Draft 

General Management 

Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK

ARIZONA

Saguaro

National 

Park

Draft 

General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement 

Saguaro National Park 

 Pima County, Arizona 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Saguaro National Park was established by President Hoover on March 1, 1933. Originally named 

Saguaro National Monument, the name was changed to Saguaro National Park by an act of 

Congress on October 14, 1994. The last general management plan for the park was completed in 

1988. Much has changed since 1988 — visitor use patterns and types have changed, the 

population of the city of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 7,577 acres have been added to 

the park. Each of these changes has implications for how visitors access and use the national park 

and the facilities needed to support those uses, how resources are managed, and how the National 

Park Service manages its operations. A new plan is needed. 

This document examines three alternatives for managing the park for the next 25 years. It also 

analyzes the impacts of implementing each of the alternatives. The “no-action” alternative, 

alternative 1, consists of continuing the existing park management and trends and serves as a 

basis for comparison in evaluating the other alternatives. The concept for park management 

under alternative 2 would be to protect the park’s ecological processes and biological diversity 

by reducing fragmentation of wildlife and plant habitats and protecting wildlife corridors. The 

concept for park management under alternative 3 would be to provide a wider range of 

opportunities for visitors that would be compatible with the preservation of park resources and 

wilderness characteristics. Alternative 2 is the National Park Service’s preferred alternative. 

This Draft General Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement has been distributed to 

other agencies and interested organizations and individuals for their review and comment. The 

public comment period for this document will last for 60 days after the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s notice of availability has been published in the Federal Register. Readers are encouraged 

to submit their comments on this draft plan. Please see “How to Comment on this Plan” on the 

next page. Please note that NPS practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of 

respondents, available for public review; see “How to Comment on this Plan” discussion on the 

next page for further information. 

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service 
ii 

HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS PLAN 

Comments on this plan are welcome and will 

be accepted for 60 days after the Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of 

availability appears in the Federal Register. 

Comments/responses to the material may be 

submitted either over the Internet or in 

writing. Please comment only once. 

Please include your name and address on 

any correspondence, particularly any e-mail 

messages to be sure that you are included on 

our mailing list. 

Commenters are encouraged to use the 

Internet if at all possible. 

Internet comments can be submitted at 

<http://parkplanning.nps.gov/sagu> and 

then choose the general management plan. 

Written comments may be sent to: 

 Superintendent Sarah Craighead 

 Saguaro National Park 

3693 South Old Spanish Trail 

Tucson, AZ 85730-5601 

Verbal comments may be made at public 

meetings. The dates, times, and locations of 

public meetings will be announced in the 

media following release of this document. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other personal 

identifying information in your comment, 

you should be aware that your entire 

comment — including your personal 

identifying information — may be made 

publicly available at any time. Although you 

can ask us in your comment to withhold 

your personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 
iii 

SUMMARY 

Saguaro National Park was authorized as a 

national monument by Presidential 

Proclamation on March 1, 1933. Boundary 

changes have taken place in 1961, 1976, 1991, 

and 1994, and in 1994 the national monument 

was redesignated as a national park. The park 

includes 91,445.96 acres, with 71,400 of those 

acres being designated wilderness. 

The last comprehensive planning effort 

(general management plan) for Saguaro 

National Park was completed in 1988. Much 

has occurred since 1988 — visitor use patterns 

and types have changed, the population of the 

city of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 

7,577 acres have been added to the park. Each 

of these changes has major implications for 

how visitors access and use the national park 

and the facilities needed to support those uses, 

how resources are managed, and how the 

National Park Service manages its operations. 

A new plan is needed to 

Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved in 

Saguaro National Park. 

Provide a framework for NPS managers to 

use when making decisions about how to 

best protect national park resources, how 

to provide a diverse range of visitor 

experience opportunities, how to manage 

visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in the national park. 

Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in consultation 

with interested stakeholders and adopted 

by the NPS leadership after an adequate 

analysis of the benefits, impacts, and 

economic costs of alternative courses of 

action. 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

three alternatives, including the National Park 

Service’s preferred alternative, for future 

management of Saguaro National Park. The 

alternatives, which are based on the national 

park’s purpose, significance, and special 

mandates, present different ways to manage 

resources and visitor use and improve 

facilities and infrastructure at the national 

park. The three alternatives are the no-action 

alternative (continue current management), 

alternative 2, the preferred alternative, and 

alternative 3. 

Additional actions were considered in a fourth 

alternative. However this alternative was dismissed from further analysis. These dismissed 

actions are presented, along with rationale for 

dismissing them from analysis, in Chapter 2, 

“Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative.” 

ALTERNATIVE 1: THE NO-ACTION 

ALTERNATIVE (CONTINUE 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

The no-action alternative is a continuation of 

current management and trends. This alternative sets a baseline for comparison with the 

two action alternatives. Examining the noaction alternative is often helpful in understanding why the National Park Service or the 

public may believe that certain future changes 

are necessary or advisable. 

The park’s enabling legislation and NPS 

management policies would provide guidance 

for all of the alternatives, and under alternative 1, guidance from the 1988 General 

Management Plan would continue to guide 

park management. The park has implemented 

many of the actions identified in the 1988 

General Management Plan. The park would 

continue to be managed as it is today, with no 

major change in management direction. 
SUMMARY

iv 

There would be major beneficial impacts on 

the visitor experience from continued opportunities to participate in diverse recreational 

opportunities that bring visitors in close 

contact with one of the most interesting and 

unusual collections of desert life in the United 

States, including the highly valued opportunities for solitude and getting in touch with 

nature. However, minor to major adverse 

impacts on the visitor experience from user 

conflicts on trails and increasing commuter 

traffic along through-park roads would 

continue. 

Because the park staff would have difficulty 

maintaining its high standard of service while 

keeping pace with local and regional population growth and urban development, economic activity associated with the park in 

terms of visitor spending, sales, personal 

income, and jobs would decrease — resulting 

in long-term moderate adverse effects on the 

socioeconomic environment. 

Continuing the current downward trend in 

park staffing would likely result in an 

increasing inability to effectively meet 

demands on park operations due to steadily 

increasing visitation. This continued direction 

would create a long-term moderate adverse 

effect on park operations. 

Continuing to maintain the Rincon Mountain 

District visitor center and current law 

enforcement requirements to manage traffic 

along Picture Rocks Road would create longterm major adverse impacts on park operations. There would be long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on park operations and 

facilities from continuing current management practices regarding trails and trailheads 

and parking areas, maintenance of the Golden 

Gate Road, the continuation of inadequate 

office space for park staff, the removal of the 

corral at Madrona, monitoring the Civilian 

Aeronautical Administration building, and 

stabilizing Manning Cabin. 

 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

In alternative 2 the emphasis would be on 

protecting the park’s ecological processes and 

biological diversity by reducing fragmentation 

of wildlife and plant habitats and protecting 

wildlife movement corridors. Management 

efforts would focus on creating connections 

between isolated wildlife habitats and 

corridors. Park managers would make choices 

and take actions that would best achieve 

ecological/ biological diversity. Visitation 

would be managed and redirected, when 

necessary, to protect sensitive resources and 

minimize impacts on resources. Basic facilities 

for visitor safety and services would be 

provided inside the park. Appropriate access 

would be provided for visitors to enjoy the 

park and learn about the Sonoran Desert and 

associated habitat. 

Implementing alternative 2 would result in 

moderate and major beneficial impacts on the 

visitor experience resulting from enhanced 

protection of visitor experiences and recreational activities that are unique to the park, 

including outstanding primitive hiking and 

camping and opportunities for solitude. The 

provision of new opportunities such as 

bicycling and educational programs would be 

a moderate beneficial impact on the range of 

recreational opportunities. Further, current 

adverse impacts from user conflicts on trails, 

increasing use in wilderness areas that may 

threaten visitors’ opportunities for solitude, 

and increasing commuter traffic along 

through-park roads would be moderated, 

resulting in moderate to major beneficial 

impacts. 

Increased visitation would benefit the local 

community through increasing spending 

related to recreational activity and possibly 

extended stays. Alternative 2 would result in 

an overall moderate long-term beneficial 

effect on the socioeconomic environment. 
Summary 

v 

The additional positions required to address 

protection of biodiversity and resource 

protection while accommodating increased 

use would be expected to create long-term 

moderate beneficial effects on park operations. There would be long-term major 

beneficial impacts on park operations and 

facilities from improvements to trails and 

trailheads, the conversion of Golden Gate 

Road to a trail, expansion of the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center, construction 

of traffic-calming devices along Picture Rocks 

Road, and development of adequate office 

space for park staff. 

Actions that would create long-term moderate 

beneficial effects on park operations and 

facilities include the removal and relocation of 

the Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

building, the removal and reconstruction of 

the corral and park housing at Madrona, the 

reduction of equipment and personnel at 

Manning Camp, and the new exhibits and 

other interpretive media installed in the 

Rincon Mountain visitor center and at key 

locations around the park. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

In alternative 3 the emphasis would be on 

providing a wider range of opportunities for 

visitors that is compatible with the preservation of park resources and its wilderness 

characteristics. Natural resources would be 

protected by relocating visitor activities now 

occurring in sensitive areas to areas that could 

withstand higher levels of visitation. Management efforts would focus on developing 

additional opportunities for visitors to enjoy 

and learn about the park. Visitors would have 

a variety of activities available in easily 

reached areas of the park. Primitive visitor 

experiences would be available in areas that 

are harder to reach. Facilities would be 

expanded to provide additional support for 

visitor activities. 

There would be moderate beneficial impacts 

on visitor experiences resulting from more 

opportunities to participate in diverse 

recreational opportunities that bring visitors 

in close contact with unusual and interesting 

desert life. Further, current adverse impacts 

from user conflicts on trails, increasing use in 

wilderness areas that may threaten visitors’ 

opportunities for solitude, and increasing 

commuting traffic along through-park roads 

would be moderated and result in long-term 

moderate to major beneficial impacts. 

Increased visitation would benefit the local 

community through increased spending 

related to recreational activity, which would 

likely result in more extended stays than in 

alternative 2. Alternative 3 would result in an 

overall moderate long-term beneficial effect 

on the socioeconomic environment. 

The additional positions required to address 

expanded programs and opportunities for 

park visitors would be expected to create 

long-term moderate beneficial effects on park 

operations by accommodating increased use. 

Actions that would create long-term moderate 

adverse effects on park operations would be 

the required ongoing maintenance of the 

Golden Gate Road, new trails, and possible 

new campsites. 

Actions that would create long-term major 

beneficial impacts on park operations and 

facilities would include improvements to trails 

and trailheads, expansion of the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center, construction 

of traffic-calming devices along Picture Rocks 

Road, development of adequate office space 

for park staff, and construction of a visitor 

contact station and science station at 

Madrona and rehabilitation of existing 

facilities for learning and education centers. 

Actions that would create long-term moderate 

beneficial effects on park operations and 

facilities include the relocation or removal of 

the CAA building at Madrona, the removal of 
SUMMARY

vi 

the corral and park housing at Madrona, and 

the new exhibits and interpretive media 

installed in the Rincon Mountain visitor 

center and at key locations around the park. 

The removal of nonhistoric facilities at 

Manning Camp would create long-term 

moderate beneficial effects on park 

operations. 

As long as increases in parking areas and 

availability were proportionate to user 

capacity thresholds for the park and this new 

development does not create a larger 

management problem in the long run as a 

result of increased use, it is expected that 

long-term effects would be minor beneficial 

under alternative 3. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After the distribution of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement there will be a 60-day public review 

and comment period after which the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments from 

other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding the draft 

plan and incorporate appropriate changes into 

a Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. The final 

plan will include letters from governmental 

agencies, any substantive comments on the 

draft document, and NPS responses to those 

comments. Following distribution of the Final 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement and a 30-day no-action 

period, a record of decision will be signed by 

the NPS regional director. The record of 

decision documents the NPS selection of an 

alternative for implementation. With the 

signed record of decision, the plan can then be 

implemented, depending on funding and 

staffing. 

However, a record of decision does not 

guarantee funds and staff for implementing 

the approved plan. 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 

could prevent immediate implementation of 

many actions. Major or especially costly 

actions could be implemented 10 or more 

years into the future. 
vii 

CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A Guide to This Document 2

Purpose and Need for the Plan 3

Introduction 3

Background 4

Brief Description of the Park 4

Purpose of the Plan 7

Need for the Plan 7

The Next Steps 7

Implementation of the Plan 8

Guidance for the Planning Effort 9

Purpose and Significance 9

Introduction 9

Purpose 9

Significance 9

Fundamental Resources and Values 10

Primary Interpretive Themes 10

Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments 11

Life Estates 11

Encumbrances 11

Mining Sites 11

Servicewide Laws and Policies 11

Other Planning Efforts Related to This General Management Plan 19

Planning Issues/Concerns 21

Introduction 21

Decision Points and Considerations 21

Issues 23

Natural Resources 23

Cultural Resources 24

Visitor Opportunities and Experience 24

Transportation 25

Park Operations and Facilities 26

Issues and Concerns Not Addressed in the General Management Plan 27

Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 29

Impact Topics 29

Impact Topics to Be Considered 29

Natural Resources 29

Cultural Resources 30

Visitor Use and Experience 31

Socioeconomic Environment 33

Transportation 33

Park Operations 33

Impact Topics Dismissed from Further Consideration 33

Natural Resources 34

Indian Trust Resources 38

Museum Collections 39

Environmental Justice 40

Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential 42
CONTENTS

viii 

Urban Quality and Design of the Built Environment 42 

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Introduction 47

Management Zones and Alternatives 47

Formulation of the Alternatives 48

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 48

Wilderness 49

Transportation and Visitor Use Study 50

Adaptive Management 50

User (Carrying) Capacity 55

Development of Cost Estimates 55

Initial One-Time Costs 56

Recurring or Replacement Costs 56

Recurring Annual Costs 56

NPS Facilities Model 56

Implementation 57

Management Zones for Saguaro National Park 58

Alternative 1: the No-Action Alternative 70

Concept 70

Resource Conditions 70

Roads 70

Trails 70

Madrona/Chimenea Area 75

Manning Camp (Rincon Mountain District ) 75

Camping 75

Interpretation and Education Programs 75

Management Activities and Facilities 75

Boundary Adjustment 75

Partnerships 75

Estimated Costs 75

Alternative 2: The Preferred Alternative 77

Concept 77

Rationale 77

Resource Conditions 77

Roads 77

Trails 78

Management of Madrona/ Chimenea Area (Rincon Mountain District) 83

Manning Camp (Rincon Mountain District) 83

Camping 84

Interpretation and Education Program 84

Management Activities and Facilities 84

Boundary Adjustments 84

Partnerships 84

Estimated Costs 85

Alternative 3 86

Concept 86

Rationale 86

Resource Conditions 86

Roads 86

Trails 91
Contents 

ix 

Management of Madrona/Chimenea Area 91

Manning Camp (Rincon Mountain District) 92

Camping 92

Interpretation and Education Programs 92

Management Activities and Facilities 92

Boundary Adjustment 93

Partnerships 93

Estimated Costs 93

User Capacity 94

Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 99

Cultural Resources 99

Natural Resources 100

Air Quality 100

Exotic Plant Species 100

Soundscapes 100

Soils 101

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 101

Vegetation 101

Water Resources 102

Wildlife 102

Wetlands 102

Visitor Safety and Experiences 102

Hazardous Materials 102

Noise Abatement 102

Scenic Resources 103

Socioeconomic Environment 103

Sustainable Design and Aesthetics 103

Future Studies and Implementation Plans Needed 104

Environmentally Preferred Alternative 105

Alternatives and Actions Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Evaluation 107

Dismissal of Alternative 4 — Considerations about Natural Resources 107

Dismissal of Alternative 4 — Considerations about Cultural Resources 107

Other Reasons to Dismiss Alternative 4 108 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Introduction 127

Natural Resources 128

Introduction 128

Vegetation Types 128

Sonoran Desertscrub — Rincon Mountain District 128

Sonoran Desertscrub — Tucson Mountain District 128

Desert Grassland — Rincon Mountain District 129

Desert Grassland — Tucson Mountain District 129

Pine-Oak Woodland — Rincon Mountain District 129

Pine-Oak Forest — Rincon Mountain District 129

Ponderosa Pine Forest — Rincon Mountain District 129

Mixed-Conifer Forest — Rincon Mountain District 130

Mountain Wet Meadow — Rincon Mountain District 130

Mountain Dry Meadow — Rincon Mountain District 130

Riparian Woodland and Riparian Forest — Rincon Mountain District 130

Desert Riparian Scrub — Both Districts 130
CONTENTS

x 

Wildlife 131

Rincon Mountain District High Country 131

Riparian Areas/Corridors 131

Rincon Mountain District Desertscrub 132

Tucson Mountain District Desertscrub 132

Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern 132

Wildlife 132

Rare and Protected Wildlife Species 134

Plants 135

Soils / Geologic Resources 135

Soundscape 136

Cultural Resources 138

Introduction 138

Archeological Resources 138

Cultural Landscapes 139

Ethnographic Resources 140

Historic Structures 141

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Structures 141

Civilian Aeronautical Administration Building in the Madrona Area 141

Manning Cabin at Manning Camp 142

Manning Dam at Manning Camp 143

Visitor Use and Experience 144

Visitor Use and Characteristics 144

Range of Recreational Opportunities 147

Opportunities for Solitude and Getting in Touch with Nature 149

Opportunities for Orientation, Education, and Interpretation 149

Visitor Access, including Access for Visitors with Disabilities 150

Regional Recreational Opportunities 151

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 151

Tucson Mountain Park 151

Ironwood Forest National Monument 152

Coronado National Forest 152

Colossal Cave Mountain Park 152

Catalina State Park 152

Cienega Creek Natural Preserve 152

Socioeconomic Environment 153

Population Indicators 153

Social and Cultural Indicators 157

Economic Indicators 158

Tourism and Recreation Indicators 159

Sense of Place Indicators 162

Transportation 163

Tucson Mountain Unit 163

Roadway Network 163

Picture Rocks Road 164

Roadway Issues and Concerns 165

Parking 165

Trails 165

Transit 166

Rincon Mountain District 166

Roadway Network 166

Parking 166
Contents 

xi 

Trails 167

Transit 167

Park Operations and Facilities 168

Park Organization 168

Park Operations 168

Ranger Services Division 168

Science and Resource Management Division 168

Administration Division 169

Facility Management Division 169

Fire Management Division 169

Staffing 169

Volunteers in Parks (VIP) 169

Current Partnerships/Associations 169

Park Facilities 170

Public Facilities 170

Administrative Facilities 171 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Introduction 175

Cumulative Impact Analysis 175

Actions and Projects Inside Saguaro National Park 176

Actions and Projects Outside Saguaro National Park 176

Impairment of National Park Resources 177

Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 179

Natural Resources 179

Cultural Resources 181

Cultural Resources Listed, or Eligible to Be Listed, in the National Register of Historic Places 

181

Ethnographic Resources 181

Visitor Use and Experience 182

Socioeconomic Environment 183

Transportation 184

Methodology and Assumptions 184

Impact Thresholds 184

Duration 185

Type of Impact 185

Park Operations 185

Basis of Analysis 185

Intensity 185

Duration 186

Type of Impact 186

Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 187

Natural Resources 187

Vegetation 187

Wildlife 188

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 189

Soils/Geologic Resources 190

Soundscapes 191

Cultural Resources 192

Archeological Resources 192

Cultural Landscapes 193
CONTENTS

xii 

Ethnographic Resources 194

Historic Structures 195

Visitor Experience 197

Range of Recreational Opportunities 197

Opportunities for Solitude and Getting in Touch with Nature 197

Visitor Access, including Access for Visitors with Disabilities 198

Opportunities for Orientation, Education, and Interpretation 198

Visitor Safety 199

Cumulative Effects 199

Conclusion 200

Socioeconomic Environment 201

Analysis 201

Cumulative Impacts 202

Conclusion 204

Transportation 204

Tucson Mountain District 204

Rincon Mountain District 207

Park Operations 208

Public Facilities 208

Administrative Facilities 209

Cumulative Impacts 210

Conclusion 211

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 212

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 212

Relationships Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 213

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 214

Natural Resources 214

Vegetation 214

Wildlife 217

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 220

Soils/Geologic Resources 221

Soundscapes 224

Cultural Resources 225

Archeological Resources 225

Cultural Landscapes 227

Ethnographic Resources 228

Historic Structures 229

Visitor Experience 231

Range of Recreational Opportunities 231

Opportunities for Solitude and Getting in Touch with Nature 233

Visitor Access, including Access for Visitors with Disabilities 234

Opportunities for Orientation, Education and Interpretation 235

Visitor Safety 235

Cumulative Effects 236

Conclusion 237

Socioeconomic Environment 237

Analysis 237

Cumulative Impacts 238

Conclusion 239

Transportation 239

Tucson Mountain District 239
Contents 

xiii 

Rincon Mountain District 243

Park Operations 245

Public Facilities 245

Administrative Facilities 247

Cumulative Impacts 248

Conclusion 249

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 250

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 250

Relationships Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 251

Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 252

Natural Resources 252

Vegetation 252

Wildlife 254

Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 256

Soils/Geologic Resources 258

Soundscapes 260

Cultural Resources 262

Archeological Resources 262

Cultural Landscapes 263

Ethnographic Resources 265

Historic Structures 266

Visitor Experience 267

Range of Recreational Opportunities 267

Opportunities for Solitude and Getting in Touch with Nature 269

Visitor Access Including Access for Visitors with Disabilities 270

Opportunities for Orientation, Education and Interpretation 271

Visitor Safety 271 

Cumulative Effects 272

Conclusion 273

Socioeconomic Environment 273

Analysis 273

Cumulative Impacts 274

Conclusion 275

Transportation 275

Tucson Mountain District 275

Rincon Mountain District 276

Park Operations 276

Public Facilities 277

Administrative Facilities 279

Cumulative Impacts 279

Conclusion 280

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 281

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 282

Relationships Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 282 

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Public and Agency Involvement 285

Public Meetings and Newsletters 285
CONTENTS

xiv 

Summary of Public Scoping Comments from Newsletters One and Two, Public Meetings, and 

Focus Groups 285

Summary of Public Scoping Comments from Newsletter Three and Public Meetings 287

Consultation with Other Agencies/ Officials and Organizations (To Date) 287

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 287

Consultation with Native Americans 288

Consultations for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 289

Consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer 289

Consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer on the Preferred Alternative 

290

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of This Document 291 

APPENDIXES, REFERENCES, PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS, AND INDEX 

Appendix A: Legislation 297

Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 306

Appendix C: Legal and Administrative Constraints on Planning 335

Appendix D: Other Plans Consulted for the General Management Plan, Saguaro National 

Park 337

Appendix E: Trail System Criteria and Types 340

Appendix F: Wilderness Suitability Assessment 341

Appendix G: Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 347

Appendix H: List of Classified Structures in Saguaro National Park 363

Appendix I: American Indian Tribes Traditionally Associated with The Park 366

Glossary 367

Selected References 368

Preparers and Consultants 379

Index 381

MAPS 

Park 5 

Congressionally Designated Wilderness, Tucson Mountain District 51 

Congressionally Designated Wilderness, Rincon Mountain District 53 

Alternative 1, Tucson Mountain District 71 

Alternative 1, Rincon Mountain District 73 

Alternative 2, Tucson Mountain District 79 

Alternative 2, Rincon Mountain District 81 

Alternative 3, Tucson Mountain District 87 

Alternative 3, Rincon Mountain District 89 
Contents 

xv 

TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table 1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Saguaro National Park 13 

Table 2. Minority and Low-Income Populations (1999) 41 

Table 3. Saguaro National Park Management Zones 59 

Table 4. Estimated Costs for Alternative 1 76 

Table 5. Estimated Costs for Alternative 2 85 

Table 6. Estimated Costs for Alternative 3 93 

Table 7. Indicators and Standards for Each Management Zone 97 

Table 8. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Analysis 106 

Table 9. Summary of Alternatives 109 

Table 10. Summary of Key Impacts of Implementing the Alternatives 115 

Table 11. Sounds Recorded in National Parks and Approximate dBA Level and Distance 137 

Figures 1 and 2. Visitation by Year and by Month 145 

Table 12. Visitor Characteristics for the Park Districts 146 

Table 13. Selected 2000 Census Demographic Information 154 

Table 14. Historical Population Growth 156 

Table 15. Projected Population Growth 156 

Table 16. Housing Characteristics 156 

Table 17. Pima County Employment by Industry: Changes from 1970 to 2000 159 

Table 18. General Income, Unemployment, and Poverty Characteristics 160 

Table 19. Saguaro National Park Visitation from 1979 through 2005 160 

Table 20. Economic Impacts from All Watchable Wildlife Recreation in Pima County in 2001 

161 

Table 21. Summary of Tucson Mountain District Roads 164 

Table 22. Picture Rocks Road Accidents: Major Contributing Factors, 1998-2003 205 

Table 23. Future Compliance Required for Implementation of Specific Actions (Alternative 2) 

290 

Introduction, Purpose And Need

1
2

A GUIDE TO THIS DOCUMENT 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement is organized 

in accordance with the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s implementing 

regulations for the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the National Park Service’s 

Director’s Orders on “Park Planning” (DO-2) 

and “Conservation Planning, Envrionmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision Making” (DO12).

Chapter 1: Introduction sets the framework 

for the entire document. It describes why the 

plan is being prepared and what needs it must 

address. It gives guidance for the alternatives 

that are being considered, which are based on 

the national park’s legislated mission, its 

purpose, the significance of its resources, 

special mandates and administrative 

commitments, servicewide mandates and 

policies, and other planning efforts in the area. 

The chapter also details the planning 

opportunities and issues that were raised 

during public scoping meetings and initial 

planning team efforts (see insert box below); 

the alternatives in the next chapter address 

these issues and concerns to varying degrees. 

This chapter concludes with a statement of 

the scope of the environmental impact 

analysis — specifically what impact topics 

were or were not analyzed in detail. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the 

Preferred Alternative, begins by describing 

the management prescriptions that will be 

used to manage the national park in the future. 

It also consists of the continuation of current 

management and trends in the park 

(alternative 1, the no-action alternative). The 

preferred alternative, alternative 2, and then 

alternative3 are presented. Mitigating 

measures proposed to minimize or eliminate 

the impacts of some proposed actions are 

described just before the discussion of future 

studies and/or implementation plans that will 

be needed. The evaluation of the 

environmentally preferred alternative is 

followed by summary tables of the alternative 

actions and the environmental consequences 

of implementing those alternative actions. The 

chapter concludes with a discussion of 

alternatives or actions that were dismissed 

from detailed evaluation. 

Chapter 3: The Affected Environment 

describes those areas and resources that 

would be affected by implementing actions in 

the various alternatives � natural resources, 

cultural resources, visitor experience, the 

socioeconomic environment, transportation, 

and park operations and facilities. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences

analyzes the impacts of implementing the 

alternatives on topics described in the 

“Affected Environment” chapter. Methods 

that were used for assessing the impacts in 

terms of the intensity, type, and duration of 

impacts are outlined at the beginning of the 

chapter. 

Chapter 5: Consultation and Coordination 

describes the history of public and agency 

coordination during the planning effort and 

any future compliance requirements; it also 

lists agencies and organizations who will be 

receiving copies of the document. 

The Appendixes present supporting 

information for the document, along with 

references, a glossary, and a list of the 

planning team and other consultants. 

The primary goal of scoping is to identify 

issues and determine the range of alternatives 

to be addressed. During scoping, the NPS 

staff provides an overview of the proposed 

project, including purpose and need and 

alternatives. The public is asked to submit 

comments, concerns, and suggestions 

relating to these goals. 
3 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

Why We Do General Management Planning 

The National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 requires for each unit of the National Park 

Service (NPS) to have a general management plan (GMP), and NPS Management Policies 

2006 states “[t]he Service will maintain a general management plan for each unit of the 

national park system” (2.3.1 General Management Planning). But what is the value, or 

usefulness, of general management planning? 

The purpose of a general management plan is to ensure that a national park system unit has a 

clearly defined direction for resource preservation and visitor uses to best achieve the 

National Park Service’s mandate to preserve resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations. In addition, general management planning makes the National Park 

Service more effective, collaborative, and accountable by 

• providing a balance between continuity and adaptability in decision making — Defining 

the desired conditions to be achieved and maintained in a park unit provides a touchstone that allows NPS managers and staff to constantly adapt their actions to changing 

situations while staying focused on what is most important about the park unit. 

• analyzing the park unit in relation to its surrounding ecosystem, cultural setting, and 

community — This helps NPS managers and staff understand how the park unit can 

interrelate with neighbors and others in ways that are ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable. Decisions made within such a larger context are more likely to 

be successful over time. 

• affording everyone who has a stake in decisions affecting a park unit an opportunity to be 

involved in the planning process and to understand the decisions that are made — 

National park system units are often the focus of intense public interest. Public 

involvement throughout the planning process provides focused opportunities for NPS 

managers and staff to interact with the public and learn about public concerns, 

expectations, and values. Public involvement also provides opportunities for NPS 

managers and staff to share information about the park unit’s purpose and significance, 

as well as opportunities and constraints for the management of park unit lands. 

The ultimate outcome of general management planning for national park system units is an 

agreement among the National Park Service, its partners, and the public on why each area is 

managed as part of the national park system, what resource conditions and visitor experience 

should exist there, and how those conditions can best be achieved and maintained over time. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement presents and 

analyzes three alternative future directions for 

the management and use of Saguaro National 

Park. Alternative 2 is the National Park 

Service’s preferred alternative. The potential 

environmental impacts of all alternatives have 

been identified and assessed. 

General management plans are intended to be 

long-term documents that establish and 

articulate a management philosophy and 

framework for decision making and problem 

solving in the parks. This general management 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

4 

plan will provide guidance for the next 25 

years. 

BACKGROUND 

Saguaro National Park was established by 

President Hoover on March 1, 1933. Originally named Saguaro National Monument, 

the name was changed to Saguaro National 

Park by an act of Congress on October 14, 

1994 (see appendix A). Wilderness was 

designated in 1976, and boundary changes 

have taken place in 1961, 1976, 1991, and 

1994. The park has 91,445.96 acres with 

4,289.79 acres being in nonfederal ownership 

and 87,156.17 acres being in federal ownership. Designated wilderness includes 71,400 

acres. 

Lands have been added to the park since 

wilderness designation in 1976. These are 

referred to as the expansion areas in this 

document. (See the wilderness maps in 

appendix F for more details.) 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PARK 

This mountainous park has two districts — 

the Rincon Mountain District east of Tucson 

and the Tucson Mountain District west of 

Tucson. Both districts of the park are in Pima 

County, Arizona, and are separated by the city 

of Tucson. The Rincon Mountain District is 

bordered on the east and portions of the north 

and south by the Coronado National Forest. 

Residential developments border sections of 

the western, southwestern, and northwestern 

boundaries of this district. The Tucson 

Mountain District is bordered primarily by 

Tucson Mountain Park on the south and 

residential development on the north, east, 

and west. 

In 2004, Pima County had a population of 

approximately 885,000, and the city of 

Tucson’s population was nearly 495,000 

residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2006a). The city 

is growing rapidly both in terms of population 

and land area. Between 1990 and 2000, the 

area of land within Tucson city limits 

increased by more than 25% through the 

annexation of more than 40 square miles of 

unincorporated Pima County during the 

decade (City of Tucson 2002). When the park 

districts were created, dirt roads connected 

these distant protected areas to the city. The 

30 miles separating the two park districts are 

now completely filled by the city of Tucson. 

The trend has been expanding urbanization 

outward from the city core and the city limits 

have expanded to abut the park boundaries in 

some locations. Today, the park districts have 

become islands of wildness in a sea of urban 

development. 

Saguaro National Park protects a superb 

example of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem, 

featuring exceptional stands of saguaro cacti, 

important wildlife habitat, critical riparian 

areas, and associated mountains. Saguaro 

National Park also protects significant cultural 

resources, including national-register-listed or 

-eligible archeological resources, places 

important to American Indian cultural 

traditions, and historic structures. 

A visit to Saguaro National Park allows visitors 

to come in close contact with one of the most 

interesting and unusual collections of desert 

life in the United States. Visitors of all ages are 

fascinated and enchanted by the desert giants, 

saguaro cacti, especially their many interesting 

and complex interrelationships with other 

desert life. The park provides exceptional 

opportunities for visitors to experience solitude and discover nature on their own, to 

educate people through close interaction with 

the environment, and to see the outstanding 

and diverse scenic features of this classic 

desert landscape. 

Annual recreational visitation to the park has 

averaged around 700,000 in the last decade. 

The typical peak period of visitation at 

Saguaro is January through March. The 
�

�

� ��

� ��

�����

��

��

��

��

��

����������������

�����������

������

��������

��������

������

��������

��������

�����

����

�����

������ ����������

�����������

��������������������������������������

��������������

���������������

�������������

�������������

��������������

��������

���������

������������

����������

��������������������������

������������

����������������

���������

���������

�� �������

�����

��

�����

�

��� ��

�� � � ��

������ ��

�� �� � ��

�

���

������ ��

�

��

���

���

�������

�����

���� �

�

�����������������������

���������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������

��������

Purpose and Need for the Plan 

7 

months with the lowest visitation levels are 

July and August. The heat of the desert makes 

the summer months less desirable for many of 

the activities offered at the park. Most of the 

park’s visitors participate in day use activities 

such as hiking, walking, horseback riding, 

scenic driving, and educational programs. Due 

to the proximity of the park to Tucson, a large 

number of Saguaro’s visitors are local to the 

area and have visited the park many times. 

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN 

The approved general management plan will 

be the basic document for managing Saguaro 

National Park for the next 25 years. The 

purposes of this general management plan are 

as follows: 

• Confirm the purpose, significance, and 

special mandates of Saguaro National 

Park. 

• Clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor uses and experiences to be 

achieved in the national park. 

• Provide a framework for national park 

managers to use when making decisions 

about how to best protect national park 

resources, how to provide quality visitor 

uses and experiences, how to manage 

visitor use, and what kinds of facilities, if 

any, to develop in/near the national park. 

• Ensure that this foundation for decision 

making has been developed in consultation with interested stakeholders and 

adopted by the NPS leadership after an 

adequate analysis of the benefits, impacts, 

and economic costs of alternative courses 

of action. 

Legislation establishing the National Park 

Service as an agency and governing its management provides the fundamental direction 

for the administration of Saguaro National 

Park (and other units and programs of the 

national park system). This general management plan will build on these laws and the 

legislation that established Saguaro National 

Park to provide a vision for the park’s future. 

The “Servicewide Mandates and Policies” 

section calls the reader’s attention to topics 

that are important to understanding the 

management direction at the national park. 

The alternatives in this general management 

plan address the desired future conditions 

that are not mandated by law and policy and 

must be determined through a planning 

process. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed in future more 

detailed planning efforts. All future plans will 

tier from the approved general management 

plan. 

NEED FOR THE PLAN 

This new management plan for Saguaro 

National Park is needed because the last comprehensive planning effort for the national 

park was completed in 1988. Much has 

occurred since 1988 — visitor use patterns and 

types have changed, the population of the city 

of Tucson has doubled, and an additional 

7,577 acres have been added to the park. Each 

of these changes has major implications for 

how visitors access and use the national park 

and the facilities needed to support those uses, 

how resources are managed, and how the 

National Park Service manages its operations. 

A general management plan also is needed to 

meet the requirements of the National Parks 

and Recreation Act of 1978 and NPS policy, 

which mandate development of a general 

management plan for each unit in the national 

park system. 

THE NEXT STEPS 

After the distribution of the Draft General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement there will be a 60-day public review 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

8 

and comment period after which the NPS 

planning team will evaluate comments from 

other federal agencies, tribes, organizations, 

businesses, and individuals regarding the draft 

plan and incorporate appropriate changes into 

a Final General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. The final 

plan will include letters from governmental 

agencies, any substantive comments on the 

draft document, and NPS responses to those 

comments. Following distribution of the Final 

General Management Plan / Environmental 

Impact Statement and a 30-day no-action 

period, a record of decision approving a final 

plan will be signed by the NPS regional 

director. The record of decision documents 

the NPS selection of an alternative for 

implementation. With the signing of the 

record of decision, the plan can then be 

implemented. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN 

The implementation of the approved plan will 

depend on future funding. The approval of a 

plan does not guarantee that the funding and 

staffing needed to implement the plan will be 

forthcoming. Full implementation of the 

approved plan could be many years in the 

future. 

The implementation of the approved plan also 

could be affected by other factors. Once the 

general management plan has been approved, 

additional feasibility studies and more 

detailed planning and environmental documentation would be completed, as 

appropriate, before any proposed actions can 

be carried out. For example: 

• Appropriate permits would be 

obtained before implementing actions 

that would impact wetlands. 

• Appropriate federal and state agencies 

would be consulted concerning 

actions that could affect threatened 

and endangered species. 

• Native American tribes and the state 

historic preservation office would be 

consulted. 

• Appropriate NEPA documentation 

would be prepared. 

The general management plan does not 

describe how particular programs or projects 

should be prioritized or implemented. Those 

decisions will be addressed during the more 

detailed planning associated with strategic 

plans, implementation, plans, etc. All of those 

future more detailed plans will tier from the 

approved general management plan and will 

be based on the goals, future conditions, and 

appropriate types of activities established in 

the approved general management plan. 

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 could prevent 

immediate implementation of many actions. 

Major or especially costly actions could be 

implemented 10 or more years into the future. 
9 

GUIDANCE FOR THE PLANNING EFFORT 

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE 

Introduction 

Saguaro National Park protects a superb 

example of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem, 

featuring exceptional stands of saguaro cacti, 

important wildlife habitat, critical riparian 

areas, and associated mountains. Saguaro 

National Park also protects significant cultural 

resources, including national-register-listed or 

-eligible archeological resources, places 

important to American Indian cultural 

traditions, and historic period structures. 

Purpose 

Purpose statements provide the foundation 

for the management and use of each unit of 

the national park system; they also reaffirm 

the reasons why each area was established as a 

unit of the national park system. These 

statements help neighbors, visitors, cooperating agencies, and other users understand the 

framework in which park managers make 

decisions. 

The following purpose statements have been 

refined over time and are based on Saguaro’s 

establishing legislation as well as laws and 

policies governing management of all national 

park system units. 

Purpose Statements 

• Preserve and protect the saguaro cactus 

and the diverse vegetation and wildlife 

habitat of the surrounding Sonoran 

Desert. 

• Preserve and protect the mountain and 

riparian habitats associated with the 

Sonoran Desert in the Tucson and Rincon 

Mountains. 

• Preserve and protect wilderness qualities 

such as solitude, natural quiet, scenic 

vistas, and natural conditions. 

• Promote understanding and stewardship 

of Saguaro National Park’s natural and 

cultural resources through appropriate 

scientific study. 

• Provide opportunities to understand and 

enjoy Saguaro National Park in a manner 

that is compatible with the preservation of 

park resources and wilderness character. 

Significance 

Significance statements capture the essence of 

the national park’s importance to our 

country’s natural and cultural heritage. 

Significance statements do not inventory 

national park resources; rather, they describe 

the national park’s distinctiveness and help to 

place the national park within its regional, 

national, and international contexts. Significance statements answer questions such as 

why are Saguaro National Park’s resources 

distinctive? What do they contribute to our 

natural/cultural heritage? Defining the 

national park’s significance helps managers 

make decisions that preserve the resources 

and values necessary to accomplish the 

national park’s purpose. 

