS staff trained 

in wildland fire suppression would result in a 

minor long-term beneficial effect on wildland 

fire control in the county. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF 

RESOURCES 

Implementing alternative A would not result 

in any additional commitment of resources to 

new activities or programs other than those 

already underway. The funds that would be 

expended under alternatives B, C, D, and E for 

construction materials and for labor needed 

to construct facilities and operate the 

programs would be irreversibly and 

irretrievably committed. The resources 

committed would vary by alternative, with the 

greatest expenditures being made under 

alternatives D and E. 

RELATIONSHIPS OF SHORTTERM USES OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY 

Constructing roads, trails, or visitor and 

operational facilities; demolishing structures, 

and revegetating areas could result in minor 

short-term adverse impacts on recreational 

use. However, in the long term facilities and 

programs would be enhanced, resulting in 

minor to moderate beneficial effects on 

recreation. Alternatives B and E would result 

in the most favorable overall net benefits. 

Continuing recreational use and visitor 

activities without improvements at the 

memorial under alternative A would reduce 

the long-term productivity of the socioeconomic environment over the long term. 

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND 

CONSERVATION POTENTIAL 

Energy requirements would increase with the 

construction of new structures. This would be 

mitigated by designing all structures to be 

energy-efficient. Alternatives D and E would 

require the most energy of all the alternatives 

because of the number of structures that 

would be maintained and used. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE 

IMPACTS 

The experience of recreational users under 

alternative A would be degraded over time as 

recreational use in the national memorial 

continued to increase without improvements 

in the quality and maintenance of visitor 

facilities and recreational opportunities. With 

increases in the local population and out-ofarea visitation to the memorial, the conflicts 

between livestock and visitors would continue 

and worsen. Eventually this would lead to 

reduced socioeconomic benefits locally and 

regionally. Continued grazing under 

alternatives A, D, and E would result in minor 

long-term adverse effects on socioeconomic 

conditions related to recreation use. 

228
Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

Discontinuing grazing under alternatives B 

and C would result in the loss of grazing fees. 

229
CONSULTATION

AND COORDINATION
INVOLVEMENT OF PUBLIC AND OTHER AGENCIES

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

This General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement for Coronado 

National Memorial represents thoughts presented by the National Park Service, Native 

American groups, and the public. Consultation and coordination among the agencies and 

the public were vitally important throughout 

the planning process. The public had two primary avenues by which it participated during 

the development of the plan: participation in 

public meetings and responses to newsletters. 

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed about and involved 

in the planning process for Coronado 

National Memorial. A mailing list was 

compiled that consisted of members of 

governmental agencies, nongovernmental 

groups, businesses, legislators, local 

governments, and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement was 

published in the Federal Register on February 

22, 2000. A newsletter issued in March 2000 

described the planning effort. Public meetings 

in Sierra Vista and Bisbee in April 2000 were 

attended by 30 people. The National Park 

Service also met with city, county, and federal 

agencies. The National Park Service received 

several comments about the meetings and 

newsletter, and a number of these comments 

were incorporated into the issues for the plan. 

A second newsletter distributed in March 

2001 described draft alternative concepts for 

managing the national memorial. A total of 22 

electronic and mailed comments were 

received in response to that newsletter. 

Several letters favored making only minimal 

changes to the current management of the 

memorial. Some people expressed concern 

about overdevelopment. Some people 

commented in favor of the memorial offering 

more educational opportunities for visitors 

and facilities to support these activities; others 

said they would like more trails in the national 

memorial, and some said there should be less 

grazing in the memorial. 

A third newsletter issued in June 2001 

described alternatives for grazing at Coronado 

National Memorial and asked if people 

thought any of the memorial was suitable for 

wilderness designation. A wide range of 

opinions was received in 38 electronic and 

mailed comments. Some people wrote in favor 

of allowing grazing in whole or in part; others 

commented in favor of eliminating all grazing 

from the memorial. Some commenters said 

they favored formal wilderness designations; 

others wrote to oppose any wilderness 

designation. 

A fourth newsletter published in February 

2001 explained the National Park Service’s 

determination regarding wilderness and the 

possible range of actions on grazing. 

CONSULTATION 

Section 106 Consultation 

Agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over historic properties are 

required by section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

(16 USC 270, et seq.), to take into account the 

effect of any undertaking on properties 

eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places. Such agencies also must allow the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an 

opportunity to comment. To meet the 

requirements of 36 CFR 800, the National 

Park Service sent letters to the Arizona state 

historic preservation office and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation on March 7, 

2000, inviting their participation in the 

planning process. Both offices were sent all 

the newsletters with a request for comments. 

232
Representatives from the Arizona state 

historic preservation office visited Coronado 

National Memorial on June 6, 2001, and were 

briefed on alternatives for the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement. The sites visited were the Montezuma Ranch, Montezuma Pass, the visitor 

center, the housing area, and the picnic area. 

The representatives of that office indicated 

that for the purposes of this plan, the visitor 

center should be considered eligible for listing 

on the national register, but that the other 

sites would require further evaluation. 

Consultation with American Indians 

Letters were sent to the following American 

Indian groups on March 22, 2000, to invite 

their participation in the planning process: 

Ak-chin Indian Community 

Fort McDowell Mojave-Apache Indian 

Community 

Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Hopi Tribe 

Mescalero Apache Tribe 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona 

Pueblo of Zuni 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

San Carlos Apache Tribe 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

Tonto Apache Tribe 

White Mountain Apache Tribe 

Yavapai-Apache Tribe 

The tribes were briefed on the scope of the 

planning project and the preliminary 

alternatives by newsletters and follow-up 

telephone calls soliciting comments. 

Comments included a letter from the Hopi 

Tribe and oral comments from other tribes. 

These comments included expressions of 

concern that recreation not be overemphasized at the memorial and that any traditional cultural properties in the area be 

respected. Conversations have been continuing throughout the planning process to inform 

Involvement of Public and Other Agencies 

the tribes about the progress of the plan and 

identify how and to what extent they would 

like to be involved. The listed tribes were sent 

a copy of the Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. This was 

followed by telephone calls to the tribes. 

There were no comments from the tribes at 

this time. 

Consultation Regarding Threatened 

or Endangered Species 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service began in March 2000, when the 

National Park Service requested a list of 

endangered and threatened species that might 

be found in or near Coronado National 

Memorial. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

responded on March 27, 2000 with a list of the 

endangered or threatened species that might 

be found there. This response is included in 

appendix F. 

Consultation with Other Agencies 

Representatives of the national memorial met 

on April 4, 2000, with and representatives of 

the United State Border Patrol, Coronado 

National Forest, Fort Huachuca, the Bureau 

of Land Management, and the Cochise 

County Planning Department. The scope and 

issue of the plan were discussed, and these 

agencies were placed on the mailing list so that 

they would receive all newsletters for 

comment. 

PUBLISHING THE DRAFT 

DOCUMENT 

A notice of availability of the draft document 

was published in the Federal Register on 

August 6, 2003 (FR Vol. 68, No. 151). About 

500 copies of the draft were distributed to 

government agencies, public interest groups, 

and individuals. In addition, the complete text 

of the Draft General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement was posted 

on the NPS Web site. 

233
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVING COPIES

 OF THIS DOCUMENT 

International Agencies Organizations 

International Boundary and Water American Lands Alliance* Commission* 

Federal Officials and Agencies American Indians 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* Ak-chin Indian Community 

Fort Huachuca Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Community 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Forest Service Hopi Tribe

Natural Resource Conservation Service Mescalero Apache Tribe

U.S. Border Patrol Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona 

U.S. Department of the Interior Pueblo of Zuni 

Bureau of Land Management Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service* San Carlos Apache Tribe 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency* Tohono O’odham Nation 

Tonto Apache Tribe 

State Officials and Agencies White Mountain Apache Tribe 

Yavapai-Apache Tribe Governor Jane Dee Hull 

Senator Jon Kyl 

Senator John McCain Individuals 

Representative Jim Kolbe 

Arizona Department of Environmental Curt Bradley, Martin Taylor, Tim Lengerich, Quality Alexander “Sandy” Kunzer, Steve Saway* Arizona Department of Parks and Tourism Jeff Burgess* Arizona Game and Fish Commission Dieter Kamm* 

Arizona Highway and Transportation Alice Moffett* 

Department Warren and Barbara North* 

Arizona State Historic Preservation Office 

New Mexico Highlands University* 

*An asterisk denotes those who commented 

on the draft plan. Local Agencies 

Cochise County, Planning Department* 

234 
Review and Comments on the Draft Document 

REVIEW AND COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT DOCUMENT

This section contains a summary of comments 

received through a public meeting, letters, and 

e-mail after the Draft General Management 

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for 

Coronado National Memorial was released on 

August 6, 2003. The National Park Service 

considered all written and oral comments 

according to the requirements of 40 CFR 

1503. 