The following are the significance statements 

for Saguaro National Park. 

Significance Statements 

• The saguaro cactus biotic community in 

the park is a superb example of the 

Sonoran Desert ecosystem because of the 

density and many generations of the 

saguaro cacti. 

• The saguaro is the tallest cactus in the 

United States, and its distinctive form is 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

10 

recognized worldwide as an icon of the 

American Southwest. 

• The park contains abundant evidence of a 

wide range and long history of human 

interaction with the land, and has 

enormous potential for teaching 

contemporary people about adapting to 

and thriving in an arid environment. 

• The park contains the largest roadless Sky 

Island in the Sonoran Desert, 

encompassing a wide range of elevations, 

which supports extraordinary biodiversity 

within a small geographic area. 

• The juxtaposition of Saguaro National 

Park and a large urban community 

provides for easily accessed wilderness 

experiences and extensive educational 

opportunities. 

FUNDAMENTAL 

RESOURCES AND VALUES 

Fundamental resources and values warrant 

primary consideration during planning 

because they are critical to achieving the 

park’s purpose and maintaining its significance. The resources and values below are 

central to managing the area and express the 

importance of the area to our natural and 

cultural heritage. 

Natural Resources 

• Saguaro Cacti 

• Vegetative Types 

- Arizona upland (of Sonoran 

desertscrub) 

- desert grasslands 

- oaks woodland 

- pine-oak forest 

- ponderosa pine forest 

- mixed conifer forest 

- riparian vegetative types 

• Geologic Resources 

• Biodiversity 

- Natural disturbance regimes (fire, 

flood, erosion) 

- Ecological connections 

- Biological interactions— integrity of 

natural resource system (e.g. exotic 

vs. native populations, density of 

ground cover) 

• Wildlife habitat connections 

• Natural hydrology — quality, quantity, 

timing, distribution, recharge 

Cultural Resources 

• Archeological sites (Hokoham — 328 

sites) 

• Collection of CCC structures 

• Manning Cabin 

• Freeman Homestead 

• Lime kilns 

• Cactus Forest Drive 

Visitor Experience 

• Opportunities for solitude, getting away 

from the city 

• Educating people through close 

interaction with the environment, 

including opportunities for self-discovery 

• View outstanding and diverse scenic 

features of the classic desert landscape 

PRIMARY INTERPRETIVE THEMES 

Based on the park’s purpose, significance, and 

primary resources, the following interpretive 

themes have been developed. Primary interpretive themes are the key stories, concepts, 

and ideas of a park. They are the groundwork 

that NPS staff will use for educating visitors 

about the park and for inspiring visitors to 

care for and about the park's resources. With 

these themes, visitors can form intellectual 

and emotional connections with park 

resources and experiences. Subsequent 

interpretive planning may elaborate on these 

primary themes. The following are the park’s 

primary interpretive themes. 

• The grand and mysterious saguaro cactus 

engages our imagination with immense 

size, longevity, and fascinating biology as 
Guidance for the Planning Effort 

11 

well as cultural significance and humanlike qualities. 

• Inhabiting the Sonoran Desert for 

centuries has required different people to 

adapt to this environment and has led to 

impacts and changes to the desert 

resources. 

• As a unit of the national park system, 

Saguaro National Park preserves and 

protects thousands of acres of wilderness, 

offering recreation, learning, and spiritual 

renewal amid the impacts of an exploding 

urban center. All who enjoy Saguaro 

National Park play a role in the 

stewardship of this unique resource. 

• From arid desert to lush coniferous forest, 

the incredible diversity of plant and animal 

life of the Sonoran Desert is exemplified 

within Saguaro National Park. 

• The plants and animals of Saguaro 

National Park have developed a variety of 

fascinating physical features, physiological 

mechanisms, and special behaviors to 

adapt and survive in the arid environment 

of the Sonoran Desert. 

• An amazing variety of unique and complex 

geological processes took place to create 

the landforms of the park and the 

surrounding region. 

SPECIAL MANDATES AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITMENTS 

Special mandates and administrative commitments refer to park-specific requirements. 

These formal agreements are often established 

concurrently with the creation of a unit of the 

national park system. For Saguaro National 

Park these include the following: 

Life Estates 

A life estate or reservation of use and 

occupancy for a 40-acre parcel of property in 

the Rincon Mountain District is still in effect. 

 

Encumbrances 

A Master Deed Listing shows various 

encumbrances on lands purchased or 

transferred from the Bureau of Land Management. These encumbrances include minerals, 

roads, ditches, and power lines. Most of the 

encumbrance dates are indefinite. 

Mining Sites 

Evidence of intense mining activity in the 

Tucson Mountain District is visible throughout the area; which was closed to mineral 

entry in 1929. All open shafts have been 

fenced and posted to comply with Arizona 

Revised Statutes. Mining sites have not been 

evaluated in terms of national register criteria. 

SERVICEWIDE LAWS AND POLICIES 

This section (expanded in appendix B) identifies what must be done at Saguaro National 

Park to comply with federal laws and policies 

of the National Park Service. Many park 

management directives are specified in laws 

and policies guiding the National Park Service 

and are therefore not subject to alternative 

approaches. For example, there are laws and 

policies about managing environmental 

quality (such as the Clean Air Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order 

11990 “Protection of Wetlands”); laws 

governing the preservation of cultural 

resources (such as the National Historic 

Preservation Act and the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act); and 

laws about providing public services (such as 

the Americans with Disabilities Act) — to 

name only a few. In other words, a general 

management plan is not needed to decide, for 

instance, that it is appropriate to protect 

endangered species, control exotic species, 

protect archeological sites, conserve artifacts, 

or provide for handicap access. Laws and 

policies have already decided those and many 

other things for us. Although attaining some 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

12 

of these conditions set forth in these laws and 

policies may have been temporarily deferred 

in the park 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. 

Some of these laws and executive orders are 

applicable solely or primarily to units of the 

national park system. These include 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 

the National Parks Omnibus Management Act 

(1998). Other laws and executive orders have 

much broader application, such as the 

Endangered Species Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and Executive Order 11990 

that address the protection of wetlands (see 

appendixes B and C). 

The NPS Organic Act (16 USC § 1) provides 

the fundamental management direction for all 

units of the national park system: 

[P]romote and regulate the use of the 

Federal areas known as national parks, 

monuments, and reservations...by such 

means and measure as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and 

the natural and historic objects and the 

wildlife therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner 

and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 

generations. 

The National Park System General Authorities 

Act (16 USC § 1a-1 et seq.) affirms that while 

all national park system units remain “distinct 

in character,” they are “united through their 

interrelated purposes and resources into one 

national park system as cumulative 

expressions of a single national heritage.” The 

act makes it clear that the NPS Organic Act 

and other protective mandates apply equally 

to all units of the system. Further, amendments state that NPS management of park 

units should not “derogat[e]...the purposes 

and values for which these various areas have 

been established.” 

The National Park Service also has established 

policies for all units under its stewardship. 

These are identified and explained in a 

guidance manual entitled NPS Management 

Policies 2006. The “action” alternatives 

(alternatives 2 and 3) considered in this 

document incorporate and comply with the 

provisions of these mandates and policies. 

Public Law 95-625, the National Park and 

Recreation Act, requires the preparation and 

timely revision of general management plans 

for each unit of the national park system. 

Section 604 of that act outlines several 

requirements for general management plans, 

including measures for the protection of the 

area’s resources and “indications of potential 

modifications to the external boundaries of 

the unit and the reasons therefore.” NPS 

Management Policies adopted in 2006 reaffirm 

this legislative directive. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to combine the 

servicewide mandates and policies with the 

management actions described in an 

alternative. 

Table 1 shows some of the most pertinent 

servicewide mandates and policy topics 

related to planning and managing Saguaro 

National Park; across from each topic are the 

desired conditions that the staff is striving to 

achieve for that topic and thus the table is 

written in the present tense. Appendix B 

expands on this information by citing the law 

or policy directing these actions and giving 

examples of the types of actions being 

pursued by NPS staff. The alternatives in this 

general management plan address the desired 

future conditions that are not mandated by 

law and policy and must be determined 

through a planning process. 
Table 1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Saguaro National Park 

13 

TABLE 1: SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be 

Achieved at Saguaro National Park 

Relations with 

Private and Public 

Organizations, 

Owners of 

Adjacent Land, 

and 

Governmental 

Agencies 

The national park is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and 

cultural system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and private and public groups that affect, and are affected by, the park. 

The park is managed proactively to resolve external issues and concerns and 

ensure that park values are not compromised. 

Because the national park is an integral part of a larger regional environment, the 

National Park Service works cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and 

resolve potential conflicts, protect national park resources, and address mutual 

interests in the quality of life for community residents. Regional cooperation 

involves federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribes, neighboring landowners, 

and all other concerned parties. 

Government-toGovernment 

Relations between American 

Indian Tribes and 

Saguaro National 

Park

The National Park Service and tribes culturally affiliated with the park maintain 

positive, productive, government-to-government relationships. Park managers and 

staff respect the viewpoints and needs of the tribes, continue to promptly address 

conflicts that occur, and consider American Indian values in park management and 

operation. 

Natural Resources

Air Quality 

Air quality in the park meets national ambient air quality standards for specified 

pollutants. The park’s air quality is maintained or enhanced with no significant 

deterioration. 

Nearly pristine views of the landscape both within and outside the park are 

present. Scenic views are also nearly pristine.

Backcountry 

Backcountry use is managed in accordance with a backcountry management plan 

(or other plan addressing backcountry uses) that is designed to avoid unacceptable 

impacts on park resources or adverse affects on visitor enjoyment of appropriate 

recreational experiences. The Park Service seeks to identify acceptable limits of 

impacts, monitors backcountry use levels and resource conditions, and takes 

prompt corrective action when unacceptable impacts occur. 

Ecosystem 

Management 

The park is managed holistically, as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, 

and cultural system. 

Exotic Species 

The management of populations of exotic plant and animal species, up to and 

including eradication, are undertaken wherever such species threaten park 

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

Fire Management 

Park fire management programs are designed to meet resource management 

objectives prescribed for the various areas of the park and to ensure that the 

safety of firefighters and the public are not compromised. 

All wildland fires are effectively managed, considering resource values to be 

protected and firefighter and public safety, using the full range of strategic and 

tactical operations as described in an approved fire management plan. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

14 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be 

Achieved at Saguaro National Park 

Floodplains 

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. 

Long-term and short-term environmental effects associated with the occupancy 

and modification of floodplains are avoided. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or inappropriate 

human activities to a site outside the floodplain or where the floodplain will be 

affected, the National Park Service 

• Prepares and approves a statement of findings in accordance with DO 77-2. 

• Uses nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to 

human life and property while minimizing impacts on the natural resources of 

floodplains. 

• Ensures that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the 

intent of the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program 

(44 CFR 60). 

General Natural 

Resources / 

Restoration 

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

the park are restored where feasible and sustainable. 

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

possible except where special considerations are warranted. 

Geologic 

Resources 

The park’s geologic resources are preserved and protected as integral components 

of the park’s natural systems. 

The Park Service manages caves and karst in accordance with approved cave 

management plans to perpetuate the natural systems associated with the caves 

and karst. 

Land Protection 

Land protection plans are prepared to determine and publicly document what 

lands or interests in land need to be in public ownership, and what means of 

protection are available to achieve the purposes for which the national park 

system unit was created. 

Lightscape 

Management/ 

Night Sky 

Excellent opportunities to see the night sky are available. Artificial light sources 

both within and outside the park do not unacceptably adversely affect 

opportunities to see the night sky. 

Native Vegetation 

and Animals 

The National Park Service will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystem, all native 

plants and animals in the park. 

Soundscapes 

The National Park Service preserves the natural ambient soundscapes, restores 

degraded soundscapes to the natural ambient condition wherever possible, and 

protects natural soundscapes from degradation due to human-caused noise. 

Disruptions from recreational uses are managed to provide a high-quality visitor 

experience in an effort to preserve or restore the natural quiet and natural sounds 

Soils 

The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve the soil 

resources of the park, and to prevent, to the extent possible, the unnatural 

erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil, or its contamination of 

other resources. 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition as possible, 

except where special considerations are allowable under policy. 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species and 

Species of 

Concern 

Federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are 

protected and sustained. 

Native threatened and endangered species populations that have been severely 

reduced in or extirpated from the park are restored where feasible and sustainable. 
Table 1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Saguaro National Park 

15 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be 

Achieved at Saguaro National Park 

Water Resources 

Surface water and groundwater are protected, and water quality meets or exceeds 

all applicable water quality standards. 

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are maintained and operated to 

avoid pollution of surface water and groundwater. 

Wetlands 

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and enhanced. 

The National Park Service implements a “no net loss of wetlands” policy and 

strives to achieve a longer-term goal of net gain of wetlands across the national 

park system through the restoration of previously degraded wetlands. 

The National Park Service avoids to the extent possible the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and 

avoids direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is 

a practicable alternative. 

The National Park Service compensates for remaining unavoidable adverse impacts 

on wetlands by restoring wetlands that have been previously degraded. 

Wilderness 

The park ensures that wilderness characteristics and values are retained and 

protected, that visitors continue to find opportunities for solitude and primitive, 

unconfined recreation, and that signs of people remain substantially unnoticeable. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological 

Resources 

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. When disturbance or deterioration is 

unavoidable, the site is professionally documented and excavated and the resulting 

artifacts, materials, and records are curated and conserved in consultation with the 

Arizona state historic preservation office (and American Indian tribes if applicable). 

Some archeological sites that can be adequately protected may be interpreted to 

the visitor. 

Historic 

Structures 

Historic structures are inventoried and their significance and integrity are evaluated 

under National Register of Historic Places criteria. The qualities that contribute to 

the listing or eligibility for listing of historic structures on the national register are 

protected in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and 

Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (unless it is determined 

through a formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable). 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

16 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be 

Achieved at Saguaro National Park 

Ethnographic 

Resources 

Appropriate cultural anthropological research is conducted in cooperation with 

groups associated with the park. 

The National Park Service accommodates access to and ceremonial use of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoids adversely affecting the 

physical integrity of these sacred sites. 

NPS general regulations on access to and use of natural and cultural resources in 

the national park are applied in an informed and balanced manner that is 

consistent with national park purposes and does not unreasonably interfere with 

American Indian use of traditional areas or sacred resources and does not result in 

the degradation of national park resources. 

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 are consulted when such items may be 

disturbed or are encountered on park lands. 

Access to sacred sites and park resources by American Indians continues to be 

provided when the use is consistent with park purposes and the protection of 

resources. 

All ethnographic resources determined eligible for listing or listed on the national 

register are protected. If disturbance of such resources is unavoidable, formal 

consultation with the state historic preservation officer, the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and with American Indian tribes as appropriate, is 

conducted. 

The April 29, 1994, Presidential memorandum on “Government-to-Government 

Relations with Native American Tribal Governments,” codified at 3 CFR 1007 

(1995), states in part, “Each executive department and agency shall consult, to the 

greatest extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, with tribal governments before taking actions that affect federally recognized tribal governments. 

All such consultations are to be open and candid, and confidential as needed, so 

that all interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential impact of 

relevant proposals.” In addition to the inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources, 

NPS Management Policies 2006 states in part that a park’s “traditionally 

associated peoples should be consulted about . . . other proposed NPS actions that 

may affect the treatment of, use of, and access to park resources with cultural 

meaning to a group.” 

Cultural 

Landscapes 

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify landscapes potentially 

eligible for listing in the national register, and to assist in future management 

decisions for landscapes and associated resources, both cultural and natural. 

The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the landscape’s 

physical attributes, biotic systems, and uses when those uses contribute to its 

historical significance. 

Treatments are based on sound preservation practices for the preservation, 

rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of cultural landscapes is undertaken in 

accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 
Table 1: Servicewide Mandates and Policies Pertaining to Saguaro National Park 

17 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be 

Achieved at Saguaro National Park 

Museum 

Collections 

All museum collections (prehistoric and historic objects, artifacts, works of art, 

archival documents, and natural history specimens are identified and inventoried, 

catalogued, documented, preserved, and protected, and provision is made for 

access to and use of items in the collections for exhibits, research, and 

interpretation in consultation with traditionally associated groups. 

The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are protected in 

accordance with established standards. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

Visitor Use and 

Experience and 

Park Use 

Requirements 

Park resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment of future 

generations. Visitors have opportunities for types of enjoyment that are uniquely 

suited and appropriate to the superlative natural and cultural resources found in 

the park. No activities occur that would cause derogation of the values and 

purposes for which the park was established. 

For all zones, districts, or other logical management divisions within the park, the 

types and levels of visitor use are consistent with the desired resource and visitor 

experience conditions prescribed for those areas consistent with the unit’s 

purpose. 

Park visitors will have opportunities to understand and appreciate the significance 

of the park and its resources, and to develop a personal stewardship ethic by 

directly relating to the resources. 

To the extent feasible, programs, services, and facilities in the park are accessible 

to and usable by all people, including those with disabilities within an inviting 

atmosphere accessible to every segment of American society. 

Commercial 

Services 

Same as Visitor Use and Experience and Park Use Requirements above. 

All commercial services must be authorized, must be necessary and/or appropriate, 

and must be economically feasible. Appropriate planning must be done to support 

commercial services authorization. 

Public Health and 

Safety 

While recognizing that there are limitations on its capability and constraints 

imposed by the Organic Act to not impair resources, the service and its 

concessioners, contractors and cooperators will seek to provide a safe and 

healthful environment for visitors and employees. 

The park staff will strive to identify recognizable threats to safety and health and 

protect property by applying nationally accepted standards. Consistent with 

mandates and nonimpairment, the park staff will reduce or remove known 

hazards and/or apply appropriate mitigative measures, such as closures, guarding, 

gating, education, and other actions. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

18 

TOPIC Current Laws and Policies Require That the Following Conditions Be 

Achieved at Saguaro National Park 

Other Topics 

Sustainable 

Design/ 

Development 

NPS and concessioner visitor management facilities are harmonious with park 

resources, compatible with natural processes, aesthetically pleasing, functional, as 

accessible as possible to all segments of the population, energy-efficient, and costeffective. 

All decisions regarding park operations, facilities management, and development 

in the park — from the initial concept through design and construction — reflect 

principles of resource conservation. Thus, all park developments and park 

operations are sustainable to the maximum degree possible and practical. New 

developments and existing facilities are located, built, and modified according to 

the Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or other similar guidelines. 

Management decision-making and activities throughout the national park system 

should use value analysis, which is mandatory for all Department of the Interior 

bureaus, to help achieve this goal. Value planning, which may be used 

interchangeably with value analysis/value engineering/value management, is most 

often used when value methods are applied on general management or similar 

planning activities. 

Transportation to 

and within the 

Park 

Visitors have reasonable access to the park, and there are connections from the 

park to regional transportation systems as appropriate. Transportation facilities in 

the park provide access for the protection, use, and enjoyment of park resources. 

They preserve the integrity of the surroundings, respect ecological processes, 

protect park resources, and provide the highest visual quality and a rewarding 

visitor experience. 

The National Park Service participates in all transportation planning forums that 

may result in links to parks or impact park resources. Working with federal, tribal, 

state, and local agencies on transportation issues, the National Park Service seeks 

reasonable access to parks, and connections to external and alternative 

transportation systems. 

Utilities and 

Communication 

Facilities 

Park resources or public enjoyment of the park are not denigrated by 

nonconforming uses. Telecommunication structures are permitted in the park to 

the extent that they do not jeopardize the park’s mission and resources. No new 

nonconforming use or rights-of-way are permitted through the park without 

specific statutory authority and approval by the director of the National Park 

Service or his representative, and are permitted only if there is no practicable 

alternative to such use of NPS lands. 
19 

OTHER PLANNING EFFORTS RELATED TO THIS 

GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Saguaro National Park is in Tucson, Arizona. 

Properties surrounding the park are primarily 

privately owned residential and agricultural 

lands. There are a few commercial and stateowned parcels. 

Several plans have influenced or would be 

influenced by the approved General 

Management Plan for Saguaro National Park. 

These plans have been prepared (or are being 

prepared) by the National Park Service, the 

county, and the state of Arizona. 

At an early meeting, local, state, and federal, 

partners were invited to share their ongoing 

planning projects pertinent to Saguaro’s 

general management plan as well as regional 

planning efforts. Appendix D contains a 

detailed list of these plans. 

The following highlights those plans most 

relevant to this general management plan. 

Most relate to park roads and transportation 

in the park. 

Cactus Forest Trail Environmental 

Assessment, Saguaro National Park, 

Arizona. Denver, Colorado: 

Intermountain Regional Office, National 

Park Service, (2002) 

2030 Regional Transportation Plan, March 

26, 2003. Tucson, Arizona: Pima 

Association of Governments. 

“2030 Regional Transportation Plan, 

Vision and Goals. April 2003.” Tucson, 

Arizona: Pima Association of 

Governments. 

Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, 

2003-2007. Tucson, Arizona: Pima 

Association of Governments. 

Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, 

2004-2008. Tucson, Arizona: Pima 

Association of Governments. 

Saguaro National Park Transportation and 

Visitor Use Study. David Evans and 

Associates (2006) 

Saguaro National Park Comprehensive 

Trails Plan / Environmental Assessment (in 

progress). See following description for 

more detail. 

Saguaro National Park has begun a 

comprehensive trails plan, which is 

being conducted in close coordination 

with this general management plan. The 

general management plan is an 

“umbrella” plan that provides 

comprehensive direction and a 

foundation for decision making over a 

20- to 25-year period. The plan is deeply 

grounded in the park’s enabling 

legislation and mission as well as 

resource conditions and visitor 

experiences that are to be achieved and 

maintained over time. 

Tiering from the foundation and 

direction established in the general 

management plan, the comprehensive 

trails plan will include details such as 

site design; specific treatments for 

resources; locations of any new trails, 

trailheads, and parking lots; and types 

and locations of interpretive exhibits 

and signs. Because there is a pressing 

need, the comprehensive trails plan is 

beginning before the general management plan has been completed. A 

newsletter about the trails plan was sent 

out in February 2006 presenting the 

general management plan’s preferred 

alternative. This newsletter requested 

comments on both the general 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

20 

management plan’s preferred 

alternative and trails issues. Although 

the two plans are separate, the 

comprehensive trails plan must reflect 

the management prescriptions chosen 

in the approved General Management 

Plan. The comprehensive trails plan, 

however, cannot be completed until 

after a general management plan (one of 

the alternatives in this general management plan) has been approved. Once 

the general management plan has been 

completed, the comprehensive trails 

plan can be expediently implemented. 

Following are the trail system 

objectives. 

1. Protect natural and cultural 

resources. 

2. Provide reasonable access to the trails 

network and trailheads. 

3. Eliminate unnecessary and 

parallel/duplicate trails. 

4. Ensure that the resulting trails 

network is safe and maintainable. 

5. Provide for a clearly designated trail 

system. 

6. Provide for a variety of trail 

experiences. 

For more information related to trail 

system criteria and types, see appendix 

E. 
21 

PLANNING ISSUES/CONCERNS 

INTRODUCTION 

The NPS staff, general public, focus groups, 

local and county government representatives, 

and other federal agency staff identified 

various issues and concerns during scoping 

(early information gathering) for this general 

management plan. An issue is defined as an 

opportunity, conflict, or problem regarding 

the use or management of public lands. 

Comments were solicited at public meetings, 

through planning newsletters, and on the 

Saguaro National Park’s Web site (see the 

“Consultation and Coordination” chapter). 

Comments received during scoping demonstrated the public likes many things about the 

national park — its management, use, and 

facilities. The issues and concerns generally 

involve protecting park resources from increasing urban growth in the Tucson area and 

determining the appropriate visitor use, types 

and levels of facilities, services, and activities 

while remaining compatible with desired 

resource conditions. The general management 

plan alternatives provide strategies for 

addressing the issues within the context of the 

Saguaro’s purpose, significance, and special 

mandates. 

DECISION POINTS AND 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Many aspects of the desired future conditions 

of Saguaro National Park are defined in the 

establishing legislation, the park’s purpose 

and significance statements, and established 

laws and policies. The resolution of questions 

or issues that have not already been addressed 

by legislation or laws and policies are the basis 

for developing different alternatives or 

approaches to managing the park into the 

future, because usually there is more than one 

way an issue could be resolved. As with any 

decision-making process, there are key 

decisions that, once made, will dictate the 

direction of subsequent management 

strategies. Based on public and partner 

comments and NPS concerns, the following 

six major decision points were identified for 

Saguaro National Park. The bullets following 

each decision point reflect the various 

concerns that need to be addressed. This 

information is based on internal or external 

comments received or information supported 

by research and/or management experience. 

1. What are the appropriate types of resource 

protection strategies that the National Park 

Service should use while providing visitors 

with the opportunity to experience and learn 

about the resources? 

• The majority of the park is designated 

wilderness, and managing for wilderness 

values is challenging in light of the 

increasing demand being placed on the 

park from a growing urban population. 

• When visitors travel off designated trails, 

they can impact sensitive resources. 

• Resources are being lost because of 

vandalism and theft. 

• The high density of trails in some areas of 

wilderness may not be consistent with 

wilderness mandates. 

• Resources such as saguaro forest, riparian 

areas, and other habitats for threatened 

and endangered species are particularly 

sensitive to visitor use. 

• Facility locations can affect the park’s 

ability to manage for quality wildlife 

habitat. 

• Poorly designed and unmanaged trails can 

lead to erosion and other resource impacts. 

• Increasing the park’s development 

footprint to accommodate increasing use 

may impact important park resources. 

• The Madrona/Chimenea area is an 

extremely fragile riparian habitat. 

• Development along park boundaries is 

threatening scenic viewsheds and night 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

22 

skies and contributing to invasive species 

encroachment. 

• The public has expressed concerns about a 

reduction in recreation opportunities. 

2. What is the appropriate kind of vehicle 

traffic that is compatible with protecting park 

resources and visitor experiences? 

• High volumes and speeds of commuting 

traffic impacts resources, especially 

wildlife. 

• High volumes and speeds of commuting 

traffic pose safety threats to visitors and 

their park experiences. 

• Many people enjoy driving through the 

park and consider the drive a great scenic 

experience. 

• Other opportunities for accommodating 

commuting traffic in the area are or will be 

available to commuters and need to be 

considered to reduce the volume of traffic 

on park roads. 

• Roads and traffic impact the designated 

wilderness located on either side of the 

roads. 

3. What is the appropriate message for 

interpretation and educational activities inside 

the park vs. outside the park? 

• Partnerships with local and regional 

educational institutions could support 

resource-related educational opportunities 

inside and outside the park. 

• The Rincon Mountain District visitor 

center and parking area are too small and 

outdated for current demands. 

4. What are different ways that the National 

Park Service can meet its obligation to 

maintain biodiversity and optimize habitat 

values for native species? 

• Increasing urbanization in the region 

greatly influences wildlife habitat and 

connections. The park plays a significant 

role in protecting a core area of highquality habitat. The park’s proximity to 

other large public lands makes protection 

of corridors important. 

• Visitor use levels and behavior can impact 

natural ecosystems. 

• The placement of park facilities can affect 

wildlife habitat and connections. 

• Collaborating with other regional entities 

could promote wildlife values. 

• Some large animals that live in the park 

have habitat requirements that reach 

beyond park boundaries. 

• The park contains an abundance of diverse 

plant life and riparian areas that are necessary for the preservation of saguaro cacti. 

• Urban development and visitor use has the 

potential to increase invasive species. 

• 5. What are appropriate ways of using and 

managing the Manning Camp and the 

Madrona/Chimenea pools areas? 

• The fire management activities at Manning 

Camp may impact wilderness and natural 

resource values. 

• Manning Camp is a historic resource that 

needs to be protected. 

• The Madrona/Chimenea area has highly 

diverse and sensitive natural resources that 

would be impacted by an increase in use. 

• The current use levels near the 

Madrona/Chimenea area are very low, and 

there needs to be careful consideration of 

whether the resources could withstand 

additional visitor use. 

6. What are the appropriate density, types, and 

use levels of trails in various parts of the park? 

• More bicycling opportunities are desired by 

some members of the local community. 

Other members of the local community 

have expressed concerns over bicycle use 

due to visitor conflicts and resource 

impacts. 

• Connections to regional trails are desired 

by some members of the local community. 

• Any changes to the existing trail systems in 

the park need to be based on sound 

rationale, good site-specific information on 

plant species, potential wildlife habitat, and 

soil stability. 
Planning Issues/Concerns 

23 

• Some conflicts exist between user groups 

on multiuse trails, especially between 

bicyclists and horseback riders. 

• The density and location of trails can 

influence wildlife habitat viability and 

cultural resource protection. 

• Poorly designed and unmanaged trails can 

lead to erosion and other resource impacts. 

• The density of trails, levels of trail use, and 

types of trail activities in designated 

wilderness need to adhere to requirements 

of the Wilderness Act. 

• Trail planning in the park should be 

considered in context of the supply and 

demand for trail opportunities in the local 

and regional area. 

ISSUES 

The following issues were identified for 

Saguaro National Park. 

Natural Resources 

Recent studies, data analysis, and scoping 

have identified several concerns that may 

influence the protection and management of 

the park’s natural resources. Issues to be 

addressed in this plan related to natural 

resources are as follows. 

Riparian Areas. With the addition of new 

park lands through legislation and acquisition 

in the 1990s, Saguaro National Park acquired 

management responsibility for an outstanding 

riparian corridor (Rincon Creek). The creek is 

an important resource because most of the 

park’s wildlife species use these rich riparian 

corridors, which are increasingly rare in 

southern Arizona. Studies show that more 

than 80% of the bird species in Arizona use 

riparian areas as an important part of their 

habitat. It is important that this plan seek to 

protect riparian resources, which are unique 

to the desert environment. 

Water Quality and Quantity. Protection of 

water quality and quantity, both surface and 

groundwater, is critical to support vegetation 

and wildlife in the park. Increasing urbanization around the park and increasing use inside 

the park may influence water use levels and 

water quality. The plan for the park needs to 

find ways to minimize impacts from increasing 

water use by surrounding landowners, and 

ensure that recreational facilities and activities 

are appropriately located and regulated to 

minimize impacts on water quality. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern. The park is known to 

contain three species on the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service list of threatened and 

endangered species — Mexican spotted owl, 

yellow-billed cuckoo, and lesser long-nosed 

bat. The park also contains excellent habitat 

for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, a state 

species of special concern, although none 

have been confirmed in park boundaries since 

1995. These and other species are the subject 

of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan

developed by Pima County. Fourteen of the 

54 species being considered as vulnerable in 

that plan live in Saguaro National Park. The 

management plan needs to protect listed 

species and critical habitat that exist in the 

park to aid recovery of the species and meet 

Endangered Species Act requirements. To 

meet this goal, the park also needs to partner 

with other federal agencies, Pima County, 

other local governments, and various nonprofit groups to develop strategies that will 

protect these species. 

Wilderness Use. There is a need to evaluate 

existing uses in designated wilderness for their 

appropriateness in supporting wilderness 

values. For example, the fire management 

activities at Manning Camp in the Rincon 

Mountain District may impact wilderness and 

natural resource values. These uses need to be 

evaluated and alternative sites for the uses 

considered. 

Wildlife Habitat and Corridors. Habitat 

fragmentation and isolation of park habitats 

due to an expanding population and 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

24 

residential growth is increasing along the park 

boundary. Plans for the park need to consider 

how the park can cooperatively manage 

habitat with surrounding public lands. 

Fire Management. Most of the park’s five 

major vegetation communities are susceptible 

to fire. Establishing desired conditions for the 

natural fire regime is becoming increasingly 

important due to increasing urbanization, 

which may affect the way the park addresses 

fire management. Desired conditions of the 

natural fire regime are needed to provide the 

basis for the updated fire management plan 

and to help educate the public about the role 

of fire. 

Erosion and Debris Flows. Thunderstorms 

occasionally wash out roads and trails and 

deposit debris, especially in the Tucson 

Mountain Unit. Unpaved roads and trails in 

the park are impacted by debris flows every 

few summers, less so for paved roads. 

Although debris flows in the Tucson 

Mountains are not large, those occurring near 

roads and trails should be considered in road 

and trail construction and maintenance. 

Culverts associated with the roads are 

responsible for head-cut erosion. Studies of 

these processes are ongoing. 

Cultural Resources 

Saguaro National Park protects significant 

cultural resources, including national-register 

listed or eligible archeological resources, 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, and 

ethnographic resources as traditional cultural 

properties where American Indians practice 

traditions of their cultures. Recent studies, 

data analysis, and scoping have identified 

several concerns that may influence protection and management of the park’s cultural 

resources. Issues to be addressed in this plan 

related to cultural resources are as follows. 

Archeological Resources. Increasing visitor 

use and interest in archeological resources 

may lead to impacts of sites. The plan needs to 

address how to best protect archeological 

resources in different areas of the park. Also, 

the plan needs to determine the appropriate 

level of interpretation and visitor access, if 

any, to the sites. 

Historic Structures and Cultural 

Landscapes. The 1987 historic resource study 

recommends several properties for eligibility 

to the National Register of Historic Places. 

The plan needs to consider such places as 

listed in or eligible for listing in the national 

register and address how to best further identify, protect, preserve, and use both historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. Specifically, the use of Manning Cabin for fire management and other activities needs to be assessed. 

Traditional Uses. The park resources are 

important to Native American cultures in the 

region. The plan needs to include consultation 

with associated tribes to determine how best 

to accommodate traditional ceremonial uses, 

such as the Saguaro fruit-gathering. 

Visitor Opportunities and Experience 

A visit to Saguaro National Park allows visitors 

to be near one of the most interesting and 

unusual collections of desert life in the United 

States. The park provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and getting in touch with 

nature, and educating people through close 

interaction with the environment, including 

opportunities for discovery and to see outstanding and diverse scenic features of the 

classic desert landscape. Increasing visitor use 

and changing demands for visitor activities 

may have implications for future visitor use 

management strategies. Issues to be addressed 

in this plan related to visitor use and experience are as follows. 

Visitor Use. Park visitation has increased 

more than 50% since the 1988 General 

Management Plan, with most of the increase 

from local and regional visitors. Park use can 
Planning Issues/Concerns 

25 

be expected to continue to increase as Tucson 

attracts more visitors and residents. The 

park’s proximity to the growing population of 

Tucson may make protecting wilderness 

values such as quiet and solitude more difficult. Also, some of the public have voiced 

concerns over future overuse and crowding 

throughout the park. The plan needs to consider how to manage visitor use levels by 

clearly identifying desired conditions for 

resources and visitor experiences and related 

management strategies. 

Visitor Activities. There have been increasing demands for activities in the park, 

including new types of uses such as mountain 

bikes and an increased variety of access for the 

disabled. Also, there is a need to manage 

potential use conflicts between different types 

of users (e.g., hikers, horses, and bicyclists on 

the same trails). During public scoping, there 

were comments both supporting and opposing restrictions on certain types of recreational use, such as on the use of bicycles and 

horses. The plan needs to determine the 

amount, types and diversity of opportunities 

that the park can provide, while still 

promoting resource preservation and highquality visitor experiences. 

Visitor Access. With the continuing growth 

of Tucson and Pima County, there has been 

increased demand for new access points along 

the park boundary. In addition, visitors have 

requested more 24-hour access opportunities. 

The plan needs to systematically determine 

the most appropriate locations for visitor 

access to the park. 

Wilderness Experiences. During public 

scoping, many respondents indicated that the 

wilderness values of the national park, such as 

naturalness, opportunities for self-discovery, 

quiet, scenic vistas, and solitude, made the 

park a unique and special place and it should 

be protected for such values. With increasing 

use levels, demands for new activities, and 

increasing urbanization along the park 

boundary, protecting wilderness values is 

becoming more difficult. The plan needs to 

address whether existing use patterns are 

commensurate with protecting wilderness 

values such as natural quiet and solitude in the 

high use areas of the wilderness (e.g., trails 

near Picture Rocks Road). 

Interpretation/Education. The Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center was designed 

and built in the 1950s. The exhibits have had 

only superficial upgrades since then. Also, the 

facility cannot handle the volume of visitors 

that it now receives. In addition, the public 

commented during scoping that there was a 

need to expand interpretation/ education 

opportunities, including guided programs and 

opportunities outside the park boundaries 

(e.g., school partnerships). Further, the public 

noted the need for reaching out to diverse 

local communities for resource and cultural 

education opportunities, including improved 

meeting places in the park for school/ 

community programs. The plan needs to 

consider the appropriate amount and type of 

interpretation/education programs that are 

provided both inside and outside the park. 

Further, the plan needs to determine if 

additional facilities are needed to support 

orientation, interpretation, and education in 

the park and through partnerships. 

Transportation 

The heavily used commuter roads that bisect 

the Tucson Mountain District impact 

resources, especially in the form of roadkill 

and vegetation loss, and visitor experiences. 

The 1988 General Management Plan called for 

closure of Picture Rocks Road due to the 

considerable impacts on park resources. This 

action was never taken. Since 1988, commuter 

traffic on the road has increased as well as 

visitor use of the Tucson Mountain District. 

The increased volumes and speeds of traffic 

have led to increased wildlife mortality and 

more impacts on visitor experiences. During 

peak commuter traffic, visitors cannot enjoy a 

leisurely driving experience on these roads. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

26 

Most public input received during scoping 

expressed concern over the impacts from the 

high volumes of vehicle use and supported 

alternatives to managing the roads, including 

possible closures. There were also many 

comments that opposed any restrictions on 

commuter traffic, stating that road closures or 

other management strategies would result in 

undue hardship on the surrounding 

communities. The plan needs to develop and 

analyze alternatives for how to manage these 

major through-park roads to meet desired 

resource and visitor experience conditions. 

Park Operations and Facilities 

Both districts of Saguaro National Park have 

administrative and visitor service facilities and 

related park operations. Changes in staffing 

levels, visitor use activities, and management 

strategies have implications for park operations and facilities. Issues to be addressed in 

this plan related to park operations and 

facilities are as follows. 

Park Infrastructure. In the face of rapidly 

increasing visitor use and adjacent land 

development, there is a need for more park 

staff to protect resources and manage 

visitation. Currently, park infrastructure for 

office space is inadequate to support park staff 

needs. In addition, increasing visitor use is 

resulting in more days of overcrowded 

parking at the visitor centers. Also, the public 

has expressed concern over the lack of 

parking to support buses and horse trailers at 

key trailheads. Many respondents during 

public scoping also indicated a desire for more 

support facilities at trailheads, such as shade 

ramadas, water, and restrooms. The plan 

needs to consider how best to meet increasing 

demands for park infrastructure while 

protecting desired resource and visitor 

experience conditions. The plan also needs to 

evaluate opportunities for partnering with 

other local, regional, and federal organizations 

to meet park infrastructure needs. 

Madrona Facilities —Residential 

development near the Madrona area 

could result in increased access to the 

site, which adjoins a very sensitive 

riparian area. The Arizona State Trail may 

pass through the park somewhere near 

Madrona. Facilities at the site were closed 

due to health risks associated with the 

park’s pack stock, lead-based paint 

concerns, hanta virus issues, and insect 

problems. During public scoping, there 

were many comments related to 

reopening Madrona for public access to 

some degree. Some respondents even 

wanted vehicle access to the site. Because 

the complexity of park operations at 

Madrona may increase with increased 

public access, the plan needs to 

reevaluate the activities, facilities, and 

resource protection measures needed at 

the site. 

Manning Camp — The use of Manning 

Camp for fire and other management 

activities is affecting wilderness and 

natural resource values in the area. In 

addition, the use of the site for park 

operations is also a concern for 

protecting the historic structure and 

landscape. The plan needs to evaluate the 

impacts of these uses and explore 

alternative sites for the uses considered. 

Trail System — Most respondents to 

public scoping commented on the park’s 

trail system. Many people wanted more 

trails for particular types of activities (e.g., 

bicycle and horseback riding). Other 

people wanted fewer trails for the same 

activities. Most people wanted the trail 

system to remain as it is now, with no 

additions or closures. Some of the public 

suggested that a few of the trails should 

be designated for only one type of 

recreational use, otherwise known as 

“single-use trails.” Many suggested that 

the trail system should be diverse in terms 

of terrain, scenery, and challenge. Also, 

loop trails were considered most 
Planning Issues/Concerns 

27 

desirable by many of the recreation 

groups. The park’s trail network needs to 

be designed to limit impacts from 

erosion, invasion of nonnative species, 

sedimentation of water features, and 

visitor use conflicts. The appropriate 

density, type, and use levels of trails 

called for in the alternatives, as well as for 

the overall trail system, will be addressed 

in the ongoing comprehensive trails plan. 

Regional Trail Connections. There is strong 

interest by local governments and the public 

to increase regional trail connections to both 

districts of the park. Recreation users would 

like to access the park via trails to eliminate 

the need to drive to the park. Recreation users 

would also like to use trails in the park as a 

connection to trail opportunities on adjacent 

public lands. The Arizona State Trail 

Association would like to connect to the 

Rincon Mountain District, through the 

expansion area on the southern boundary. 

The plan needs to address the possibility of 

providing additional regional trail 

connections to the park, particularly the 

appropriateness of the proposed alignment 

for the Arizona State Trail. 

Partnerships and Community Involvement. 

There is a great deal of interest by park 

neighbors and the general public related to 

planning and management efforts of the park. 

The plan needs to facilitate continuing 

dialogue with the local and regional community to support park management efforts. 

Also, the plan needs to consider opportunities 

to partner with Pima County, other local 

governments, tribes, and various nonprofit 

groups to develop strategies to protect and 

manage park resources and provide highquality visitor experiences. Some of the 

partnership opportunities may include fire 

management, wildlife corridor protection, and 

trail opportunities and maintenance. 

Boundary Modifications. Congress directed 

the Park Service to consider the need for 

potential boundary modifications in the 

development of general management plans. In 

Saguaro National Park, expanding population 

and residential growth is increasing along the 

park boundary. This is causing a substantial 

increase in habitat fragmentation and isolation 

of park habitat. Park resources are being 

affected by increased traffic, pollution, trash, 

and illegal activities. Protecting wildlife 

corridors and habitat is a fundamental 

resource for the park. 

While adding lands to the park and having 

them acquired by the Park Service is only one 

of many ways to accomplish goals (see 

appendix B, boundary adjustments table), the 

plan needs to consider whether additional 

lands are needed to protect park resources. 

ISSUES AND CONCERNS NOT 

ADDRESSED IN THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Not all of the issues or concerns raised by the 

public are included in this general 

management plan. Other issues raised by the 

public were not considered because they 

• are already prescribed by law, regulation, 

or policy (see the “Servicewide Mandates 

and Policies” section), 

• would be in violation of laws, regulations, 

or policies, and/or 

• were at a level that was too detailed for a 

general management plan and are more 

appropriately addressed in subsequent 

planning documents. 

This section briefly describes each of these 

issues, and the basis for excluding them from 

this general management plan. 

Some members of the public requested 

automobile access to Manning Camp. The 

Wilderness Act does not permit vehicles in 

designated wilderness. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

28 

Some suggested vehicle access to Madrona, 

but this would be a violation of the deeded 

right-of-way on private property. 

Some members of the public requested 

additional water catchments for wildlife to 

improve wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Although the park has some of these water 

catchments, changes in NPS policies now 

prohibit adding new catchments. 

Other requests were to eliminate/increase 

entrance fees. This issue is addressed at the 

national level and is not in the park’s control. 

Requests also were made for bus service or 

other modes of transportation to the park in 

addition to private vehicles. Because the park 

is close to a major urban area with a public 

transit system, it is logical to consider using 

some of the city’s transportation system to 

help ease the park’s parking problems and 

improve visitor access options. If transit to the 

park is considered, it would be necessary to 

consider planning for trail opportunities 

leaving from the park’s visitor centers. Some 

respondents also suggested closing the park 

roads to vehicles and providing shuttle/tram 

opportunities on existing park roads. Any 

future plans for public transit would be 

developed in conjunction with local transit 

authorities. 
29 

IMPACT TOPICS — RESOURCES AND VALUES AT STAKE IN THE 

PLANNING PROCESS 

IMPACT TOPICS 

An important part of planning is seeking to 

understand the consequences of making one 

decision over another. To this end, NPS 

general management plans are typically 

accompanied by full environmental impact 

statements. Environmental impact statements identify the anticipated impacts of 

possible actions on resources and on park 

visitors and neighbors. Impacts are organized by topic, such as “impacts on the visitor 

experience” or “impacts on vegetation and 

soils.” Impact topics serve to focus the 

environmental analysis and to ensure the 

relevance of impact evaluation. The impact 

topics identified for this general management plan are outlined in this section; they 

were identified based on federal laws and 

other legal requirements, Council on 

Environmental Quality guidelines, NPS 

management policies, staff subject-matter 

expertise, and issues and concerns expressed 

by the public and other agencies early in the 

planning process (see previous section). Also 

included is a discussion of some impact 

topics that are commonly addressed, but 

that are not addressed in this plan for the 

reasons given. 

IMPACT TOPICS 

TO BE CONSIDERED 

Natural Resources 

A major reason for establishing Saguaro 

National Park was to protect its natural 

resources and its abundant natural scenery. 

Natural resources in Saguaro National Park 

are particularly valuable because the park 

protects increasingly rare examples of the 

nation’s natural heritage. 

Vegetation. The establishing legislation for 

Saguaro National Park identifies “prime 

Sonoran desert habitat including exceptionally rich area of saguaro cactus and paloverde uplands” as essential resources of the 

park. The National Park Service interprets 

this in an ecological context to mean not 

individual cacti but the interrelated plants 

and animals that make up the Sonoran desert 

vegetative community. Dense stands of 

Saguaro and other cacti are an essential 

component of the scenic quality of the park 

that is mentioned in the establishing 

legislation. 

The statements of park significance include 

several references to the saguaro cacti and 

associated vegetation’s contribution to the 

park’s character. The vegetation is an 

essential component of the landscape and 

scenic qualities of the park, and this vegetation provides protected habitat for wildlife 

and plant species. During scoping, many 

comments were received about the value of 

the park for protecting the flora of the 

Sonoran Desert and for providing an intimate look at this diverse desert ecosystem. 

Some of the actions proposed in the alternatives could affect vegetation. Therefore, 

this topic will be analyzed in detail. 

Wildlife. The Organic Act and NPS 

Management Policies2006 both require the 

National Park Service to protect and conserve native wildlife populations that could 

be affected by visitors, managers, and 

external sources. Changes in wildlife habitat 

or in wildlife populations due to implementation of the alternatives would be of 

concern to visitors, the public, and park 

managers. 

The opportunity to support important 

wildlife corridors is particularly important to 

the management of Saguaro National Park. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

30 

The park is adjacent to several existing or 

potential public land corridors that can 

provide wildlife habitat for an array of native 

fauna. In addition, increasing urbanization is 

reducing the number and size of wildlife 

corridors in the region. Therefore, park 

management considers protection of wildlife 

corridors as one of the fundamental values 

of the park. During scoping, many 

comments were received about the need to 

further protect corridors that extend north 

and south from both the Tucson and Rincon 

Mountains. 

Some of the actions proposed in the 

alternatives could affect wildlife. Therefore, 

this topic will be analyzed in detail. 

Threatened and Endangered Species and 

Species of Concern. The protection of 

species of special concern and their habitats 

is mandated by the Endangered Species Act 

and NPS Management Policies 2006. Saguaro 

National Park provides habitat for several 

threatened and endangered species, as well 

as 14 species considered vulnerable in the 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan developed 

by Pima County. Some of the actions 

proposed in the alternatives could affect 

species of special concern. Therefore, this 

topic will be analyzed in detail. 

Soils/Geologic Resources. The protection 

of soils and natural processes is mandated by 

the Organic Act and NPS Management 

Policies 2006. Some soils within Saguaro 

National Park are susceptible to wind and 

water erosion and compaction. Maintaining 

productive soil qualities while allowing for 

visitor use is an issue. The policy states that 

the Park Service will actively seek to 

understand and preserve the soil resources, 

and to prevent, to the extent possible, the 

unnatural erosion, physical removal, or 

contamination of the soil, or its 

contamination of other resources. 

Some of the actions proposed in the 

alternatives could affect park soils. 

Therefore, this topic will be analyzed in 

detail. 

Soundscapes. NPS Management Policies 

2006 and Director’s Order 47, “Soundscape 

Preservation and Noise Management,” 

recognize that natural soundscapes are a 

park resource and call for the National Park 

Service to preserve, to the greatest extent 

possible, the natural soundscapes of parks. 

The policies and director’s order further 

state that the Park Service will restore to the 

natural conditions whenever possible those 

park soundscapes that have become 

degraded by unnatural sounds (noise), and 

will protect natural soundscapes from 

unacceptable impacts. 

Saguaro National Park’s natural soundscape 

(sometimes called natural quiet) is one of the 

resources that make this park a special place. 

The park’s purpose statements include the 

importance of protecting natural quiet in the 

park, especially in the wilderness areas. 

Noise can adversely affect, directly and 

indirectly, the natural soundscape and other 

park resources. It can also adversely impact 

the visitor experience. Currently, park visitors have some opportunities to experience 

solitude and tranquility in an environment of 

natural sounds, especially in the areas of the 

park that are designated wilderness. Many 

comments received during scoping specifically mentioned opportunities to experience 

natural quiet and related perceptions of solitude, tranquility, and peace as some of the 

most important values of the park. Some of 

the actions proposed in the alternatives 

could affect the park’s soundscapes. Therefore, this topic will be analyzed in detail. 

Cultural Resources 

Archeological Resources. Archeological 

resources is retained as an impact topic 

because ground disturbance associated with 

proposed development actions, such as for 

new or expanded trails or other facilities, 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

31 

could disturb currently unidentified 

archeological resources. This topic is also 

retained for further analysis as an impact 

topic because of potential impacts associated 

with new construction and potential impacts 

associated with increased visitation as more 

people use the park. Law, regulation, or 

policy sources relevant to the impacts analysis of archeological resources are Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act as 

amended; Director's Order 28; Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation, 

Effective September 29, 1983, as Amended; 

NPS Management Policies 2006; and the 

National Environmental Policy Act as 

amended. 

Cultural Landscapes. Cultural landscapes 

is retained as an impact topic because 

changes associated with proposed development actions could affect landscape features 

or patterns of national-register-eligible 

cultural landscapes of the potential cultural 

landscapes mentioned in chapter 3 under 

“Cultural Resources.” A strategy for 

inventorying and treating the potential 

cultural landscapes listed needs to be 

developed. Law, regulation, or policy 

sources relevant to the impacts analysis of 

cultural landscapes are Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

as amended; Director's Order 28; Secretary 

of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment 

of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the 

Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, Effective 

August 11, 1995; NPS Management Policies 

2006; and the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 as amended. 

Ethnographic Resources. Ethnographic 

resources is retained as an impact topic 

because the continuing the high-speed/high 

noise traffic conditions on Sandario and 

Kinney roads would continue associated 

with proposed development actions would 

affect the traditional use area for harvesting 

saguaro fruit. Law, regulation, or policy 

sources relevant to the impacts analysis of 

ethnographic resources are Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 as amended; Director's Order 28; 

Executive Order 13007 on Sacred Sites; NPS 

Management Policies 2006; and implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended. 

Historic Structures. Historic structures is 

retained as an impact topic because changes 

associated with proposed development 

actions would affect historic structures such 

as the Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

building, Manning Cabin at Manning Camp, 

and Cactus Forest Drive. Law, regulation, or 

policy sources relevant to the impacts analysis of archeological resources are Section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 as amended; Director's Order 28; 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, 

and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995; 

NPS Management Policies 2006; and the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

as amended. 

Visitor Use and Experience 

A part of Saguaro National Park’s purpose is 

to provide opportunities to understand and 

enjoy the park’s resources in a manner that is 

compatible with the preservation of park 

resources and wilderness character. The 

park is highly valued by its visitors for the 

opportunities to recreate in and learn about 

the beautiful and diverse Sonoran Desert 

ecosystem and associated mountains. 

Range of Recreational Opportunities. The 

park provides a diverse array of recreational 

opportunities in a spectacular setting that is 

highly valued by local, national, and international visitors. During scoping, most 

respondents acknowledged their enjoyment 

of the park’s recreational opportunities and 

suggested that the amount of opportunities 

should be maintained at current levels. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

32 

Specific amenities requested to enhance 

recreational opportunities included shade 

ramadas and water at trailheads, loop trails, 

single-use trails, and trails covering varied 

terrain. Some of the public expressed a 

concern that the park may close trails in the 

future, which would reduce opportunities 

for visitors. Also during scoping, some 

mentioned the need for increased opportunities for bicyclists, especially to provide 

connections to regional trails on other 

public lands adjacent to the park. Some 

mentioned the need to reduce use of the 

park by bicyclists and horseback riders, 

citing concern over user conflicts and 

potential resource impacts, particularly from 

horseback riders on high elevation trails. 

Finally, there was some concern over the 

amount of automobile traffic on roads 

passing through the park, which impacts 

scenic driving opportunities as well as poses 

risks to visitor safety. The amount and type 

of recreational opportunities proposed in 

the alternatives will be a topic of high 

interest to the local and regional public. 

Opportunities for Solitude and Getting in 

Touch with Nature. Some of the fundamental values of the visitor experience at 

Saguaro National Park are the opportunities 

for solitude and getting in touch with the 

beauty and naturalness of the Sonoran 

Desert. The values of the park to visitors 

mentioned most often during scoping were 

quiet, solitude, getting away from the urban 

environment, and seclusion. The park has 

restorative value to people as a place of 

natural beauty and decompression from dayto-day urban living. 

Visitor Access, including Access for 

Visitors with Disabilities. Visitor access in 

Saguaro National Park needs to be managed 

to meet the desired resource conditions and 

visitor experiences that have already been 

outlined. During scoping, some respondents 

expressed concerns over high levels of use 

and access to certain portions of the park’s 

wilderness. There was some discussion 

about increasing access from nondesignated locations along the park’s 

boundary by neighbors to the park that may 

damage resources and increase conflicts 

between recreationists. In contrast, a 

number of respondents during the scoping 

process stated that the park needs additional 

access points, especially in some of the 

park’s expansion areas, to provide muchneeded access to underserved portions of 

the park. One of the topics of most interest 

to the park’s partners and the public was the 

connection of regional trail opportunities to 

the park boundaries, providing travel routes 

through the park to other public lands. 

Locations for access to the park proposed in 

the alternatives will be a topic of high 

interest to the local and regional public. 

The Architectural Barriers Act and the 

Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility 

Standards (2006) and NPS Management 

Policies 2006 require the National Park 

Service to design, construct, and operate all 

buildings and facilities so that they are accessible to, and usable by, persons with disabilities to the greatest extent reasonable. During 

scoping, several members of the public 

expressed a desire to have more accessible 

nature trails in Saguaro National Park. 

Regional Recreational Opportunities 

(outside and connecting to the Park). 

There are many public lands in the region 

providing many of the same types of recreational opportunities as Saguaro National 

Park. During scoping with the park’s partners, there was much discussion about the 

need to coordinate planning with other 

public land managers to ensure that the 

regional supply and demand for recreation 

opportunities was satisfied and appropriately located. One of the topics of most 

interest to the park’s partners and the public 

was the connection of regional trail opportunities to the park boundaries that provide 

travel routes through the park to other 

public lands. 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

33 

Opportunities for Orientation, Education 

and Interpretation. Some of the fundamental values of the park identified by park 

management are educating people for close 

interaction with the environment, including 

opportunities for discovery. The public 

identified the need for more guided and 

scheduled programs to enhance educational 

opportunities. The public also identified an 

interest in additional interpretation of the 

park’s cultural resources. 

Visitor Safety. Visitor safety is a paramount 

concern of park management to ensure 

high-quality visitor experiences. There are a 

couple of current visitor safety concerns in 

Saguaro. The amount and speed of automobile traffic on roads passing through the 

park create unsafe conditions for visitors, 

especially during peak hours of the day that 

correspond with commuter traffic. In 

addition to actual safety conflicts, there is a 

high level of perceived safety conflicts on the 

through-park roads due to the current traffic 

conditions. Another visitor safety topic of 

interest includes safety information dissemination regarding visitor use of the park at the 

visitor centers. The occasional crowding at 

the Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

may constrain adequate dissemination of 

safety information. 

Socioeconomic Environment 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires evaluation of the impacts of federal 

actions on the social and economic environment. The general management plan alternatives could affect the social and economic 

environment and opportunities of residents 

and businesses in the park vicinity through 

potential changes in park management, 

operations, and visitor use and experience. 

In addition, impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment resulting from the general 

management plan alternatives would contribute incrementally to the impacts of other 

past, present, and foreseeable future actions 

in the Tucson area, resulting in cumulative 

impacts. Consequently, socioeconomic 

environment is retained as an impact topic 

and analyzed in this document. 

Transportation 

Local and regional transportation was 

identified as an impact topic. Issues of visitor 

safety and circulation through the national 

park are of paramount concern. As noted 

above, many park roads could benefit from 

safety improvements for visitors or commuters and are heavily impacting wildlife 

due to high volumes of traffic and speeds. 

The amount and speed of automobile traffic 

on roads passing through the park create 

unsafe conditions for visitors, especially 

during peak hours of the day that correspond with commuter traffic. In addition to 

actual safety conflicts, there is a high level of 

perceived safety conflicts on the throughpark roads due to the current traffic conditions. During public scoping the public 

suggested that the Park Service consider the 

possibility of closing some park roads. 

Therefore this topic will be analyzed further. 

Park Operations 

The alternatives proposed in this plan could 

affect park operations and facilities in the 

national park. Topics include staffing, maintenance, facilities, emergency response time, 

ability to enforce park regulations and protect park values, employee and visitor health 

and safety, and management of other 

resources. 

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED 

FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION 

Some impact topics that commonly are considered during the planning process were 

not relevant to the development of this 

general management plan for Saguaro 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

34 

National Park due to the following: (a) 

implementing the alternatives would have no 

effect, a negligible effect, or a minor effect 

on the topic or resource or (b) the resource 

does not occur in the national park. These 

topics are as follows. 

Natural Resources 

Air Quality. Under the 1963 Clean Air Act, 

as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.), the 

federal land manager has a responsibility to 

protect the park’s air-quality-related values 

(including visibility, plants, animals, soils, 

water quality, and cultural resources) from 

adverse air pollution impacts. Section 118 of 

the act requires the park to meet all federal, 

state, and local air pollution standards. 

Section 176(c) of the act requires all federal 

activities and projects to conform to state air 

quality implementation plans to attain and 

maintain national ambient air quality 

standards. NPS Management Policies 2006

addresses the need to analyze potential 

impacts on air quality during park planning. 

By virtue of its 1976 wilderness designation, 

Saguaro National Park is officially 

designated a Class I airshed under the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1977. This most 

stringent air quality classification is aimed at 

protecting national parks and wilderness 

areas from air quality degradation. Saguaro 

National Park is in the Sonoran Desert. Air 

quality issues of concern in the Sonoran 

Desert include nitrogen deposition effects, 

ozone injury to vegetation, and visibility 

impairment from fine particle haze. 

Atmospheric deposition is the process by 

which airborne pollutants are deposited to 

the earth. These pollutants include, but are 

not limited to, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 

oxides, ammonia, and mercury. Total 

deposition consists of both wet and dry 

components. Due to its desert location, 

nitrogen deposition is the primary concern 

at the park. Surface waters in the park are 

generally well-buffered; therefore, surface 

waters are not likely to be acidified by 

atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and 

sulfur compounds. Most soils are also likely 

to be well-buffered from acidification. 

However, there may be areas in the park 

where rock is resistant to weathering and 

soils and water (e.g., in potholes) may be 

sensitive to acidic deposition. 

A concern exists that soils and vegetation in 

the park may be sensitive to nutrient enrichment from nitrogen deposition. The risk is 

that native plants that evolved under 

nitrogen-poor conditions would be replaced 

by invasive species that are able to take 

advantage of increased nitrogen levels. 

Estimates of total nitrogen and sulfur 

deposition can be made by adding wet and 

dry deposition. Deposition is not monitored 

in Saguaro National Park. However, the NPS 

Air Resources Division has estimated 

deposition of sulfur and nitrogen in the park 

using interpolation techniques on data from 

deposition monitors throughout the Southwest. Although the estimates of deposition 

are relatively low, they are elevated above 

natural conditions. 

Several plant species that occur in the park 

are known to be sensitive to ozone, 

including ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), 

quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), and 

skunkbush (Rhus trilobata). Tropospheric 

(ground-level) ozone concentrations have 

been monitored from 1982 to the present 

day. In 2002 the highest daily maximum 8-

hour average was 82 parts per billion (ppb); 

the national standard for the high daily 

maximum 8-hour average is 85 ppb, based 

on the fourth highest average. If ozone 

concentrations increase, the area may be in 

violation of the national standard. In 

addition, cumulative ozone doses over the 

growing season are within a range that can 

produce visible effects or growth effects on 

sensitive plant species under certain 

conditions. Vegetation surveys in the late 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

35 

1980s found symptoms of ozone injury on 

ponderosa pine. 

Saguaro National Park is taking measures to 

monitor visibility. A monitoring station has 

been monitoring air quality in the eastern 

district of Saguaro since 1998. A monitor has 

been installed in the western district since 

2001. The data collected from these monitors show that visibility at Saguaro has been 

held constant with some slight improvements. Information collected from additional monitors show that ozone levels at 

Saguaro are also remaining constant and 

even improving slightly. 

Preventing deterioration of air quality in the 

park faces the practical considerations that 

result from adjoining the Tucson metropolitan area, which substantially impacts air 

quality throughout the Tucson Basin. Both 

local and distant air pollution sources affect 

air quality in the park. Power plants and 

other industrial sources in Pima, Pinal, and 

Cochise counties in Arizona; Hidalgo 

County in New Mexico; and mobile and area 

sources in the Tucson and Phoenix metropolitan areas all contribute pollutants to the 

park. In addition, pollutants from power 

plants, smelters, and other sources in 

Mexico affect the park, as does the longrange transport of pollutants from other 

areas. 

Under alternative 1, the no-action alternative, management of the park would 

continue to use existing approaches to air 

quality issues. Access and road circulation 

would be anticipated to remain essentially 

the same as at present. Consequently, air 

quality in the park would be expected to be 

very similar to the present, varying primarily 

with metropolitan and regional growth over 

the life of the plan. Predicted increases in 

visitation over the life of the plan would 

likely increase traffic and associated emissions on a localized level, resulting in minor 

long-term adverse impacts to local air 

quality. However, in the context of the 

overall metropolitan airshed, the impact to 

air quality from increased visitation over the 

life of the plan under alternative 1 would be 

negligible. 

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have potential 

impacts on air quality in the park. As 

described in the introduction to “Chapter 4, 

Environmental Consequences,” these other 

actions range from projects within the park, 

such as rehabilitation of Cactus Forest Drive 

and the comprehensive trails plan, to actions 

by others outside the park, such the proposed Twin Peaks interchange. Although the 

no-action alternative would contribute to 

the overall long-term moderate adverse 

impacts from these other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions in the 

airshed, the added increment of this alternative would be very slight relative to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 may have a reduction in 

air pollution in localized areas due to trafficcalming devices slowing traffic. This would 

be a long-term, localized improvement on air 

quality. Construction and improvement 

projects could pose a short-term, localized, 

negligible adverse impact on air quality, 

principally from dust created during 

demolition/construction and heavy equipment operation. Specific mitigative measures 

to control dust and other air pollutants 

would be addressed as a part of each 

project’s specific compliance. 

Overall, there would be slight and temporary 

degradation of local air quality due to the use 

of construction equipment in the park, such 

as construction equipment emissions and 

dust. This effect would last only as long as 

the particular construction activity, and the 

park’s Class I air quality would not be 

affected by the proposal. Impacts would be 

negligible and short term. The proposed 

actions would not have any impacts on the 

rate of nitrogen deposition or ozone concentrations in the park or surrounding 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

36 

communities. The conversion of Golden 

Gate Road to a trail would be expected to 

reduce dust released into the atmosphere. 

No long-term adverse impacts on airquality-related values are expected to occur 

from implementing the management plan 

action alternatives. Therefore, because 

neither alternative 2 nor 3 would contribute 

new long-term adverse impacts to the area’s 

air quality, these alternatives would have no 

long-term cumulative impacts on this 

resource. 

The park would continue to work with 

partners to minimize impacts on the airshed 

due to activities outside the park’s boundary. 

The park, with the help of partners, would 

strive to improve the visibility within the 

park so that it is representative of the natural 

visibility that existed when the Clean Air Act 

amendments passed in 1977. 

Saguaro National Park acknowledges that air 

quality is a critical resource to protect. The 

park is committed to doing what it can to 

ensure that air quality at Saguaro is not 

degraded, mainly by implementing the 

measures mentioned above. However, as 

previously noted, the actions that are 

authorized by the management plan alternatives are expected to have only a negligible 

adverse impact on air quality; therefore, air 

quality is dismissed as an impact topic. 

Floodplains. Executive Order 11988, 

“Floodplain Management,” requires an 

examination of impacts on floodplains and 

potential risk involved in placing facilities 

within floodplains. NPS management 

policies; Director’s Order #2: Planning 

Guidelines; and Director’s Order #12: 

Conservation Planning, Environmental 

Impact Analysis, and Decision-making 

provide guidelines for proposed actions in 

floodplains. Most of Saguaro is considered 

Zone D (areas in which flood hazards are 

undetermined) on the FEMA Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). A few areas 

are in Zone X (areas determined to be 

outside the 500-year floodplain) on the 

insurance rate maps. The park does have 

some floodplains identified on the maps. 

They are near the park’s borders along large 

creeks such as Rincon Creek. None of the 

proposed actions are located in a known 

floodplain. Upon consultation with an NPS 

regional hydrologist, it was determined that 

the proposed actions will not have any impacts on the floodplains or the functioning 

of the floodplains. The proposed actions 

would not change the ability of a floodplain 

to convey floodwaters or its values and 

functions, nor would the proposed actions 

contribute to a flood; therefore this topic 

will not be analyzed further. 

Wetlands. Executive Order 11990, 

“Protection of Wetlands,” requires an 

examination of impacts on wetlands. An 

official wetlands delineation has not been 

completed according to US Army Corps of 

Engineers protocols; however, mapping has 

been completed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the National Wetlands 

Inventory. Although the NWI maps do not 

show any wetlands within the park, some 

seeps and springs are known to occur. 

However, any projects proposed in the 

alternatives would undergo site-specific 

compliance that would evaluate any 

potential impacts on wetlands; therefore, 

this impact topic will not be analyzed 

further. 

Invasive Exotic Plants. Saguaro National 

Park has about 1,200 plant species, of which 

80 are nonnative. Of the nonnative plant 

species, approximately 17 are considered 

invasive. A few of the invasive exotic plants 

that are of concern include buffelgrass 

(Pennisetum ciliare), fountain grass 

(Pennisetum setaceum), red brome (Bromus 

rubens), Lehmann lovegrass (Eragrostis 

Lehmanniana), Russian thistle (Salsola 

iberica), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), malta 

starthistle (Centaurea melitensis), and Sahara 

mustard (Brassica tournefortii). Several of 

these species have seeds that are dispersed 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

37 

by wind. However, many infestations begin 

along washes, trails, and roads. Water is a 

major transporter of seeds to new locations 

where infestations then become established. 

Visitors and staff also can transport exotics 

on their shoes or their vehicles. The seeds 

may be left behind along trails and roads. In 

the alternatives, all of the proposed actions 

would be in or near currently developed 

areas. Erosion control during construction 

projects would minimize the transport of 

seeds to areas outside of the construction 

footprint. An exotic plant control program 

would be implemented during construction 

to minimize the spread of noxious weeds. 

Saguaro National Park has an active control 

program for exotic plant management, 

which will be used to address any control 

measures needed to remove exotic plants 

that may be introduced. The adverse impacts 

from the introduction of exotic plants as a 

result of actions proposed in this plan would 

be negligible. Therefore, this impact topic 

will not be analyzed further. 

Prime and Unique Farmlands. In August 

1980, the Council on Environmental Quality 

directed that federal agencies must assess the 

effects of their actions on farmland soils 

classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation 

Service as prime or unique. Prime or unique 

farmland is defined as soil that particularly 

produces general crops such as common 

foods, forage, fiber, and oil seed; unique 

farmland produces specialty crops such as 

fruits, vegetables, and nuts. According to the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

(USDA 2002), the park does not have soils 

that are classified as prime and unique 

farmlands. A soil type that can be considered 

prime farmland is found within the Rincon 

Mountain District; however, the Anthony 

fine sandy loam soil type is required to be 

irrigated and either protected from flooding 

or not frequently flooded during the 

growing season. The park does not have any 

irrigated land within the park boundaries. 

Therefore, the topic of prime and unique 

farmlands was dismissed as an impact topic 

in this document. 

Natural Lightscapes. In accordance with 

NPS Management Policies 2006, the National 

Park Service will preserve, to the extent 

possible, natural lightscapes of parks, which 

are natural resources and values that exist in 

the absence of human-caused light. The proposed actions would be limited in location 

and time. The projects would be located in 

existing developed areas and would not have 

an appreciable change on the existing 

development footprint. Only the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center is proposed 

to be expanded from its current footprint. 

The visitor center closes in the early evening 

so outdoor lighting needs would be minimal. 

The proposed activities would have a negligible adverse impact on natural lightscapes 

because work would be short term in 

duration with minimal activities occurring 

after dusk. Any new lighting installed would 

follow the guidance set forth in Section 4.10 

of the NPS management policies. Therefore, 

natural lightscape was dismissed as an 

impact topic in this document. 

Water Quantity. Watersheds in Saguaro 

National Park are generally small with first-, 

second-, and third-order drainages (Mott 

1997). In the Tucson Mountain District 

these drainages are strictly ephemeral, 

flowing primarily in response to summer 

“monsoon” storms that bring brief but 

substantial precipitation. Unlike the summer 

storms that commonly lead to flash flooding, 

winter precipitation tends to be gentler and 

longer in duration; this rainfall better 

infiltrates the soil with minimal surface flow. 

The Tucson Mountain District receives 

about 11.8 inches of precipitation annually, 

fairly equally divided between winter and 

summer. No perennial water or wetlands per 

NWI mapping) are present in the district, 

although a few small natural intermittent 

seeps occur near King Canyon. Additionally, 

three windmills provide supplemental water 

for wildlife, drawing water from wells into 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

38 

man-made catchments. Two of these are 

maintained to mitigate the loss of wildlife 

access to water sources along Brawley Wash, 

which was isolated from the Tucson District 

by the Central Arizona Project canal. It is 

unclear the historic reason for the construction of the third windmill, but it is thought to 

have been built for livestock or wildlife 

mitigation on the east side of the Tucson 

Mountains. 

The Rincon Mountain District has much 

higher elevation watersheds than the Tucson 

Mountain District, reaching over 8,000 feet 

compared to the Tucson Mountain District, 

whose highest peak is 4,687 feet. Consequently, larger amounts of precipitation are 

collected at the Rincon Mountain District. 

Annual rainfall in the lower elevations, like 

the Tucson Mountain District, averages 11 

inches, but annual precipitation near Mica 

Mountain (elevation 8,666 ft) can exceed 30 

inches, and the snow pack can be heavy in 

the winter. In average years, snowmelt in 

winter and spring leads to most of the annual 

surface flow. Summer conditions are similar 

to the Tucson Mountain District, where 

surface flow occurs exclusively after large 

storms. Streams are perennially interrupted, 

intermittent, or ephemeral, but pools of 

water often remain year round. Several 

springs and seeps occur throughout the 

upper elevations. 

Actions outside the park could affect the 

park’s water quantity. The park is in an arid 

climate with limited annual rainfall. Continued expansion of residential development 

along the park’s borders could draw down 

the water table in the park because new 

houses typically have individual wells for 

their water supply. No new wells in the park 

are proposed in any of the alternatives, 

which means the rate of groundwater level 

depletion would not increase as a result of 

park actions. Erosion control methods 

would be used during ground-disturbing 

construction, which will minimize the 

amount of sediment that reaches creeks and 

pools. Based on consultations with the NPS 

Water Resources Division, the proposed 

alternatives would have negligible adverse 

impacts on the park’s water quantity. 

Therefore, this impact is not further 

evaluated in this document. 

Wilderness. Much of the land in Saguaro 

National Park (71,400 acres) has been 

formally designated as wilderness in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

Wilderness Act. In wilderness areas, the park 

seeks to provide outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation, and the opportunity for 

connection with nature. In addition to an 

absence of human-produced structures and 

roads, wilderness is also defined by its 

natural scenery, natural quiet, and solitude. 

A wilderness suitability assessment was 

completed on lands added to the park since 

1976, the last designation of wilderness 

within the park (see appendix F). The lands 

considered potentially suitable will be formally evaluated as part of a future wilderness 

study. The lands designated for wilderness 

and assessed as potentially suitable have 

been zoned as primitive or semi-primitive in 

the two action alternatives. This zoning 

would ensure that wilderness qualities are 

maintained until the wilderness study is 

completed on the lands found suitable. 

Under the no-action alternative the park 

would manage those lands found suitable as 

wilderness, which will protect their wilderness qualities. Therefore, in all alternatives, 

lands assessed as suitable are protected. The 

alternatives would have a negligible adverse 

impact on wilderness. Thus, this topic will 

not be evaluated further in this document. 

 

Indian Trust Resources 

Secretarial Order 3175 issued by Secretary of 

the Interior Bruce Babbitt, November 8, 

1993, requires that impacts on Indian trust 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

39 

resources from a proposed project or action 

by United States Department of the Interior 

agencies be addressed in environmental 

documents. 

This order was reinforced by President 

William Clinton’s April 29, 1994, memorandum to the heads of executive departments 

and agencies directing that tribal trust 

resources be considered during the 

development of federal plans, projects, 

programs, and activities. 

The federal Indian trust responsibility is the 

fiduciary duty of the federal government 

emanating from treaties and statutes to 

protect Indian lands, resources, assets, and 

rights and to carry out the mandates of 

federal law concerning American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribes. 

NPS staff at Saguaro National Park recognize the historic and cultural use of part of 

the park for traditional Tohono O’odham 

harvesting of the fruit of saguaro cacti by 

special permit. But such recognition and 

permitting does not translate into the 

creation of a trust resource because the 

harvesting is to take place in the context of 

first preserving and managing saguaro cacti 

for the benefit of all Americans as required 

by the Organic Act and subsequent 

legislation. 

Indian trust resources is not analyzed as an 

impact topic in this document because the 

resources of Saguaro National Park are 

preserved and managed for the benefit of all 

Americans, as are other units of the national 

park system. This management mandate 

stems from the Organic Act of August 25, 

1916, establishing the National Park Service; 

from President Herbert Hoover’s executive 

proclamation of March 1, 1933, establishing 

Saguaro National Monument; from the 

August 10, 1933, transfer of the national 

monument by Congress from the Forest 

Service of the United States Department of 

Agriculture to the National Park Service of 

the United States Department of the 

Interior; and from the redesignation by 

Congress of the national monument as a 

national park on October 4, 1994. The 

planning team has concluded that there are 

no Indian trust resources at Saguaro 

National Park. Therefore, the subject is not 

included as an impact topic. 

Museum Collections 

Most of the park’s museum collection 

consists of archives that contain records of 

more than 70 years of park operations. The 

collection also includes a number of 

archeological objects that have been 

recovered during surface surveys or small 

data recovery projects within the park's 

boundaries. The collection also includes 

geological specimens, botanical specimens, 

faunal specimens, and other biological 

specimens (insect, reptile, amphibian, bird, 

and mammal specimens) with associated 

field records. The total number of objects in 

the park’s collection is about 89,780 items. 

The archives and archeological and cultural 

resource artifacts are housed at the NPS 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center in Tucson. This represents 95% of 

the park’s museum collections. Three 

percent of the collection relates to natural 

history specimens, most of which are also 

being stored at the Western Archeological 

and Conservation Center, and less than 2% 

is in non-NPS repositories at two locations. 

Almost all of the park’s natural history 

collection was transferred to the Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center for 

storage in 2005. A few bird and mammal 

specimens are on loan for storage to the 

University of Arizona ornithology and 

mammal collections, respectively. About 

1,500 lichen specimens are loaned to the 

University of Minnesota in Minneapolis for 

storage in a botany collection that focuses on 

lichens. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

40 

The topic of museum collections and 

archives is dismissed from further consideration because changes involving museum 

collections and archives under each 

alternative will comply with the Museum 

Collection Facilities Strategy, Intermountain 

Region (National Park Service 2005d), 

approved and signed by the NPS regional 

director on June 16, 2005. The plan is for any 

cultural history collections remaining in 

Saguaro National Park to be moved to the 

NPS Western Archeological and Conservation Center in Tucson where the bulk of the 

park’s cultural history collections are now 

housed. The park’s natural history collections that are on loan to the University of 

Arizona and to the University of Minnesota 

would remain on loan. The rest of the 

natural history collections (currently at the 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center) would eventually likely be moved to 

a proposed facility on the campus of the 

Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff, 

Arizona, a private, nonprofit institution 

founded in 1928. A new building is being 

designed that would house collections from 

several federal agencies, including the 

National Park Service and Saguaro National 

Park, under state-of-the-art museum 

conditions. The rationale for relocating both 

the natural history and cultural history 

collections, including the archives, away 

from the park to different more centralized 

locations, is to provide curation, storage, and 

research conditions that meet museum 

standards under the staffing of professional 

curators. 

The concentration and centralization of 

both the park’s cultural history collections, 

including archives, and natural history 

collections, albeit in different locations, 

would be beneficial to museum collections 

and archives, and of long-term duration, 

because of the greater prevalence of curation 

and storage conditions meeting museum 

standards and because of the cultural, 

historical, and scientific soundness resulting 

from the increased ease of comparison with 

related collections. Therefore, the topic of 

museum collections and archives will not be 

analyzed further in this document. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 

requires that each federal agency make 

achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. This executive order 

also requires that public participation efforts 

be inclusive of potentially affected minority 

and low-income populations. 

A screening-level analysis was conducted to 

determine the existence of a low-income 

and/or minority population within the area 

of potential effect for the Saguaro National 

Park General Management Plan / 

Environmental Impact Statement. This 

analysis followed the guidance of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Environmental Justice Guidance (1998) and 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (1997). 

For purposes of this analysis, minorities and 

low-income persons and populations are 

defined as follows: 

• Minorities are persons of Hispanic or 

Latino origin of any race, Blacks, 

American Indian/Alaska Natives, and 

Asians or Pacific Islanders (without 

double-counting persons of 

Hispanic/Latino origin who also are 

contained in the racial groups). 