COMMENTS 

A public meeting was held in September 2003 

at Sierra Vista. There were four people at this 

meeting. In general, the comments at the 

public meetings sought clarification of the 

various alternatives with some discussion on 

the pros and cons of each alternative. Other 

comments were in regard to why the 

memorial would not allow camping. 

During the comment period (August 6 

through October 6, 2003), 10 comment letters 

and six electronic responses were received 

commenting on the draft from governing 

bodies, government agencies, organized 

interest groups, and individuals. All comments 

are reproduced on the following pages. The 

comments, in general, expressed support for 

either or both the preferred alternative or 

alternative C. A number of comments 

supported the proposal to end grazing, saying 

that both the visitor experience and natural 

resources would benefit. Some comments 

suggested that the natural resource benefits 

could be greater than predicted in the 

environmental consequences section of the 

draft document. The following are NPS 

response to substantive comments and 

suggestions for modifications of the draft 

plan. A substantive comment requiring 

response must meet one of the following 

criteria found in the regulations that 

implemented the National Environmental 

Policy Act (section 1503.4.1-5): 

(1) Modify alternatives including the 

proposed action. 

(2) Develop and evaluate alternatives not 

previously given serious consideration by 

the agency. 

(3) Supplement, improve, or modify its 

analysis. 

(4) Make factual corrections. 

(5) Explain why comments do not warrant 

further agency responses, citing the 

sources, authorities, or reasons which 

support the agency’s position and, if 

appropriate, indicate those circumstances 

which would trigger agency reappraisal or 

further response. 

Comment from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

During the public comment period, the park 

followed up the transmittal of the Draft 

General Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service with a telephone conversation. That 

agency had no comment at that time on the 

draft plan and may send the National Park 

Service a letter with that finding. 

Comment from American Lands Alliance 

“We are disappointed that alternative B does 

not include a goal of determining the 

‘feasibility of reintroducing native plants and 

animals in the memorial that were present at 

the time of the Coronado Expedition.’” 

Response: Alternative B seeks to improve both visitor experience and 

natural resource habitat while balancing 

these improvements with the cost of any 

new programs. Under alternative B the 

memorial would continue to cooperate 

with other agencies such as Arizona 

Game and Fish Department and U.S. 

235 
Fish and Wildlife Service on local 

reintroduction and recovery efforts. 

Comment from the Center 

for Biological Diversity 

“Coronado undoubtedly also saw an 

abundance of wild game. Restoring wild game 

to pristine levels should likewise be 

considered part of the memorial’s mission.” 

Response: See above comment. Also, 

the phasing out of grazing in alternative 

B will result in some wildlife species 

having more food and cover. Grasslands 

habitat for birds and small mammals as 

well as the animals that prey on them 

will be improved and may result in 

increased species diversity. Additional 

discussion can be found in the 

environmental consequences section of 

the plan on how alternative B would 

affect wildlife habitat and populations. 

Comment from Steve Saway 

The memorial currently has no area for 

designated overnight camping. 

Response: As stated on page 69 in the 

draft document, adequate camping for 

memorial visitors is available outside 

the national memorial and facilities in 

the memorial are not necessary to 

accomplish the memorial’s mission. 

Comments on Distribution of the Draft 

Document 

A number of people at the public meeting and 

some letters commented that National Park 

Service should reduce the number of 

documents produced and the cost of mailing 

the documents. 

Response: The National Park Service sent out 

a postcard to people on the mailing list for the 

Final General Management Plan/ Environmental Impact Statement offering the final plan 

in a printed version, on a compact disk as a 

PDF file, or as an electronic version that could 

be downloaded from the NPS planning website at <http://planning.nps.gov/ plans.cfm>. 

Also a few printed documents were available 

at the park’s visitor center. This helped reduce 

the number of documents printed and mailed. 

Comments on NPS Operations 

Several comments were received that made 

recommendations for various park 

operational programs. For example, one 

commenter suggested the park have recycling 

bins at the visitor center. Although many of 

these suggestions may have considerable 

merit, they are too detailed to be included in a 

general management plan, which is intended 

to be a long-range, general guidance 

document. However, these suggestions will be 

kept and considered as the park moves into 

more detailed implementation planning. 

Other comments on NPS operations that were 

too detailed for a general management plan 

included the following: 

Interpretive activities should look at 

ways to involve the Hispanic 

community. 

New pullouts and waysides (these are 

discussed in the preferred alternative) 

should be provided with garbage cans. 

The National Park Service should 

continue to look at ways to enhance 

interpretation of the Coronado entrada 

and the Spanish Colonial Period. 

The National Park Service should 

contact the International Boundary and 

Water Commission if any work is 

planned on International Boundary 

Monuments 100, 101, and 102. 

236 























APPENDIXES/REFERENCES/

PREPARERS/INDEX
267
APPENDIXES 

268
Appendix A: Legislation 

269
APPENDIXES 

270
Appendix A: Legislation 

271
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF KEY LEGAL MANDATES

Legal mandates provide direction for what can 

and cannot be considered in this plan. Several 

provisions of key legal mandates are summarized 

below. 

NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION 

ACT OF 1978 (PL 95-625) 

Section 604(b) of the National Parks and 

Recreation Act requires that general management plans be prepared and revised in a timely 

manner for each unit in the national park 

system. The act further specifies that general 

management plans shall include measures for 

the preservation of the area’s resources, indications of the types and intensities of development 

associated with public use of the unit, visitor 

carrying capacities for all areas of the unit, and 

indications of potential modifications of the 

unit’s external boundaries if needed. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS 

AMENDED (16 USC 1531 ET SEQ.) 

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act is to 

protect animal and plant species that are 

currently in danger of extinction (endangered) 

and those that may become so in the foreseeable 

future (threatened). Section 7 requires all federal 

agencies to ensure that their activities do not 

have adverse impacts on the continued existence 

of threatened or endangered species or on 

designated areas (critical habitats) that are 

important in conserving those species. Thus, the 

National Park Service is required to fully 

integrate endangered species conservation 

planning into park system management. 

Agencies also are required to consult with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out by the 

agency does not jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or critical habitat. The 

result of formal or informal consultation with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service should be 

documented in an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY 

ACT OF 1969 (NEPA — PL 91-190) 

The National Environmental Policy Act sets 

forth the federal policy to preserve important 

historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our 

national heritage. Another purpose of the act is 

to help public officials make decisions that are 

based on an objective understanding of 

environmental consequences and to take actions 

that protect, restore, and enhance the 

environment. The act applies to all federal 

projects or projects that require federal 

involvement. All federal agencies are directed to 

use a systematic interdisciplinary approach that 

integrates natural and social sciences in planning 

and decision-making that may affect the human 

environment. This act and the Council on Environmental Quality implementing regulations 

describe the process that must be followed by a 

proposed federal action such as this plan. 

Among the steps in the process, this act and the 

regulations require early coordination, called 

“scoping,” to determine the scope and 

significance of issues to be addressed in an environmental impact statement. A structured 

format for public involvement during the public 

review process is specified. When preparing an 

environmental impact statement, federal 

agencies are further required to rigorously 

explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed action. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED (16 USC 470, 

ET SEQ.) 

The National Historic Preservation Act 

establishes as federal policy that the historical 

and cultural foundations of the nation’s heritage 

be preserved. Section 106 of the act requires that 

federal agencies that have direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over undertakings take into account 

the effect of those undertakings on properties 

eligible for or listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. The section also gives the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and 

the state historic preservation officer an 

272
Appendix B: Summary of Key Legal Mandates 

opportunity to comment on the undertaking. 

The 1992 amendments to the act have further 

defined the roles of American Indian tribes and 

the affected public in the section 106 consultation process. Section 110 of the act requires 

that federal managers, in consultation with the 

state historic preservation officers, establish 

programs to identify, evaluate, and nominate 

properties to the National Register of Historic 

Places. National register eligible or listed 

properties and national historic landmarks are 

afforded special protection in federal project 

planning and implementation. In 1999 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation issued 

revised section 106 regulations. The role of early 

and continuing consultation with the state 

historic preservation office and American Indian 

groups is clarified. 

Under the terms of stipulation VI. E of the 1995 

programmatic agreement among the National 

Park Service, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers, the 

National Park Service, “in consultation with the 

SHPO, will make a determination about which 

undertakings are programmatic exclusions 

under IV. A and B, and all other undertakings, 

potential effects on those resources to seek 

review and comment under 36 CFR 800.4–6 

during the plan review process.” The 

implementation of all construction actions in the 

preferred alternative would require consultation 

and review at the scoping, conceptual, and 

design stages by the Arizona state historic 

preservation office. American Indian groups 

would participate in these reviews as well. 

In the following table the specific undertakings 

are listed, along with the National Park Service’s 

determination of how those individual 

undertakings relate to the 1995 programmatic 

agreement. 