• Low-income represents persons living 

below the poverty level. The U.S. Census 

Bureau uses a set of income thresholds 

that vary by family size and composition 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

41 

to determine who is poor. Based on this, 

the poverty level for a family of four in 

2002 having two children under the age 

of 18 was $18,244 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2003c). The Census 2000 data, however, 

is based on 1999 data, when the poverty 

level for the same family was $16,895 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2002a). 

• Minority and low-income populations 

are identified as those that have a 50% or 

greater minority or low-income 

population, respective, or if the 

populations have a greater proportion of 

minority/low-income persons as 

compared to the comparison population. 

The presence of environmental justice 

populations has been evaluated for the 

communities closest to Saguaro National 

Park that are most likely to be affected by 

management decisions made regarding these 

lands. These communities include the City 

of Tucson, the town of Marana, Census 

Tract 44.09 (which represents the Avra 

Valley area adjacent to the Tucson 

Mountain District) and Census Tract 40.61 

(the area around and including the Rincon 

Mountain District. Data for the county and 

state levels provide comparison populations 

to determine whether minority and/or lowincome populations within the communities 

near Saguaro National Park have a greater 

proportion of minorities and/or low-income 

persons. Table 2 summarizes the minority 

and low-income groups identified in this 

analysis. 

The total minority population as listed in 

table 2 includes individuals who have identified themselves in any race or combination 

of races other than White. The comparison 

minority population (Arizona) was 36.2% in 

1999. Poverty rates listed in Table 2 are also 

based on the state of Arizona’s low-income 

population average of 13.9% in 1999. Based 

on these values, only Pima County and 

Tucson have populations that exceed the 

minority and low-income thresholds. The 

remaining communities surrounding 

Saguaro National Park all fall well below 

these thresholds. 

To fulfill Executive Order 12898 in the 

context of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, the alternatives presented in this 

TABLE 2. MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS (1999) 

Arizona 

(Comparison Population) Minority Population = 36.2% Low-income Population =13.9% 

Minority 

Population 

Low-income 

Population 

Geographic Area 

Total 

Minority1

>50% >36.2% 

Poverty 

Rate2

Poverty 

Rate 

>50 % 

Poverty Rate 

>13.9% 

Pima County 38.5% No Yes 14.7% No Yes 

City of Tucson 45.8% No Yes 18.4% No Yes 

Town of Marana 28.3% No No 6.2% No No 

Census Tract 44.09 17.8% No No 8.1% No No 

Census Tract 40.16 19.0% No No 3.2% No No 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, c 

NOTES: 1 The total minority population includes individuals of Hispanic/Latino origin, but those that are also 

Black/African Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian/other Pacific 

Islanders are not included in the total in order to avoid double counting. 2 Poverty rate among individuals, based on poverty status in 1999. 
CHAPTER 1:INTRODUCTION

42 

management plan were assessed. Based on 

this review, it has been determined that none 

of the proposed alternatives would result in 

major direct or indirect negative or disproportionately adverse effects on any minority 

or low-income population or community. 

Therefore, the topic of environmental justice 

was dismissed as an impact topic in this 

document. 

The following information contributed to 

the dismissal of environmental justice as an 

impact topic: 

• The developments and actions of the 

alternatives would not result in any 

identifiable adverse human health 

effects. Therefore, there would be no 

direct or indirect negative or adverse 

health effects on any minority or lowincome population or community. 

• Impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment due to the proposed action 

and alternatives would be minor or 

positive and would occur mostly within 

the communities surrounding the park. 

These impacts would not occur all at one 

time but would be spread over a number 

of years, thus dispersing their effects. In 

addition, the planning team does not 

expect impacts on the socioeconomic 

environment to result in major effects on 

the physical and social structure of the 

nearby communities. 

• The impacts on the natural and physical 

environment that could occur due to any 

of the alternatives would not 

disproportionately adversely affect any 

minority or low-income population or 

community. 

• No predicted effects would potentially 

disproportionately affect tribal resources 

(e.g., treaty-protected resources, cultural 

resources and/or sacred sites). 

• The proposed action and alternatives 

would not result in any identified effects 

that would be specific to any minority or 

low-income community. 

• The planning team actively solicited 

public input as part of the planning 

process and gave equal consideration to 

all comments from persons regardless of 

age, race, income status, or other 

socioeconomic or demographic factors. 

Energy Requirements 

and Conservation Potential 

The action alternatives do not call for major 

development. The actions call for including 

a modest expansion of the Rincon Mountain 

visitor center, replacing or reusing existing 

structures at the park administration area 

and Madrona, and removing some infrastructure from the Manning Camp area. 

Limited amounts of nonrenewable resources 

would be used for these construction projects, but this expenditure of energy would 

be short term and include fuel for construction vehicles and materials. The completed 

structures could increase energy consumption but to a negligible level over existing 

conditions. The application of trafficcalming devices along park roads would be 

designed to slow traffic, resulting in a 

decrease of fuel consumption over existing 

conditions. The National Park Service would 

pursue sustainable practices whenever 

possible in all decisions regarding national 

park operations and facilities management. 

There is no major development called for in 

the alternatives. Whenever possible, the Park 

Service would use energy conservation 

technologies and renewable energy sources. 

Consequently, the alternatives would 

negligibly affect energy consumption 

compared to current conditions and this 

topic is dismissed from further analysis. 

Urban Quality and Design 

of the Built Environment 

Consideration of this topic is required by 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.16. 
Impact Topics — Resources and Values at Stake in the Planning Process 

43 

The quality of urban areas is not a concern in 

this planning project except possibly for the 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center and 

parking expansion. Throughout the park, 

vernacular architecture and park-compatible 

design would be taken into consideration for 

new structures built under all of the action 

alternatives. Emphasis would be placed on 

designs and materials and colors that blend 

in and do not detract from the natural and 

built environment. Therefore, adverse 

impacts are anticipated to be negligible. No 

further consideration of this topic is 

necessary.

The Alternatives,

Including the Preferred Alternative

2
The left-hand photo on the front of this page is of Stella Tucker of the Tohono O’odham Nation 

harvesting saguaro cactus fruit in a traditional use area of the park. The photo was taken by Gary 

Gaynor on June 24, 2002, and is from the Tucson Citizen; it is used with permission.
47

INTRODUCTION 

Many aspects of the desired future condition 

of Saguaro National Park are defined in the 

establishing legislation, the national park’s 

purpose and significance statements, and the 

servicewide mandates and policies that were 

described earlier. Within these parameters, 

the National Park Service solicited input from 

the public, NPS staff, government agencies, 

tribal officials, and other organizations 

regarding issues and desired conditions for 

the national park. Planning team members 

gathered information about existing visitor 

use and the condition of the national park's 

facilities and resources. They considered 

which areas of the national park attract 

visitors, and which areas have sensitive 

resources. 

Using the above information the planning 

team developed a set of management 

prescriptions and two action alternatives to 

reflect the range of ideas proposed by the 

national park staff and the public. 

This chapter describes the management zones 

and the alternatives for managing the national 

park for the next 25 years. The NPS planning 

process requires development of action 

alternatives (alternatives 2 and 3) for 

comparison with no change in current park 

management and trends (no-action, 

alternative 1). The chapter includes tables that 

summarize the key differences between the 

alternatives and the key differences in the 

impacts that are expected from implementing 

each alternative. (The summary of impacts 

table is based on the analysis in Chapter 4, 

"Environmental Consequences.") This 

chapter also describes mitigative measures 

that would be used to lessen or avoid impacts, 

the future studies that would be needed, and 

the environmentally preferred alternative. 

MANAGEMENT ZONES 

AND ALTERNATIVES 

The building blocks for reaching an approved 

plan for managing a national park system unit 

are the management zones and the 

alternatives. All are developed within the 

scope of the park’s purpose, significance, 

mandates, and legislation. 

Management zones are descriptions of 

desired conditions for park resources and 

visitor experiences in different areas of the 

park. Management zones are determined for 

each national park system unit; however the 

management zones for one unit will likely not 

be the same for any other national park system 

unit (although some might be similar). The 

management zones identify the widest range 

of potential appropriate resource conditions, 

visitor experiences, and facilities for the park 

that fall within the scope of the park’s 

purpose, significance, and special mandates. 

Six management zones have been identified 

for Saguaro National Park (see table 3 later in 

this chapter). It may help to think of the 

management zones as the colors an artist has 

in front of him with which to paint a picture. 

The alternatives in this general management 

plan are the different pictures that could be 

painted with the colors (management zones) 

available. Each of the action alternatives has 

an overall management concept and a 

description of how different areas of the park 

would be managed. The concept for each 

alternative gives the artist (or in this case the 

NPS staff) the idea for what the picture 

(alternative) is going to look like. For example, 

perhaps one management zone is called 

“backcountry” and another zone is called 

“frontcountry.” An alternative whose concept 

is to keep most of the park in an undeveloped 

and natural/wild condition would have more 

of the backcountry zone than the 

frontcountry zone. Both zones might also be 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

48 

larger or smaller and in different locations in 

different alternatives, depending on the 

overall concept for each alternative. 

This Draft General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement presents 

three alternatives, including the National Park 

Service’s preferred alternative, for future 

management of Saguaro National Park. 

Alternative 1, the “no-action” alternative that 

presents a continuation of existing 

management direction, is included as a 

baseline for comparing the consequences of 

implementing each alternative. The other 

“action” alternatives are alternative 2 

(preferred) and alternative 3. The action 

alternatives present different ways to manage 

resources and visitor use and improve 

facilities and infrastructure at Saguaro 

National Park. The two action alternatives 

embody the range of what the public and the 

National Park Service want to see 

accomplished with regard to natural resource 

conditions, cultural resource conditions, 

visitor use and experience, the socioeconomic 

environment, transportation, and park 

operations at Saguaro National Park. The 

National Park Service would continue to 

follow existing agreements and servicewide 

mandates, laws, and policies regardless of the 

alternatives considered in this plan. However, 

actions or desired conditions not mandated 

by policy, law, or agreements can differ among 

the alternatives. 

As noted above in the "Guidance for 

Planning" section, the National Park Service 

would continue to follow existing agreements 

and servicewide mandates, laws, and policies 

regardless of the alternatives considered in 

this plan. These mandates and policies are not 

repeated in this chapter (see appendix B). 

However, other general management plan 

proposed actions do differ among the 

alternatives. These alternative actions are 

discussed in this chapter. 

To truly understand the implications of an 

alternative, it is important to interpret the 

actions proposed in an alternative in the 

context of the servicewide mandates and 

policies.

FORMULATION OF 

THE ALTERNATIVES 

The alternatives focus on what resource 

conditions and visitor uses and experiences/ 

opportunities should be at the national park 

rather than on details of how these conditions 

and uses/ experiences should be achieved. 

Thus, the alternatives do not include many 

details on resource or visitor use management. 

More detailed plans or studies will be 

required before most conditions proposed in 

the alternatives are achieved. The implementation of any alternative also depends on 

future funding and staffing and environmental 

compliance. This plan does not guarantee that 

that money will be forthcoming. The plan 

establishes a vision of the future that will guide 

day-to-day and year-to-year management of 

the national park, but full implementation 

could take many years. 

IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The alternatives were considered from a 

number of different perspectives, including 

comments received on the alternatives 

newsletter and during public and partner 

workshops, and a preliminary analysis of 

potential impacts. With these and other 

elements in mind, the preferred alternative 

was chosen by the National Park Service 

through a process called Choosing by 

Advantages. Choosing by Advantages, or 

“CBA,” is a logical, trackable, decision-making 

process that allows evaluation of the relationship between results and costs to identify the 

alternative with the greatest value in accomplishing NPS functional goals and objectives. 

Developed for use in the public agency 
Introduction 

49

decision-making environment, CBA focuses 

on the advantages between alternatives, and 

determines the importance of those advantages based on the park’s purpose and related 

public interest. In using the CBA process, the 

National Park Service asks “What are the 

advantages of each alternative proposed for 

consideration? How important are these 

advantages?” and finally “Are those 

advantages worth their associated cost?” 

The topics that the interdisciplinary team used 

to evaluate the relative advantages between 

alternatives were as follows: 

1. protection of ecological habitats 

2. protection of riparian corridors 

3. protection of natural soundscapes 

4. partnership opportunities for resource 

management 

5. protection of Madrona 

6. protection of Manning Camp 

7. protection of historic structures and 

cultural landscapes 

8. protection of archeological resources 

9. opportunities for solitude; 

10. access for visitors 

11. range of recreational opportunities 

12. interpretation and education services 

13. efficiency of administrative operations 

14. potential for partnerships 

The relationships between the advantages and 

costs of each alternative were established. 

This process indicated that alternative 2 

scored highest with the greatest number of 

advantages, and alternative 3 was second. This 

information was used to combine the best 

attributes of the initial alternatives into 

alternative 2, which has become the NPS 

preferred alternative. This alternative gives the 

National Park Service the greatest overall 

benefits for each point listed above for the 

most reasonable cost. 

The following zoning modifications highlight 

the major differences between the preferred 

alternative (current alternative 2 in this draft 

plan) and alternative 2 that was presented in 

the June 2005 alternatives newsletter. 

Rincon Mountain District 

• The area within Cactus Forest Loop Drive 

was changed from the semi-primitive zone 

to the natural zone to allow for the potential of additional accessible nature trails 

• Hope Camp Trail was changed from the 

semi-primitive zone to the natural zone to 

allow the potential for bicycling activity. 

Tucson Mountain District 

• The northwest section of land west of 

Sandario Road was changed from semiprimitive zone to the natural zone to allow 

for the potential of interpretative trails 

and signs to be developed near the CCC 

camp 

• Golden Gate Trail was changed from a 

primitive zone to a natural zone to allow 

for the potential for bicycling activity. 

WILDERNESS 

The Wilderness Act mandates the types of 

visitor and administrative activities as well as 

the level and types of facility development 

permitted in designated wilderness. The maps 

in appendix F show the designated wilderness 

boundaries and those lands assessed as suitable for potential wilderness. These boundaries 

are not repeated on the alternative maps. In all 

alternatives the designated wilderness is 

zoned sensitive resource, primitive, or semiprimitive. These zones might also extend 

outside the designated wilderness. 

Please look at the wilderness maps and 

remember that the park has designated 

wilderness that must be considered in 

understanding each of the alternatives in its 

entirety. The lands added after the 1976 

wilderness designation and the assessment of 

those new expansion lands is contained in 

appendix F. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

50 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

VISITOR USE STUDY 

Many park roads create conditions that are 

unsafe for visitors and commuters due to high 

volumes of traffic and speeds. To develop 

alternative solutions to this issue, the park 

completed the Saguaro National Park 

Transportation and Visitor Use Study (David 

Evans and Associates 2006). Data (presented 

to the public in March 2005) indicates that 

some park roads have already exceeded the 

level of service for which they were designed. 

The park contains two types of road 

corridors: interior roads such as Golden Gate 

Road, the scenic Bajada Loop Drive, and 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive, and through-park 

roads such as Picture Rocks Road and 

Sandario Road. The alternatives in this 

document call for converting some interior 

park roads to trails as well as implementing 

traffic-calming techniques recommended by 

the transportation study. The traffic calming 

will be implemented through a method called 

“adaptive management” (see next section). 

The park’s goal is to provide a high-quality 

experience for visitors and to protect natural 

resources. Implementing the recommendations of the transportation study is the first 

step toward achieving that goal. The trafficcalming techniques range from being 

relatively restrictive, such as installing 

entrance fee kiosks and speed bumps, to being 

minor operational changes such as reducing 

speed limits. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management can be described as a 

series of repeating incremental steps: collect 

information on existing traffic problems, analyze 

it, propose appropriate interventions, implement 

the interventions, monitor the interventions and if 

needed – use additional interventions to ease the 

problem(s). 

The adaptive management approach to traffic 

calming proposed for Picture Rocks Road is 

not a specific capital improvement at this 

point but rather a systematic approach 

intended to manage traffic concerns such as 

excessive speeds, accidents, and an environment that is incompatible with the desired 

park visitor experience. Any traffic calming 

devices or methods on Picture Rocks Road 

would consider issues such as the design of 

the road, traffic volumes and speeds, sight 

distance, emergency access, needs of visitor 

and non-visitor users, etc. during the design 

phase. 

Adaptive management for traffic calming 

starts with the lowest level of intervention that 

could effectively resolve traffic-related issues. 

Traffic interventions would be phased-in over 

a number of years, as park staff monitors 

traffic conditions and then works with the 

public and local transportation agencies to 

determine the best course of action to take 

next if the lowest level of intervention is 

unsuccessful. To lower speeds, for example, 

the park could begin with low level interventions such as a public awareness campaign 

about speeding, additional law enforcement, 

and the use of mobile radar speed monitoring 

signs. If those interventions are not successful 

at reducing speeds, then the park could 

consider installing devices consistent with the 

desired visitor experience (rumble strips or 

turning lanes at trail crossings, adding parking 

pullout areas and park gateway signs, etc.). 

The highest level interventions (such as the 

use of controlled park access such as an 

entrance station or gate) would be considered 

only if many other types of traffic interventions had been tried, evaluated and proven 

unsuccessful. Additional compliance would be 

completed as required for each phase of 

adaptive management. The park is not 

proposing to close Picture Rocks Road as a 

part of the adaptive management process. 
������������������

�������������������������

��������������

����������������

������������

�������������

��������������

���

�������������

�������

�������������

���������

�������������

�������������

������������� �����������

�������������

�������������������

������ ���� ������

�����

������������������������������������������

�����

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������

���������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������

�������������������������������������

������������������������

�

���������

��������������

������������

��������������

�������������

��������������

������������ ���������

���������

�����������������������

�����������������

��������������

�������������������

����������������������

���������������������

��������������

��������������

�������������������

��������������

�����������

��������������

��������

�������������

���������

�������������

������

�����

������������������������������������������

�����

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������

���������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������

�������������������������������������

������������������������

Introduction 

55

USER (CARRYING) CAPACITY 

General management plans are required to 

include identification of and implementation 

commitments for user capacities for all areas 

of the park. The National Park Service defines 

user capacity as the type and level of visitor 

use that can be accommodated while sustaining the quality of park resources and visitor 

opportunities consistent with the purposes of 

the park. It is not necessarily a set of numbers 

or limits, but rather a process involving 

monitoring, evaluation, actions (managing 

visitor use), and adjustments to ensure park 

values are protected. The premise behind this 

process is that with any use on public lands 

comes some level of impact that must be 

accepted; therefore it is the responsibility of 

the National Park Service to decide what level 

of impact is acceptable and what actions are 

needed to keep impacts within acceptable 

limits. Instead of solely tracking and controlling user numbers, the superintendent and 

park staff manage the levels, types, behaviors, 

and patterns of visitor use and other public 

uses as needed to manage the condition of the 

resources and quality of the visitor experience. The monitoring component of this user 

capacity process helps test the effectiveness of 

management actions and provides a basis for 

informed adaptive management of public use. 

There are three principal components that 

relate to determining the user capacity for a 

national park: 

• ecological or physical capacity, which 

includes the capabilities of the natural and 

cultural resources to sustain levels and 

types of use without unacceptable damage 

• sociological capacity, which includes the 

ability of visitors to enjoy and appreciate 

these resources without undue 

interference by other visitors 

• NPS management, which includes the 

efforts that have been, or can be applied to 

the park to mitigate unwanted impacts. 

This component relates to the 

management of things such as roads, 

parking lots, buildings, trails, and visitor 

information. 

 

The foundation for user capacity decision 

making is in a general management plan’s 

qualitative descriptions of desired resource 

conditions, visitor experience opportunities 

and general levels of development and management. The plan also includes identification 

of the indicators and standards that will be 

monitored and a range of management 

strategies that may be employed in the future 

as needed. An indicator is a measurable 

variable that can be used to track changes in 

resource and social conditions related to 

human activity, so that progress towards 

desired conditions can be assessed. A 

standard is the management decision about 

the minimum acceptable condition for an 

indicator. 

 

The last steps of user capacity decisionmaking, which continue indefinitely, are 

monitoring the park’s indicators and 

standards and taking management actions to 

minimize impacts when needed. The indicators and standards included in the Final 

General Management Plan/Environmental 

Impact Statement will generally not change in 

the future. However, as monitoring of the 

park’s conditions continues, park managers 

may decide to modify, add, or delete indicators if better ways are found to measure 

important changes in resource and social 

conditions. The results of the park’s monitoring efforts, related visitor use management 

actions, and any changes to the park’s indicators and standards will be available for public 

review. 

DEVELOPMENT OF COST ESTIMATES 

NPS decision makers and the public must 

consider an overall picture of the complete 

costs and advantages of various alternatives, 

including the no-action alternative, to make 

wise planning and management decisions for 

the park. Such consideration can shed light on 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

56 

the cost of the no-action alternative and make 

possible a more legitimate comparison to the 

action alternatives. Class C estimates are used; 

these figures are not to be used for budgetary 

purposes or implementation funding requests. 

It is important that the cost estimates contain 

the same elements and that they be developed 

with the same general assumptions so that 

there can be consistency and comparability 

among alternatives. The development of lifecycle costs provides a way to combine onetime and recurring costs (such as annual operating costs) into comparable numbers. Comprehensive life-cycle cost estimates are a key 

factor to be used along with the impacts and 

advantages of the various alternatives during 

the selection of a preferred alternative. 

Life-cycle costing is an economic assessment 

of different alternatives, considering all significant costs over a specified period, expressed in equivalent dollars. Life-cycle costs 

reflect the aggregated initial one-time costs 

and recurring costs into the future over a period of time. A period of 25 years is considered 

a reasonable time for evaluating the life-cycle 

costs of alternatives in this general management plan. 

The present worth method is used to convert 

present and future expenditures into an 

equivalent expenditure today. This method is 

based on the time value of money, or the principle that a dollar spent today will be worth 

more in the future because if it was invested, it 

would yield a return. To calculate the present 

worth of future annual and recurring (replacement) expenditures, the life-cycle costs are 

calculated with the use of a “discount rate” 

that is an assumed rate of return. The National 

Park Service uses a discount rate of 7%. 

The main components of this life-cycle 

costing are as follows. 

Initial One-Time Costs 

• new development (including NPS 

infrastructure costs) 

• major rehabilitation or restoration of 

existing facilities 

• interpretive media (audiovisual materials, 

exhibits, waysides, and publications) 

• resource management and visitor service 

costs (resource and visitor inventories, 

implementation planning, compliance) 

Recurring or Replacement Costs 

Recurring or replacement costs are important 

anticipated costs that recur at intervals (other 

than annually) within the life-cycle cost period of 25 years. Examples might be a situation 

when the National Park Service is supplying 

interpretive displays or utility systems that will 

be replaced every 8 to 15 years or repaving 

parking areas every 10 years. 

Recurring Annual Costs 

• annual park operating costs (staff salary 

and benefits, shuttle rental fees, 

maintenance, utilities, monitoring, 

contract services) 

• ongoing repair and rehabilitation of 

facilities (the projection of past trends and 

known future needs into an annual 

estimate) 

NPS Facilities Model 

The National Park Service has developed 

facility models for several types of facilities, 

such as visitor centers and maintenance 

facilities, based on a number of factors unique 

to each national park system unit. This model 

was used in estimating the square footage 

required for expanding existing facilities and 

for new development. 
Introduction 

57

Implementation 

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 could prevent 

immediate implementation of many actions. 

Major or especially costly actions could be 

implemented 10 or more years into the future. 
58 

MANAGEMENT ZONES FOR SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK 

Management zones are descriptions of 

desired conditions for park resources and 

visitor experiences in different areas of the 

park. Management zones are determined for 

each national park system unit; however, the 

management zones for one unit will likely not 

be the same for any other national park system 

unit (although some might be similar). The 

management zones identify the widest range 

of potential appropriate resource conditions, 

visitor experiences, and facilities for the park 

that fall within the scope of the park’s 

purpose, significance, and special mandates. 

Six management zones have been developed 

for Saguaro National Park. 

In formulating the action alternatives 

(alternatives 2 and 3), management zones 

were placed in different locations or 

configurations on a map of the park according 

to the overall intent (concept) of each of the 

alternatives. (Because alternative 1 represents 

existing conditions, and there are no existing 

management zones, alternative 1 maps do not 

show the management zones.) Please note that 

private, state, and county-owned properties 

are not zoned. 
Table 3. Saguaro Nationa

59

TABLE 3. SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT ZONES

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

RESOURCE CONDITIONNatural Resources 

Natural resources 

would be maintained in pristine condition. 

Fragile and unique 

resources would be protected. 

Protecting the 

integrity of natural processes, including the conservation of biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystem processes, would be the highest management priority. 

Tolerance for 

resource modifications or degradation would be extremely low. 

Natural resources 

would be maintained in pristine condition. 

Protecting the 

integrity of natural processes, including the conservation of biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystem processes, would be the highest management priority. 

Tolerance for 

resource modifications or degradation would be extremely low. 

Natural resources 

would be maintained in excellent condition, approaching or matching the pristine nature of the primitive zone. 

Protecting the 

integrity of natural processes, including the conservation of biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystem processes, would be the highest management priority. 

Tolerance for 

resource modifications or degradation would be low. 

Natural resources 

would be maintained in excellent to good condition. 

In some places 

resource conditions could exhibit the signs of human use. 

The sights and 

sounds of adjacent residential land development could be present. 

Tolerance for resource modifications or degradation would be low 

to moderate. 

Natural resources 

could be highly modified and manipulated to accommodate and withstand maintenance and high levels of visitor use. 

Tolerance for resource modifications or degradation would be 

moderate to high. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

60 

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Geologic Processes, Landforms and Soil 

Geological processes 

and landforms would be maintained in a natural condition. 

Minimal soil erosion 

would be permitted due to extremely low levels of use. 

Geological processes 

and landforms would be maintained in a natural condition. 

Minimal soil erosion 

would be permitted due to low levels of use and proper trail and facility design. 

Geologic processes 

and landforms would be maintained in a natural condition. 

Minor soil erosion 

would be permitted due to moderate levels of use and proper trail and facility design. 

Geological processes 

and landforms would be maintained in a natural condition. 

Minor to moderate 

soil erosion would be permitted due to moderate levels of use and proper trail and facility design. 

Geologic processes 

and landforms could be somewhat modified to provide for a safe experience. 

Corridors would be 

planned and designed so that landforms maintained a natural appearance. 

Minor soil erosion 

could be permitted along trail or road shoulders. 

Vegetation Native vegetation 

communities and patterns would be maintained to the greatest extent possible. 

Plant communities 

would be monitored regularly, and invasions by nonnative species would be aggressively controlled. 

Native vegetation 

communities and patterns would be maintained to the greatest extent possible. 

Plant communities 

would be monitored regularly, and invasions by nonnative species would be aggressively controlled. 

Native vegetation 

communities and patterns would be maintained where possible. 

Invasion by 

nonnative plant species could be higher than in the primitive zone due to higher levels of visitor use. Invasions would be controlled where possible. 

Native vegetation 

communities and patterns would be maintained where possible. 

Invasion by nonnative plant species 

could be higher than in the primitive zone due to higher levels of visitor use. 

Efforts would be 

made to detect, prevent, and control invasions of nonnative plants where possible. 

Vegetation along 

trail or road corridors would be native species and could be modified to provide for safe, slow-speed travel. 

Vegetation management would strive 

to maintain natural appearances and density. 

Efforts would be 

made to detect, prevent, and control invasions of nonnative plants. 
Table 3. Saguaro Nationa

61

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Wildlife Habitat Preserving and 

protecting sensitive resources, natural conditions, and habitat would be the highest priority in this zone. 

Habitats would be 

restored as nearly as possible. 

Preservation of 

wildlife habitat would be a primary goal of this management zone. 

Natural conditions 

would be preserved, and altered habitats would be restored as nearly as possible. 

Preservation of 

wildlife habitat would be a goal of this management zone. Natural conditions would be preserved, and altered habitats would be restored as nearly as possible. 

Preservation of 

wildlife habitat would be a goal of this management zone. 

Natural conditions 

would be preserved, and altered habitats would be restored where possible. 

Corridors would be 

managed to reduce impacts on wildlife, such as road kill and habitat fragmentation. 

Adverse impacts on 

wildlife would be mitigated using numerous techniques such as installing culverts for wildlife crossings, diverting traffic to other routes, speed bumps. 

Sound and Lightscapes: 

Natural sounds 

would dominate. 

Distant urban sights 

and sounds could intrude at times. 

Habitats for sensitive 

and protected species would be free of intrusive noise. 

Natural sounds and 

dark night skies would dominate. 

Distant urban sights 

and sounds could intrude at times. 

Habitats for sensitive 

and protected species would be free or nearly free of intrusive noise. 

Natural sounds and 

dark night skies would be common. 

Nearby urban sights 

and sounds would intrude at times. 

Habitats for sensitive 

and protected species would be free or nearly free of intrusive noise. 

Natural sounds and 

dark night skies would be common. 

Nearby urban sights 

and sounds would intrude. 

Natural sounds and 

dark night skies could occur during low use periods. 

The sights and 

sounds of other park visitors would often be present. 

The timing, location, 

and duration of park operations that cause noise, such as landscaping activities, take resource needs and visitor enjoyment into account. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

62 

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Fire Management 

Fire management 

would vary based on the vegetation that occurs in this zone. 

Arizona upland 

desert-scrub fire starts would be suppressed. 

Fires that start in 

desert grasslands or forested vegetation areas would be managed for resource protection and visitor safety. 

Fire management 

would vary based on the vegetation that occurs in this zone. 

Arizona upland 

desert-scrub fire starts would be suppressed. 

Fire starts in forested 

vegetation areas would resume and continue its natural role in the ecosystem. 

Prescribed fire, 

would be used where appropriate. 

Wildland fire use 

would be managed to maintain a natural fire regime, benefiting resources. 

Fire management 

would vary based on the vegetation that occurs in this zone. 

Arizona upland 

desert scrub fire starts would be suppressed. 

Fires that start in 

desert grasslands or forested vegetation would be managed for resource protection and visitor safety. 

Fire management 

would vary based on the vegetation that occurs in this zone. 

Fires in Arizona 

upland desert scrub would be suppressed. 

Fires that start in 

desert grasslands or forested vegetation zones would be managed for resource protection and visitor safety. 

Fire management 

would be intensive for vegetation along road corridors. 

Frequent patrols and 

surveillance would be used to reduce the risk of fire. 

VISITOR OPPORTUNITIES / EXPERIENCEOverall Visitor Experience 

Visitors would have 

outstanding interpretive opportunities because access would be provided only on a rangerled interpretive tour. 

Visitors would have 

outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation, solitude, adventure, selfdiscovery, and selfdirected learning. 

Visitors would have 

opportunities for primitive recreation with some solitude, adventure, selfdiscovery, and selfdirected learning. 

Visitors would have 

easy access to a wide range of recreational activities with some opportunities for solitude, adventure, and self-discovery. 

Visitors would enjoy 

a slow, safe, relaxing, meandering tour route for vehicles and bicycles. There would be multiple opportunities to stop along the route for sightseeing, wildlife viewing, picnicking, or interpretive opportunities. 
Table 3. Saguaro Nationa

63

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Interaction with Resources 

Visitors would be in 

close contact with the rich resources of the park. 

Natural sights and 

sounds would dominate the visitor experience. 

Visitors would be in 

close contact with the rich resources of the park. 

Natural sights and 

sounds would dominate the visitor experience. 

Visitors would be in 

close contact with the rich resources of the park. 

Natural sights and 

sounds could dominate; however, the sights and sounds of nearby urban communities could intrude. 

Visitors would be in 

a natural setting, with opportunities for close contact with the rich resources of the park nearby. 

Natural sights and 

sounds could be present; however, the sights and sounds of other visitors and urban communities would intrude. 

Visitors would 

primarily enjoy seeing resources and have opportunities for interaction with park resources. 

The sights and 

sounds of other visitors and urban communities would dominate. 

Interpretation/ Education/ Orientation 

Interpretation and 

education would be provided on ranger-led tours. 

Interpretation and 

education opportunities would be minimal and include brochures, wayside exhibits, and interpretive signs primarily for visitor safety. 

Ranger-led tours 

could be provided. 

Interpretation and 

education opportunities would be moderate and include brochures, wayside exhibits, and interpretive signs. 

Ranger-led tours 

could be appropriate. 

Direction and safety 

signs would be present. 

Interpretation and 

education opportunities would be moderate and include brochures, wayside exhibits, interpretive signs, or nature trails. 

Ranger-led programs 

would be appropriate. 

Direction and safety 

signs would be present. 

Interpretation and 

education opportunities would be moderate – including scenic overlooks, wayside exhibits, or nature trails. 

Direction and safety 

signs would be present. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

64 

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Use Levels/Density/ Encounters 

Visitation levels 

would be extremely low. 

Most opportunities 

would be in small guided tour groups. 

Encounters with park 

staff and other visitors would be high. 

Visitation levels 

would be low. 

Encounters with park 

staff and other visitors along trails would generally be infrequent due to the dispersed nature of the experience. 

Encounters with a 

few other visitors in backcountry campsites in the Rincon Mountain District would be expected. 

Visitation levels 

would be moderate. 

Encounters with park 

staff and other visitors on trails would generally be moderate due to the dispersed nature of the experience. 

Encounters with 

other visitors would be high during peak use and at entry points or points of interest. 

Visitation levels 

would be moderate. 

Encounters with park 

staff and other visitors on trails would be generally moderate due to the dispersed nature of the experience. 

Encounters with 

other visitors would be high during peak use and at entry points or points of interest. 

Visitation levels 

would be moderate to high. 

Encounters with 

other visitors would generally be frequent particularly at pulloffs, overlooks, interpretive exhibits, and waysides. 
Table 3. Saguaro Nationa

65

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Activities Activities would be 

ranger-led walks or hikes. 

This zone would be 

for day use only. 

Activities would 

include backpacking, hiking, horseback riding, running, and viewing flora, fauna, and night skies. 

Backcountry camping would be 

permitted in the Rincon Mountain District. 

This zone would be 

for day use only except for overnight camping in the Rincon Mountain District. 

Visitors would be 

required to stay on trails; some opportunities would exist for offtrail travel above 4,500 feet. 

Activities would 

include hiking, horseback riding, running, and viewing flora and fauna. 

This zone would be 

for day use only. 

Visitors would be 

required to stay on trails. 

Activities would 

include hiking, horseback riding, running, biking, and viewing flora and fauna. 

This zone would be 

for day use only. 

Visitors would be 

required to stay on trails. 

Activities would 

include motorized touring, sightseeing, bicycling, running, walking, dog walking, and specifically permitted activities (e.g., organized run). 

This zone would be 

for day use. 

Visitors would be 

required to stay on trails or roads. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

66 

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Skills, Risk, Time Required 

Visitors would need 

a moderate to high level of physical ability. 

Time commitment 

would be a few hours to tour this zone. 

Visitors would need 

considerable physical endurance and ability. 

An in-depth 

knowledge of outdoor skills and being totally selfsufficient would be required. 

Time commitment 

could be several hours to several days to experience this zone. 

Visitors would need 

an average level of physical ability. 

A moderate 

knowledge of outdoor skills and being relatively self-sufficient would be recommended. 

Time commitment 

could be moderate (<4 hours) to experience this zone. 

Visitors would need 

an average level of physical ability. 

A moderate 

knowledge of outdoor skills and being relatively self-sufficient would be recommended. 

Time commitment 

could be moderate (<4 hours) to experience this zone. 

Visitors of all levels 

of physical ability could enjoy this zone. 

Knowledge of 

outdoor skills and self-sufficiency would not be needed. 

Time commitment 

could be 1 to 2 hours to experience this zone. 

L EVEL OF DEVELOPMENTType/Character of Access Routes 

Absolutely essential 

natural trails and signs for visitor and staff safety. 

A limited number of 

designated natural surface trails. 

A low to moderate 

number of designated natural surface trails. 

A moderate number 

of natural surface and paved trails. 

A highly developed 

trail/road corridor with paved and unpaved surfaces. 

Amount and Character of Signs 

There would be no 

interpretive signs. 

Minimal directional 

and safety signs would be permitted. 

Minimal directional 

and safety signs would be permitted. 

Directional, safety, 

and interpretive signs would be permitted. 

Regulatory, 

directional, safety, and interpretive signs would be permitted. 

Trail Type (see appendix E for definitions) 

Trail type C could be 

developed. 

Light use. High skills needed. Unpaved surfaces, 

natural materials, moderate rock or root protrusions. 

Trail type C could be 

developed. 

Light to moderate 

use. 

Intermediate to high 

skills needed. 

Unpaved surfaces, 

natural materials, moderate rock or root protrusions. 

Trail types B and C 

could be developed. 

Heavy to light use. Beginner to high 

skills needed. 

Unpaved surfaces, 

natural materials, moderate to occasional rock or root protrusions. 

Trail types A and B 

could be developed. 

Heavy use. ADA accessible, 

minimal skills needed. 

Paved and unpaved 

surfaces, none to moderate rock or root protrusions. 

Trail types A and B 

could be developed. 

Heavy use. ADA accessible, 

minimal skills needed. 

Paved and unpaved 

surfaces, none to moderate rock or root protrusions. 
Table 3. Saguaro Nationa

67

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

Types of Facilities No facility 

development other than what might be needed for resource protection and visitor safety. Any development footprint would be the minimum required to meet the needs of resource protection and visitor safety. 

Facilities could 

include a small number of designated, natural surface trails and horse hitching rails. 

Support facilities may 

be permitted if determined necessary to support preservation of resource values. 

In the Rincon 

Mountain District only, facilities could include a small number of designated backcountry campsites with associated pit toilets, fire rings, and food storage containers. 

This zone will have 

the smallest footprint for any new or existing facilities. The footprint will be the minimum size needed to protect resources and meet health, safety and visitor use requirements. 

Facilities could 

include designated, natural surface trails, and horse hitching rails. 

Support facilities may 

be permitted if determined necessary to support preservation of resource values. The footprint of any new or existing facilities will be the minimum size needed to protect resources and meet health, safety and visitor use requirements. 

Some minor changes 

might be permitted when necessary to provide for trails, pit toilets, and other minimal visitor facilities. 

Facilities could 

include designated, natural and paved surface trails, and horse hitching rails. 

Facilities could 

include shade ramadas, restrooms, benches, and drinking fountains. 

The footprint of any 

new or existing facilities would be the minimum size to meet health, safety, and visitor use requirements. 

Some moderate 

changes might be permitted when necessary to provide for trails, and other minimal visitor facilities. 

Facilities could 

include designated, natural and paved surface trails, pullouts, wayside exhibits, interpretive trails, and trailheads. 

The footprint of any 

new or existing facilities would be determined based on the size required to meet health, safety, visitor use, and administrative needs. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

68 

SENSITIVE ZONE PRIMITIVE ZONE SEMIPRIMITIVE ZONE NATURAL ZONE SIGHTSEEING CORRIDOR ZONE 

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIESResource Management and Visitor Protection Activities 

Management 

activities would include research and monitoring activities, wild fire suppression, wild land fire use, and prescribed fire operations, with limited staff intervention for resource protection. 

Management 

activities could include research, wild fire suppression, wild land fire use, and prescribed fire operations, resource management, and backcountry patrols. 

Management 

activities could include research, wild land fire suppression operations, resource management, and backcountry patrols. 

Management 

activities could include research, resource management, and backcountry patrol. 

Management 

activities could include road patrol, resource impact mitigation, and interpretive and educational activities/services. 