TABLE B-1: ACTIONS THAT MAY AFFECT CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ASSOCIATED COMPLIANCE 

REQUIREMENTS 

(Requirements of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and/or the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation) 

Action Compliance Requirement 

Rehabilitate visitor center Further SHPO review necessary 

Construct visitor center annex No further SHPO review unless construction would 

affect National Register of Historic Places archeological 

sites or unless location would affect a cultural landscape 

Develop trails and wayside exhibits No further SHPO review necessary 

Demolish Montezuma Ranch No further SHPO review unless ranch determined 

structures eligible for National Register of Historic Places 

Upgrade facilities at Montezuma Pass No further SHPO review necessary 

Do rehabilitation work in housing area Further SHPO review necessary 

273
APPENDIX C: WILDERNESS SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 

DRAFT MEMORANDUM 

To: Director 

From: Regional Director, IMR 

Subject: Wilderness Suitability Assessment - Coronado National Memorial 

In keeping with the instructions of the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577, 78 Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1131­

1136) and National Park Service Management Policies (Chapter 6: Wilderness Preservation and 

Management), we have completed an in-park wilderness suitability assessment evaluating the 

memorial, an area of 4,750 acres. 

In accordance with law and NPS Management Policies, Coronado National Memorial has 

reviewed the memorial’s land and determined that they are neither roadless nor undeveloped, 

nor are of sufficient size to make practicable their preservation as wilderness. 

The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as “an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation which 

is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions...” 

Our suitability assessment finds that the majority of this memorial’s land would not meet the 

primary definitions of wilderness, as defined in the Wilderness Act. This determination applied 

the following Wilderness Act and Management Policy criteria: in that it is an area: 

• the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a 

visitor who does not remain; 

• the area is undeveloped and retains its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human habitation;

• the area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

• the area is protected and managed so as to preserve it natural conditions; and, 

• the area offers outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation. 

Our assessment did recognize that the area was operated as working cattle ranch and contained 

pastures for grazing during most of the period of private and public ownership, and the area does 

contain some physical evidence of this occupation. In addition, the area contains physical 

evidence from various mining operations in the area and an active partially-paved road that 

bisects the national memorial. In addition, other active roads are found on the memorial land. 

The evaluation on these criteria determined that the national memorial lands do not meet the 

274
Appendix C: Wilderness Suitability Assessment 

undeveloped/roadless, size, or wilderness character criteria and are therefore unsuitable for 

preserving as wilderness. 

The memorial lands are fragmented by dirt and paved roads, parking lots, picnic areas, power and 

phone lines, private and governmental structures, and a utility corridor. There is no plan in the 

foreseeable future to remove these features. 

Significant portions of the national memorial generally appear to be affected by human activity. 

Although these areas offer some opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation, the small size of the areas and proximity of roads make these opportunities limited at 

best. 

The free play of natural forces and processes have been altered by road, utility line construction 

and maintenance; fire suppression since the late 1880s; 100 years of grazing in grassland areas; 

mining; vegetation manipulation and invasion of exotic species; changes to diversity, populations 

levels and structure, and behavior of wildlife; and continued human presence and development. 

Attached is a draft Notice of Final Determination of Non-Suitability for publication the Federal 

Register should you approve this memorandum as the NPS’ final wilderness assessment suitable 

determination for Coronado National Memorial. 

Sincerely, 

275 
APPENDIXES 

Draft 

Findings 

Wilderness Suitability Assessment 

Coronado National Memorial 

These actions are in accordance with long standing policy and law. The Wilderness Act of 1964, 

regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 43 Public Lands: Interior, Part 19 Wilderness 

Preservation ), Secretarial Order 2920, and NPS Management Policies (2001; Chapter 6, 

Wilderness Preservation) require that the National Park Service review roadless and undeveloped 

areas, including new areas or expanded boundaries, within the National Park System to 

determine whether they are suitable or not suitable for preserving as wilderness. 

NEPA requirements for this process are met by applying the Categorical Exclusion 3.4 (E)(6) 

regarding actions related to inventories. 

Parcel Description 

Coronado National Memorial was formerly a part of Coronado National Forest and working 

ranches on the United States-Mexico border. It is in southeast Arizona, 21 miles south of Sierra 

Vista and 26 miles west of Bisbee. It comprises 4.750 acres with two small private in holdings. 

Currently, two areas of the memorial are leased for grazing. A road through the memorial is paved 

about a mile beyond the visitor center and then becomes a mountainous dirt-and-gravel road 

that leads to Montezuma Pass. Other dirt roads transverse the memorial providing access to 

private in holding, grazing allotments, and are service roads for the park staff. The area contains 

housing, visitor facilities, and administrative facilities for the park. Presently, structures associated 

with the Montezuma Ranch can be found in the grassland area of the memorial south of the 

entrance road. The ranch has been acquired by the National Park Service and either will be 

adaptively used for park purpose or the structures removed and the area restored to grassland. 

Suitability Assessment 

According to law, regulation, and policy, a suitability assessment is a factual determination, based 

on available objective criteria and best professional judgment of park staff, of whether the 

memorial 1) are undeveloped or roadless, 2) are of sufficient size to make management as 

wilderness practicable or are more than 5,000 acres and 3) meet criteria of wilderness character. 

The following information addresses those requirements and criteria. 

1) Is the memorial undeveloped or roadless? 

According to Department of Interior regulations at 43 CFR 19, the memorial’s lands do not fit the 

definition of “roadless”: the memorial is bisected by road which is paved about a mile beyond the 

visitor center and then becomes a mountainous dirt-and-gravel road that leads to Montezuma 

Pass. This road is regularly maintained and is drivable in a passenger car without four wheel drive; 

this road is the primary access to into the memorial. The road to the two private in holdings are 

maintained and drivable in a passenger car without four wheel drive. East Forest Land and 

Windmill Road are not regularly maintained, but are drivable with four wheel drive vehicles. 

The memorial’s land does not qualify as undeveloped: see Wilderness Character criteria below. 

276
Appendix C: Wilderness Suitability Assessment 

2) Is the land more than 5,000 acres or of sufficient size to make practicable preservation 

and use in an unimpaired condition? 

The total acreage for the memorial is 4,750 acres. Development within the memorial has further 

fragmented park lands. The one area in the national memorial that is protected from road noise is 

the south slope of Smuggler’s Ridge but this is only 670 acres. The small size of this memorial’s 

lands, the general fragmentation by roads and utility corridors and, for the most part, the isolation 

from designated wilderness. 

Specifically, the following would be impediments to the practical management of this area as 

wilderness: 

• While a few of the ecological changes noted under the Wilderness Character criteria 

(below) could be restored to a more natural condition, most of them would be difficult 

or impossible to improve due to the small size of the area, incompatible uses on adjacent 

lands, and the roads and utility corridors. 

• The small size of the memorial combined with the numerous developments makes it 

difficult to ensure that the imprint of human’s work would appears to be substantially 

unnoticeable or that the area would retain its primeval character. Extensive restoration 

work, with possible loss of cultural resources would be necessary and would still not 

change the incompatible uses on surrounding lands that also detract from these qualities. 

• Because the area’s naturalness is compromised by past and current uses, extensive 

restoration would be required to “preserve natural conditions,” which would 

compromise the wildness of the area. 

• The small size of the area and the proximity to roads, development, and adjacent 

incompatible uses make it difficult to provide for opportunities for solitude or a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation. 

3) Criteria regarding the nature and quality of Wilderness Character 

Criterion 1: The earth and its community of life are untrammeled by humans, where humans are 

visitors who do not remain. 

The free play of natural forces and processes has been altered in the following ways: 

• Fire suppression: Fire has been suppressed here since the late 1880s, resulting in 

significant changes in vegetation, fuel loads, and fire intensity. Land use surround the 

memorial (timber production, grazing, and private homes) may prevent the application 

of management tactics that would eventually return a natural fire regime. 

• Grazing: Grazing has occurred on memorial lands since the early 1900s and today the 

memorial contains two grazing allotments. One of which (Joe’s Spring) is activity being 

used though under the guidance of the memorial’s livestock management plan and the 

other (Montezuma) has not been grazed since 1990. Grazing often has some or all of the 

following effects: reduction of biomass available to wildlife for forage and cover; 

introduction of invasive alien species; change in species composition; and increased 

erosion. 

• Vegetation manipulation: An orchard was planted in the area of Montezuma Ranch as 

well as some non-native plants near ranch buildings. The orchard has been removed. 

Vegetation removal will probably continue along the road and power line corridor as 

part of routine maintenance. Various invasive alien species, are common in the pasture 

277
APPENDIXES 

area. The majority of grass and grass-like species within the area are invasive nonnatives. 

• Road construction and maintenance: The construction and maintenance of the road, the 

ranch infrastructure, mining infrastructure, and visitor and administrative infrastructure 

have over time increased sedimentation and changed natural drainages, which in turn 

has affected vegetation and habitat. The road and buildings also increases the chance of 

alien species introduction and other edge effects. 

• Wildlife: Diversity, population levels and structure, behavior, and gene flow of wildlife 

may have been affected by hunting, predator control, and human presence prior to 

establishment of the national memorial. The fragmentation of the area by the main 

memorial road reduces its value to wildlife. 

• Visitation: Public visitation and illegal activities occur on memorial lands throughout the 

year. 

Criterion 2. The area is undeveloped and retains its primeval character and influence, without 

permanent improvements or human habitation.

• Developments and permanent improvements: the main memorial road, East Forest 

Lane, Windmill Road, power line, underground utilities, dumps, fences, stock tanks, 

remains of ranch house and associated structures, visitor center, picnic area, 

maintenance facilities, administrative offices, park housing, parking lots, private 

homes, and mine sites. 

• Primeval character and influence: This is compromised by both the developments and 

the ecological modifications noted under criterion 1. 

• Human habitation: Residence for three park staff (and their families) and two private 

homes. 

There is no plan to remove the main memorial road, active power lines, or phone lines in the 

foreseeable future, and these corridors would not qualify for wilderness designation. Excluding 

them would leave segments areas of a few hundred acres. 

Criterion 3: The area generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, 

with the imprint of humans’ work substantially unnoticeable. 

Most of the ecological changes noted under criterion 1 would be noticeable to a trained observer. 

The development noted under criterion 2 would be noticeable by untrained visitors from all of 

the area except south of Smuggler’s Ridge. Some of the ecological changes, such as the change in 

fire regime or vegetation, would be noticeable to the untrained observer, although they might not 

realize the anthropogenic nature of the change. 

Criterion 4. The area is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural condition. 

The parking lots, picnic area, visitor center area, maintenance area, housing area, maintenance 

along the main memorial road, power lines, roads and area around the private in holdings would 

continue to be maintained by manual and mechanical methods. All fires are suppressed in the 

memorial. 

Criterion 5. The area offers outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. 

278
Appendix C: Wilderness Suitability Assessment 

Visitation to the area is moderate to heavy with many visitors taking a short hike on one of the 

park trails. The chance of seeing another person during a half day visit to the area is greater than 

90%. The paved road bisects the national memorial, and most of the memorial’s lands are less 

than 1 mile from the road, which is visible from most areas within the boundary. Road noise can 

be heard from most places. 

Other Considerations: A wilderness may also contain significant ecological, geological, or other 

features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value. 

• Ecological: The memorial contains habitat for the lesser long-nosed bat (endangered), 

the Mexican long-tongued bat (species of concern), Mexican spotted owl (threatened) 

and loggerhead shrike (species of concern). 

• Geological: There is nothing significant. 

• Scientific: There is nothing 

• Educational: Dramatic views of land areas in the U.S. and Mexico where the Coronado 

Expedition may have traveled. 

• Scenic: Dramatic views of land areas in the U.S. and Mexico where the Coronado 

Expedition may have traveled.

• Historical: Historic and pre-historic use of the area occurred and there have been 

archeological survey of the area. The area has been mined, logged, ranched, homesteaded, 

traveled through, and hunted over the years. 

Public Input 

A newsletter issued in June 2001 requesting public thought on the suitability of Coronado 

National Memorial for wilderness designation. The newsletter was sent to the mailing list of 

about 400 agencies and individuals as well as some 23 conservation groups. The newsletter was 

placed on the internet for broader public access. A wide range of opinions was received in the 38 

electronic and mailed comments. Some people wrote in favor of all of formal wilderness 

designation while others opposed any wilderness designation. 

A follow-up newsletter was published in February 2001 explaining the National Park Service 

determination that neither Coronado National Memorial nor a portion of the memorial was not 

suitable for wilderness designation. The results from the park service’s evaluation are being 

placed in the draft Coronado National Memorial General Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

279
APPENDIX D: DEVELOPMENT OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The preferred alternative (alternative B) was • Maximize the range of visitor services, 

developed in 2001 using an evaluation process educational activities, and interpretive 

called “Choosing By Advantages.” The opportunities. 

planning team used the process to examine an 

initial set of alternatives (alternatives A–E) and The evaluation resulted in a numerical ranking 

to evaluate the attributes of each against a set of the greatest advantages offered by each 

alternative. Each alternative offered certain of factors to determine the relative advantage strong advantages. Adding the factor of cost of one alternative action over another. The led to the selection of a preferred alternative. factors were as follows: This process was a preliminary internal 

• Maximize the preservation and protection exercise and remains subject to change based 

of natural and cultural resources. on public comments and other factors. 

• Maximize the national memorial’s 

operational efficiency and sustainability. 

280
APPENDIX E: SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS

DISCUSSED IN THIS PLAN

Common Name Scientific Name 

ANIMALS 

Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii 

Acorn woodpeckers Melanerpes formicivorus 

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus 

American kestrel Falco sparverius 

Arizona shrew Sorex arizonae 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Barking frog Eleutherodactylus augusti 

Barred tiger salamander Ambystoma mavortium 

Blackneck garter snakes Thamnophis cyrtopsis 

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum 

Chihuahuan blackhead snake Tantilla wilcoxi 

Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum 

Common king snake Lampropeltis getula 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Desert shrew Notiosorex crawfordi 

Elegant trogon Trogon elegans 

Great plains skink Eumeces obsoletus 

Jaguar Panthera onca 

Jaguarundi Felis yagouaroundi 

Lesser long-nosed bat Leptonycteris curasoae 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

Lyre snake Trimorphodon biscutatus 

Madrean alligator lizard Elgaria kingii 

Mexican long-tongued bat Choeronycteris mexicana 

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida 

Mexican wolf Canis lupus baileyi 

Mojave rattlesnake Crotalus scutulatus 

Mountain patchnose snake Salvadora grahamiae 

Ocelot Felis pardalis 

Prairie lizard Sceloporus undulatus 

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

Short-horned lizard Phrynosoma douglasii 

Sonora tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi 

Sonoran mountain king snake Lampropeltis pyromelana 

Big bend patchnose snake Salvadora deserticola 

Night snake Hypsiglena torquata 

Whooping crane Grus Americana 

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousii 

Yaqui topminnow Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonorensis 

281
APPENDIXES 

Common Name Scientific Name 

PLANTS 

Alligator juniper Juniperus deppeana 

Arizona agave Agave arizonica 

Arizona rosewood Vauquelinia californica 

Arizona sycamore Platanus wrightii 

Arizona white oak Quercus arizonica 

Beargrass Nolina microcarpa 

Blue grama Bouteloua gracilis 

Brickellia Brickellia sp. 

Cane cholla Opuntia spinosior 

Canelo Hills Ladies Tresses Spiranthes delitescens 

Catclaw acacia Acacia greggii 

Cochise pincushion cactus Coryphantha vivipara 

Desert spoon Dasylirion wheeleri 

Desert willow Chilopsis linearis 

Emory oak Quercus emoryi 

Fairy duster Calliandra eriophylla 

Hedgehog cactus Echinocereus pectinatus 

Honey mesquite Prosopis glandulosa 

Huachuca water umbrel Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva 

Lehmann lovegrass Eragrostis lehmanniana 

Manzanita Arctostaphlos spp 

Marguay verde Agave salmiana crassispina 

Mexican blue oak Quercus oblongifolia 

Mexican piñon pine Pinus discolor 

Mountain mahogany Cercocarpus montanus 

Needle grass Stipa sp. 

Palmer’s agave Agave palmeri 

Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

Rabbit brush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

Side oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 

Sumac Rhus virens 

Wild grape Vitis arizonica 

282
283 
284 
285 
286
287
288
289 
290 
SELECTED REFERENCES 

LITERATURE CITED 

Arizona Department of Economic Security 

2001 Arizona’s Historical Labor Force and Nonfarm Jobs Data, Arizona Counties. Accessed 

on the Internet at <www.de.state.az.us/links/economic/webpage/page4.html> 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

1998 Arizona Unified Watershed Assessment. Available on the Internet at 

<www.adeq.state.az.us/environwater/ mgmt/download/unified.pdf>. Accessed July 

2002. 

2000a Air Quality Annual Report. Accessed on the Internet at 

<www.adeq.state.az.us/comm/pubs/download/2001/cir3.pdf>.

2000b Annual Report.

2001 Air Quality Annual Report. Accessed on the Internet at 

<www.adeq.state.az.us/comm/pubs/download/2001/cir3.pdf> 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

1954 The Mammals of the Huachuca Mountains, Southeastern Arizona, by D. F. 

Hoffmeister and W. W. Goodpaster. Illustrated Biology Monograph 24. Phoenix, 

AZ. 