Visitor Management 

No physical controls 

(fences, barriers) would be placed on visitors. 

A high degree of 

regulatory controls (ranger-led tours) would be placed on visitor movement and access. 

A low degree of 

physical controls (fences, barriers, designated trails) would be placed on visitor movement and access. 

Regulatory controls 

(e.g., no off-trail travel below 4,500 feet, group size and length-of-stay limits) could be used to manage visitors for safety and resource protection. 

A low degree of 

physical controls (fences, barriers, designated trails) would be placed on visitor movement and access. 

Regulatory controls 

(e.g., no off-trail travel below 4,500 feet, group size) could be used to manage visitors for safety and resource protection. 

A low degree of 

physical controls (e.g., fencing, barriers) would be placed on visitor movement and access. 

Regulatory controls 

(e.g., no off-trail travel below 4,500 feet) could be placed on visitor movement and access. 

A moderate degree 

of physical controls (e.g., fencing, barriers) would be placed on visitor movement and access. 

Regulatory controls 

(e.g., no speeding) would be placed on visitor movement and access. 

TRAIL TYPES (see appendix E)) 

C C B, C A, B A, B 
Cultural Resources — Par

69

CULTURAL RESOURCES — PARKWIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE 

Resource Condition Visitor Experience Level of Managem

Archeological resources, historic structures, cultural landscapes, and ethnographic resources as possible traditional cultural properties would be identified, evaluated for national register eligibility, protected, and preserved unless it is determined through appropriate environmental analysis and consultations with the Arizona state historic preservation officer, Native American tribes, and other interested parties that disturbance is unavoidable. If significant resources must be disturbed, adequate mitigation would be undertaken beforehand. The park would continue to consult with associated American Indian tribes to identify ethnographic resources in order to develop and accomplish programs in a way that respects the beliefs, traditions, and other cultural values of the Indians who have ancestral ties to park lands. 

Visitors would have opportunities to learn about and see the cultural resources of the park. These resources might include structures, landscapes, archeological sites, rock art, or historic districts. Visitor “discovery” sites might be enhanced with interpretive signs. 

Inventories will be conductevaluate cultural resources appropriate sites to the NaPlaces. Monitoring sensitivas historic structures, prehsites and rock shelters, migdocumentation, stabilizatioRequired compliance with National Historic Preservatall undertakings. Some hisadapted to accommodate uses. 
70 

ALTERNATIVE 1: THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

CONCEPT 

The no-action alternative is a continuation 

of current management and trends. The noaction alternative is developed for two 

reasons: It is almost always a viable choice in 

the range or reasonable alternatives, and it 

serves as a basis of comparison with the two 

action alternatives. Examining the no-action 

alternative is often helpful in understanding 

why the National Park Service or the public 

may believe that certain future changes are 

necessary or advisable. 

The park’s enabling legislation and NPS 

management policies would provide 

guidance for all of the alternatives, and 

under alternative 1, guidance from the 1988 

General Management Plan would continue 

to guide park management. The park has 

implemented many of the actions identified 

in the 1988 plan. The park would continue to 

be managed as it is today, with no major 

change in management direction (see 

Alternative 1 maps). 

RESOURCE CONDITIONS 

• Natural resources and processes would 

be preserved while accommodating a 

range of visitor uses and experiences. 

Fragmentation in habitats, corridors, 

and regional ecosystems would 

continue. 

• Cultural resources would continue to be 

preserved, protected, and interpreted. 

ROADS 

• Multiple entrances to the Tucson 

Mountain District would continue to 

allow access for non-park visitors, 

resulting in excessive traffic, high speeds, 

and conflicts between commuters and 

park visitors. 

• The existing road corridors would 

continue to be managed through traffic 

signs and ranger patrols. Traffic laws and 

regulations would continue to be 

enforced by park rangers at the current 

levels. 

• Park management would continue to 

discourage visitors from traveling some 

Tucson Mountain District roads such as 

Picture Rocks Road and Sandario Road 

due to safety concerns caused by 

excessive commuter speeds and volume. 

• Resource damage would continue along 

roadways. Staff would not control 

infestations of nonnative plants along 

roadways due to unsafe conditions 

caused by heavy traffic and excessive 

speeds. 

TRAILS 

• The current Cactus Forest and Tucson 

Mountain District trail plans would 

guide trail management in the park. User 

conflicts, maintenance problems, 

duplicate/parallel trails, and resource 

damage would continue to be issues. 

Closure and revegetation of social trails 

would continue as recommended in the 

current trail plans. 

• Biking would continue to be permitted 

on park roads and on the middle section 

of the Cactus Forest Trail. Biking would 

not be permitted on any additional trails. 

• The Camino Loma Alta trailhead to the 

Hope Camp, North Hope, and the Ridge 

View trails would remain informal. The 

trails would continue to be used by 

hikers and equestrians. There would be 

limited opportunities to connect to 

regional trails outside park boundaries. 

• There would be no new trailheads or 

trails developed. 
North

0

0 1 2 Miles

1 2 Kilometers 

10

86

10

86 19

10

10

SENSITIVE

 RESOURCE 

 AREA 

 (no access)

SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK

Park Boundary

TOHONO

O’ODHAM

RESERVATION

Santa Cruz River

To Tucson and

exit 257

To

exit 248

To �� ���� �������

To exit 242

AVRA 

VALLE

Y

Red Hills

Visitor Center

TUCSON MOUNTAIN

COUNTY PARK

TUCSON

MOUNTAINS

RED HILLS

Gilbert Ray

Old Tucson Studios

Arizona-Sonora

Desert Museum

King Canyon Trail

Sweetwater Trail

Hugh Norris Trail

Sendero Esperanza Trail

Valley View Overlook Trail

Desert Discovery Nature Trail

Ina Road

Belmont Road

Wade Road

Picture Rocks Road

Sandario Road

Mile Wide Road

McCain Loop Rd

Safford Peak

3563ft

1086m

Panther

Peak

Golden Gate Road

Ez-Kim-In-Zin

Signal Hill

Scenic

Bajada

Loop

Drive

Cam-Boh

Sus

Camino del Cerro

Manville Road

Silverbell Road

Rudasill Road

two-way

two-way

two-way

one-way

Amole

Peak

Apache Peak

�����������

������

�����

Hohokam

Road

Gates Pass Road

Cortaro

Exit 246

Mam-A-Gah

To Silverbell

Road

private

�������������������������

���������������������������

�����������������������

�����������������������

���������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�������������������������������������

������������������������

��������������

�������������

�������

North

0

0 2 1 Mile

2 Kilometers 1

Desert Ecology Trail

10 10

35

35

4408

SAGUARO N

ATIONAL PAR

K

Pantano Wash

Rincon Creek

Italian Spring

Spud RockSpring

Deer Head Spring

RINCO

N

VALLEY

RINCON

MOUNTAINS

Visitor

Center

CORONADO N

ATIONAL FOREST

CORONADO N

ATIONAL FOREST

RESTRICTED USE AREA

(detailed map available at visitor center)

Douglas Spring

Douglas Spr ni g Trail

WILDHORSE CANYON

TANQUE VERDE R

DI GE

Madrona Area

Spud Rock Manning Camp

GrassShack

Happy Valley

Saddle

JuniperBasin

BOX

HC

MI ENEA CANYON

A M R D NO A

Javelina

Mica View

FreemanHomesteadTrail

Cow Head Saddle

Cow Head Sadd el Trail

Mann ni g

Camp Trail

Miller Creek

Trail

(l vi es ot ck proh bi ited)

Heartbreak Ridge Trail

Hope Camp Trail

gdi R wei V e T ar il

Turkey Creek Trail

4-wheel-drive road

Spud

Rock

Deer

Camp

HopeCamp

North Hope Trail

To

To Colossal Cave Mountain Park

 and

There are many hiking trails inthis area. Detailed maps are available at the visitor center.

Nor ht S ol pe Trail

R ni con

Creek Trail

Italian

Spring Trail

tcaC s u

oF er ts

i arT l

Tanque Verde R di ge Trail

(livestock proh bi ited)

Rincon Peak Trail (livestock prohibited)

�����������������

Camino Loma Alta

n ucso T o T

Speedway Boulevard

Broadway Boulevard

22nd

St

Escalante Road

Old Spanish Trail

Old Spanish

Freeman Road

Cac ut s oF er D ts evir

ReefRock

Helens

Dome

one-way two-way

one-way

Rincon Peak

8482ft

2585m

Golf

Links

Road

�����������������������

���������������������

���������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������

�������������������������������������

������������������������

�������������������������������

���������������������������

Alternative 1: the No-Action Alternative 

75

MADRONA/CHIMENEA AREA 

• Access to the Madrona/Chimenea area 

would continue to be limited. Visitors 

would need to travel several miles over 

difficult trails to access the area. 

• The Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building would remain 

and would be monitored. 

• When funding permits, all other facilities 

would be removed as required by the 

state health department. 

MANNING CAMP (RINCON 

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT) 

Current activities and facilities would 

remain. 

CAMPING 

• Camping would continue to be 

permitted in the backcountry of the 

Rincon Mountain District. No 

additional campsites would be 

developed. 

INTERPRETATION AND 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

• The Rincon Mountain District visitor 

facility would remain at its current size, 

which would not meet the needs of a 

growing population, particularly a 

rapidly expanding school system. 

• The interpretive displays in the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center would 

remain outdated. 

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

AND FACILITIES 

• Facilities would remain at their current 

levels; staffing would not be increased. 

• Administrative facilities in the Rincon 

Mountain District would remain 

inadequate. This district would remain 

too small to meet staff needs. This 

district would continue to serve local 

residents as its primary visitors. 

• The Manning Camp area would continue to be used for fire crew and other 

activities. Facilities to support administration, such as the water supply system, 

the vault toilet, the historic cabin, the 

corral, and the tent cabins, would 

remain. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

There would be no change to the current 

boundary. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

• The park would continue to have 

relationships with its partners. These 

partnerships include universities, 

colleges, schools, the Rincon Institute, 

and friends groups. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Costs for alternative 1 are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgetary purposes or 

implementation funding requests. Although 

the numbers appear to be absolutes, they 

represent a midpoint in a possible range of 

costs. The costs developed are total lifecycle costs, which are inclusive of all initial 

costs (new development, including transportation infrastructure costs, rehabilitation, 

and interpretive media), replacement costs, 

and recurring annual costs such as park 

operations (see page 55). 

All these costs are projected out for 25 years. 

They are shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. Life-cycle costs are explained in 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

76 

detail beginning on page 55. The initial 

capital cost (deferred maintenance) for 

alternative 1 would be $5,820,299. The 

recurring annual costs would be $2,980,404. 

The maintenance or replacement costs 

would be $291,760. The total life-cycle cost 

for this alternative would be $9,092,463. 

Note that these costs do not include the 

costs for the additional plans/ studies 

needed that are detailed near the end of this 

chapter. 

Note also that 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 could prevent immediate 

implementation of many actions. Major or 

especially costly actions could be 

implemented 10 or more years into the 

future. 

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 

Initial Capital Costs $5,820,299 

Annual Costs $2,980,404 

Replacement Costs $ 291,760 

Total Life Cycle Costs* $9,092,463 

*Includes capital costs, replacement costs, 

and annual costs 

*calculated for 25 years at 7% discount rate 

Range of Costs – based on cost engineering standard 

of -30%/+50% for order-of-magnitude estimates 

(AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R97, Figure 31a (ANSI Standard Z94.0). Example: 

Estimate of $1,000,000 has an accuracy range of 

$700,000 to $1,500,000. 
77

ALTERNATIVE 2: THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

CONCEPT 

In alternative 2 the emphasis would be on 

protecting the park’s ecological processes 

and biological diversity by connecting wildlife and plant habitats. Management efforts 

would focus on creating connections 

between isolated wildlife habitats and 

corridors. Park managers would make 

choices and take actions that would best 

achieve ecological/biological diversity. 

Visitation would be managed and redirected, 

when necessary, to protect sensitive 

resources and minimize impacts on 

resources. Basic facilities for visitor safety 

and services would be provided inside the 

park. Appropriate access would be provided 

for visitors to enjoy the park and learn about 

the Sonoran Desert and associated habitat. 

RATIONALE 

This alternative concept was developed 

because the biological diversity and ecological processes of the park — remarkable due 

to the range of elevation and mix of riparian 

and desert habitats — are in danger from 

habitat fragmentation. In addition, the 

public expressed concern that overuse of the 

park and increasing urbanization would 

threaten the park’s qualities of solitude, 

quiet, and naturalness. This alternative 

would help mitigate the effects of habitat 

fragmentation while adaptively managing for 

recreational opportunities consistent with 

conserving natural resources and protecting 

wilderness areas. 

RESOURCE CONDITIONS 

• Primitive and Semi-primitive zones, 

which call for natural resources to be 

maintained in pristine to excellent 

condition, would make up the largest 

area of the park. Tolerance for resource 

modifications or degradation would be 

low, and preservation of wildlife habitat 

would be a major management focus in 

these zones. Park management would 

seek to reduce fragmentation of habitats 

and isolated wildlife corridors. 

Revegetation efforts would increase to 

improve habitat conditions. 

• Cultural resources would be preserved 

and protected as described in the 

parkwide cultural resource management 

zone, including conducting inventories 

to identify and evaluate cultural 

resources and nominate appropriate 

sites to the National Register of Historic 

Places. Cultural resources that are on or 

eligible for the national register would be 

preserved and protected. Specifically, 

Cactus Forest Drive in the Rincon 

Mountain District, which was designed 

and built by the Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC), would continue as a 

sightseeing road, preserving its cultural 

landscape. In addition, the CCC camp 

area in the Tucson Mountain District 

would continue to be preserved, and a 

few trails with signs and wayside exhibits 

in the area could be added to facilitate 

and manage visitor access to the area. 

• Occasional ranger-led tours to off-trail 

historic sites could also be provided. 

ROADS 

Park staff would continue to monitor and 

mitigate wildlife mortality along road 

corridors in both districts. All roads in the 

park would be in the Sightseeing Corridor 

Zone except for Golden Gate Road which 

would be in the Natural Zone. Additional 

compliance and public involvement would 

be done, if required, for the following 

actions. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

78 

Tucson Mountain District 

• Golden Gate Road (between Ez-Kim-InZin picnic area and Picture Rocks Road) 

would be placed in the Natural Zone, 

and the road would be converted to a 

multiuse trail. 

• The desired visitor experience and 

resource conditions (as outlined in the 

Sightseeing Corridor Zone) for Picture 

Rocks Road would be achieved by 

installing a potential range of trafficcalming strategies/ devices. These 

strategies/devices would begin at the 

least intrusive level. The park staff would 

then monitor visitor safety and resource 

conditions along the roads to determine 

if any additional road management 

applications were necessary. If 

additional devices/strategies were still 

needed to achieve desired conditions, 

the next level of traffic calming would be 

applied. This process would continue 

until desired conditions were met. The 

process of continual monitoring and 

evaluating is known as adaptive 

management (see page 50). 

• If additional management strategies do 

not sufficiently mitigate impacts to 

resources and visitor experiences, the 

park staff would then encourage and 

work with Pima County to develop other 

alternatives outside the park to using 

Picture Rocks Road. 

• The scenic Bajada Loop Drive would be 

redesigned into a narrower, paved, oneway scenic loop. A new section of this 

loop drive would be built to move park 

traffic off Sandario Road. The removal 

of loop drive/park traffic from Sandario 

Road would improve safety conditions 

along both Sandario Road and the scenic 

Bajada Loop Drive. As with current 

management, the loop drive would 

continue to be closed at night. 

Rincon Mountain District 

• The Cactus Forest Loop Drive would 

continue as a motor tour route and be 

placed in the Sightseeing Corridor Zone. 

TRAILS 

A comprehensive trails plan is underway that 

will fully address trail locations, designs, and 

types responding to the overall direction 

provided in the general management plan. 

The comprehensive trails plan would 

contain the details for the actions proposed 

in this alternative described below. 

Tucson Mountain District 

• Golden Gate Road (between Ez-Kim-InZin picnic area and Picture Rocks Road) 

would be converted to a hiking trail, and 

might also be used for bicycling and 

horseback riding. Trailhead parking 

would be developed at both ends of the 

trail. Trailhead parking would be 

developed at both ends of the proposed 

Golden Gate Trail (see Alternative 2 

map). 

• Opportunities for developing bicycling 

trails would be explored along the gas 

pipeline right-of-way near the eastern 

boundary of the district. Redesign of the 

Kings Canyon trailhead would be 

explored. 

• The Natural Zone near the Valley View 

Overlook as well as the Natural Zone 

east of Sandario Road and south of 

Kinney Road would be considered for 

development of new ADA-accessible 

trails. 

• The Natural Zone in the northwest 

section of land west of Sandario would 

be considered for interpretive trails and 

signs to be developed near the CCC 

camp. 
Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative

Tucson Mountain District

General Management Plan

Saguaro National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC / May 2006 / 151 / 20059

�����

������������������������������������������

�����

�������������

�����

����������

�����������

������������

��������������

��������������

�������������������

������������

�������������������������

��������������

������

����������������

������������������

������

����

�����

�����������

��������������������������

��������������

�����������������������������

���

������ ����

�������������

�������

�������������

�������������

�������������

���������

�������������

������������������

������������������

����������������������������

���������

������������

����������������������������

������������������

������������� ��������������������

��������������������

���������������

�������������

�������������

����������������������

�����

��������������

������

������

���� �����

���� ������ �����

Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative

Rincon Mountain District

General Management Plan

Saguaro National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC / May 2006 / 151 / 20060 

��������������

�����������

�

�������

���������������

��������

�������������

���������

�������������

������������

��������������������������������

�����������������������������

��������������

������������

������

��������������

������������

��������������

�������������������������

�������������������������

���������������������������

��������������

��������������

��������������

���������

�������������

�������������������

����������������������������������������

������������������������

����������������������������������������

������������������������

��������������������������������

�����������������

����������������������

���������

���������

��������������������

��������������������

����������������

����������������������

����������������

�����������������

����������������� ������������������������

��������������������

���������������

�����������

������

������

�����

��������������������������

���������������������������� ������������

�����

������������������������������������������

�����

��������������

��������������

�������������������

������������

�������������������������

��������������

�������������

�����

����������

������������

������

����������������

Alternative 2: The Preferred Alternative 

83

Rincon Mountain District 

• Biking opportunities would be explored 

along the Hope Camp Trail. 

• The Camino Loma Alta trailhead would 

be improved. 

• The Douglas Springs, Wildhorse, and 

Broadway trailheads would be 

redesigned/improved. 

• Development of additional wheelchair 

accessible trails would be explored. 

Trails in Both Districts 

• Off-trail travel below 4,500 feet would be 

restricted to protect cultural and natural 

resources. 

• Regional trail connections would be 

explored in conjunction with partners. 

The location of regional trail connections would be identified as part of the 

comprehensive trails plan. 

• The location of trail access points and 

possible trailheads within the park 

would be identified. 

• The need for single-use trails to reduce 

trail user conflicts would be assessed as 

part of the comprehensive trails plan. 

• The need for trail realignments to 

protect resources would be evaluated. 

• Sustainability would be considered in 

developing/improving the trail system. 

MANAGEMENT OF MADRONA/ 

CHIMENEA AREA (RINCON 

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT) 

• Visitor use at Madrona would continue 

to be highly regulated to protect 

sensitive natural and cultural resources. 

The area would be systematically 

monitored as part of the park’s user 

capacity and biological monitoring 

program. The park would implement a 

limited permit system when monitoring 

indicates that visitation has reached a 

level that negatively affects this highly 

sensitive area. The historic fireplace with 

chimney (chimenea) would be 

monitored and stabilized. 

• The historic Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building would be 

donated to an interested organization. If 

no interest was expressed, the structure 

would be documented and razed. 

• Staff housing and new corrals would be 

developed and appropriately located to 

minimize impacts to resources. Utilities 

and associated support systems would be 

upgraded as necessary. On-site staff 

would be able to provide protection to 

the site and interpretation and 

information on resource protection. 

MANNING CAMP (RINCON 

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT) 

• Fire management and trail maintenance 

staging activities would be simplified. 

• A comprehensive analysis would be 

conducted to identify the most efficient 

operation for fire and trail operational 

activities. 

• The park staff would develop a shared 

work center/duty station with the U.S. 

Forest Service for initial fire response. 

• Some support facilities would remain, 

such as the vault toilet, water system, 

corrals, and hitching posts. 

• The number of tent platforms and 

propane equipment would be reduced. 

• Seasonal spike camps would be set up 

for trail maintenance activities when 

these needs are a considerable distance 

from Manning Camp. 

• The recommendations of the Manning 

Cabin Condition Assessment (NPS 2005a) 

would be implemented to protect the 

cabin’s historic fabric. These 

recommendations include rehabilitating 

and monitoring the cabin, reducing the 

amount of supplies and equipment 

stored inside, and moving propane tanks 

away from the exterior walls. 

• Ranger presence would be maintained 

during the summer season for 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

84 

interpretation, law enforcement, initial 

fire response, and routine maintenance. 

CAMPING 

• Camping opportunities in the Rincon 

Mountain District would take place in 

designated campsites, and camping 

would not be allowed in the Tucson 

Mountain District, as is currently the 

case. 

INTERPRETATION AND 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

• The Rincon Mountain District visitor 

center would be expanded (2,200 to 

3,200 square feet) to provide additional 

exhibit and office space. The Tucson 

Mountain District visitor center would 

remain the same. 

• An outdoor environmental education 

center could be developed at the south 

boundary of the Rincon Mountain 

District (in the vicinity of the Camino 

Loma Alta trailhead) to provide 

additional interpretive opportunities. 

• A park structure could be reused as an 

education center when current uses are 

relocated. 

• Additional opportunities for waysides 

and interpretive trails would be explored 

parkwide. 

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

AND FACILITIES 

• Expansion in the Rincon Mountain 

District visitor center (2,200 to 3,200 

square feet) would allow for more 

efficient park operations. 

• The annex building would be removed 

when its administrative functions can be 

moved to other locations, e.g., to 

converted park housing, to the life estate 

property, or to off-site locations. 

• Staffing would be shared with partners if 

an outdoor education center was 

developed near Camino Loma Alta. 

• An existing park building near park 

headquarters could be rehabilitated for 

use as an education center. 

• State Trust, county, and private lands 

within park boundaries would be 

acquired from willing sellers when 

available and feasible. 

• The facilities in the life estate property in 

the Rincon Mountain District would be 

used for NPS administrative purposes. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

The park would explore all opportunities to 

ensure the purpose of the park was 

accomplished by protecting fundamental 

resources and values. Resource protection, 

such as for wildlife habitat and corridors, 

could be accomplished through a boundary 

adjustment. Lands could be acquired 

through a variety of methods such as 

donation, transfer from any other federal 

agency, or exchange. (See appendix B for 

additional information on criteria for 

boundary modifications.) 

PARTNERSHIPS 

• The park staff would continue to have 

relationships with its partners. These 

partnerships include universities, 

colleges, schools, institutes, friends 

groups, and other organizations. 

• Additional partnerships would be sought 

with city and county entities to make 

regional trail connections. 

• Partnerships would be sought to develop 

an outdoor environmental education 

center at the south boundary of the 

Rincon Mountain District (in the vicinity 

of the Camino Loma Alta trailhead). This 

facility might not be developed if 

partnership funds were not available. 
Alternative 2: The Preferred Alternative 

85

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Costs for alternative 2 are given for 

comparison to other alternatives only; they 

are not to be used for budgetary purposes or 

implementation funding requests. Although 

the numbers appear to be absolutes, they 

represent a midpoint in a possible range of 

costs. The costs developed are total lifecycle costs, which are inclusive of all initial 

costs (new development, including transportation infrastructure costs, rehabilitation, 

and interpretive media), replacement costs, 

and recurring annual costs such as park site 

operations (see page 55). 

All these costs are projected out for 25 years. 

They are shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. Life-cycle costs are explained in 

detail beginning on page 55. The initial 

capital cost for alternative 2 would be 

$9,299,500. The recurring annual costs 

would be $5,317,530. The maintenance or 

replacement costs would be $445,534. The 

total life-cycle cost for this alternative would 

be $15,062,564. 

Note that these costs do not include the 

costs for the additional plans/ studies 

needed that are detailed near the end of this 

chapter. 

Note also that 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 could prevent immediate implementation of many actions. Major or 

especially costly actions could be implemented 10 or more years into the future. 

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 

Initial Capital Costs $9,299,500 

Annual Costs $5,317,530 

Replacement Costs $ 445,534 

Total Life Cycle Costs* $15,062,564 

*Includes capital costs, replacement costs, 

and annual costs 

*calculated for 25 years at 7% discount rate 

Range of Costs – based on cost engineering standard 

of -30%/+50% for order-of-magnitude estimates 

(AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R97, Figure 31a (ANSI Standard Z94.0). Example: 

Estimate of $1,000,000 has an accuracy range of 

$700,000 to $1,500,000. 
86 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

CONCEPT 

In alternative 3 the emphasis would be on 

providing a wider range of opportunities for 

visitors that is compatible with the 

preservation of park resources and its 

wilderness characteristics. Natural resources 

would be protected by relocating visitor 

activities now occurring in sensitive areas to 

areas that could withstand higher levels of 

visitation. Management efforts would focus 

on developing additional opportunities for 

visitors to enjoy and learn about the park. 

Visitors would have a variety of activities in 

easily reached areas of the park. Primitive 

visitor experiences would be available in the 

wilderness areas. Facilities would be 

expanded to provide additional support for 

visitor activities. (See alternative 3 maps.) 

RATIONALE 

This alternative concept was developed 

because the public wanted the park to 

expand programs and opportunities for a 

growing diverse population to experience 

and learn about the giant cactus and 

associated plants, animals, and landforms of 

the Sonoran Desert. In addition, the public 

expressed an interest in the park providing 

more diverse recreational opportunities, 

including trails for specific user groups. The 

public also felt that the park should plan for 

increased demands resulting from urban 

growth surrounding the park. 

RESOURCE CONDITIONS 

• Natural resource protection would 

remain a high priority for park management; however, some impacts could be 

acceptable to accommodate a diverse 

range of visitor opportunities and 

services. 

• Cultural resources would be preserved 

and protected as described in the parkwide cultural resource management 

zone, including conducting inventories 

to identify and evaluate cultural 

resources and nominate appropriate 

sites to the National Register of Historic 

Places. Cultural resources that are on or 

eligible for the national register would be 

preserved and protected. Specifically, 

Cactus Forest Drive in the Rincon 

Mountain District, which was designed 

and built by the Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC), would continue as a 

sightseeing road, preserving its cultural 

landscape. In addition, the CCC camp 

area in the Tucson Mountain District 

would continue to be preserved, and a 

few trails with signs and wayside exhibits 

in the area could be added to facilitate 

and manage visitor access to the area. 

• Occasional ranger-led tours to off-trail 

historic sites could also be provided. 

ROADS 

As in alternative 2, park staff would continue 

to monitor and mitigate wildlife mortality 

along road corridors in both districts. All 

roads in the park would be in the Sightseeing 

Corridor Zone. Additional compliance and 

public involvement would be done, if 

required, for the following actions. 

Tucson Mountain District 

• Golden Gate Road (between Ez-Kim-InZin picnic area and Picture Rocks Road), 

an internal park road, would remain 

open to vehicles and be in the 

Sightseeing Corridor Zone. 
������

����

���

�

������������������

��������������������������

��������������

������ ����

�������������

�������

�������������

�������������

�������������

���������

�������������

�����������

�������������

���

�������������

�����������������������������

��������������

������

������

���� �����

��������� ��������

���������

����

���� ������ �����

������������������

����������������������������

���������������������

Alternative 3 – Tucson Mountain District

General Management Plan

Saguaro National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC / May 2006 / 151 / 20061

�����

������������������������������������������

�����

�������������

�����

����������

�����������

������������

��������������

��������������

�������������������

������������

�������������������������

��������������

������

����������������

��������������

�����������

�

�������

���������������

��������

�������������

���������

�������������

������������

��������������

�������������

������

��������������

��������������

��������������

��������������

���������

�������������

������������������������

��������������������

����������������

�������������������������

�������������������

��������������������

������������������������

������

������

�����

�������������������

���������������������������

���������������������������

�����������������

���������

���������

���������

������������������������

��������������������

���������������

�����������

����������������������������

�������������������

�����������������

�����������������

��������������������������

���������������������������� ������������

������������

��������������

����������������������������

���������������������������

Alternative 3 – Rincon Mountain District

General Management Plan

Saguaro National Park

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC / May 2006 / 151 / 20062 

�����

������������������������������������������

�����

��������������

��������������

�������������������

������������

�������������������������

��������������

�������������

�����

����������

������������

������

����������������

Alternative 3 

91 

• As in alternative 2, the desired visitor 

experience and resource conditions (as 

outlined in the Sightseeing Corridor 

Zone) for Picture Rocks Road would be 

achieved by installing a potential range of 

traffic-calming strategies/ devices. These 

strategies/devices would begin at the least 

intrusive level. The park staff would then 

monitor visitor safety and resource conditions along the roads to determine if any 

additional road management applications 

were necessary. If additional devices/ 

strategies were still needed to achieve 

desired conditions, the next level of traffic 

calming would be applied. This process 

would continue until desired conditions 

were met. The process of continual 

monitoring and evaluating is known as 

adaptive management (see page 50. 

• If additional management strategies do 

not sufficiently mitigate impacts to 

resources and visitor experiences, the 

park staff would then encourage and work 

with Pima County to develop other 

alternatives outside the park to using 

Picture Rocks Road. 

• The two-way scenic Bajada Loop Drive, 

another internal park road, would be 

converted to a one-way, paved loop drive. 

Rincon Mountain District 

• The Cactus Forest Loop Drive would 

continue as a motor tour route and be 

placed in the Sightseeing Corridor Zone. 

TRAILS 

• If alternative 3 were selected as the 

approved management concept, the 

ongoing comprehensive trails plan would 

likely propose actions such as creating 

some hiking and biking opportunities with 

connections to regional trails in both 

districts, formalizing the Camino Loma 

Alta trailhead, and classifying some trails 

for hiker or equestrian use only. As in 

alternative 2, the comprehensive trails 

plan will recommend sustainable trail 

design and realignment/ rehabilitation. 

• Alternative 3 contains the highest 

percentage of the Natural Zone, which 

does permit bicycles on trails designated 

for bicycle use. 

Tucson Mountain District 

• Opportunities for developing bicycling 

trails would be explored along the gas 

pipeline right-of-way near the eastern 

boundary of the district. 

• Interpretive trails and signs would be 

considered on the land west of Sandario 

near the CCC camp. 

Rincon Mountain District 

• Biking opportunities would be explored 

along the Hope Camp Trail. 

• The Camino Loma Alta trailhead would 

be improved. 

• The Douglas Springs, Wildhorse, and 

Broadway trailheads would be 

redesigned/improved. 

• Development of additional wheelchair 

accessible trails would be explored. 

Trails in Both Districts 

• Regional trail connections would be 

explored in conjunction with partners. 

The location of regional trail connections 

would be identified. 

• The location of trail access points and 

possible trailheads would be identified. 

MANAGEMENT OF MADRONA/ 

CHIMENEA AREA 

• Existing infrastructure, including corrals, 

would be removed and replaced with a 

visitor contact station. The station would 

allow for daily ranger presence. By 

limiting access to one trail and providing 

daily ranger presence, the area’s sensitive 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

92

riparian resources would continue to 

receive a high level of protection. 

• A small science center would be placed at 

Madrona for research functions. 

• The historic fireplace with chimney 

(chimenea) would be monitored and 

stabilized. 

• The historic Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building would be 

donated to an interested organization. If 

no interest was expressed, the structure 

would be documented and razed. 

MANNING CAMP (RINCON 

MOUNTAIN DISTRICT) 

• Fire crew and trail crew support facilities 

would be moved away from Manning 

Camp to a new off-site administration area 

if a suitable location was found. Support 

facilities to be removed would include the 

corrals, water system, propane equipment, 

and tent platforms. The vault toilet would 

remain for use by visitors using the 

backcountry camping area near Manning 

Camp. 

• Temporary spike camps would be 

established by fire and trail crews when 

working in the backcountry. 

• The recommendations of the Manning 

Cabin Condition Assessment (NPS 2005a) 

would be implemented to protect the 

cabin’s historic fabric. These recommendations include rehabilitating and 

monitoring the cabin, reducing the 

amount of supplies and equipment stored 

inside, and moving propane tanks away 

from the exterior walls. 

• Ranger presence would be maintained 

during the summer season for 

interpretation, law enforcement, initial 

fire response, and routine maintenance. 

CAMPING 

• Camping would continue to be permitted 

in the Rincon Mountain District above 

4,500 feet. New campgrounds might also 

be developed in this area. 

INTERPRETATION AND 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

• The Rincon Mountain District visitor 

center would be expanded (2,200 to 3,200 

square feet) to provide additional exhibit 

and office space. The Tucson Mountain 

District visitor center would remain the 

same. 

• A learning center could be developed on 

the life estate property, and an existing 

park building could be rehabilitated for 

use as an education center. 

• A partnership, outdoor, environmental 

education center could be developed at 

the south boundary of the Rincon 

Mountain District (in the vicinity of the 

Camino Loma Alta trailhead) to provide 

additional interpretive opportunities. 

• A visitor contact station and science 

center would be developed in the 

Madrona area. 

• Additional interpretive media (such as 

interpretive trails and waysides) and 

programs would be provided. 

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

AND FACILITIES 

• The Rincon Mountain District visitor 

center would be expanded (2,200 to 3,200 

square feet), and some parking would be 

added to allow for additional visitor 

services. 

• Staff operations at the Rincon Mountains 

District headquarters would be moved 

off-site if a suitable location were found. 

Existing headquarters building would be 

used as an education center. The annex 

building would be demolished. 

• Staffing would be shared with partners if 

an outdoor education center was 

developed near Camino Loma Alta 

trailhead. 
Alternative 3 

93 

• A visitor contact and science center would 

be developed in the Madrona/Chimenea 

area for research functions. 

• The facilities in the life estate property in 

the Rincon Mountain District would be 

used as a learning center. 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT 

There would be no change to the current 

boundary. 

PARTNERSHIPS 

• The park would continue to have 

relationships with its partners. These 

partnerships include universities, colleges, 

schools, institutes, and friends groups. 

• Partnerships would be sought with city, 

state, and federal entities to develop 

complementary interpretive programs and 

links to regional trails and shared visitor 

facilities, and to explore mutually 

beneficial mass transit options. 

• Partnerships would be sought to develop 

an outdoor environmental education 

center at the south boundary of the 

Rincon Mountain District (in the vicinity 

of the Camino Loma Alta trailhead). This 

facility might not be developed if 

partnership funds were not available. 

ESTIMATED COSTS 

Costs for alternative 3 are given for comparison to other alternatives only; they are not to 

be used for budgetary purposes or 

implementation funding requests. Although 

the numbers appear to be absolutes, they 

represent a midpoint in a possible range of 

costs. The costs developed are total life-cycle 

costs, which are inclusive of all initial costs 

(new development, including transportation 

infrastructure costs, rehabilitation, and 

interpretive media), replacement costs, and 

recurring annual costs such as park operations 

(see page 55). 

All these costs are projected out for 25 years. 

They are shown as the worth in today’s 

dollars. Life-cycle costs are explained in detail 

beginning on page 55. The initial capital cost 

for alternative 3 would be $10,167,500. The 

recurring annual costs would be $6,622,038. 

The maintenance or replacement costs would 

be $511,310. The total life-cycle cost for this 

alternative would be $17,306,494. 

Note that these costs do not include the costs 

for the additional plans/ studies needed that 

are detailed near the end of this chapter. 

Note also that 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 

could prevent immediate implementation of 

many actions. Major or especially costly 

actions could be implemented 10 or more 

years into the future. 

TABLE 6. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 

Initial Capital Costs $10,167,500 

Annual Costs $ 6,622,038 

Replacement Costs $ 511,310 

Total Life Cycle Costs* $17,306,494 

*Includes capital costs, replacement costs, 

and annual costs 

*calculated for 25 years at 7% discount rate 

Range of Costs – based on cost engineering standard of 

-30%/+50% for order-of-magnitude estimates (AACE 

International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97, Figure 

31a (ANSI Standard Z94.0). Example: Estimate of 

$1,000,000 has an accuracy range of $700,000 to 

$1,500,000. 
94

USER CAPACITY 

As noted earlier, this management plan 

includes identification of user capacity indicators and standards. Table 7 includes the 

indicators, standards, related monitoring, and 

potential future management strategies, 

allocated by management zone that will be 

implemented as a result of this planning effort. 

These indicators and standards help translate 

the broader descriptions of desired 

conditions, which are qualitative, into 

something measurable. Measurable indicators 

have been selected for monitoring key aspects 

of visitor experiences and resources at 

Saguaro. Standards that represent the points 

where visitor experience and resource 

conditions become unacceptable in each zone 

were then assigned based on desired 

conditions. The indicators will be monitored 

in each zone, and when necessary, 

management actions will be taken to ensure 

that visitor use and resource impacts remain 

within the established standards. 

The park staff considered many potential 

resource indicators that would identify visitor 

use impacts of concern, but many were 

eliminated because they were inefficient to 

monitor or did not provide adequate 

information on the issue. The resource 

indicators selected for Saguaro relate to the 

topics of trail width and use levels at the 

Madrona pools. These indicators were 

considered to be effective to monitor while 

also providing useful information about 

important resource impacts. Monitoring trail 

width helps identify the physical deterioration 

of trails, which is often related to overuse and 

crowding (e.g., people having to frequently 

step off the trail to pass others). Increasing the 

footprint of designated trails via expanding 

trail width detracts from the resource goals of 

the park and can also impact the visitor 

experience. 

The Madrona pools contain highly sensitive 

resources that were considered to be most 

affected by the amount and frequency of use 

occurring directly adjacent to the pools, which 

may disturb the resting, feeding, mating, and 

migrating processes of native species. 

Therefore, the park staff will monitor the total 

number of people per month that are 

accessing the Madrona pools. 

The park staff also considered many potential 

social or visitor experience indicators that 

would measure how visitor use levels, types, 

and behaviors were impacting other visitors. 

The social indicators selected relate to 

automobile speed on through-park roads and 

visitor encounter rates on trails. One of the 

most frequently mentioned impacts on visitor 

experiences in the Tucson Mountain District 

was related to speeding on Picture Rocks 

Road, resulting in the proposal of traffic 

calming as part of this general management 

plan. The park will monitor speed levels on 

Picture Rocks Road to gauge the success of 

the proposed traffic-calming strategies, and 

identify if additional traffic-calming strategies 

are needed in the future. The other social 

indicator was related to visitor encounter 

rates on trails, which has been demonstrated 

throughout the national park system as an 

important indicator of crowding and 

associated impacts on the visitor experience, 

especially in wilderness areas. 

The standards selected for each indicator 

were based on best professional management 

judgment that was informed by the general 

management plan’s desired conditions, the 

park’s baseline conditions for each indicator, 

relevant park-specific and national research 

studies, and NPS guidelines and standards. 

The standards for the social/visitor experience 

indicators include probabilities (e.g., 

conditions can be out of standard 15% of the 

time) to account for the complexity and 

randomness inherent in visitor use patterns. 
User Capacity 

95 

The park will continue general monitoring of 

use levels and patterns. In addition, the park 

will begin monitoring the following user 

capacity indicators. The rigor of monitoring 

(e.g., frequency of monitoring cycles, amount 

of geographic area monitored) the indicators 

may vary considerably depending on how 

close existing conditions are to the standards. 

If the existing conditions are far from exceeding the standard, the rigor of monitoring may 

be less than if the existing conditions are close 

to or trending towards the standards. 

In addition, the initial phases of monitoring 

the indicators/standards will help the NPS 

identify if any revisions are needed. The initial 

testing of the indicators and standards will 

determine if the indicators are accurately 

measuring the conditions of concern and that 

the standards truly represent the minimally 

acceptable condition of the indicator. Park 

staff may decide to modify the indicators or 

standards and revise the monitoring program 

if better ways are found to measure changes 

caused by public use, if the indicators do not 

prove to be cost-effective to check regularly, 

or if the standards seem unrealistic to 

maintain. Most of these types of changes 

should be made within the first several years 

of initiating monitoring. This iterative learning 

and refining process is the strength of the NPS 

user capacity management program, in that it 

can be adapted and improved as knowledge 

grows. 

After this initial testing period of monitoring 

indicators and standards, adjustments should 

not occur unless there is a compelling reason. 

Park staff need to be cautious of adjusting 

indicators and standards to a point where the 

indicators and standards are no longer 

consistent with the desired conditions for the 

zone. If desired conditions and subsequently 

indicators and standards need to be changed, 

it is likely these decisions will be subject to 

additional compliance. 

Finally, if use levels and patterns change 

appreciably, the park may need to initiate 

additional monitoring of new indicators to 

ensure that desired conditions are protected. 

Some of the potential future user capacity 

indicators may relate to the topics of usercreated trails that intersect with select sections 

of the park boundary, area of disturbance in 

select frontcountry areas, vandalism/theft of 

resources, trail erosion, mountain biking on 

unauthorized trails, unauthorized camping, 

use-conflicts on the park loop drives, and 

road kill on thru-park roads, among others. 

The selection of any new indicators and 

standards for monitoring purposes, changes 

to the indicators and standards identified in 

this general management plan, or the 

implementation of any management actions 

that affect use will comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other laws, 

regulations and policies as needed. The 

National Park Service would also inform the 

public of progress and proposed revisions to 

indicators and standards through regular 

reporting on the user capacity program. 

97 

TABLE 7. INDICATORS AND STANDARDS FOR EACH MANAGEMENT ZONE

Management 

Zone User Capacity Indicators User Capacity Standards Related Monitoring Strategies 

Sensitive Resource 

Protection Zone 

1. Number of people per month at the Madrona Pools (measured in person-days)

1. No more than 90 people in any given month for at least 11 out of 12 months of the year

1. Periodic monitoring via trail counters or other counter technology

Primitive Zone 

1. Mean trail width* for Type B and C trails 2. Number of groups encountered per day (6 hours) along designated trails 

1. Mean trail width will not exceed 36 inches 2. No more than 7 groups encountered per day (6 hours) along designated trails, with 15% of observations allowed to exceed the encounter levels without violating the standard 

1. Point sampling method as developed and applied by the Inventory & Monitoring Program 2. Periodic monitoring by park staff and volunteeobservations of select trail segments. Monitoring will be initiated at least 0.5 mile from the trailheads to allow for higher encounters at the immediate entrance and exit to the trails.

Semi-Primitive 

Zone 

1. Mean trail width* for Type B and C trails 2. Number of people encountered every two hours along designated trails 

1. Mean trail width will not exceed 36 inches 2. No more than 10** people encountered every two hours along designated trails (except Douglas Spring Trail), with 15% of observations allowed to exceed the encounter levels without violating the standard. 

1. Point sampling method as developed and applied by the Inventory & Monitoring Program 2. Periodic monitoring by park staff and volunteeobservations of select trail segments. Monitoring will be initiated at least 0.5 mile from the trailheads to allow for higher encounters at the immediate entrance and exit to the trails. 

Natural Zone 

1. Mean trail width*for Type B and C trails 2. Number of people encountered per hour along designated trails 

1. Mean trail width will not exceed 36 inches 2. No more than 45 people encountered per hour along designated trails, with 15% of observations allowed to exceed the encounter levels without violating the standard.

1. Point sampling method as developed and applied by the Inventory & Monitoring Program 2. Periodic monitoring by park staff and volunteeobservations of select trail segments

Sightseeing 

Corridor Zone 

1. Percent of autos above the posted speed limit on Picture Rocks Road 

1. No more than 15% of autos above the posted speed limit 

1. Periodic monitoring with speed data collection technology 

Developed Zone N/A – User capacity managed by facility capacities. N/A – User capacity managed by facility capacities Sufficiency of facility capacities will continue to b

monitored 

 * Trail width is defined as the most pronounced outer boundary of visually obvious human disturbance created by trail use – the area that receives the majority 

** Due to the high volume of use on Douglas Spring Trail because of its location and the attraction of Bridal Wreath Falls, the Douglas Spring Trail will have a d

be “No more than 30 people encountered every hour along the trail, with 15% of observations allowed to exceed the encounter levels without violating the 

99 

MITIGATIVE MEASURES COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

Congress charged the National Park Service 

with managing the lands under its stewardship “in such manner and by such means as 

will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (NPS Organic 

Act, 16 USC 1). As a result, the National Park 

Service routinely evaluates and implements 

mitigation whenever conditions occur that 

could adversely affect the sustainability of 

national park system resources. 

To ensure that implementation of the action 

alternatives protects natural and cultural 

resources and the quality of the visitor 

experience, a consistent set of mitigative 

measures would be applied to actions 

proposed in this plan. The National Park 

Service would prepare appropriate 

environmental review (i.e., those required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, and 

other relevant legislation) for these future 

actions. As part of the environmental review, 

the National Park Service would avoid, 

minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts 

when practicable. The implementation of a 

compliance-monitoring program would be 

considered to stay within the parameters of 

National Environmental Policy Act and 

National Historic Preservation Act 

compliance documents, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Section 404 permits, etc. The 

compliance-monitoring program would 

oversee these mitigative measures and would 

include reporting protocols. 

The following mitigative measures and best 

management practices would be applied to 

avoid or minimize potential impacts from 

implementation of the alternatives. These 

measures would apply to all alternatives. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The National Park Service would preserve 

and protect, to the greatest extent possible, 

resources that reflect human occupation of 

Saguaro National Park. Specific mitigative 

measures include the following: 

• Continue to develop inventories for and 

oversee research about archeological, 

historic, and ethnographic resources to 

better understand and manage the 

resources, including historic cultural and 

ethnographic landscapes. Conduct any 

needed archeological or other resource 

specific surveys, national register evaluations, and identify recommended treatments. Incorporate the results of these 

efforts into site-specific planning and 

compliance documents. Continue to 

manage cultural resources and collections following federal regulations and 

NPS guidelines and the NPS Museum 

Collection Facilities Strategy, Intermountain Region (NPS 2005d). Inventory the 

park’s collection and keep in a manner 

that would meet NPS curatorial 

standards. 

• Subject projects to site-specific planning 

and compliance procedures. For archeological resources, by locating projects 

and designing facilities in previously 

disturbed or existing developed areas, 

make efforts to avoid resources and thus 

adverse impacts through use of the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation.

Use screening and/or sensitive design 

that would be compatible with historic 

resources and cultural landscapes and 

not adjacent to ethnographic resources. 

If adverse impacts could not be avoided, 

mitigate these impacts through a 

consultation process with all interested 

parties. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

100

• Conduct archeological site monitoring 

and routine protection. Conduct data 

recovery excavations at archeological 

sites threatened with destruction, where 

protection or site avoidance during 

design and construction is infeasible. 

Strictly adhere to NPS standards and 

guidelines on the display and care of 

artifacts. This would include artifacts 

used in exhibits in the visitor center. 

Irreplaceable items would be kept above 

the 500-year floodplain. 

• Mitigative measures for structures and 

landscapes include documentation 

according to standards of the Historic 

American Buildings Survey/Historic 

American Engineering Record/Historic 

American Landscape Survey (HABS/ 

HAER/HALS). The level of this documentation, which includes photography, 

archeological data recovery, and/or a 

narrative history, would depend on 

significance (national, state, or local) and 

individual attributes (an individually 

significant structure, individual elements 

of a cultural landscape, etc.) and be 

determined in consultation with the state 

historic preservation officer. When 

demolition of a historic structure is 

proposed, architectural elements and 

objects may be salvaged for reuse in 

rehabilitating similar structures, or they 

may be added to the park’s museum 

collection. In addition, the historical 

alteration of the human environment 

and reasons for that alteration would be 

interpreted to national park visitors. 

• Continue ongoing consultations with 

culturally associated American Indian 

tribes. Protect sensitive traditional use 

areas to the extent feasible by avoiding 

or mitigating impacts on ethnographic 

resources and continuing to provide 

access to traditional use and spiritual 

areas. Mitigation could include 

identification of and assistance in 

accessing alternative resource gathering 

areas and screening new development 

from traditional use areas. 

• Encourage visitors through the park’s 

interpretive programs to respect and 

leave undisturbed any inadvertently 

encountered archeological resources as 

well as to respect and leave undisturbed 

any offerings placed by American 

Indians. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Air Quality 

• Implement a dust abatement program 

during construction activities. Standard 

dust abatement measures could include 

the following elements: water or otherwise stabilize soils, cover haul trucks, 

employ speed limits on unpaved roads, 

minimize vegetation clearing, and 

revegetate after construction. 

Exotic Plant Species 

• Implement an exotic plants control 

program during construction activities. 

Standard measures could include the 

following elements: ensure constructionrelated equipment arrives on-site free of 

mud or seed-bearing material, certify all 

seeds and straw material as weed-free, 

identify areas of noxious weeds preconstruction, treat noxious weeds or 

noxious weed topsoil before construction (e.g., topsoil segregation, storage, 

herbicide treatment), and revegetate 

with appropriate native species. 

Soundscapes 

The park staff would work with local airport, 

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and Federal 

Aviation Administration and authorities to 

minimize the impacts on the park due to a 

change in flight paths or number of flights 

over and near the park. 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

101 

Soils 

• Build new facilities on soils suitable for 

development. Minimize soil erosion by 

limiting the time that soil is left exposed 

and by applying erosion control 

measures, such as erosion matting, silt 

fencing, and sedimentation basins in 

construction areas to reduce erosion, 

surface scouring, and discharge to water 

bodies. Once work was completed, 

revegetate construction areas with native 

plants in a timely period. 

• Place construction equipment in 

previously disturbed areas. 

• Locate trails on soils with low erosion 

hazards small changes in slope, and 

develop proper signs to minimize social 

trails. 

• Ensure proper drainage of parking areas. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

Mitigative actions would occur during 

normal park operations as well as before, 

during, and after construction to minimize 

immediate and long-term impacts on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. These 

actions would vary by specific project and 

area of the national park affected, and 

additional mitigations will be added 

depending on the specific action and 

location. Many of the measures listed below 

for vegetation and wildlife would also 

benefit rare, threatened, and endangered 

species by helping to preserve habitat. 

Mitigative actions specific to rare, 

threatened, and endangered species would 

include the following: 

• Conduct surveys for rare, threatened, 

and endangered species as warranted. 

• Locate and design facilities/actions to 

avoid adverse effects on rare, threatened, 

and endangered species. If avoidance is 

infeasible, minimize and compensate for 

adverse effects on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species as appropriate and 

in consultation with the appropriate 

resource agencies. Conduct work 

outside of critical periods for the specific 

species. 

• Develop and implement restoration 

and/or monitoring plans as warranted. 

Plans should include methods for 

implementation, performance standards, 

monitoring criteria, and adaptive 

management techniques. 

• Implement measures to reduce adverse 

effects of nonnative plants and wildlife 

on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. 

Vegetation 

• Monitor areas used by visitors (e.g., 

trails) for signs of native vegetation 

disturbance. Use public education, 

revegetation of disturbed areas with 

native plants, erosion control measures, 

and barriers to control potential impacts 

on plants from trail erosion or social 

trailing. 

• Use barriers and closures to prevent 

trampling and loss of riparian vegetation. 

• Develop revegetation plans for areas 

disturbed by construction or unauthorized visitor use and require the use of 

native species. Revegetation plans 

should specify seed/plant source, seed/ 

plant mixes, soil preparation, etc. Salvage 

vegetation from construction activities 

should be used to the extent possible. 

• Include revegetation of work areas for 

the construction of the new segment of 

the scenic Bajada Loop Drive in 

alternative 2. 

• In alternative 2, site spike camps away 

from locations with sensitive plants, and 

minimize how often work crews reuse 

the same area. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

102

Water Resources 

• To prevent water pollution during 

construction, use erosion control 

measures, minimize discharge to water 

bodies and washes, and regularly inspect 

construction equipment for leaks of 

petroleum and other chemicals. Minimize the use of heavy equipment in 

washes. 

• Build a runoff filtration system to minimize water pollution from larger parking 

areas. 

• Parking area designs should include 

ways to minimize damage from runoff. 

These could include having the parking 

area be a detention basin, could have 

runoff filtration, and/or could be sighted 

away from washes. 

Wildlife 

• Employ techniques to reduce impacts on 

wildlife, including visitor education 

programs, restrictions on visitor 

activities, and park ranger patrols. 

• Implement a natural resource protection 

program during construction activities. 

Standard measures would include 

construction scheduling, biological 

monitoring, erosion and sediment 

control, the use of fencing or other 

means to protect sensitive resources 

adjacent to construction, the removal of 

all food-related items or rubbish, topsoil 

salvage, and revegetation. This could 

include specific construction monitoring 

by resource specialists as well as treatment and reporting procedures. 

Wetlands 

Delineate wetlands and apply protection 

measures during construction. Wetlands 

would be delineated by qualified NPS staff 

or certified wetland specialists and clearly 

marked before construction work. Perform 

construction activities in a cautious manner 

to prevent damage caused by equipment, 

erosion, siltation, etc. 

 

VISITOR SAFETY AND EXPERIENCES 

• Implement a traffic control plan, as 

warranted. Standard measures include 

strategies to maintain safe and efficient 

traffic flow during any construction 

period. 

• Implement measures to reduce adverse 

effects of construction on visitor safety 

and experience. 

• Consider accessibility in each project to 

understand barriers to programs and 

facilities. Provide the maximum level of 

accessibility. 

• Implement adaptive visitor use management, as outlined in the user capacity 

section of this plan, when resource and 

visitor experience conditions are 

trending towards or violating a user 

capacity standard. Management 

strategies may include visitor education, 

site management, visitor use regulations, 

rationing or reallocation of visitor use, 

and enforcement. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Implement a spill prevention and pollution 

control program for hazardous materials. 

Standard measures could include hazardous 

materials storage and handling procedures; 

spill containment, cleanup, and reporting 

procedures; and limitation of refueling and 

other hazardous activities to upland/ 

nonsensitive sites. 

NOISE ABATEMENT 

Mitigative measures would be applied to 

protect the natural sounds in the national 

park. Specific mitigative measures include 

the following: 
Mitigative Measures Common to All Action Alternatives 

103 

• Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during construction. Standard 

noise abatement measures could include 

the following elements: a schedule that 

minimizes impacts on adjacent noisesensitive uses, the use of the best 

available noise control techniques 

wherever feasible, the use of 

hydraulically or electrically powered 

impact tools when feasible, and the 

location of stationary noise sources as 

far from sensitive uses as possible. 

• Implement standard noise abatement 

measures during park operations. 

Standard noise abatement measures 

could include the following elements: a 

schedule that minimizes impacts on 

adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of the 

best available noise control techniques 

wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or 

electrically powered impact tools when 

feasible, and location of stationary noise 

sources as far from sensitive uses as 

possible. 

• Site and design facilities to minimize 

objectionable noise. 

• Work with Pima County and local 

communities to find ways to minimize 

the noise from construction and other 

urban activities. 

• Construct and use traffic-calming 

devices and strategies to reduce vehicle 

noise in the park. 

SCENIC RESOURCES 

Mitigative measures are designed to 

minimize visual intrusions. These include 

the following: 

• Where appropriate, use facilities such as 

fences to route people away from 

sensitive natural and cultural resources, 

while still permitting access to important 

viewpoints. 

• Design, site and construct facilities to 

avoid or minimize adverse effects on 

natural and cultural resources and visual 

intrusion into the natural and/or cultural 

landscape. 

• Provide vegetative screening, where 

appropriate. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

During the future planning and implementation of the approved management plan for 

Saguaro National Park, the National Park 

Service would work with local communities 

and county governments to further identify 

potential impacts and mitigative measures 

that would best serve the interests and 

concerns of both the National Park Service 

and the local and regional communities. 

Partnerships would be pursued to improve 

the quality and diversity of community 

amenities and services. 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN 

AND AESTHETICS 

Projects would avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts on natural and cultural resources. 

Development projects (e.g., buildings, 

facilities, utilities, roads, bridges, trails, etc.) 

or reconstruction projects (e.g., road 

reconstruction, building rehabilitation, 

utility upgrade, etc.) would be designed to 

work in harmony with the surroundings, 

particularly to blend with its natural 

surroundings. Projects would reduce, 

minimize, or eliminate air and water 

nonpoint-source pollution. Projects would 

be sustainable whenever practicable, by 

recycling and reusing materials, by 

minimizing materials, by minimizing energy 

consumption during the project, and by 

minimizing energy consumption throughout 

the lifespan of the project. 
104 

FUTURE STUDIES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS NEEDED 

After completion and approval of a general 

management plan for managing the national 

park, other more detailed studies and plans 

would be needed for implementation of 

specific actions. As required, additional 

environmental compliance (National 

Environmental Policy Act, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other relevant laws and 

policies), and public involvement, would be 

conducted. Those additional studies include 

but would not be limited to the following: 

• a wilderness study on the expansion areas 

found suitable for designation 

• fire management plan 

• resource conditions indicators — to 

effectively monitor wildlife and vegetation 

• if any are found to be affected, a cultural 

landscape inventory would be needed for 

potential cultural landscapes listed in 

“Chapter 3: Affected Environment” under 

“Cultural Resources” 

• trails plan to address site-specific issues 

related to trails and trail management 

• comprehensive interpretive plan 

• additional plan to evaluate traffic impacts 

of proposed adaptive management on 

Picture Rocks Road 

• resource stewardship strategy 
105 

ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

The environmentally preferable alternative is 

defined as the alternative that will promote 

the national environmental policy as 

expressed in section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. That section indicates 

that it is the continuing responsibility of the 

federal government to do the following: 

1. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for 

succeeding generations 

2. Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and 

esthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings for all Americans 

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of 

the environment without degradation, risk 

of health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences 

4. Preserve important historic, cultural, and 

natural aspects of our national heritage and 

maintain, wherever possible, an 

environment that supports diversity and a 

variety of individual choices 

5. Achieve a balance between population and 

resource use that will permit high standards 

of living and a wide sharing of life’s 

amenities 

6. Enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and approach the maximum attainable 

recycling of depletable resources 

A description of how each alternative would 

or would not achieve the requirements of 

sections 101 and 102(1) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act is shown in table 8. 

Although all the alternatives in this plan rated 

well, elements that were not environmentally 

sound were eliminated from consideration. 

Three of the above goals did not make a 

difference in determining the environmentally 

preferred alternative. Goal 1 is satisfied by all 

of the alternatives. Saguaro National Park is a 

unit of the national park system and as the 

trustee of this area the National Park Service 

would continue to fulfill its obligation to 

protect this area for future generations. All the 

alternatives would fulfill goal 2, ensuring safe, 

healthful, productive, and culturally pleasing 

surroundings for all Americans. Goal 6 is 

enhance the quality of renewable resources 

and maximize the recycling of depletable 

resources. All of the alternative would result 

in enhancing the quality of the renewable 

resources through NPS management. 

The environmentally preferable alternative for 

Saguaro National Park’s General Management 

Plan / Environmental Impact Statement is 

alternative 2, the preferred alternative by the 

National Park Service. Alternative 2 would 

surpass the other alternatives in realizing the 

full range of national environmental policy 

goals as described in section 101. In particular, 

the preferred alternative attains the widest 

range of beneficial uses without degradation 

(goal 3); preserves natural and cultural 

resources while providing a diversity and a 

variety of individual choices (goal 4); and 

achieves a balance between population and 

resource use (goal 5). Alternative 3 is similar to 

alternative 2 in its provisions for beneficial 

use, balance of population and resource use, 

and quality of renewable resources. However, 

it would not provide the strongest protection 

of natural and cultural resources. Thus, 

alternative 3 would not meet policy goal 4 as 

well as alternative 2. 

Alternative 1 would similarly protect 

resources as do alternatives 2 and 3. However 

alternative 1 would restrict access to visitors, 

would restrict visitor choices, and would not 

achieve a balance (goals 3, 4, and 5) as well as 

alternative 2. Alternative 1 would not provide 

the balance between resource protection and 

providing a high standard visitor experience. 

The balance of resource protection and the 

improvements to the visitor experience 

provided by alternative 2 would result in fully 

meeting the goals of the National 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

106

Environmental Policy Act and therefore was 

chosen as the environmentally preferred 

alternative. 

TABLE 8. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

Criteria Alternatives 

1 2 3 

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the 

environment for succeeding generations. 2 2 2 

Ensure safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings for all Americans. 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 2 

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. 

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. 

1 2 2 

Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the 

maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources. 2 2 2 

Total Points* 9 12 11 

*The alternative that fully meets the criteria is given 2 points, 1 point to the alternative that somewhat 

meets the criteria, and 0 points if the alternative does not meet the criteria. 
107 

ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIONS CONSIDERED 

BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED EVALUATION 

During the planning process for Saguaro 

National Park, alternative 4 was presented in 

the initial alternatives newsletter. Since this 

time, alternative 4 was dropped from the 

planning process, as explained below. 

To avoid the duplication of proposed actions 

and to save associated costs, the onceconsidered alternative 4 was dismissed. 

DISMISSAL OF ALTERNATIVE 4 — 

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

The major actions that might affect natural 

resources have all been evaluated under 

another alternative. Keeping Golden Gate 

Road open to vehicles is evaluated under 

alternative 3. The traffic-calming options for 

Picture Rocks Road are assessed as part of 

alternative 3. Backcountry camping 

opportunities were the same as in the noaction alternative (1). Management of 

Madrona would be the same as in the noaction alternative. The management zones 

proposed for various areas are evaluated 

under alternatives 2 and 3. The actions 

proposed in alternative 4 were duplicative of 

actions evaluated under other alternatives in 

the general management plan. 

DISMISSAL OF ALTERNATIVE 4 — 

CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

For cultural resources, the general management plan calls for a cultural resources 

parkwide management zone that applies to 

cultural resources in all alternatives that are 

not specifically singled out for particular 

actions per alternative as in the Madrona area 

or at Manning Camp. Because the cultural 

resources parkwide management zone calls 

for (1) cultural resources that are on or eligible 

for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places to be preserved and maintained and possibly adaptively used and (2) 

cultural resources potentially eligible for 

listing in the national register to continue to 

be evaluated for a formal determination of 

eligibility and possible nomination to the 

national register, treatment actions would be 

the same or similar in each alternative. In the 

process of evaluation, protection, and 

preservation, monitoring sensitive cultural 

resources, such as historic structures, 

prehistoric rock art, and archeological village 

sites and rock shelters, could result in 

documentation, stabilization, or hazard 

abatement. Required compliance with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

would be met for all undertakings in all 

alternatives. Therefore, the cultural resources 

parkwide management zone under alternative 

4 is duplicative and thus a sufficient reason to 

dismiss alternative 4 regarding cultural 

resources not particularly singled out per 

alternative. 

For the Madrona area, the alternative 4 

proposed action of removing all existing 

administrative facilities is duplicated as 

follows under alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 

2 removes existing structures similar to the 

complete removal of administrative facilities 

in alternative 4. But the difference between 

alternative 2 and alternative 4 is that there 

would be some replacement of structures in 

the former as with housing for park staff and 

new corrals. The proposed action would be 

the same in alternatives 2 and 4 to raze and 

remove the small historic Civilian 

Aeronautical Administration (CAA) building if 

a willing taker could not be found to accept 

the NPS offer of donating and relocating it. In 

alternative 3, a visitor contact and science 

station would be developed in the Madrona 

area for interpretation and research purposes, 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

108

but removal of the existing administrative 

facilities as in alternative 4 would occur. 

OTHER REASONS TO DISMISS 

ALTERNATIVE 4 

Alternative 4 also included the proposal of a 

tram to access some of the Rincon Mountain 

District’s trailheads and the Cactus Forest 

Loop Drive. The tram concept was not well 

received by the public during review of the 

alternatives. The Saguaro National Park Plan: 

Transportation Study (David Evans and 

Associates 2006) showed that the costs of 

implementing this concept were extremely 

high and did not seem commensurate with the 

proposed benefits, especially in light of the 

lack of public support. 

The lowest level of traffic calming devices on 

through-park roads was also considered in 

alternative 4. This component of alternative 4 

is redundant to the preferred alternative, 

which begins with the lowest level of traffic 

calming needed to address current conflicts 

on through-park roads. As part of the 

alternatives 2 and 3, the National Park Service 

would take an adaptive management approach 

to traffic calming on through-park roads, with 

higher levels of traffic calming only being 

applied as needed based on the results of 

monitoring resource conditions and visitor 

experiences. 

The Cactus Forest Trail system was placed in 

the Primitive Zone in alternative 4. Upon full 

consideration of the impacts of this proposal 

on visitor opportunities, this component of 

alternative 4 was considered infeasible due to 

the degree of visitor use restrictions that 

would be needed to achieve the desired 

conditions of the Primitive Zone. 
Table 9

109 

TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALT

Concept The no-action alternative is a continuation of current management and trends. This 

alternative serves as a basis of comparison with the two action alternatives. The park would continue to be managed as it is today, with no major change in management direction. 

In alternative 2 the emphasis would be on 

protecting the park’s ecological processes and biological diversity by connecting wildlife and plant habitats. Management efforts would focus on creating connections between isolated wildlife habitats and corridors. Visitation would be managed and redirected, when necessary, to protect sensitive resources and minimize impacts on resources. 

In alternative 3 t

providing a wider ravisitors that is compof park resources ancharacteristics. Natuprotected by relocatoccurring in sensitivwithstand higher levwould have a varietreached areas of th

Rationale This alternative concept was developed 

because the biological diversity and ecological processes of the park are in danger. In addition, the public expressed concern that overuse of the park and increasing urbanization would threaten the park’s qualities of solitude, quiet, and naturalness. 

This alternative 

because the public wprograms and oppodiverse population. expressed an interesmore diverse recreaincluding trails for spublic also felt that increased demands growth surrounding 

Resource Conditions 

Natural resources and processes would 

be preserved while accommodating a range of visitor uses and experiences. Fragmentation in habitats, corridors, and regional ecosystems would continue. 

Cultural resources would continue to be 

preserved, protected, and interpreted. 

Primitive and Semi-primitive zones, which 

call for natural resources to be maintained in pristine to excellent condition, would make up the largest area of the park. Tolerance for resource modifications or degradation would be low, and preservation of wildlife habitat would be a major management focus in these zones. Park management would seek to reduce fragmentation of habitats and isolated wildlife corridors. Revegetation efforts would increase to improve habitat conditions. 

Cultural resources would be preserved and 

protected as described in the parkwide cultural resource management zone. 

Natural resource 

high priority for parsome impacts could accommodate a divopportunities and s

Cultural resourc

protected as describresource manageme
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

110

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALT

Roads Multiple entrances to the Tucson 

Mountain District would continue to allow access for non-park visitors, resulting in excessive traffic, high speeds, and conflicts between commuters and park visitors. 

The existing road corridors would continue to be managed through traffic signs 

and ranger patrols. Traffic laws and regulations would continue to be enforced by park rangers at the current levels. 

Park management would continue to discourage visitors from traveling some Tucson 

Mountain District roads such as Picture Rocks Road and Sandario Road due to safety concerns caused by excessive commuter speeds and volume. 

Resource damage would continue along 

roadways. Staff would not control infestations of nonnative plants along roadways due to unsafe conditions caused by heavy traffic and excessive speeds. 

Park staff would continue to monitor and 

mitigate wildlife mortality along road corridors in both districts. All roads in the park would be in the Sightseeing Corridor Zone except for Golden Gate Road, which would be in the Natural Zone. Additional compliance and public involvement would be done, if required, for the following actions. Tucson Mountain District

• Golden Gate Road would be converted to 

a multiuse trail. 

• The desired visitor experience and resource 

conditions for Picture Rocks Road would be achieved by installing a potential range of traffic-calming strategies/devices. These strategies/devices would begin at the least intrusive level. The park staff would then monitor visitor safety and resource conditions along the roads to determine if any additional road management applications were necessary. If additional devices/strategies were still needed to achieve desired conditions, the next level of traffic calming would be applied. This adaptive management process would continue until desired conditions were met. 

• If additional management strategies do not 

sufficiently mitigate impacts to resources and visitor experiences, the park staff would then encourage and work with Pima County to develop other alternatives outside the park to using Picture Rocks Road. 

As in alternative 

continue to monitomortality along road All roads in the park seeing Corridor Zonand public involvemrequired, for the folTucson Mountain D

• Golden Gate R

vehicles and woCorridor Zone. 

• As in alternativ

experience and Picture Rocks Rinstalling a potcalming strateg2 and page 50

• If additional ma

sufficiently mitand visitor expewould then encPima County to outside the parRoad. 

• The two-way s

another internaconverted to a 

Rincon Mountain D

• The Cactus For

continue as a m
Table 9

111 

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALT

Roads (cont.) • The scenic Bajada Loop Drive would be 

redesigned into a narrower, paved, oneway scenic loop. A new section of this loop drive would be built to move park traffic off Sandario Road. 

Rincon Mountain District• The Cactus Forest Loop Drive would 

continue as a motor tour route. 

Trails The current Cactus Forest and Tucson 

Mountain District trail plans would guide trail management in the park. User conflicts, maintenance problems, duplicate/parallel trails, and resource damage would continue to be issues. Closure and revegetation of social trails would continue as recommended in the current trail plans. 

Biking would continue to be permitted 

on park roads and on the middle section of the Cactus Forest Trail. Biking would not be permitted on any additional trails. 

The Loma Alta trailhead to the Hope 

Camp, North Hope, and the Ridge View trails would remain informal. There would be limited opportunities to connect to regional trails outside park boundaries. 

There would be no new trailheads or 

trails developed. 

Tucson Mountain District

• Trailhead parking would be developed at 

both ends of the proposed Golden Gate Trail. 

• Opportunities for developing bicycling 

trails would be explored along Golden Gate Trail and the gas pipeline right-ofway near the eastern boundary of the district. Redesign of the Kings Canyon trailhead would be explored. 

• Development of new accessible paved 

trails, interpretive trails, and signs would be considered in the Natural Zone 

Rincon Mountain District

• Biking opportunities would be explored 

along the Hope Camp Trail. 

• The Camino Loma Alta, Douglas Springs, 

Wildhorse, and Broadway trailheads would be redesigned/improved. 

• Development of additional ADA-accessible 

nature trails would be explored. 

Trails in Both Districts

• The comprehensive trails plan will explore 

regional trail connections, locations of trail access points and trailheads, the need for single-use trails, and trail realignments. 

Tucson Mountain D• Opportunities f

trails would be pipeline right-o

• Interpretive tra

developed nea

Rincon Mountain D

• Biking opportu

along the Hope 

• The Camino Lo

Wildhorse, and be redesigned/

• Development o

trails would be 

Trails in Both Distric

• The comprehen

regional trail cotrail access poin
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

112

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALT

Madrona/ Chimenea Area 

Access to the Madrona/Chimenea area 

would continue to be limited. Visitors would need to travel several miles over difficult trails to access the area. 

The Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

building would remain and would be monitored. 

When funding permits, all other facilities 

would be removed as required by the state health department. 

Visitor use at Madrona would continue to 

be highly regulated. The park would implement a limited permit system if further regulations on use levels were needed. 

The historic fireplace with chimney 

(chimenea) would be monitored and stabilized. 

The historic Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building would be donated to an interested organization or documented and razed. 

Staff housing and new corrals would be 

developed. On-site staff would provide interpretation and information on resource protection. 

Visitor use at M

be highly regulated contact station. The daily ranger presenc

A small science 

Madrona for researc

The historic firep

(chimenea) would b

The historic Civi

Administration buildan interested organrazed. 

Manning Camp Current activities and facilities would remain. Fire management and trail maintenance 

staging activities would be simplified. 

A comprehensive analysis would be 

conducted to identify the most efficient operation for fire and trail operational activities. 

The park staff would develop a shared work 

center/duty station with the U.S. Forest Service for initial fire response. 

Some administrative facilities would remain, 

such as the vault toilet, water system, corrals, and hitching posts. 

The number of tent platforms and propane 

equipment would be reduced. 

Seasonal spike camps would be set up for 

trail maintenance activities when these needs are a considerable distance from Manning Camp. 

The recommendations of the Manning 

Cabin Condition Assessment (NPS 2005a) 

would be implemented. 

Ranger presence would be maintained 

during the summer season for interpretation, law enforcement, initial fire response, and routine maintenance. 

Fire and trail cre

be moved away frooff-site administratibe removed would system, propane eqplatforms. The vault by visitors using the near Manning Cam

Temporary spike 

established by fire aworking in the back

The recommend

Cabin Condition Asswould be implemen

Ranger presence 

during the summer law enforcement, inroutine maintenanc
Table 9

113 

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALT

Camping Camping would continue to be permitted 

in the backcountry of the Rincon Mountain District. No additional campsites would be developed. 

Camping opportunities in the Rincon 

Mountain District would take place in designated campsites, and camping would not be allowed in the Tucson Mountain District as is currently the case. 

Camping would 

the Rincon MountaNew campgrounds this area. 

Interpretation and Education Programs 

The Rincon Mountain District visitor 

facility would remain at its current size, which would not meet the needs of a growing population, particularly a rapidly expanding school system. 

The interpretive displays in the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center would remain outdated. 

The Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

would be expanded (2,200 to 3,200 square feet) to provide additional exhibit and office space. The Tucson Mountain District visitor center would remain the same. 

An outdoor environmental education center 

could be developed near the Camino Loma Alta trailhead to provide additional interpretive opportunities 

A park structure would be reused as an 

education center when current uses are relocated. 

Additional opportunities for waysides and 

interpretive trails would be explored parkwide. 

As in alternative 

District visitor centeto 3,200 square feeexhibit and office spDistrict visitor cente

A learning cente

property) and educaof an existing park bdeveloped. 

A partnership, o

education center coCamino Loma Alta t

A science cente

would be developed 

Additional inter

interpretive trails anwould be provided. 

Management Activities and Facilities 

Facilities would remain at their current 

levels; staffing would not be increased. 

Administrative facilities in the Rincon 

Mountain District would remain inadequate. This district would remain too small to meet staff needs. This district would continue to serve local residents as its primary visitors. 

The Manning Camp area would continue 

to be used for fire crew activities. Facilities to support administration, such as the water supply system, the vault toilet, the historic cabin, the corral, and the tent cabins, would remain. 

Expansion of the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center (2,200 to 3,200 square feet) would allow for more efficient park operations. The annex would be removed when its administrative functions can be moved to other locations. 

Staffing would be shared with partners if an 

outdoor environmental education center was developed near Camino Loma Alta. 

An existing park building near park 

headquarters could be rehabilitated for use as an education center. 

State Trust, county, and private lands within 

park boundaries would be acquired from willing sellers when available and feasible. 

The facilities in the life estate property in 

the Rincon Mountain District would be used for NPS administrative purposes. 

The Rincon Mou

would be expanded feet), and some parallow for additional 

Staff operations 

District headquartera suitable location wheadquarters buildieducation center. Tdemolished. 

Staffing would b

outdoor education the Camino Loma A

A visitor contact 

would be developed area for research fu

The facilities in t

the Rincon Mountaa learning center. 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

114

ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2 – PREFERRED ALT

Boundary Adjustment 

There would be no changes to the 

current boundary. 

Boundary adjustments would be 

recommended for protection of critical resources and values. 

There would be 

boundary. 

Partnerships The park would continue to have 

relationships with its partners. These partnerships include universities, colleges, schools, the Rincon Institute, and friends groups. 

The park staff would continue to have 

relationships with its partners. These partnerships include universities, colleges, schools, institutes, friends groups, and other organizations. 

Additional partnerships would be sought 

with city and county entities to make regional trail connections. 

Partnerships would be sought to develop an 

outdoor environmental education center at the south boundary of the Rincon Mountain District (in the vicinity of the Camino Loma Alta trailhead). This facility might not be developed if partnership funds were not available. 

The park would 

relationships with itpartnerships include schools, institutes, a

Partnerships wo

state, and federal ecomplementary inteto regional trails anto explore mutually options. 

Partnerships wo

outdoor environmesouth boundary of t(in the vicinity of the trailhead). This facilif partnership funds 

Costs 

Initial Capital 

Costs $5,820,299 $9,299,500 $1

Annual Costs $2,980,404 $5,317,530 $

Replacement 

Costs $291,760 $445,534 $

Total Life-Cycle 

Costs 

(includes capital 

costs, replacement costs, and 

annual costs) $9,092,463 $15,062,564 $1
Table 10: Summary of Key Impacts of Imp

115 

TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF KEY IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE ALTERNATIVES

No impairment of park resources or values would result from implementing the alternatives. 

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

Impacts on Natural ResourcesImpacts on Vegetation Most of the natural vegetation in Saguaro 

National Park would not be affected under alternative 1. Minor long-term adverse effects on vegetation in localized areas would continue to be caused primarily by visitor activities. 

This alternative would have more potential for both beneficial and adverse effects in more areas of the park than alternative 1. The loss of native vegetation would be reduced by better protection and revegetation of disturbed areas. Alternative 2 would likely have a short-term, moderate and a long-term minor adverse impact in localized areas. Overall, most native vegetation in Saguaro National Park would continue to be protected and self-sustaining under alternative 2. 

Most native vegetaPark would continuself-sustaining undalternative 3 would moderate and longimpacts on vegetat

Impacts on Wildlife Minor long-term adverse effects on park 

wildlife populations would continue under alternative 1 in local areas, primarily in developed areas, from the presence of visitors and staff. 

Most wildlife populations and habitats in Saguaro National Park would continue to be protected and would not be changed by the actions proposed in this alternative. No actions would substantially affect areas that are known to be important for breeding, nesting, or foraging, or that are key migration routes. The proposals in alternative 2 would result in short-term moderate and long-term minor adverse effects on wildlife populations and habitats. 

Most wildlife popuSaguaro National Pprotected and wouactions proposed ialternative 3 would moderate and longeffects on the parkhabitats. 

Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Concern 

Even with increased visitation, alternative 1 would not be likely to adversely affect the 

listed species in the park. 

Before taking any action in alternative 2 that might affect federally listed species in the park, the National Park Service would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure that potential impacts were identified and avoided. There is habitat for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl in the park. However, actions proposed in alternative 2 would not be likely to adversely affect the populations of lesser long-nosed bat, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, or Gila topminnow in Saguaro National Park. 

Before taking any amight affect federapark, the National consult with the UService to ensure tidentified and avoithe cactus ferruginpark. However, actalternative 3 would affect the populatibat, cactus ferruginspotted owl, yellowtopminnow in Sag
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

116

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

Impacts on Soils Alternative 1 would result in long-term 

minor adverse effects on soils in localized areas caused primarily by continued use of the park by visitors. 