1988 List of Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. 

1989a “Nongame Field Note: Barking Frog,” by Cecil R. Schwalbe. Phoenix, AZ. 

1989b Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. 

1990 Threatened Native Wildlife in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. 

1993 Bat Inventory of Abandoned Mines, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District, by 

T. K. Snow, S. V. Castner, and D. C. Noel. Technical Report, Nongame and 

Endangered Wildlife Program. Phoenix, AZ. 

1995 Recovery Plans and Conservation Agreements for Listed and Candidate Species in 

Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Heritage Data Management System. 

1996 Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. In preparation. 

Arizona Natural Heritage Program 

1981 “Western Barking Frog.” Report prepared under contract for the U.S. Forest Service. 

Arizona Regional Image Archive 

1999a “Ranching in Cochise County: Background Information on Ranching.” Courses, 

Arizona Regional Image Archive. Available on the Internet at 

<http://aria.arizona.edu/courses/ar1642/cochise98/ranching/background.html>. 

1999b “Ranching in Cochise County: Interpretation of Comparative Case Studies.” 

Courses, Arizona Regional Image Archive. Available on the Internet at 

<http://aria.arizona.edu/courses/ar1642/cochise98/ranching/interpretations.html>. 

Arizona Trail Association 

N.d. The Arizona Trail. Brochure. 

Armour, C. L., D. A. Duff, and W. Elmore 

1991 “The Effects of Livestock Grazing on Riparian and Stream Ecosystems.” Fisheries 

16:7–11. 

291
SELECTED REFERENCES 

Ax, R. L., and W. Armer 

1993 Ranch Business Management. N.p. Available on the Internet at 

<http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/rmg/ranchers.html>. 

Bahre, C. J. 

1995 “Human Impacts on the Grasslands of Southeastern Arizona.” In M. P. McClaran 

and T. R. Van Devender, eds., The Desert Grassland, pp. 230–303. Tucson, AZ: 

University of Arizona Press. 

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman 

1999 “Survey of Livestock Influences on Stream Riparian Ecosystems in the Western 

United States.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54: 419–431. 

Blydenstein, J. 

1966 “Root Systems of Four Desert Grassland Species on Grazed and Protected Sites.” 

Journal of Range Management 19: 93–95. 

Bock, C. E., and J. H. Bock 

1993 “Cover of Perennial Grasses in Southeastern Arizona in Relation to Grazing.” 

Conservation Biology 7: 371–377. 

Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, W. R. Kenney, and V. M. Hawthorne 

1984 “Responses of Birds, Rodents, and Vegetation to Livestock Exclosure in a 

Semidesert Grassland Site.” Journal of Range Management 37: 239–242. 

Bock, C. E., H. M. Smith, and J. H. Bock 

1990 “The Effects of Livestock Grazing upon Abundance of the Lizard, Sceloperus 

scalaris, in Southeastern Arizona.” Journal of Herpetology 24: 445–446. 

Bock, C. E., and B. Webb 

1984 “Birds as Grazing Indicator Species in Southeast Arizona.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48: 1045–1049. 

Brady, W. W., M. R. Stromberg, E. F. Aldon, C. D. Bonham, and S. H. Henry 

1989 “Response of a Semidesert Grassland to 16 Years of Rest from Grazing.” Journal of 

Range Management 42: 284–288. 

Brown, D. E., editor 

1982 “Biotic Communities of the American Southwest: United States and Mexico.” Desert 

Plants 4:1–342. Cited in Ruffner and Johnson 1991. 

Bucci, M., Y. Petryszyn, and B. Alberti 

N.d. “The Use of an Experimental Bat Gate at Coronado National Memorial.” Draft 

report in preparation for the National Park Service. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1989 San Pedro River Riparian Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior 

1990a Arizona Wetland Riparian Management Strategy. 

1990b The Final Safford District Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement. 

1999 BLM Strategic Plan: Who We Are and Where We’re Going. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.az.blm.gov:80/strategic.htm>. 

292
Selected References 

Colorado State Parks 

1998 “Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind: A Handbook for Trail Planners.” Trails and 

Wildlife Task Force. Hullmund Associates, Denver, Colorado. 

Cook, Joseph A. 

1986 The Mammals of the Animas Mountains and Adjacent Areas: Hidalgo County, New 

Mexico. [Albuquerque, NM]: University of New Mexico. Occasional Papers, the 

Museum of Southwestern Biology. 

Cockrum, E. L., and B. Hayward 

1962 “Hummingbird Bats.” Natural History 71: 39–44. 

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

1979 Survey of the Vertebrate Fauna of Coronado National Memorial. Tucson, AZ: 

University of Arizona, Cooperative National Park Research Studies Unit. Technical 

report 5. 

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President 

1978 “Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act.” Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Parts 1500–1508. 

Washington, D.C. 

Ellison, L. 

1960 “Influence of Grazing on Plant Succession of Rangelands.” The Botanical Review 26: 

1–78. 

Fleischner, T. L. 

1994 “Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America.” Conservation 

Biology 8: 629–644. 

Fleming, T. H., R. A. Nunez, and L. L Sternberg 

1993 “Seasonal Changes in the Diets of Migrant and Non-migrant Nectarivorous Bats as 

Revealed by Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis.” Oecologia 94: 72–75. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

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

1986b Record of Decision, Coronado National Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan: 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

1995 Arizona, Grand Canyon State: Recreation and Historic Sites Map: Campgrounds and 

Facilities on State, Federal and Tribal Lands. 

1997 East Huachucas Strategy Draft. Prepared by Coronado National Forest, Sierra Vista 

District. 

1999 “Hopi Traditional Use and Property Overview, Coronado National Forest, Fiscal 

Year 1999 and 2000 Projects,” by James A. McDonald. Tucson, AZ. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southwest Region, and Arizona Game and Fish 

Heritage Fund 

N.d. Southeastern Arizona Outdoor Recreation Guide and Map. Brochure. 

293 
SELECTED REFERENCES 

Forman, Richard T. T. 

2000 “Estimate of the Area Affected Ecologically by the Road System in the United 

States.” Conservation Biology 14 (1), 31-35. 

Forman, R. T. T. and L. E. Alexander 

1998 “Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects.” Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 29:207 231. 

Ganey, J. L., and R. P. Balda 

1994 “Habitat Selection by Mexican Spotted Owls in Northern Arizona.” Auk 111(1): 162– 

169. 

Hass, C. C. 

2000 “Landscape Fragmentation and Connectivity for Carnivores in the Upper San Pedro 

Basin.” Fort Huachuca Wildlife Office, Fort Huachuca, AZ. 

Hastings, J. R., and R. M. Turner 

1965 The Changing Mile: an Ecological Study of Vegetation Change with Time in the Lower 

Mile of an Arid and Semiarid Region. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. 

Hawks, M. M. 

1997 “The Status of Palmer’s Agave at Coronado National Memorial.” M.S. thesis, 

University of Arizona. 

Hodgeson, W. and R. DeLamater. 

1988 “Agave arizonica: Summary of Status and Report on Recent Studies.” Unpublished 

report cited in Hawks 1997. 

Hoffmeister, D. F. 

1986 Mammals of Arizona. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Dept. 

Howell, D. J. 

1974 “Acoustic Behavior and Feeding in Glossophagine Bats.” Journal of Mammalogy 55: 

293–308. 

1976 “Plant-Loving Bats, Bat-Loving Plants.” Natural History. February, 52–59. 

1980 “Adaptive Variation in Diets of Desert Bats and Implications for Evolution of 

Feeding Strategies. Journal of Mammalogy 61: 730–733. 

1996 “Agave Palmeri on Fort Huachuca: Five Years of Research on Natural History and 

Response to Fire.” Report to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. 

Howell, D. J., and B. S. Roth 

1981 “Sexual Reproduction in Agaves: the Benefits of Bats: Cost of Semelparous 

Advertising.” Ecology 62: 3–7. 

Jepson-Innes, K., and C. E. Bock 

1989 “Response of Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) to Livestock Grazing in 

Southeastern Arizona: Differences between Seasons and Subfamilies.” Oecologia 78: 

430–431. 

Knight, R. L., and K. J. Gutzwiller 

1995 Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, CA: Island Press. 

Kunzmann, M. R., L. S. Hall, and R. R. Johnson 

1998 The Birds of North America. No. 357, “Elegant Trogon.” 

294
Selected References 

Lavender, David 

1992 DeSoto, Coronado, Cabrillo: Explorers of the Northern Mystery. Washington, D.C. 

Martinez-Morales, R., and S. E. Meyer 

1985 “A Demographic Study of Marguey Verde (Agave salmiana ssp. crassipina) under 

Conditions of Intense Utilization.” Desert Plants 7:61–64. 

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

N.d. Finding of No Significant Impact, Livestock Management Plan, Coronado National 

Memorial. Hereford, AZ. 

1975 “Coronado National Memorial, Survey Report” by Yvonne G. Stewart and Susan 

Purves, Western Archeological Center, Tucson, AZ. 

1985 “Investigations at the Ratliff Property (AZ EE:12:34), An Early Homestead in 

Coronado National Memorial, Southeast Arizona,” by Mary D. Tagg, Western 

Archeological Center, Tucson, AZ. 

1993 Abandoned Mine Closure Project: Closure Proposals and Cost Estimates. Prepared 

by Mining and Minerals Branch, Washington, D.C. 

1994 “Annual Statement for Interpretation, Fiscal Year 1994, Coronado National 

Memorial.” Hereford, AZ. 

1995 “List of Classified Structures, Coronado National Memorial.” Hereford, AZ. 

1997a Coronado Cave. Accessed on the Internet July 9, 2002, at 

<http://www.nps.gov/coro/cave/htm>. 

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

1998a “Cultural Resource Management Guideline.” (Prepared in 1997, released in June 

1998, Director’s Order 28). Washington, D.C. 

1998b “Planner Sourcebook, Director’s Order 2: Park Planning.” Denver Service Center, 

Denver, CO. 

1999a “Montezuma Ranch, Coronado National Memorial, Cultural Landscape Inventory 

(part 1),” Hereford, AZ. 

1999b “Strategic Plan for Coronado National Memorial, October 1, 1999–September 30, 

2002.” Hereford, AZ. 

2000a Bird Sightings at Coronado National Memorial. Accessed on the Internet in July 2002 

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

2000b Livestock Management Plan, Including Livestock Management Guidelines, 

Environmental Assessment, Joe’s Spring Allotment Management Plan and Montezuma 

Allotment Management Plan: Coronado National Memorial, Cochise County, Arizona. 

Hereford, AZ. 

2000c “Strategic Plan for Coronado National Memorial, October 1, 2000–September 30, 

2005.” Hereford, AZ. 

2001a Director’s Order 12 and Handbook: Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact 

Analysis, and Decision Making. [Washington, D.C.]. 

2001b “Engineering Assessment of Montezuma Canyon Road, Coronado National 

Memorial.” Hereford, AZ. 

2001c Management Policies 2001. Washington. D. C. 

2001d “Visitation Figures for Coronado National Memorial,” Washington Office, Statistical 

Unit. 

295
SELECTED REFERENCES 

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

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

Technical report 63. Prepared for the National Park Service 

The Nature Conservancy. Arizona Chapter

N.d. Ramsey Canyon Inn Bed & Breakfast. Brochure. 

New Mexico Department of Game & Fish and Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Fisheries and 

Wildlife Department 

2000 The Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange. Other contributing agencies are the 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of 

Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior; U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture; Army Corps of Engineers; New Mexico State Land Office; University 

of New Mexico, New Mexico Natural Heritage Program; and Biota Information 

System Of New Mexico (BISON). Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.fw.vt.edu/fishex/nmex_main/species/050065.htm> (version 1/2000) 

and <http://www.fw.vt.edu/states.nm.htm> OR 

<http://www.cnr.vt.edu/fishex/nmex_main/species/050065.htm>. 

Ogden, P. R. 

1995 “Coronado National Memorial Inventory and Grazing Management Alternatives for 

Joe’s Spring and Montezuma Allotments.” Report prepared for the National Park 

Service, Southern Arizona Office, Phoenix, AZ. 

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

1992 “Coronado National Memorial Plant Checklist: A Synonymized List of the Vascular 

Plants.” Report prepared for the National Park Service, Southern Arizona Office, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

Peterson, Roger Tory 

1961 A Field Guide to Western Birds. Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press. 

Roberson, E. 

1996 Impacts of Livestock Grazing on Soils and Recommendations for Management. N.p. 

Available on the Internet at <www.cnps.org/conservation/grazing.htm>.

Petryszyn, Y., and B. Alberti.

N.d. “Bat Survey, Monitoring, and Activity at Agaves at Coronado National Memorial.” 

Draft report in preparation for the National Park Service. 

Ruffner, G. A., and R. A. Johnson 

1991 Plant Ecology and Vegetation Mapping at Coronado National Memorial, Cochise 

County, Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Cooperative National Park 

Resources Studies Unit. Technical report 41. 

Society for Range Management

1989 A Glossary of Terms Used in Range Management.

Southern Arizona Magazine

N.d. Kartchner Caverns. Available on the Internet at <http://soarizona.com/winter99/ 

cave.html>. 

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

Management Information Systems Staff, Cochise County Planning Commission, and Cochise 

County Board of Supervisors 

2001 Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan. 

296 
Selected References 

Southwest Parks and Monuments Association 

1993 A Checklist of the Birds of Coronado National Memorial, Arizona. N.p. Available on 

the Internet at <http://www.nps.gov/coro/birdlist.htm>. 

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

2001 “Inventory and Recommendations for Long-term Monitoring of Reptiles and 

Amphibians at Coronado National Memorial, Arizona.” Report prepared for the 

National Park Service, Southern Arizona Office, by University of Arizona, 

Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit. 

Swann, D. E., T. Edwards, and C. R. Schwalbe. 

1999 Ecology of Banded-Rock Rattlesnakes and Sonoran Mountain Kingsnakes at Coronado 

National Memorial, Arizona. Tucson, AZ: Prepared for the National Park Service 

Southern Arizona Office by University of Arizona, Cooperative National Park 

Resources Studies Unit. 

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

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

County, Arizona.” Report prepared for the National Park Service, Southern Arizona 

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

Toolin, L. J. 

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

Trombulak, S. C., and C. A. Frissell 

2000 “Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities.” 

Conservation Biology 14: 18–30. 

U.S. Army

2001 Final Draft: U. S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, 2001–2005. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1979 Soil survey of Santa Cruz and parts of Cochise and Pima Counties, Arizona, by M. L. 

Richardson, S. D. Clemmons, and J. C. Walker. 

U.S. Department of the Interior

1996 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with 

Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

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

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, by L. M. 

Cowardin,. V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS79/31. 

1994 Lesser Long-nosed Bat Recovery Plan. Arizona Ecological Services State Office, 

Phoenix, AZ. 

1995a “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposal to Determine 

Endangered Status of Three Wetland Species Found in Southern Arizona and 

Northern Sonora.” Federal Register 60: 16836–16847. 

1995b “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Revisions for Proposed 

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl.” Federal Register 60: 

12728–12730. 

1995c Lesser Long-nosed Bat Recovery Plan. Prepared by Arizona Ecological Services State 

Office. Phoenix, AZ. 

297
SELECTED REFERENCES 

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

1998 National Wetlands Inventory Maps: Montezuma Pass, Arizona Quadrant, Hereford 

SW, Arizona Quadrant. Drafts. 

1999 “Biological Opinion for Activities Authorized, Carried Out, or Funded by the 

Department of the Army at and near Fort Huachuca, Arizona.” 

2001 Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl. 50 CFR 17: 

February 1, 2001. 

U.S. Geological Survey

1999 Hydrogeologic Investigations of the Sierra Vista Subwatershed of the Upper San Pedro 

Basin, Cochise County, Southeast Arizona, by D. R. Pool and A. L. Coes. Water 

Resource Investigations Report 99-4197. 

U.S. Geological Survey and University of Arizona, Cooperative Park Studies Unit

1997 Bajada, The Limestone Troll 5(3), by Cecil Schwalbe, Barbara Alberti, and Mary 

Gilbert. 

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice 

2000 Final Environmental Assessment for Infrastructure within US Border Patrol Naco– 

Douglas Corridor, Cochise County, Arizona. 

Upper San Pedro Partnership 

N.d. Upper San Pedro Partnership. Brochure. 

2001 “Progress Report, January.” 

Wallmo, O. C. 

1955 “Vegetation of the Huachuca Mountains, Arizona.” American Midland Naturalist 54: 

466–480 

INTERNET ADDRESSES 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division. 

Internet address: <http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/index.html>. 

Arizona Department of Transportation. 

Internet address: <http://map.azfms.com/datateam/trafmon.html>. 

Arizona Government, Superior Court Law Library 

Internet address: <http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/lawlibrary/ 

Oirazgov.asp>. 

Arizona Hotel Directory 

Available on the Internet at <http://www.azhotels.com/KartchnerCaverns.asp>. 

Arizona State Parks 

Internet address: <http://www.pr.state.az.us/>. 

Arizona State Parks, Kartchner Caverns State Park 

Kartchner Caverns State Park® Tour Reservation Internet address: 

<http://www.pr.state.az.us/parkhtml/kartchner.html>. 

298
Selected References 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Arizona Offices 

Information available on the Internet at 

<http://www.az.blm.gov:80/tfo/spnca/sptrail.html> or 

<http://www.az.blm.gov:80/tfo/spnca/palominas.html>; or 

<http://www.blm.gov:80/education/tl/pages/page43.html>. 