Most of the park’s soils would not be affected by alternative 2. Overall, actions in alternative 2 would have short-term negligible and long-term minor adverse impact on localized portions of the park’s soils. 

Most of the park’s affected by alternaalternative 2 would and long-term modlocalized portions o

Impacts on Soundscapes 

Most of Saguaro National Park would continue to be relatively quiet under alternative 1. However, there would continue to be long-term minor adverse effects on the park’s soundscape in local areas, largely from visitation and administrative activities in developed areas. 

The soundscape in most of Saguaro National Park would continue to be relatively quiet under alternative 2. Over the long term, there would be less sources of noise in the park than in alternative 1. The construction of traffic-calming devices on through-park roads, Rincon Mountain District visitor center and parking lot expansion, and other improvement projects would cause shortterm moderate adverse effects on the soundscape, mostly in areas already exposed to some noise. Overall, alternative 2 would 

have a short-term moderate adverse effect on the noise level in localized areas and a long-term negligible adverse effect on the soundscape. 

The soundscape in Park would continuunder alternative 3sources of noise in alternative 2 becauwould remain opeconstruction of trathrough-park roadDistrict visitor centexpansion, and othwould cause short-effects on the sounalready exposed to term adverse affec

Impacts on Cultural ResourcesArcheological Resources 

Continued management actions under the no-action alternative would include no minimal new construction, and no new adverse impacts on archeological resources would be anticipated. In the event that impacts on national-register-eligible archeological resources could not be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would be negotiated between Saguaro National Park and the Arizona state historic preservation officer (and/or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would stipulate how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Avoidance of national-register-listed or -eligible archeological resources during the ground disturbances of trail and building construction would result in no adverse impacts on these resources. In the event disturbance of such archeological resources could not be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would 

be negotiated between Saguaro National Park and the Arizona state historic preservation officer (and/or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would stipulate how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Same as alternative 
Table 10: Summary of Key Impacts of Imp

117 

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

Cultural Landscapes No adverse effects would be associated with 

revegetation of social trails because such rehabilitation would have a beneficial impact upon potential cultural landscapes by returning them to more of a semblance of their historic appearances in the natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. Continued management actions under the no-action alternative would include no new construction, and no adverse impacts on cultural landscapes would be anticipated. In the event that impacts on any nationalregister-eligible cultural landscapes could not be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would be negotiated between Saguaro National Park and the Arizona state historic preservation officer (and/or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would stipulate how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

No adverse effects would be associated with revegetation of social trails because such rehabilitation would have a beneficial impact upon potential cultural landscapes by returning them to more of a semblance of their historic appearances in the natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. A site-specific study would take place if any potential cultural landscapes were to be affected by proposed actions of alternative 2, including national-register-listed or -eligible cultural landscapes, during trail and building construction activities; thus there would be no adverse impacts on these resources. In the event disturbance of such cultural landscapes could not be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would be negotiated between Saguaro National Park and the Arizona state historic preservation officer (and/or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would stipulate how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Same as alternative 

Ethnographic Resources 

Implementing alternative 1 would impact adversely at a minor intensity level for the long term harvesting of saguaro fruit in the park area selected for this purpose as an ethnographic resource by the Tohono O’odham because high speed/high noise traffic would continue and would likely increase in this area. There would be a longterm minor beneficial impact from continuing the fruit-collecting practice in the park via permit. 

Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would impact beneficially and moderately for a long-term period the harvesting of saguaro fruit in the park’s Tucson Mountain District. There would be no adverse effect on the area as a potential traditional cultural property. 

Same as alternative 
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

118

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

Historic Structures There would be no adverse effect 

concerning the monitoring of the CAA building, and there would be an adverse effect with the continuation of existing fire management and trail maintenance operations on the historic fabric of Manning Cabin at Manning Camp. There would be no change regarding Manning Dam and no adverse effect. 

There would be an adverse effect concerning relocating or razing the CAA building, and there would be no adverse effect with the simplification of the fire management and trail maintenance conditions on the historic fabric of Manning Cabin at Manning Camp. There would be no change regarding Manning Dam and no adverse effect. 

There would be an relocating or razing there would be no moving away of thtrail maintenance shistoric fabric of MCamp. There woulManning Dam and 

Impacts on Visitor Experience Alternative 1 would result in major beneficial 

impacts from continued opportunities to participate in diverse recreational opportunities that bring visitors in close contact with one of the most interesting and unusual collections of desert life in the United States, including the highly valued opportunities for solitude and getting in touch with nature. However, minor to major adverse impacts on the visitor experience from user conflicts on trails, limited bicycling opportunities, increasing use in wilderness areas that may threaten visitors’ opportunities for solitude, and increasing commuter traffic along through-park roads would continue. 

Alternative 2 would result in moderate and major beneficial impacts resulting from enhanced protection of visitor experiences and recreational activities that are unique to the park, including outstanding primitive hiking and camping, opportunities for solitude and getting in touch with nature, and learning about the Sonoran Desert from an up-close perspective. In addition, the provision of new opportunities such as bicycling and educational programs would be a moderate beneficial impact on the range of recreational opportunities. Further, 

current adverse impacts from user conflicts on trails, increasing use in wilderness areas that may threaten visitors’ opportunities for solitude, and increasing commuter traffic along through-park roads would be moderated via a variety of proposals that would improve the visitor experience in the park over the long term, resulting in moderate to major beneficial impacts. 

Alternative 3 woulbeneficial impacts opportunities to parecreation opportuclose contact with desert life. Further, from user conflicts wilderness areas thopportunities for scommuting traffic would be moderatproposals that wouvisitor experience iterm — long-term beneficial impacts. 
Table 10: Summary of Key Impacts of Imp

119 

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

Impacts on the Socioeconomic Environment Moderate long-term adverse socioeconomic 

effects would occur with continued implementation of alternative 1, as the park may have difficulty maintaining its high standard of service while keeping pace with local and regional population growth and urban development. Without development of improved visitor experience and access, visitation might not increase proportionately with population and economic growth. In this case, the relative importance of the economic activity associated with the park in terms of visitor spending, sales, personal income, and jobs would decrease. 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result in an overall moderate long-term beneficial effect on the socioeconomic environment. Management and enhancement of the visitor experience, while protecting natural resources, would encourage visitation to Saguaro National Park and would benefit the local community by increasing spending related to recreational activity and possibly extended stays. The emphasis on protection of sensitive resources and reduction of habitat fragmentation would also provide a moderate long-term beneficial effect by maintaining the park’s naturalness and encouraging visitation. Improved traffic conditions along Picture Rocks Road through traffic-calming devices would likely encourage increased visitation and economically benefit the national park and the community through lower maintenance costs and increased visitation. 

As with alternative a moderate long-tecreated by the actialternative 3. Enhaexperience would sto Saguaro Nationacommunity, creatinbenefit from tourisactivities. Installatiomeasures would enexperience and woresource loss and tFinancial benefit wform of a minor deand law enforceme

Impacts on Transportation Tucson Mountain District 

Congestion and safety problems on Picture Rocks Road could result in both visitors and non-visitors diverting to Twin Peaks and Kinney roads. Potential traffic diversion would have a long-term negligible beneficial effect for all users on Picture Rocks Road, Ina Road, and Wade Road, since these roads are nearing capacity. Long-term minor adverse effects to visitors and non-visitors would continue as a result of the confusing circulation pattern of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive. 

Tucson Mountain District 

The conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail would result in long-term, negligible adverse impact on visitors, since this road has minimal traffic now and any corresponding traffic diversion would be minimal. There would be a long-term, negligible adverse effect on non-visitor motorists due to some small amount of traffic diversion to other roads as described above. Conversion of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive/ Hohokam Road to a one-way loop with a new alignment off of Sandario Road would 

Tucson M

Keeping Golden Gwould result in lonbeneficial impact fConversion of the Hohokam Road to new alignment off have long-term, mto visitor and non-vThe implementatiomanagement apprPicture Rocks Road accidents would re
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

120

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

A continuation of current conditions at the Picture Rocks Road/Golden Gate Road intersection under alternative 1 would result in a long-term, major adverse impact to safety of visitors and non-visitor users. Nonvisitor users would experience long-term, minor, adverse impacts to safety from the park’s management of Picture Rocks Road. Having a portion of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive on Sandario Road would result in a long-term, moderate to major adverse impacts on visitors and non-visitor users because of the high accident rate on this section of Sandario Road. Alternative 1 would result in long-term, minor adverse impacts to parking for visitors and nonvisitor users. 

Rincon Mountain District 

Alternative 1 would have long-term, negligible, adverse impacts on visitors, since the capacity exists to handle additional visitation and background growth with existing facilities and/or minimal changes to park operations. There would be a continuing long-term negligible adverse impact on visitor safety from occasional conflicts between pedestrians and traffic queues. Long-term, minor adverse impacts are anticipated due to a lack of parking. 

have long-term, moderate beneficial impact on visitor and non-visitor motorists. The implementation of adaptive management approach to traffic calming on Picture Rocks Road to reduce speeding and accidents would result in short-term, moderate to major adverse impacts to nonvisitor motorists due to increased travel time and/or the diversion of motorists to alternate routes described above until the Twin Peaks interchange is built. However the implementation of traffic-calming devices would result in long-term, moderate to major beneficial impact on park visitors due to providing a safer, more appropriate and leisurely park driving experience. The proposed new automobile and equestrian trailhead parking south of the Picture Rocks Road/Golden Gate Road intersection would result in long-term, minor beneficial impacts on visitors. Improving the intersection of Golden Gate Road/ Picture Rocks Road to provide safe access to the proposed parking area would result in longterm, moderate beneficial impacts on visitors. The addition of new parking would have a long-term negligible beneficial impact on non-visitor motorists by providing a designated safe parking area if needed. 

Rincon Mountain District 

There would be no long-term impacts to visitor circulation. Visitors may experience some short-term, negligible to minor adverse impacts while new parking is being constructed at the Golden Gate trailhead This alternative proposes to expand the 

moderate to major visitor motorists duand/or the diversioroutes described ainterchange is builtimplementation of would result in lonmajor beneficial imto providing a safeleisurely park drivinNo safety improvemof Golden Gate Rowould result in lonimpacts on visitors additional parking would result in lonimpacts to parking term, negligible advisitor users. 

Rincon M

Transportation impwould be identical alternative 2 for ththe transportation alternative 2 for th
Table 10: Summary of Key Impacts of Imp

121 

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

visitor center parking lot. This would result in a long-term, minor beneficial impact to visitor safety. With the additional parking proposed for the Speedway and Broadway trailheads the lack of congestion would be a long-term moderate beneficial impact. However, nonvisitor users may experience long-term, negligible adverse impacts due to some additional traffic on these roads en route to the parking areas. Expansion of the parking at the Wild horse and Douglas Springs trailheads and the Rincon visitor center is proposed in this alternative. There would some short-term, negligible to minor adverse impact during construction of parking; however, all the parking proposals would ultimately result in long-term, minor beneficial impacts to visitors as a result of additional parking capacity. 

Impacts on Park Operations and Facilities

Continuing the current trend in park staffing would likely result in an increasing inability to effectively meet demands on park operations due to steadily increasing visitation and traffic associated with nonvisitors. This continued direction would create a long-term moderate adverse effect on park operations. Current law enforcement requirements to manage traffic along Picture Rocks Road and maintaining the Rincon Mountain District visitor center would create long-term major adverse impacts on park operations. Actions in alternative 1 that would create long-term moderate adverse impacts on park 

Filling additional positions to meet the proposed actions described under alternative 2 would be expected to create long-term moderate beneficial effects on park staff engaged in activities such as protecting biodiversity and resource and visitor protection. Actions in alternative 2 that would create short-term moderate adverse impacts on park operations due to construction and implementation requirements include the installation of traffic-calming devices along Picture Rocks Road, the development of the partnership environmental education center, the conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail, the construction of new parking areas, 

The additional posexpanded programpark visitors descriwould be expected moderate beneficiaoperations by acco

Actions that would moderate adverse would be the requof the Golden Gate possible new campThe lack of housing term maintenance education centers, vault toilet at the C
CHAPTER 2:

ALTERNATIVES,INCLUDING THE 

PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE

122

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

operations and facilities include continuing current management practices regarding trails and trailheads, parking areas, maintenance of the Golden Gate Road, the continuation of inadequate office space for park staff, the removal of the corral at Madrona, and monitoring the CAA building and stabilizing Manning Cabin. Outdated exhibits and lack of adequate information signs, and the removal of condemned park housing at Madrona with no replacement would create minor longterm adverse effects on park operations as a result of increased personal services required for visitors by park staff. 

the removal of some facilities at Manning Camp, and the expansion of the Rincon Mountain visitor center with new exhibits. The relocation of park offices to a new facility would also constitute a short-term moderate adverse effect on park operations during this transition. There would be long term minor adverse effects as a result of increased maintenance required to service new exhibits, the removal of park housing and corral at Madrona and rebuilding the corral to minimize resource impacts, developing a larger Rincon Mountain visitor center, developing the partnership environmental education center, converted office space for use as an education center, and new trails proposed under this alternative. Actions in alternative 2 that would create long-term major beneficial impacts on park operations and facilities include improvements to trails and trailheads, the development of the partnership environmental education center, the conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail, expansion of the Rincon Mountain District visitor center, construction of traffic-calming devices along the Picture Rocks Road, and development of adequate office space for park staff. Actions that would create long-term moderate beneficial effects on park operations and facilities include the removal and relocation of the CAA building, the removal and reconstruction of the corral and park housing at Madrona, the reduction of equipment and personnel at Manning Camp, and the new exhibits and other 

Trailhead would aladverse effects on 

Actions that would moderate adverse operations due to implementation reinstallation of traffPicture Rocks Roadconstruction of new of the Rincon Mounew exhibits. The rto a new facility wshort-term moderaoperations during Actions that would adverse effects incnew parking areas corral, park housinMadrona. Actions that would beneficial impacts facilities would inctrails and trailheadMountain District vof traffic-calming dRoad, developmenfor park staff, and contact station and Madrona and rehafacilities for learninActions that would moderate beneficiaoperations and facrelocation or remoMadrona, the remohousing at Madronand interpretive mRincon Mountain v
Table 10: Summary of Key Impacts of Imp

123 

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative 2 – Preferred Alt

interpretive media installed in the Rincon Mountain visitor center and at key locations around the park. As long as increases in parking areas and availability are proportionate to user capacity thresholds for the park and this new development does not create a larger management problem in the long run as a result of increased use, it is expected that long-term effects would be minor beneficial under alternative 2. 

locations around thnonhistoric facilitiewould create long-effects on park opeAs long as increaseavailability were prcapacity thresholds development does management probresult of increased long-term effects wunder alternative 3

3

Affected Environment

127 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes the existing 

environment of Saguaro National Park and 

the surrounding region. It is focused on the 

park resources, uses, facilities, and 

socioeconomic characteristics that have the 

potential to be affected if any of the 

alternatives were implemented. Some features, 

such as floodplains and endangered species, 

are discussed because they provide context or 

must be considered in an environmental 

impact statement. 
128

NATURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

This section describes the environmental, 

cultural, and social context for the alternatives 

introduced in Chapter 2. It describes only 

those resources that may experience impacts 

if the alternatives were implemented. Specific 

resources that would not be affected at a 

greater than minor level are listed in the 

impact topics dismissed section found in 

Chapter 1. The Council on Environmental 

Quality requires that NEPA documents 

“succinctly describe the environment of the 

area(s) to be affected or created by 

alternatives under consideration (1502.15).” 

VEGETATION TYPES 

Rincon Mountain District has low elevation 

Sonoran desertscrub that gives way upslope to 

desert grassland, which in turn intermixes 

with pine-oak woodland. Pine-oak woodland 

gives way to pine-oak forest, which gives way 

to pine forests, and with mixed conifer forests 

at higher elevations on north-facing slopes. 

The addition and loss of species from 3,000 to 

8,600 feet is gradual, leading to many shared 

species between adjacent plant associations. 

Riparian forest and riparian woodland occur 

locally in canyon bottoms. Wet and dry 

meadows are found in scattered clearings at 

high elevations — the former around springs, 

the latter often on old burns and disturbed 

sites. 

The Tucson Mountain District includes 

desertscrub, desert grassland, and desert 

riparian scrub plant associations, which 

exhibit many similarities to their counterparts 

in the Rincon Mountains. Higher elevation 

communities are absent because the highest 

point in the Tucson Mountains is 4,687 feet in 

elevation. 

Sonoran Desertscrub — 

Rincon Mountain District 

Sonoran desertscrub occurs from the base of 

the mountains to about 5,200 feet and is 

characterized by many cacti and by the 

drought-tolerant habitat of many of the 

deciduous trees and shrubs. Dominants in the 

overstory include foothills paloverde, saguaro, 

ocotillo, and velvet mesquite. Common 

understory plants include canyon ragweed, 

brittlebush, various cholla species, wolfberry, 

smoketree, barrel cactus, desert hackberry, 

creosote bush, fairy duster, whitethorn and 

catclaw acacia, prickly pear, and limberbush. 

Some of the most problematic exotic plants 

found in the desertscrub habitat in the park 

are red brome, filaree, Sahara mustard, Malta 

starthistle, fountain grass, and buffelgrass.

Sonoran Desertscrub — 

Tucson Mountain District

This vegetation type occurs throughout the 

Tucson Mountains from 2,130 to 4,687 feet. 

Foothills paloverde and saguaro cactus are the 

dominant species of this vegetation type. Cacti 

are particularly diverse in association with 

paloverde and saguaro, and include various 

chollas, prickly pears, barrels, hedgehog, and 

pincushion cactus. The most important of a 

diverse array of shrubs include creosote bush, 

jojoba, limberbush, ocotillo, brittlebush, and 

several bursages. Creosote bush and jojoba 

become dominant plants in some areas, often 

forming monospecific stands. As in the 

Rincon Mountain District, red brome, filaree, 

Sahara mustard, Malta starthistle, fountain 

grass, and buffelgrass are among the most 

problematic exotic species. 
Natural Resources 

129 

Desert Grassland — 

Rincon Mountain District 

Patches of grassland occur from 4,000 to 5,000 

feet in elevation. This association, forming 

ecotones with pine-oak woodland at its upper 

edge and desertscrub at its lower edge, is 

characterized by the presence and dominance 

of numerous warm-season, perennial bunchgrasses. The most important grasses include 

various gramas, tanglehead, plains lovegrass, 

cane beardgrass, wolftail, curly mesquite, and 

Arizona cottontop, to name a few. Many 

shrubs and succulents occur in desert 

grassland, such as ocotillo, sotol, shin dagger, 

wait-a-minute bush, fairy duster, wild cotton, 

skeletonweed, brickellia, turpentine bush, and 

a diverse assemblage of cacti. Scattered trees 

include velvet mesquite, Mexican blue oak, 

and two species of juniper. Mesquite can 

occur as a dominant tree, especially where 

disturbance (i.e., grazing) has been heavy in 

the past. It is unclear if there are any “true” 

desert grasslands left at Saguaro National Park 

(i.e., large areas of open grass). The several 

small patches that exist are slowly being encroached upon by shrub and tree species. 

Problematic exotics present in this plant community include Lehmann's and Boer's lovegrasses. Lehmann's lovegrass has invaded 

thousands of acres of grassland in other 

natural areas in southern Arizona and is found 

in the park. 

Desert Grassland — 

Tucson Mountain District 

Similar patches of desert grassland are found 

at elevations above the Sonoran desertscrub in 

the Tucson Mountains from 3,691 to 4,687 

feet in elevation and usually include many 

desertscrub plants. Warm-season grasses 

include Arizona cottontop, curly mesquite, 

green sprangletop, plains lovegrass, and a 

number of gramas. Tanglehead is found in 

unusual profusion. Other important plants 

include banana yucca, shin dagger, sotol, 

turpentine bush, velvet mesquite, and wild 

buckwheat. The most serious invader of this 

association is Lehmann's lovegrass. 

Pine-Oak Woodland — 

Rincon Mountain District 

Pine-oak woodland occurs from 4,400 to 

6,100 feet in elevation. The woodland (also 

known as interior chaparral) describes a 

diverse, heterogeneous community type that 

ranges from near-100% cover stands of 20-

foot-tall pines and evergreen oaks, to more 

open pinyon-juniper woodland, to chaparrallike stands of shrubby manzanita, silktassel, 

and lower-stature oak. Other important 

elements in the shrub layer include mountain 

yucca, beargrass, lemonade berry, shin dagger, 

and occasional succulents like cholla, prickly 

pear, and agave. The heterogeneous structure 

of this association contributes to its particularly high diversity of both forbs and grasses. 

Pine-Oak Forest — 

Rincon Mountain District 

Pine-oak forest occurs from 5,300 to 8,000 

feet in elevation. Pine-oak forest blends into 

pine forest at its upper elevational limit and 

into pine-oak woodland at its lower 

elevational limit. It can be distinguished from 

either of these vegetation types by the larger 

number of oak present and by the presence of 

Chihuahua pine. Tree height in pine-oak 

forest is intermediate between pine forest, 

where trees are typically greater than 80 feet 

tall, and pine-oak woodland, where trees are 

less than 20 feet tall. 

Ponderosa Pine Forest — 

Rincon Mountain District 

This vegetation type occurs from 6,000 to 

8,666 feet in elevation. Ponderosa pine is 

dominant in this association, sometimes 

forming pure stands in the Rincon Mountains. 

Southwestern white pine and Gambel's oak 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

130

are usually found as subdominants. The shrub 

layer is composed of scattered snowberry, 

mountain spray, Arizona honeysuckle, and 

Fendler's ceanothus. 

Mixed-Conifer Forest — 

Rincon Mountain District 

Mixed-conifer forest occurs on north-facing 

slopes from 7,000 to 8,666 feet in elevation. 

Douglas fir is the dominant species in the 

overstory, with ponderosa pine, southwestern 

white pine, Gambel's oak, New Mexico locust, 

and white fir as subdominants. The shrub 

understory consists of scattered patches of 

snowberry, mountain spray, Arizona 

honeysuckle, and raspberry. 

Mixed in with these major vegetation types 

are the following vegetation communities: 

Mountain Wet Meadow — 

Rincon Mountain District 

Mountain wet meadow occurs near springs 

from 7,402 to 8,666 feet in elevation. 

Dominant species are largely various species 

of sedges, grasses, and rushes. 

Mountain Dry Meadow — 

Rincon Mountain District 

Mountain dry meadow occurs at 8,500 feet in 

elevation. Perennial grasses such as mountain 

muhly, fringed brome, and rough bentgrass 

dominate this association. Large stands of 

bracken fern also occur, usually with 

perennial western sneezeweed and a range of 

annual forbs and grasses. Disturbed stands of 

these ferns may be invaded by sheep sorrel, 

cheatgrass, and Kentucky bluegrass. Dry 

meadows in the Rincon Mountains may be of 

human or natural origin (e.g., logging or 

intense fire) and may revert to pine forest 

without further disturbance. 

Riparian Woodland and Riparian 

Forest — Rincon Mountain District 

Riparian forest occurs above 5,000 feet and is 

characterized by Arizona alder, boxelder, and 

coyote willow. Riparian woodland is highly 

variable in species composition, typically 

supporting not only riparian obligate species 

but also non-riparian species normally found 

at higher elevations. Dominant riparianobligate trees include Arizona sycamore, 

Goodding's willow, velvet ash, Arizona 

walnut, and Fremont cottonwood. Representative trees and shrubs usually found at 

higher elevations include ponderosa and 

Chihuahua pine, silverleaf oak, New Mexico 

locust, lemonade berry, manzanita, beargrass, 

barberry, and California and hollyleaf buckthorn. Riparian forest and woodland support 

a diverse array of grasses, sedges, and rushes. 

By their nature, riparian areas are subject to 

frequent disturbance, the severity of which 

increases with decreasing elevation. As such, 

they tend to be susceptible to invasion by 

exotic species. Invasive plants that threaten 

the park's riparian areas include Bermuda 

grass, giant reed, Johnson grass, rabbitsfoot 

grass, tamarisk, and wild oats. 

Desert Riparian Scrub — Both Districts 

This vegetation type is generally found in 

lower elevation floodplains and drainages. It is 

linear in structure because it follows 

drainages, and, as such, is somewhat more 

mesic than immediately adjacent vegetation 

types. This vegetation type is characterized by 

overstory vegetation consisting of velvet 

mesquite, desert hackberry, whitethorn and 

catclaw acacia, Fremont cottonwood, and 

blue paloverde. The intermittent availability of 

water and denser cover in this vegetation type 

make it important wildlife habitat. These 

communities are subject to relatively frequent 

flooding disturbance and may provide 

avenues for exotics to spread into the park. 
Natural Resources 

131 

Fountain grass is problematic in these 

communities. 

WILDLIFE 

Wildlife types at Saguaro National Park are 

diverse, reflecting the park's ecologically 

strategic location. The Rincon Mountain 

District lies at the interface of the Sonoran and 

Chihuahuan deserts, and is part of the chain of 

scattered "sky-island" mountaintops in 

southeastern Arizona that connect the Rocky 

Mountains to the north with the Sierra Madre 

Mountains to the south. Wildlife from all of 

these biomes is represented in the Rincon 

Mountains. In addition, the district ranges in 

elevation from 2,680 to 8,666 feet, and 

encompasses six structurally distinct biotic 

communities, from Sonoran desertscrub to 

mixed-conifer forest. The San Pedro River, 

just east of this district, and the major 

drainages of the Rincons, which form the 

headwaters of Tanque Verde Creek and 

Pantano Wash, add riparian components to 

the park's faunal diversity, as well as provide 

wildlife movement corridors that link 

mountain ranges through the surrounding 

desert lands. Overall, the park supports a 

unique and diverse assemblage of thousands 

of invertebrates, and more than 325 

vertebrates, including approximately 70 

mammals, 200 birds, 50 reptiles, and eight 

amphibians. The challenge in maintaining this 

biodiversity is underscored by the fact that 

since the turn of the last century, desert 

bighorn, Mexican gray wolves, jaguars, grizzly 

bears, and Gila topminnows have been 

extirpated from the Rincon Mountain 

District, while the Tucson Mountain District 

has lost desert bighorn and white-tailed deer. 

Rincon Mountain District High Country 

Southeastern Arizona is largely desertscrub 

and desert grassland. The tops of the scattered 

high mountain ranges (over 6,000 feet), 

including the Rincons, support forests that 

provide habitat for a suite of wildlife species 

that otherwise seem incongruous to the 

region. Examples include black bear, whitetailed deer, porcupine, tree squirrel, eastern 

cottontail, Mexican spotted owl, northern 

goshawk, and a host of neotropical migratory 

bird species. Due to their limited and disjunct 

habitat in the region, these species are of 

special management concern, particularly 

those federally listed as threatened or 

endangered, such as the Mexican spotted owl. 

Riparian Areas/Corridors 

Riparian areas are crucial in the desert southwest not only for the precious water resources 

they provide and protect, but also for providing dispersal "corridors" between mountain 

ranges for large terrestrial vertebrates. Species 

that rely on these areas, particularly at the 

lower elevations, include all of the park's 

aquatic species (e.g., Sonoran mud turtle, 

canyon tree frog), and animals that must drink 

water on a regular basis, such as mountain 

lions, bobcats, coyotes, javelinas, foxes, 

skunks, bats, and many birds. Riparian areas 

in the Rincon Mountain District also support 

many sensitive species, including lowland 

leopard frog, canyon whiptail, many neotropical migratory bird species including gray 

hawk and yellow-billed cuckoo, and possibly 

Mexican garter snake and the cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl (a state species of 

special concern). These species are all of 

special management concern nationally, 

statewide, and/or locally, primarily due to 

dwindling numbers and habitat. 

Water sources in the Rincon Mountain 

District that continue to contain water during 

drought periods (generally a few tinajas within 

larger drainages, but also some short reaches 

of Chimenea and Rincon creeks) are crucial to 

wildlife, and in some cases are essential to the 

persistence of a species in an area. Loss of 

these resources can be caused by nearby 

groundwater pumping, erosion from wildfires, 

or invasion of exotic species such as tamarisk 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

132

and buffelgrass. These losses could be 

disastrous for wildlife. 

Rincon Mountain District Desertscrub 

Wildlife in the lower elevations of the Rincon 

Mountain District is comprised of species 

typical of the Arizona Upland subdivision of 

the Sonoran Desert, including more than 230 

vertebrate species. Resident fauna includes 

such well-known and conspicuous species as 

mule deer, coyote, javelina, western diamondback rattlesnake, roadrunner, Gambel's quail, 

and many lizard and bird species. Rarer and 

more reclusive animals, such as the golden 

eagle, mountain lion, Sonoran desert tortoise, 

and Gila monster, also occupy this habitat. 

Tucson Mountain District Desertscrub 

Overall, the fauna of the Tucson Mountain 

District is similar to the wildlife found in the 

lower elevations of the Rincon Mountain 

District. However, the Tucson Mountain 

District is lower in elevation (2,180 feet at the 

lowest), flatter, and sandier than the Rincon 

Mountain District, and thus contains some 

faunal elements associated with the Lower 

Colorado subdivision of the Sonoran Desert—

such as kit fox, desert iguana, and 

sidewinder—that do not occur in the Rincon 

Mountain District. 

Urbanization and development increasingly 

surround both districts. Fragmentation is a 

threat to the long-term viability of larger 

terrestrial vertebrate populations. The Tucson 

Mountain District has already lost desert 

bighorn and white-tailed deer. 

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, 

AND SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Wildlife 

There are three wildlife species listed by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened, 

endangered, or a candidate for listing that are 

known to occur, or have relatively recently 

occurred, in Saguaro National Park: the lesser 

long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted owl, and 

yellow-billed cuckoo. The Rincon Mountain 

District contains designated critical habitat for 

the Mexican spotted-owl. The endangered 

Gila topminnow has been proposed to be 

reintroduced into the park.

Lesser long-nosed bat. The lesser longnosed bat is a nectar-feeding bat that migrates 

between its wintering grounds in the drier 

parts of Mexico and its breeding/summering 

grounds in northern Mexico and in southern 

Arizona and New Mexico in the United States 

(USFWS 1995a). Lesser long-nosed bat 

migrations coincide with the availability of the 

nectar, pollen, and fruit of columnar cactus 

(e.g., cardon, organ pipe cactus, saguaros) and 

the nectar and pollen of blooming agaves. In 

Arizona, this bat species forms large maternity 

colonies where young are born in June. 

Maternity roosts are typically in caves or 

abandoned mines and are found in “lower 

elevations near concentrations of flowering 

columnar cacti” (USFWS 1995a). Beginning 

mid-July, bats appear in caves and mines in 

southeastern Arizona, forage on agave 

blooms, and leave the area in September and 

October. Most late-summer colonies are 

females and volant young, but small bachelor 

colonies exist also. The bat is listed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service as federally 

endangered, primarily due to loss of roosting 

habitat and vulnerability to disturbance of 

maternity colonies and other roosting sites 

(Shull 1988). 

Bat surveys in Saguaro National Park 

confirmed a small (less than five individuals 

since 1991) colony of lesser long-nosed bats 

roosting in a cave in the Rincon Mountain 

District (Sidner 1991, Sidner & Davis 1994). 

This species is presumed to be foraging in the 

dense saguaro stands of the district early in 

the summer, and perhaps using agave flowers 

found at higher elevations in this district 

(3,000-7,000 feet) later in the year. Although 
Natural Resources 

133 

surveys were conducted in 1991 and 2003 to 

locate lesser long-nosed bats, or evidence of 

them, in mines in the Tucson Mountain 

District, this species has never been documented in that district (Sidner 1991, Wolf and 

Dalton 2003). 

Since 1994, park staff, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AGFD) biologists, private 

contractors, and volunteers have surveyed for 

the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl within and 

nearby the park. Surveys through 2000 (about 

250 in the Rincon Mountain District and 250 

in the Tucson Mountain District) were about 

equally divided between inventory efforts and 

surveys. A total of 350 surveys (half in each 

district) have been conducted by the park 

during annual surveys for the period of 2001–

2004. All of these surveys followed protocols 

specified by the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service at the time. 

There was a probable detection of a ferruginous pygmy-owl in March 1984, and a 

confirmed detection on October 12, 1995, in 

the Rincon Mountain District. There is an 

unverified report of a roadkill cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl in the Tucson Mountain 

District from January 2, 1988 (NPS files). The 

species has also been reported from King 

Canyon, but it is unknown if the report was 

from within the park or in the adjacent 

Tucson Mountain Park (Pima County Parks 

and Recreation Department). Fire management policy that precludes fires in desertscrub 

and riparian areas should protect this species 

and its habitat. 

Mexican spotted owl. The Mexican spotted 

owl is one of three spotted owl subspecies, 

and is listed as threatened by both the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (USFWS–58 FR 

14248, AGFD 1988). Spotted owls are large 

(relative to other North American owls), darkeyed owls that lack ear tufts, and are generally 

brown with heavy white to beige spotting. The 

Mexican subspecies is disjunctly distributed 

from southern Mexico northward into 

southern Utah and central Colorado (USFWS 

1995b). 

Mexican spotted owl surveys in the park since 

1992 have documented five territories in the 

Rincon Mountain District where this owl 

nests. Four territories are on Mica Mountain 

and the fifth is on Rincon Peak. These territories are occupied every year, though sometimes by only one bird or a non-breeding pair. 

Protected Activity Centers have been 

established for each of these territories. In 

February 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service designated much of the Rincon 

Mountain District as critical habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo. The yellow-billed 

cuckoo was designated by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service as a candidate species for 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. It is 

a medium-sized bird with a slender, longtailed profile. It is found in large blocks of 

riparian woodlands (cottonwood, willow, or 

tamarisk groves), and feeds exclusively on 

insects. 

In southeastern Arizona, the yellow-billed 

cuckoo is a summer resident in tall, dense, 

riparian growth, mostly in the San Pedro, 

Patagonia-Sonoita Creek, and Arivaca Creek 

drainages. In the Rincon Mountain District it 

is considered a transient and potential 

breeder; there was a recent sighting at Rincon 

Creek. 

Gila topminnow. The endangered Gila 

topminnow is a small live-bearing minnow in 

the family Poeciliidae. This fish historically 

occupied larger streams and rivers throughout 

the Gila River Basin, where they were found in 

the shallow margins of main river channels or 

backwaters, since they prefer quiet, warm 

waters with slow currents and abundant aquatic vegetation. In the past 100 years, human 

changes to the environment—particularly 

dams; the dewatering of cienegas, swamps, 

springs, and streams; and introductions of 

exotic, predatory fish and other aquatic 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

134

fauna—have reduced the distribution of Gila 

topminnow to about 10 disjunct remnant 

populations (Weedman and Young 1997). 

The Gila topminnow is considered extirpated 

in Saguaro National Park. However, the one 

site at which they were known to occur in the 

past is recommended for potential “additional 

management action or restocking” (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological 

Services Field Office, correspondence dated 

August 7, 1997). This site is a series of pools in 

the Wildhorse Drainage on the north slope of 

Tanque Verde Ridge in the Rincon Mountain 

District. Although these pools dry out/silt in 

intermittently, generally they do not all dry up 

at the same time. Presumably there was some 

thought that a population could possibly be 

reintroduced at this site. It should be noted, 

however, that in 2000, after the Box Canyon 

wildfire and heavy summer rains, the tinajas in 

this drainage underwent substantial siltation 

that dramatically reduced their water retaining capacity. Subsequently, in 2002, a drought 

year, every tinaja in the entire drainage dried 

up by mid-June (Don Swann, pers. com.). This 

series of events documents the important and 

dynamic relationship between fire, erosion, 

and surface water in the park, and emphasizes 

the need for understanding, predicting, and 

managing this phenomenon. 

Rare and Protected Wildlife Species 

Also, 17 federal or state-listed “species of 

special concern” or “sensitive species” 

(Appendix G) occur or have occurred in the 

park: northern goshawk, northern gray hawk, 

western burrowing owl, common black-hawk, 

northern buff-breasted flycatcher, American 

peregrine falcon, Mexican long-tongued bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, western red bat, 

California leaf-nosed bat, cave myotis, 

pocketed free-tailed bat, yellow-nosed cotton 

rat, desert tortoise, giant spotted whiptail, 

lowland leopard frog, and cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl. A brief description is provided 

below. 

American peregrine falcon. This impressive 

bird was delisted from endangered status by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in August 

1999; however, their numbers were to be 

monitored through 2004 to ensure their 

recovery. Park staff continue to monitor the 

falcons. This large, striking falcon is primarily 

a hunter of small- to medium-sized birds that 

are often associated with water (e.g., waterfowl, shorebirds, swallows, etc.). Along with a 

proximity to water, the most important habitat characteristic needed by this species is the 

presence of tall cliffs (typically over 150 feet 

but sometimes as low as 60 feet). Within this 

habitat, peregrines nest on ledges, in potholes, 

or in small caves that are relatively inaccessible to mammalian predators and that also 

provide protection from weather extremes. 

In Arizona, peregrine falcon breeding activity 

was documented at 179 locations in 1992 

(Ward 1993). Within the park, peregrines are 

known to nest at four locations. Two of these 

eyries have been occupied continuously since 

at least 1992 (Berner and Mannan 1992, Bailey 

1993, Kline 1994, SNP unpublished data). 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl is a small (about 6.75 

inches long), long-tailed, earless owl that is 

considered a state species of special concern. 

(It was delisted from federal endangered 

status in 2006.) Loss of habitat is suspected as 

the major cause of its decreased numbers 

(USFWS 1993). This pygmy-owl is the 

northernmost subspecies of the wide-ranging 

but tropically based ferruginous pygmy-owl. 

Although historic accounts associated this 

subspecies with riparian woodlands and 

mesquite bosques in Arizona USFWS 1993), 

recent sightings of these pygmy-owls in the 

state have generally been in the paloverdecacti-mixed scrub series of Sonoran desertscrub in the Arizona Upland subdivision. Both 

districts of Saguaro National Park contain 

potential habitat for the cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl — virtually all of the Tucson and 

Rincon Mountain districts below 4,000 feet 

(some 40,000 acres total). Park staff continue 

to monitor these owls. 
Natural Resources 

135 

Plants 

There are no plant species currently listed as 

threatened or endangered, nor are there 

candidates for threatened or endangered 

status. The park has a number of species 

protected by the state of Arizona, some of 

which have been listed as USFWS “Species of 

Concern.” This is an informal designation for 

species in need of concentrated conservation 

actions, depending on the health of the 

population and the type and degree of threats. 

Sensitive plant species found in the park are 

Pima Indian mallow, Trelease agave, Needlespine pineapple cactus, Lemmon milkweed, 

Tucson Mountain spiderling, magenta-flower 

hedgehog-cactus, Mexican broomspurge, 

feather bush, Thornber fishhook cactus, 

weeping muhly, Lemmon cloak fern, Kelvin 

cholla, staghorn cholla, desert night-blooming 

cereus, Pringle lipfern, Chiricahua Mountain 

brookweed, nodding blue-eyed grass, and 

Tumamoc globeberry. 

SOILS / GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

Saguaro National Park is within the Mexican 

Highland section of the Basin-and-Range 

physiographic province. However, the Rincon 

Mountain and Tucson districts contain 

markedly different geological resources. The 

Rincon Mountain District displays a 

metamorphic core complex, while the Tucson 

Mountain District consists of fault-bounded 

structures and volcanic rocks. 