Cochise County, Arizona (County Government) 

Internet address: <http://www.co.cochise.az.us/>. 

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

Internet address: <htttp://www.nps.gov/coro>. 

Kartchner Caverns State Park 

Internet address: <http://soarizona.com/winter99/cave.html>. 

National Biological Information Infrastructure 

U.S. Programs & Activities: Arizona. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.nbii.gov/geographic/us/az-nbii.html>. 

NatureServe 

“An Online Encyclopedia of Life.” Web application. Version 1.4. Arlington, VA. 

Association for Biodiversity Information. Available on the Internet at 

<http://www.natureserve.org/>. (Accessed: June 7, 2001 ). 

Ramsey Canyon Inn Bed and Breakfast, Hereford, Arizona. 

Internet address: <http://www.innsite.com/inns/A000070.html>. 

Sky Islands Alliance 

Internet address: <http:// www.skyislands alliance.org>. 

Tombstone, AZ, City of 

Internet address: <http://cityoftombstone.com>. 

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

Endangered species listing available on the Internet at <http://endangered.fws.gov>. 

299
PREPARERS

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PREPARERS 

Coronado National Memorial Staff 

Barbara Alberti, Resources Program Manager 

1998–present; Park Ranger, Interpretation 

1991–1998 

James Bellamy, Superintendent 1998–2002 

Ken McMullen, Acting Superintendent 

October–December 2002 

Dale Thompson, Superintendent 2002–present 

David Chavez, Maintenance Worker 1989– 

present 

Michael Hardin, Acting Chief Park Ranger 

2000–2001; Park Ranger, Protection 1998– 

2000 

Fred Moosman, Chief Park Ranger 1998–2000 

Enriqueta Ramirez, Administrative Officer 2001– 

present 

Henry Ruiz, Laborer 1972–1976; Chief of 

Maintenance 1976–present 

Scott Sticha, Park Ranger, Interpretation 1998– 

2001; Park Ranger, Protection 1991–1998 

Frank Torres, Chief of Interpretation 2001– 

present 

Thane Weigand, Chief Ranger 2001–present 

Nancy Wilcox, Administrative Officer 1997– 

2000 

Denver Service Center 

Richard Alesch, Project Manager, budget, 2002– 

present 

Mary Magee, Natural Resource Specialist, 2000– 

2001, data collection, describe natural 

resources 

John C. Paige, Cultural Resource Specialist, 

primary preparer of document, describe 

cultural resources analyze impacts 

Richard Williams, Project Manager, 1998–2001, 

budget and scoping 

CONTRACT PREPARERS FROM PARSONS 

Timberley Belish, Natural Resource Specialist, 

2001, revised and expanded natural 

resources, analysis, impacts 

Jacklyn Brylant, Environmental Scientist, 

technical review 

William P. Ditzel, Document Specialist, 

document preparation 

Brian Farris, Environmental Manager, revised 

socioeconomic resources, analysis, impacts 

Steve Miller, Socioeconomic Specialist, 2001 

Mark Norman, Environmental Scientist, 

document preparation 

Bruce Snyder, Environmental Scientist, project 

manager 

Janet Snyder, Environmental Scientist, 

contributing author and editor 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

CONSULTANTS OR CONTRIBUTORS 

Denver Service Center 

Margaret DeLaura, Planner 

Mary McVeigh, Planner 

Intermountain Regional Office 

Wayne Gardner, Chief, Planning 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 

Bill Wellman, Superintendent 

Tumacacori National Historical Park 

Ann Rasor, Superintendent 

PUBLICATION SERVICES, NPS DENVER 

SERVICE CENTER 

Lou Layman, Writer-Editor 

Christy Fischer, Writer-Editor 

Linda Ray, Supervisory Information Specialist 

300
INDEX

access, 13, 19, 20, 23, 27, 28, 34, 37, 43, 49, 

60, 63, 66, 73, 79, 82, 83, 95, 97, 105, 116, 

117, 131, 132, 133, 144, 155, 157, 177, 

179, 185, 188, 191, 204, 205, 208, 212, 

213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 223 

accessibility, 135, 145, 148, 154, 158, 159, 

160, 168, 180, 203, 206, 215 

air quality, 14, 23, 77, 88, 89, 121, 122, 135, 

145, 157, 158, 167, 168, 179, 190 

American Indian(s), 17, 19, 20, 27, 28, 47, 

50, 58, 64, 66, 67, 83, 101, 102, 108, 130, 

194, 201, 204, 208, 231, 232, 233 

amphibians, 4, 100, 126, 127, 143, 155, 

157, 165, 167, 177, 178, 187, 189 

bat, 88, 97, 100, 138, 152, 163, 173, 174, 

185 (see also Mexican long-tongued bat 

and long-nosed bat) 

birding, 33, 107, 108, 213, 219 

birds, 4, 25, 99, 100, 140, 143, 156, 166, 

178, 188, 189 

boundary, 3, 11, 12, 34, 35, 63, 87, 99, 102, 

110, 117, 118, 120, 142, 176, 187, 214, 

217 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 12, 

21, 36, 50, 63, 76, 108, 117, 118, 192, 193, 

195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 

204, 205, 207, 208, 209, 232, 233 

buses, 16, 44, 49, 59, 64, 74, 79, 82, 158, 

160, 162, 164, 166, 167, 186, 213, 214, 

217 

cattle, 39, 84, 94, 95, 98, 102, 107, 110, 133, 

134, 136, 140, 142, 143, 149, 154, 165, 

176, 186, 192, 196, 199, 203, 206, 219, 

221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 

Civilian Conservation Corps, 18, 102, 103, 

195, 199, 202, 205, 209 

Cochise County, 3, 27, 83, 84, 88, 96, 97, 

104, 107, 109, 110, 115, 119, 129, 133, 

134, 135, 145, 147, 158, 160, 167, 168, 

180, 192, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 201, 

202, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 212, 213, 

214, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 

226, 227, 228, 232, 233 

Coronado Cave, 4, 33, 43, 49, 54, 60, 73, 

74, 77, 88, 104, 105, 106, 107, 135, 145, 

158, 168, 179, 180, 211 

Coronado Expedition, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 22, 

33, 47, 49, 54, 60, 72, 73, 75, 76, 83, 194, 

198, 202, 205, 209, 215 

Coronado National Forest, 12, 35, 47, 50, 

58, 63, 76, 100, 102, 105, 108, 110, 115, 

116, 117, 139, 140, 141, 144, 147, 149, 

152, 154, 157, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 

167, 172, 174, 178, 183, 185, 189, 192, 

193, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 202, 203, 

204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212, 213, 

214, 219, 221, 232 

Coronado Peak, 4, 43, 47, 49, 54, 57, 58, 

60, 64, 73, 74, 104, 105, 107 

cultural landscape, 18, 23, 39, 44, 54, 66, 

68, 83, 103, 121, 127, 129, 131, 195, 196, 

198, 199, 202, 205, 206, 209, 210 

East Forest Lane, 4, 43, 48, 49, 54, 58, 59, 

60, 72, 73, 74, 76, 81, 82, 146, 149, 151, 

154, 155, 156, 162, 166, 168, 169, 170, 

173, 175, 177, 179, 188, 202, 213, 215 

educational center, 57, 58, 60, 63, 73, 74, 

75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83, 169, 170, 171, 

172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 202, 206, 

215, 216, 217, 224, 225 

endangered, (see threatened, endangered, 

and sensitive species) 

301
INDEX 

ethnographic resources, 20, 23, 66, 67, 68, 

83, 103, 121, 127, 129, 130, 131, 194, 198, 

201, 204, 205, 208, 210 

exotic species, 13 

fires, 15, 84, 98, 220, 222, 224, 226, 227 

floodplains, 26 

Fort Huachuca, 12, 96, 102, 105, 108, 109, 

117, 139, 140, 141, 149, 152, 154, 156, 

157, 161, 163, 165, 166, 172, 174, 178, 

183, 185, 189, 232, 233 

grazing, 12, 13, 23, 25, 27, 39, 43, 48, 53, 

54, 58, 60, 64, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

83, 84, 89, 93, 94, 95, 97, 100, 107, 110, 

116, 118, 119, 123, 133, 134, 136, 137, 

138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 

147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 

155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 

164, 165, 166, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 

173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 

182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 

190, 191, 192, 196, 199, 203, 206, 212, 

213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 219, 221, 222, 

223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231 

grazing allotments, 12, 13, 39, 43, 80, 94, 

107, 110, 116, 123, 136, 137, 138, 139, 

140, 141, 149, 152, 153, 163, 164, 169, 

175, 185, 212, 221, 222, 224 

hiking, 37, 58, 76, 88, 105, 107, 108, 117, 

150, 155, 213 

housing, 11, 34, 38, 44, 48, 50, 53, 57, 59, 

63, 64, 75, 78, 81, 124, 146, 147, 148, 150, 

151, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159, 160, 161, 

162, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 

175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 

186, 187, 189, 195, 198, 205, 232 

Indian, see American Indian 

interpretation, 9, 10, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 48, 

49, 53, 57, 58, 60, 64, 68, 74, 132, 133, 

152, 163, 174, 184, 211, 212, 213, 214, 

interpretive themes, 9, 10, 39, 44, 47, 50, 

58, 63, 64, 68, 76, 83, 211, 215, 217 

lesser long-nosed bat, 79, 80, 95, 97, 98, 

139, 140, 141, 150, 151, 152, 153, 162, 

163, 173, 175, 184, 185, 186, 191 

livestock, 39, 78, 79, 81, 94, 95, 97, 100, 

107, 109, 110, 116, 136, 137, 138, 139, 

142, 143, 154, 171, 176, 187, 192, 212, 

221, 225, 227, 228 

loggerhead shrike, 79, 80, 96, 99, 139, 140, 

141, 151, 152, 153, 162, 163, 164, 173, 

174, 175, 184, 185, 190, 191 

long-nosed bat, 79, 96, 97, 140, 152, 153, 

162, 164, 173, 190 

long-tongued bat, (see Mexican longtongued bat) 

mammals, 4, 79, 80, 99, 100, 126, 139, 141, 

151, 153, 156, 165, 174, 177, 178, 185, 

187, 188 

Mexican long-tongued bat, 79, 80, 95, 96, 

98, 139, 141, 150, 151, 152, 153, 162, 164, 

173, 174, 175, 184, 185, 190, 191 

Mexican spotted owl, 15, 65, 79, 80, 96, 

98, 99, 139, 140, 141, 151, 152, 153, 162, 

163, 164, 173, 174, 175, 184, 185, 190 

Mexico, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 35, 39, 47, 54, 60, 

87, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 108, 118, 

120, 133, 142, 158, 176, 179, 187, 195, 

212, 213, 219 

mining, 27, 88, 100, 102, 103, 108, 109, 

193, 195, 197, 200, 204, 207, 222 

Montezuma Pass, 3, 4, 33, 43, 44, 47, 49, 

50, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 69, 72, 73, 74, 

83, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 149, 151, 163, 

193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 

205, 207, 209, 211, 212, 213, 217, 218, 

232 

Montezuma Ranch, 39, 43, 47, 48, 49, 53, 

54, 57, 58, 60, 64, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 80, 

302

217 
81, 82, 83, 102, 103, 135, 137, 139, 141, 

142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 

164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 

173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 

183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 

192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203, 

204, 206, 207, 212, 213, 215, 216, 217, 

232 

museum collections, 20, 26 

National Environmental Policy Act, 9, 23, 

28, 70, 115, 128, 132 

National Historic Preservation Act, 9, 13, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 128, 132 

National Register of Historic Places, 17, 

18, 20, 39, 43, 44, 47, 49, 53, 57, 58, 60, 

63, 64, 73, 82, 103, 108, 128, 129, 130, 

131, 193, 195, 197, 200, 201, 203, 204, 

207, 231, 232 

Native American, (see American Indian) 

noise, 16, 25, 26, 35, 38, 155, 213, 217 

nonnative plants, 149, 161, 171, 183 

orientation, 4, 23, 104, 107, 132, 133, 212, 

214 

parking, 4, 14, 33, 37, 38, 44, 48, 49, 53, 54, 

57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 68, 74, 77, 78, 79, 

81, 82, 104, 105, 124, 125, 126, 127, 137, 

139, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 

155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 

166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 

174, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 

190, 196, 202, 205, 206, 209, 213, 214, 

215, 217 

partnerships, 36, 50, 63, 76, 83, 198, 210, 

218 

picnic / picknicking / picnic sites 4, 17, 18, 

33, 37, 44, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 

63, 64, 74, 75, 77, 78, 81, 82, 104, 105, 

107, 136, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 153, 

156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 168, 169, 170, 

Index 

172, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 183, 194, 

202, 211, 213, 215, 216, 219, 232 

poaching, 144, 157, 166, 167, 178, 189 

powerlines, 39, 53, 79, 81, 83, 146, 149, 

152, 154, 155, 159, 161, 163, 164, 174, 

185, 201, 204, 205, 208, 209 

ranch / ranching, 39, 43, 60, 73, 80, 82, 

102, 103, 109, 119, 137, 139, 141, 142, 

143, 151, 153, 154, 157, 162, 164, 165, 

169, 173, 175, 176, 178, 185, 186, 189, 

192, 193, 195, 197, 200, 202, 204, 207, 

222 

range condition, 40, 79, 94, 95, 136, 137, 

138, 139, 149, 150, 161, 162, 171, 183 

recreation, 12, 21, 24, 35, 37, 83, 105, 110, 

116, 117, 132, 133, 134, 155, 165, 176, 

211, 212, 213, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 

223, 224, 225, 226, 228, 232 

reptiles, 79, 100, 126, 140, 143, 151, 155, 

156, 157, 165, 167, 174, 177, 178, 185, 

187, 189 

riparian areas, 82, 94, 99, 118, 119, 136, 

137, 138, 140, 142, 146, 149, 154, 156, 

157, 164, 167, 171, 176, 181, 182, 186, 

189, 190 

safety, 15, 16, 21, 26, 27, 36, 39, 70, 71, 73, 

88, 212, 214 

San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, 12, 24, 107, 119, 192, 193, 

195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 

204, 205, 207, 208, 209 

San Pedro River, 3, 4, 10, 11, 24, 58, 60, 76, 

87, 99, 100, 101, 104, 107, 117, 118, 119, 

142, 144, 154, 156, 157, 165, 166, 176, 

178, 187, 189, 205 

San Pedro River Valley, 3, 4, 10, 11, 60, 87, 

101, 104, 205 

sensitive species, (see threatenend, 

endangered and sensitive species) 

303
233 

INDEX 

shrike, (see loggerhead shrike) 

shuttle, 44, 57, 63, 68 

Sky Island, 10, 11, 87, 100 

smuggling, 107, 136, 138, 142, 147, 150, 

159, 161, 169, 171, 176, 181, 183, 187, 

212, 214 

soils, 23, 65, 77, 78, 82, 89, 94, 100, 121, 

123, 124, 127, 135, 136, 137, 141, 142, 

144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 153, 

154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 164, 

165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 

176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 

188, 190, 191 

state historic preservation office/officer, 

17, 18, 19, 20, 39, 57, 66, 73, 128, 193, 

195, 197, 200, 203, 204, 207, 231, 232, 

State of Texas mine, 4, 102 

threatened, endangered and sensitive 

species, 13, 15, 23, 25, 66, 79, 80, 81, 96, 

97, 98, 116, 121, 125, 126, 139, 140, 141, 

145, 150, 151, 152, 153, 157, 162, 163, 

164, 167, 173, 174, 178, 179, 184, 185, 

189, 190, 232, 272 

trails, 4, 18, 26, 33, 37, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 

54, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 

79, 81, 82, 83, 103, 105, 116, 117, 124, 

127, 135, 136, 137, 139, 146, 147, 148, 

150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 

160, 161, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 

173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 

183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 

195, 196, 202, 204, 205, 206, 208, 209, 

210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 

218, 223, 228, 231 

undocumented aliens, 107, 142, 176, 187 

Upper San Pedro Partnership, 24, 119, 

154, 165 

vegetation, 15, 23, 25, 33, 35, 37, 44, 50, 57, 

63, 65, 66, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 89, 

94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 116, 118, 119, 121, 

123, 124, 125, 127, 131, 136, 137, 138, 

139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 

148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 

157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 

167, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 

177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 

185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 201, 212 

visitor center, 3, 4, 11, 27, 33, 37, 39, 43, 

44, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64, 73, 

74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 88, 100, 104, 

105, 107, 126, 135, 137, 139, 145, 146, 

147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 157, 

158, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 

172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 

181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 190, 

191, 193, 196, 197, 198, 200, 202, 204, 

205, 207, 211, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 

218, 219, 226, 227, 232 

water quality, 13, 23, 24, 81, 94, 100, 118, 

121, 126, 142, 143, 145, 153, 154, 155, 

158, 164, 165, 167, 175, 176, 177, 179, 

186, 187, 190, 191 

water resources, 24, 100, 119 

wetlands, 25 

wilderness, 26, 35, 108, 116, 117, 231 

Windmill Road, 4, 43, 54, 60, 63, 73, 74, 

81, 148, 154, 155, 169, 171, 180, 182, 186, 

187, 188, 276, 278 

304 
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for 

most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering sound use 

of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; preserving 

the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; and providing for 

the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best interests of all our people by 

encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. The department also has a major 

responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island 

territories under U.S. administration. 

Publication services were provided by Planning and Design Services, Denver Service Center. NPS 

D-32 A January2004 Printed on recycled paper 

305