The Rincon Mountains are considered to be 

the “showpiece” of metamorphic core 

complexes. Features represented in this 

district include features related to the 

metamorphic core complex, such as the 

Catalina Fault and mylonite gneiss; inverted 

Paleozoic stratigraphy; and foliations, faults, 

and gneiss along Cactus Loop Drive. 

Because of the region’s semi-arid climate, soils 

are not well developed in Southern Arizona. 

The ground surface of most of the Rincon 

Mountains consists of bedrock or regolith. A 

thin veneer of alluvium covers pediment 

surfaces along the margins of the range. This 

alluvial fill thickens to tens of feet along larger 

drainages, such as Rincon Creek, and has been 

cut into terraces by stream entrenchment in 

places. Aridisols with calcium carbonate 

(caliche) concentrations have developed on 

this deeper alluvium. Aridisol is a soil that is 

typically saline or alkaline with very little 

organic matter and is found in arid regions. At 

the highest elevations, where the natural 

vegetation is coniferous forest, thin soils with 

distinctive soil horizons have developed. 

The Tucson Mountain District is typical of the 

Basin-and-Range physiographic province and 

consists of a normal-faulted, east-tilted wedge 

of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rock. 

The Tucson Mountains themselves are composed of intrusive plugs, flow and welded 

tuffs, and sedimentary rocks; the lower slopes 

of the mountains are covered by terrace 

deposits or other alluvium, sometimes up to 

400 feet thick (NPS 1995). The soils of the 

Tucson Mountain District slopes are shallow, 

coarsely textured, and well-drained, and soils 

of the bajadas are alluvial (NPS 1991). Soils 

become progressively finer with more sand 

and clay from bedrock to bajada to flats. 

Granite weathers rapidly into gruss, forming 

"plant friendly" soils. 

Soils located on fan terraces have wind and 

water erosion hazards. Both districts of the 

park have fan terraces with erosion hazards. 

The fan terraces with erosion concerns range 

in elevation from 2,180 to 3,600 feet. Erosion 

from water typically occurs during heavy 

rains, which creates sheet erosion instead of a 

slow percolation of water into the soil that 

occurs during slower, gentler rainfalls. Wind 

erosion is an ongoing concern. The best management practice to minimize water and wind 

erosion is to maintain a healthy vegetative 

cover. Vegetation holds the soil in place 

during rain and high winds, preventing soil 

movement. Constraints on revegetation are 

primarily due to limited water availability in 

the soil. (See Appendix B, for additional 

information on soils and geologic resources.) 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

136

SOUNDSCAPE 

Sound levels in Tucson Mountain District 

were measured in two locations in November 

2004. These measurements evaluated the 

noise levels associated with traffic on Picture 

Rocks Road and Golden Gate Road and the 

rate of noise drops as one moves farther from 

the roads. Acoustic measurements calculated 

included Leq, L50, and L90. The Leq is useful for 

quantifying intruding sounds because its 

magnitude depends heavily on the loudest 

periods of a time-varying sound. Exceedence 

values (Lx) are commonly used to describe 

ambient sound conditions. The L50 value 

represents the sound level exceeded 50% of 

the time during the measurement period (L50 is 

the same as the median). The L90 value 

represents the sound level exceeded 90% of 

the time during the measurement period. L50

and L90 are useful measures for describing 

ambient sound conditions. The L50 measure is 

a good descriptor of the “existing ambient” 

sound level, which includes all natural and 

human-caused sounds in a given area. The L90

measure is often used to describe the “natural 

ambient sound level,” which consists of all 

natural sounds in a given area, excluding all 

human-produced sounds. Table 11 presents 

the typical sounds heard in various national 

parks. 

The vehicle speed limit on Picture Rocks 

Road and Golden Gate Road is 35 mph near 

the measuring stations. The mean Leq, L50, and 

L90 measured 100 ft from Picture Rocks were 

respectively 55.3 dBA, 45.4 dBA, and 35.2 

dBA. The mean Leq, L50, and L90 measured 

about 240 feet from Golden Gate Road and 

approximately 0.9 mile south of Picture Rocks 

Road were 39.8 dBA, 34.7 dBA, and 31.4, 

respectively. Human-caused sounds could be 

heard at both measurement locations in the 

Tucson Mountain District at all times of the 

day and night during the measurement period. 

To better determine the natural ambient 

sound levels for Sonoran desertscrub habitat, 

sound level measurements were taken in the 

Rincon Mountain District in April 2005. The 

recordings were taken near the old Madrona 

ranger station. The Leq, L50, and L90 measurements recorded at Madrona were 30.2 dBA, 

25.4 dBA, and 22.6 dBA, respectively. This 

location was the farthest from nonnatural 

sound sources such as highways and airports. 

Acoustic measurements for this location were 

the lowest of all three locations, and likely are 

the most representative of natural sound 

levels in a Sonoran desertscrub habitat. 

The first location 100 feet from Picture Rocks 

Road was greatly influenced by vehicle traffic, 

and the second location about 0.9 mile from 

Picture Rocks Road, was also, but to a lesser 

degree, influenced by vehicle sounds on 

Picture Rocks Road. From these limited data, 

it appears that the mean natural ambient 

sound level for a Sonoran desertscrub habitat 

during the summer season is between about 

22 dBA and 25 dBA for all hours. From the 

measured acoustic data at the two stations in 

the Tucson Mountain District, it appears that 

traffic sounds on Picture Rocks Road drops 

about 10 dBA per mile in this vegetation type 

and terrain. 
Natural Resources 

137 

TABLE 11. SOUNDS RECORDED IN NATIONAL PARKS AND APPROXIMATE DBA LEVEL AND DISTANCE

Sound Location and Type dBA 

Threshold of human hearing 0 

Haleakala National Park — volcano crater 10 

Canyonlands National Park — leaves rustling 20 

Zion National Park — crickets (5 m) 40 

Whitman Mission National Historic Monument — conversational speech (5 m) 60 

Yellowstone National Park — snowcoach (30 m) 80 

Arches National Park — thunder 100 

Yukon-Charley Rivers National Monument — military jet (100 m above ground) 120 

SOURCE: Ambrose and Florian 2006 
138

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

INTRODUCTION 

The cultural resources of Saguaro National 

Park and its environs represent several 

periods of prehistory and history. These are 

the Indigenous Period, circa10000 BC to AD 

1539; the Spanish Period, 1539 to 1821; the 

Mexican Period, 1821 to 1854; and the 

American Period, 1854 to the present (NPS 

1987a ). 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Saguaro National Park contains 435 known 

archeological sites (NPS 2001a:37, NPS 

2003:11, and pers. comm. with Susan Wells, 

Chief of the Archeology Division, NPS 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center by Dr. Lawrence Van Horn, NPS 

Denver Service Center, February 17, 2006). Of 

the approximate number of 91,440 total acres 

of the park, about 23,425 acres (26%) have 

been archeologically surveyed, including the 

Rincon Mountain and the Tucson Mountain 

districts (pers. comm. with Susan Wells, Chief 

of the Archeology Division, NPS Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center by 

Dr. Lawrence Van Horn, NPS Denver Service 

Center, March 28, 2006). This percentage 

represents a rather complete archeological 

inventory (NPS 2003:11) in terms of the 

different types of park land forms surveyed 

relative to those areas expected to have been 

heavily inhabited over time because of the 

favorable geography of their locations, not just 

areas temporarily visited for hunting or 

gathering purposes, with only “some sitespecific surveys [that] may still [need] to be 

conducted for National Historic Preservation 

Act compliance for specific purposes” (NPS 

2003:11). Relevant studies are listed in the 

“Selected References” section near the end of 

this document. 

The archeological sites at Saguaro National 

Park span more than 8,000 years of human 

occupation during prehistoric and historic 

times. The prehistoric sites consist primarily 

of Archaic and later Hohokam artifact scatters 

with low surface visibility and expression. 

These scatters represent campsites, farmsteads, and villages with some places included 

that were quarry sources to manufacture 

stone tools. Other prehistoric sites include 

rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs), 

rockshelters, and bedrock milling sites. The 

American period sites include those that 

represent ranching and mining. Remnant 

commercial lime kilns exist that contributed 

to the growth of Tucson via the whitewashing of the outside walls of new business 

and residential structures. Adobe ruins of 

Camp Pima of the Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) are present, along with historicperiod trash scatters. The Freeman 

Homestead and the lime kilns are listed in the 

Arizona State Register of Historic Places. 

Most of the sites in the Rincon Mountain 

District of Saguaro National Park below 4,000 

feet are contributing elements to the Rincon 

Mountain Foothills Archeological National 

Register District indicative of villages and 

other habitation sites such as campsites of 

lesser duration. This district, including 

Archaic sites but especially rich in Hohokam 

material, was listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places on October 16, 1979. Lands 

added to the Rincon Mountain District of the 

park in the 1990s contain additional archeological sites being treated as eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places as are 

archeological sites in the park’s Tucson 

Mountain District. 

The Rincon Mountain Foothills Archeological 

District in the park was listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places on October 16, 

1979. The archeological sites at Saguaro 

National Park span more than 8,000 years of 
Cultural Resources 

139 

prehistoric and historic-period occupation. 

The prehistoric sites are primarily Archaic and 

Hohokam artifact scatters with low surface 

visibility and expression. The artifact scatters 

represent villages, campsites, farmsteads, and 

stone quarries. Other prehistoric sites include 

rock art (petroglyphs and pictographs), 

rockshelters, and bedrock milling sites. The 

American period sites include ranching sites, 

mining sites, lime kilns, Civilian Conservation 

Corps features, and trash scatters. The 

Freeman Homestead and the lime kilns are on 

the Arizona State Register of Historic Places. 

Most of the sites in the Rincon Mountain 

District of Saguaro National Park below 4,500 

feet are contributing elements to the Rincon 

Mountain Foothills Archeological District. 

Lands added to the park’s Rincon Mountain 

District in the 1990s contain archeological 

sites that are being treated as eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places, as are 

archeological sites in the park’s Tucson 

Mountain District. 

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

A cultural landscape is “a geographic area, 

including both cultural and natural resources 

and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, 

associated with a historic event, activity, or 

person or exhibiting other cultural or 

aesthetic values. There are four general kinds 

of cultural landscape, not mutually exclusive: 

historic site ..., historic designed landscape ..., 

historic vernacular landscape ..., and 

ethnographic landscape....” (NPS 1998a:179). 

Cactus Forest Drive in the Rincon Mountain 

District has historic designed landscape 

components. The Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) built it circa 1935 to 1939 during 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal 

era of public works. Known for its circuitous, 

roughly heart-shaped route and its associated 

rock work of native stone for culverts, 

curbing, and retaining walls, this scenic drive 

is an eight-mile paved, mostly one-way loop, 

with a two-way portion from the visitor center 

to the Javelina picnic area. It winds through a 

forest of notably saguaro cacti and offers 

visitors the opportunity for a close leisurely 

look at a variety of Sonoran Desert life and 

vistas. 

On May 18, 2005, in recognition of its 

significance, Cactus Forest Drive was formally 

determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places as a historic 

structure with cultural landscape components 

(NPS 2005b). 

Other historic cultural landscapes in Saguaro 

National Park that need to be inventoried and 

evaluated include the following as potentially 

eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (Jill Cowley, historic landscape 

architect, NPS Intermountain Region, Santa 

Fe Office, e-mail to Dr. Larry Van Horn, 

cultural resource specialist, NPS Denver 

Service Center, February 26, 2003): 

• Amole Mining District 

• Civilian Conservation Corps 

Landscape 

• Freeman Homestead 

• Lime-making Landscape 

• Manning Camp 

• Rincon Foothills Archeological 

District 

Potential ethnographic landscapes are 

associated with ethno-historic American 

Indian occupation or use of what is now the 

park, and four tribes have been suggested for 

further investigation of possible national 

register eligibility as a cultural landscape (Jill 

Cowley, historic landscape architect, NPS 

Intermountain Region, Santa Fe Office, e-mail 

to Dr. Larry Van Horn, cultural resource 

specialist, NPS Denver Service Center, 

February 26, 2003): 

• Apache Ethnographic Landscape 

• Maricopa Ethnographic Landscape 

• Akimel O’odham (also known as 

Pima) Ethnographic Landscape 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

140

• Tohono O'odham (formerly known as 

Papago) Ethnographic Landscape 

Please note that these have been suggested 

only at the conceptual stage with no 

inventorying. It is possible that with study a 

combined American Indian ethnographic 

landscape could emerge that would include all 

of the contemporary Indian peoples known to 

have frequented what is now the park. For 

example, because of prehistoric contacts with 

the Hohokam who once lived in what is now 

the park, the Pueblo of Zuni could be 

considered as an American Indian tribe 

traditionally associated with Saguaro National 

Park. Those peoples who might be part of an 

American Indian ethnographic landscape 

could include the Akimel O’odham (also 

known as Pima), the Apache, the Hopi, the 

Maricopa, the Yaqui, the Tohono O’odham, 

the Yavapai, and the Zuni. 

Because of the proximity of the Tohono 

O'odham Nation to Saguaro National Park, 

this tribe seemingly uses the park more than 

other tribes. Traditional use of the park by the 

Tohono O'odham for harvesting saguaro fruit 

is discussed in the section on ethnographic 

resources. 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES 

An ethnographic resource is identified by way 

of a specific contemporary human group or 

family using a particular place over time in 

accord with that group’s traditional cultural 

heritage and social identity. More specifically, 

an ethnographic resource is “a site, structure, 

object, landscape, or natural resource feature 

assigned traditional legendary, religious, 

subsistence, or other significance in the 

cultural system of a group traditionally 

associated with it” (NPS 1998a:181). The 

pictographs in the national park are attributed 

to the Hohokam people (NPS 2001b:8) and 

could conceivably constitute ethnographic 

resources because the Hohokam may well be 

ancestors of the neighboring Tohono 

O’odham Indians. Although there could 

possibly be a relationship, the neighboring 

Tohono O’odham have not expressed any 

relationship as a contemporary people to the 

prehistoric Hohokam pictographs in the park. 

Nonetheless, the saguaro-fruit-gathering area 

in the Tucson Mountain District of the park is 

an ethnographic resource. It is used 

traditionally by the Tohono O’odham. 

In conjunction with European contact by way 

of the Spanish with the Tohono O’odham, the 

gathering of saguaro fruit in the Sonoran 

Desert is documented as far back as the 16th 

century (Beal 2005:B1). It of course is much 

older than that as part of Tohono O’odham 

history and culture. 

Ethnographic resources eligible for the 

National Register of Historic Places are called 

traditional cultural properties (NPS 2006e: 

257). Depending upon whether or not the 

Tohono O’odham might wish it nominated, 

the area for gathering saguaro fruit in the park 

is an ethnographic resource that is potentially 

eligible for the national register as a traditional 

cultural property and is being treated 

accordingly. An ethnographic study of this 

area is underway to provide additional 

information for managing and interpreting the 

site and could be a vehicle to find out if the 

Tohono O’odham desire its nomination to the 

national register as a traditional cultural 

property. Participation in the study is with 

fruit-gathering individuals and is being done 

in consultation with officials of the Tohono 

O’odham Nation. If the site was nominated as 

a traditional cultural property, it would be 

researched and prepared in accordance with 

National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for 

Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties (NPS 1998b). 

The harvesting of saguaro fruit (with long 

poles of dead saguaro ribs bound together to 

reach up to detach the ripening fruit growing 

on the arms of cacti) is documented in the 

park back to July 14, 1955 (Phares Keller Weis, 

photo editor of the Tucson (Arizona) Citizen,
Cultural Resources 

141 

pers. comm. with Dr. Lawrence F. Van Horn, 

cultural resource specialist, NPS Denver 

Service Center, February 13, 2003). In what 

was then called Saguaro National Monument, 

West — now the Tucson Mountain District of 

Saguaro National Park — a photograph on 

that date was taken of saguaro fruit harvesters 

in the park using the long poles to collect the 

fruit. This historic photograph in the files of 

the Tucson Citizen shows Juanita Ahill, a 

Tohono O'odham woman, who was well 

known as a saguaro fruit gatherer. The photo 

was taken for the April 1983 cover of Arizona 

Highways. Stella Tucker, her great niece, now 

leads the group of gatherers in the park (Beal 

2005). 

Saguaro fruit is gathered in late June or early 

July when it ripens. It is used to make saguaro 

jam and syrup and, of major importance 

culturally, to make saguaro wine. The wine is 

made by adding water to saguaro juice and 

letting it ferment. When the wine is ready, it 

becomes the focus of the rain ceremony that 

calls for drinking the wine and reciting poems 

or singing songs that tell of “the rising of the 

clouds over the mountains and the coming of 

the frogs or the spiders who bring the rain” for 

the crops that the Tohono O'odham plant 

(Underhill 1979:44). 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) Structures 

The dates of December 22, 1933, through June 

21, 1941, mark the occupation by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps of Camp Pima in the 

Tucson Mountain District, which contained 

32 frame and adobe buildings. Today basically 

only adobe ruins remain, although there are 

some remains of concrete foundations for the 

frame structures. 

CCC members are well known for having 

contributed greatly to the rustic architectural 

style of certain visitor facilities in units of the 

national park system. In what is now Saguaro 

National Park, the rustic structures were 

constructed of stone and are characteristic of 

the picnic areas, which generally consist of 

ramadas as shelters with picnic tables, 

benches, fireplaces, and nearby restrooms 

(NPS 1987a:223-224). The Tucson Mountain 

District contains five such picnic areas, which 

are named Cam-Boh, Ez-Kim-In-Zin, MamA-Gah, Signal Hill, and Sus. Along with the 

aforementioned picnic areas, the CCC-built 

Cactus Forest Drive in the Rincon Mountain 

District exhibits attributes of the NPS rustic 

architectural style. Design is naturalistic to 

blend into the landscape and seem like part of 

it. In the case of road design, it fits in with the 

physical setting to accommodate scenic views 

and to show natural features to their best 

advantage like stands of native cacti. With its 

stone retaining walls and turnouts with low 

stone curbing to pull off the road and enjoy 

the scenery, Cactus Forest Drive winds 

through a so-called cactus forest with an 

alignment that though now paved is very close 

to the unpaved original. 

The two picnic areas in the Rincon Mountain 

District, Javelina and Mica Views, are later 

than the CCC era. The CCC construction in 

this district involves roadside features of 

stonework on the Cactus Forest Drive, such as 

culverts, retaining walls with drainage openings, and other road delineations. On May 18, 

2005, Cactus Forest Drive was determined 

eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places as a historic structure with 

cultural landscape components (NPS 2005b). 

Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

Building in the Madrona Area 

The Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

(CAA) building in the Madrona Area of the 

Rincon Mountain District was moved into the 

park in 1957. It is estimated to have been built 

sometime between 1920 and 1950 and is 

considered eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places per a 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

142

determination on December 9, 1994, of the 

state historic preservation officer (NPS List of 

Classified Structures 2006b). Distinctive 

architectural details include window hoods 

for shade and hip knobs for decoration giving 

a “gingerbread” effect. In the park, the 

building was used to store tack for packing 

horses up into the Rincon Mountains. It is of 

wooden-frame construction with a concrete 

foundation and metal roof and walls. The 

Civilian Aeronautical Administration building 

is insufficiently documented. There appear to 

be no records so little is known about this 

structure. However, its pattern of distinctive 

architectural details makes its style unique in 

the park. It is unusual in decorative detail for 

its presumed utilitarian function. The determination of eligibility for local significance 

marks an NPS-state historic preservation 

office agreement for the National Park Service 

to treat this building as national-register 

eligible. 

Manning Cabin at Manning Camp 

Manning Cabin, at Manning Camp, is a log 

cabin 60 feet by 22 feet of two rooms 

connected by a covered and enclosed 

"possum-trot" or “dog-run” walkway. It has 

an end chimney of field stone attached to the 

kitchen/living room. Its logs are chinked with 

mortar. It has wooden sash windows and, 

once covered with rolled roofing, is now 

roofed with asphalt shingles in a one-storey 

pattern with gable ends. The property 

includes several tent platforms to accommodate fire-fighting and trail-maintenance 

crews and a corral for their horses, as well as a 

backcounty campground with pit toilets for 

visitors and hitching posts for horses. 

Manning Camp is reached only via trail on 

foot or by horseback. 

Manning Cabin was listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places on March 31, 1975. 

It is a log structure in the cool of the Rincon 

Mountains that was completed by midsummer 1905. Levi Howell Manning (1864-

1935) had it built as a summer retreat from the 

heat of Tucson. “Manning was the first to 

build such a cabin retreat in the [park’s] 

mountains” (NPS 1987a:175-176). He started 

out in Tucson as an ice-wagon driver and rose 

to become a prominent businessman in real 

estate, mining, stock brokering, and cattle and 

horse ranching. President Grover Cleveland 

appointed him the United States Surveyor 

General for the Arizona Territory in 1893, and 

in 1905 he began a term as mayor of Tucson. 

Manning cleared an 11-mile road up to his 

cabin, over which he had a piano hauled by 

wagon for family use in the cabin. 

The family apparently enjoyed the cabin 

during the latter half of the summer of 1905 

and for the entire summers of 1906 and 1907. 

The family never used the cabin after 1907 

because Manning lost his homesteading rights 

to his160-arce cabin property. It became part 

of the Santa Catalina Division of Coronado 

National Forest. From 1907 to 1922, “only an 

occasional hunter, rancher, or forest ranger 

visited the structure” (NPS 1987a:176). In 

1922, it became quarters for members of the 

Forest Service’s fire watch and trail crew to 

guard against and fight forest fires. President 

Herbert Clark Hoover proclaimed the land 

Saguaro National Monument on March 1, 

1933, via Presidential Proclamation number 

2031. Incoming President Franklin Delano 

Roosevelt transferred jurisdiction over 

Saguaro National Monument from the U.S. 

Forest Service to the National Park Service on 

June 10, 1933, via Executive Order 6166 for 

execution on August 10, 1933. Transfer of 

responsibility to the National Park Service for 

forest fire protection, however, did not take 

place until 1940. Manning Cabin remained as 

fire-guard quarters and so served from 1922 to 

1958 “when a break in its use occurred until 

1977” (NPS 1987a:244). It continues as fireguard quarters today. 

Adolph Berle Clemensen (NPS 1987a:175-208, 

244) in his historic resource study of the park 

describes changes at Manning Cabin over the 

years. The changes reflect the cabin’s 
Cultural Resources 

143 

importance both as representative of the 

development of summer homes in the 

mountains and of a place in the mountains 

needed to accommodate fire-management 

personnel. 

Manning Dam at Manning Camp 

According to the NPS List of Classified 

Structures, Manning Dam is eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places. It 

is a small dam near Manning Cabin. It was 

built by Levi Howell Manning in 1905 as part 

of constructing Manning Cabin. Then as now, 

its purpose is to hold back water for pumping, 

filtration, and treatment for consumption and 

other purposes at the cabin. Construction is of 

rock and concrete with a poured concrete top. 

Dam expansion occurred in 1930. It provided 

drinking water for U.S. Forest Service and 

National Park Service fire and trail crews 

using Manning Camp as a base. Of local 

significance, the state historic preservation 

officer on December 9, 1994, determined 

Manning Camp Dam to be eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places. 

The dam is about 12 to14 inches wide, 20 to 25 

feet across at the top, and 10 to 14 feet high. It 

is a component of Manning Cabin, which is 

listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places. 
144

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

The planning team identified visitor use and 

experience as an important issue that could be 

appreciably affected with implementation of 

the alternatives. The Organic Act and NPS 

Management Policies 2006 direct the National 

Park Service to provide visitor enjoyment 

opportunities that are uniquely suited to the 

superlative natural and cultural resources 

found in the park. Different aspects of 

visitation and enjoyment are evaluated: visitor 

use and characteristics; range of recreational 

opportunities; opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature; opportunities for 

orientation, education, and interpretation; 

and visitor access, including access for 

disabled visitors; regional recreational 

opportunities. 

To provide the sociological data necessary to 

support management planning, the Saguaro 

National Park Transportation and Visitor Use 

Study was conducted by Arizona State University and summarized by David Evans and 

Associates (2006). The study was conducted 

from November 2003 to March 2004 to 

capture information from the peak visitor use 

seasons. The study collected information 

about visitor use levels, demographic 

characteristics, management preferences, and 

perceptions of natural, social, and managerial 

conditions. Data was collected from on-site 

adult park visitors at the Rincon Mountain 

District and Tucson Mountain District of 

Saguaro National Park through mail survey 

questionnaires distributed at various locations 

throughout the park. In addition, data was 

collected from adult park visitors that are 

neighbors to the park through mail survey 

questionnaires sent to a sample of residents 

within a half a mile of each park unit. 

The survey results are separated by those 

visitors contacted on-site (referred to as 

“visitors” in the summary discussion below) 

and neighbors that visit the park (referred to 

as “neighbors” in the discussion below. The 

study will be referred to as the 2003–04 visitor 

study (David Evans and Associates 2006). The 

study results will be presented by the Tucson 

Mountain District and Rincon Mountain 

District and by each survey population (visitor 

and neighbor). 

VISITOR USE AND CHARACTERISTICS 

Visitation to Saguaro National Park has 

generally increased from the 1920s, with slight 

declines in visitation from 1980–81, 1993–96, 

and 2000–02 (see figure 1). Visitation peaked 

at 828,000 visitors in 1993 (National Park 

Service 2004e). The most recent decline in 

visitation corresponds to a decline in visitation to Grand Canyon and other Arizona 

national parks and monuments, as well as 

other Arizona communities that rely on 

tourism. There is not a clear consensus as to 

the cause for the decline. A similar decline is 

also occurring in many of the national parks 

around the country. 

Based on the long-term trends, and the more 

important consideration of the surrounding 

region’s population growth, it is likely that the 

park’s visitation will hold steady or slightly 

increase during the next 25 years. The towns 

and cities in Eastern Pima County are 

expected to grow substantially during that 

time frame. Saguaro National Park is visited 

heavily by the local and regional population, 

so increasing population growth will likely 

affect visitation rates. In addition, national and 

international tourism is a major factor in the 

area’s economy due to the many scenic and 

recreational opportunities that are available. It 

is expected that the trend in visitation will 

increase, at least slightly, due to the continuing 

growth and development of tourism services 

in this area. 
145 

Saguaro National Park Visitor Use by Month for 2000-2002

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Visitor Use

2000

2001

2002

Source for both figures: National Park Service 2004e 

FIGURES 1 AND 2. VISITATION BY YEAR AND BY MONTH

Saguaro National Park Visitor Use by Year for 1920-2002

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1920

1923

1926

1929

1935

1938

1941

1944

1947

1950

1953

1956

1959

1962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

Year

Visitor Use
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

146 

The typical peak periods of visitation at 

Saguaro are during the winter months of 

January through March (see figure 2) when 

visitors experience cooler temperatures in the 

lower elevations and long hikes in the 

backcountry become more desirable. In 

addition, by late February, visitors may see 

and photograph many annual wildflowers that 

brighten the desert landscape. The summer 

brings higher temperatures and potential 

intense thunderstorms, which reduces the 

amount of visitation and visitors’ length of 

stay in the park. 

Other visitor characteristics for both the 

Tucson and Rincon Mountain districts that 

were identified during the 2003–04 visitor 

study (David Evans and Associates 2006) are 

summarized in the table below. The results 

present a summary for each district of the 

park for both respondent populations either 

combined (visitors and neighbors, if results 

were fairly similar) or separate as most 

appropriate. 

The visitor study results identify some distinct 

differences among the visitor populations to 

the two park districts. First, there is a slightly 

TABLE 12. VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PARK DISTRICTS

RINCON MOUNTAIN DISTRICT VISITOR 

CHARACTERISTICS 

TUCSON MOUNTAIN DISTRICT VISITOR 

CHARACTERISTICS 

Gender Respondents included slightly more 

women than men. 

Respondents included slightly more 

women than men. 

Age Most respondents ranged from 40 to 

69 years of age. 

Most respondents ranged from 40 to 

69 years of age. 

Education level Most respondents have at least a 

college/technical school degree with a 

high percentage also having a 

graduate/professional degree (54% of 

visitors and 51% of neighbors). 

Most respondents have at least a 

college/technical school degree with a 

high percentage also having a 

graduate/professional degree (60% of 

visitors and 35% of neighbors). 

Primary destination For about 67% of visitors and 81% of 

neighbors, yes. 

For about 51% of visitors and 67% of 

neighbors, yes. 

Average group size Three people per group. Two people per group 

Residency About 59% of visitors were from 

Arizona. 

About 42% of visitors were from 

Arizona. 

 Thirty-six percent were from out of 

state with Illinois, Minnesota, New 

York, California, Colorado, 

Washington, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, 

and Michigan representing at least 10 

or more visitors each. 

Fifty-two percent were from out of 

state with Michigan, California, Illinois, 

Massachusetts, and Colorado 

representing at least seven or more 

visitors each. 

 About 5% of visitors were from a 

foreign country. 

About 6% of visitors were from a 

foreign country. 

Frequency of visits About 25% of visitors have been to the 

park between one and five visits. 

Around 23% had visited 100 or more 

times. 

About 44% of visitors have been to the 

park between one and five visits. 

Around 10% had visited 100 or more 

times. 

 About 40% of neighbors had been to 

the park at least 100 or more times. 

About 42% of neighbors had been to 

the park at least 100 or more times. 

Overnight stay on trip About 31% of visitors stayed overnight 

during their trip, and of those visitors 

that stayed overnight, about 39% 

stayed in a hotel, motel, or resort and 

26% stayed in a private home. 

About 53% of visitors stayed overnight 

during their trip, and of those visitors 

that stayed overnight, about 52% 

stayed in a hotel, motel, or resort; 14% 

stayed in a private home, 13% stayed 

in a private campground, and 11% 

stayed in a public lands camping area. 
Visitor Use and Experience 

147 

larger average group size for visitors to the 

Rincon Mountain District than the Tucson 

Mountain District (three versus two 

respectively). Also, the Rincon Mountain 

District is more often a primary destination 

for visitors and neighbors than the Tucson 

Mountain District. This is likely due to the 

proximity of other major attractions to the 

Tucson Mountain District, specifically the 

Sonoran Desert Museum and Old Tucson. 

These attractions are directly to the south of 

the Tucson Mountain District, and many visitors visiting this district also frequent these 

well-known sites, making the Tucson Mountain District one of many trip destinations. 

Another difference between visitors to the 

two districts is the higher number of repeat 

visitors to the Rincon Mountain District than 

Tucson Mountain District. As noted above, 

almost 25% of Rincon Mountain District 

visitors have been to the park 100 or more 

times, compared to only 10% of Tucson 

Mountain District visitors. Another difference 

is the higher percentage of out-of-state and 

international visitors going to the Tucson 

Mountain District, as well as the higher percentage of Tucson Mountain District visitors 

that stay overnight as part of their trip. These 

differences are likely due to the spectacular 

stands of Saguaro in the Tucson Mountain 

District and the proximity of the other 

Sonoran Desert attractions already 

mentioned, which likely draw more first-time, 

nonlocal visitors to the Tucson Mountain 

District. The Rincon Mountain District seems 

to attract more local and regional visitation, 

which is likely due to its proximity to the city 

of Tucson and the extensive and diverse trail 

system. 

Most visitors to Saguaro National Park use 

private vehicles to get to and around the park. 

According to the 2003–04 visitor study, 95% 

of Tucson Mountain District visitors and 78% 

of that district’s neighbors access the park via 

automobile. For the Rincon Mountain 

District, there is a similar level of automobile 

access by visitors (93%), but the level of access 

by automobiles for Rincon Mountain District 

neighbors is much lower (61%), with the other 

major forms of access being by horse (16%) 

and walking (16%). Public transportation is 

not available to or within the park. When 

asked about their willingness to take public 

transportation to either district if it were 

offered, most respondents to the visitor 

survey said they were not willing to take 

public transportation (David Evans and 

Associates 2006). 

Entrance fees are required for visitors 

accessing Cactus Forest Drive in the Rincon 

Mountain District, and since 2005 Tucson 

Mountain District visitors must also pay a fee 

when entering the Red Hills Visitor Center. 

According to the 2003-04 visitor study, about 

60% of visitors and 50% of neighbors to the 

Rincon Mountain District did not pay a fee 

(David Evans and Associates 2006). Most 

visitors and neighbors to the Rincon Mountain District that paid a fee used a national 

park pass (approximately 29% for both 

visitors and neighbors). When visitors and 

neighbors to the Rincon Mountain District 

were asked if they would be willing to pay a 

fee to access other areas of the park that have 

no fee requirement (e.g., Broadway trailhead), 

47% of visitors and 35% of neighbors said 

they would be willing to pay a fee. The same 

question was asked of Tucson Mountain 

District visitors and neighbors who, at the 

time of the survey (2003-2004), did not have 

to pay any fees to access the Tucson Mountain 

District, and the response was 60% of visitors 

and 26% of neighbors were willing to pay a fee 

to access the park (David Evans and 

Associates 2006). 

RANGE OF RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES 

A visit to Saguaro National Park allows visitors 

to come in close contact with the ecologically 

diverse and incredibly scenic Sonoran Desert. 

The desert trees and shrubs and the animals of 

the desert provide spectacular contrasts of 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

148 

form and color. The varied terrain in both 

districts of the park provides interesting and 

challenging recreational opportunities for a 

wide diversity of visitors. Visitors also have 

the opportunity to see and learn about ancient 

Indian art works in several locations 

throughout the park. 

According to the 2003–04 visitor survey, the 

majority of visitors and neighbors in the 

Rincon Mountain District went hiking or 

walking during their visit, followed by scenic 

driving. Rincon Mountain District neighbors 

represented the largest percentage of 

horseback riding (22%) and bicycling (4%) 

activity, and that district’s visitors represented 

the largest percentage of running activity 

(12%). The majority of visitors and neighbors 

in the Tucson Mountain District also went 

hiking or walking, followed by scenic driving. 

Similar to the Rincon Mountain District, 

Tucson Mountain District neighbors 

represented the largest percentage of 

horseback riding (15%) and bicycling (3%) 

activity, and these visitors had the highest 

participation in running activities (4%)(David 

Evans and Associates 2006). 

In the newsletter comments received during 

the scoping process for this management plan, 

most of the respondents mentioned how 

much they value the high quality of hiking, 

bicycling, and horseback riding opportunities 

in the park and the close proximity of these 

opportunities to a large urban area. Many 

respondents commented on the high 

frequency with which they use the park due to 

its convenience and level of accessibility. 

Also in the newsletter comments, reductions 

in recreation opportunities, specifically trail 

closures, were one of the main concerns 

mentioned by respondents. In both Newsletter 

1 and the 2003–04 visitor survey, the level of 

development on trails in the wilderness areas, 

specifically rock steps, was frequently 

mentioned as a concern. Further, both sets of 

respondents mentioned conflicts between 

different trail user groups, particularly 

bicyclists and horseback riders. The most 

abundant comments regarding user group 

conflicts on trails was from visitor survey 

respondents in the Rincon Mountain District 

that noted their dislike for the amount of 

horse manure left on trails by horses. Some 

comments suggested more loop trails and 

possibly single-use trails to alleviate the user 

group conflicts. 

Backcountry camping is permitted by permit 

in the Saguaro Wilderness Area in the Rincon 

Mountain District. This wilderness area 

consists of 59,930 acres with six wilderness 

camping areas that are only accessible by foot 

or horse. All of the camping areas are at least 6 

miles from the nearest trailhead, and water is 

available only seasonally. For the last 10 years 

(1994–2004), camping activity in the Rincon 

Mountain District has been relatively constant 

with an average of 1,600 backcountry 

overnight stays a year, excluding 2004 which 

had the highest number of overnight stays at 

2,200 for the year (NPS 2004e). To date, there 

has not been more demand for camping 

opportunities than supply, and there were no 

substantial comments received on the park’s 

camping opportunities during the scoping 

process for this management plan. Saguaro 

National Park does not offer drive-in camping 

facilities in either district. Developed camping 

is available in nearby county and state parks 

and in Coronado National Forest. 

Auto touring is also a popular activity in the 

park. The 6-mile Hohokam Road begins 1.5 

miles northwest of the Red Hills Visitor 

Center. This loop passes through dense 

saguaro forest on a graded dirt road. Other 

through-park roads in the Tucson Mountain 

District, such as Sandario, Kinney, and Picture 

Rocks Road, are scenic and also used for auto 

touring. However, high levels of commuter 

traffic on these through-park roads continue 

to be a major concern of the public and park 

management due to impacts on the visitor 

experience, visitor safety, and resource conditions. Specifically, high volumes of traffic and 

speeds on these roads during commuting 
Visitor Use and Experience 

149 

hours restrict opportunities for scenic, 

leisurely driving through the park by visitors. 

During the scoping process for this plan, 

respondents complained of tailgating, 

speeding, and traffic congestion on these 

roadways. Many of these same respondents 

acknowledged that these problems would 

only get worse in the future as the residential 

area around the Tucson Mountain District 

continues to grow. The 8-mile Cactus Forest 

Drive in the Rincon Mountain District winds 

through the heart of an extensive saguaro 

forest and offers a close and leisurely look at a 

variety of Sonoran Desert life. There are no 

through-park roads in this district. 

Bicycling at Saguaro is limited in terms of 

opportunities and has been a controversial 

issue in the past. The National Park Service 

reopened the 2.5-mile segment of Cactus 

Forest Trail in the Rincon Mountain District 

to bicycle use in September 2003. All roads 

within both park districts are also open to 

bicycle use. According to the 2003–04 visitor 

survey, about 1% of Tucson Mountain 

District visitors and 3% of that district’s 

neighbors participated in bicycling while in 

the park. A similar number of Rincon 

Mountain District visitors (1%) and neighbors 

(4%) also participated in bicycling while on 

their visit (David Evans and Associates 2006). 

Many respondents during the scoping process 

for this management plan commented that the 

park should provide more bicycle trail 

opportunities, specifically at key locations that 

would connect regional trails and allow 

bicyclists to pass through the park. In contrast, there were a fairly equal number of 

respondents that wanted bicycling to remain 

relatively restricted in the park citing user 

conflicts, resource damage, and plentiful 

bicycling opportunities outside of the park as 

reasons. 

Four picnic areas are along park roads in the 

Tucson Mountain District. A fifth, in the 

Tucson Mountain District backcountry can be 

reached only by trail. Each area has tables, 

grills, shade ramadas, and pit toilets. Two 

picnic areas are located along the loop drive in 

Rincon Mountain District. There is no drinking water at any of the sites. There were not 

many comments received during the scoping 

process on the need to increase picnic 

facilities in either district. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOLITUDE 

AND GETTING IN TOUCH WITH 

NATURE 

The park provides outstanding opportunities 

for solitude and getting in touch with nature. 

In Newsletter 1 and visitor survey, many 

respondents indicated that the wilderness 

values of the national park, such as naturalness, opportunities for self-discovery, quiet, 

scenic vistas, and solitude, made the park a 

unique and special place and it should be 

protected for such values. People appreciate 

the scenery, views, and open space, and the 

serenity, peace, and relaxation those conditions bring. Many respondents mentioned the 

magical beauty of the desert in the changing 

seasons as well as the diversity of ecotypes 

that can be explored while traversing the 

park’s trail system. Many suggested that the 

park provides a needed escape from the 

developing urban environment in the region. 

Many respondents also noted that the park’s 

proximity to the growing population of 

Tucson may make protecting these values 

more difficult due to increasing use levels, 

demands for new activities, and increasing 

urbanization along the park boundary. Some 

noted specific concerns over future overuse, 

crowding, loss of natural quiet, and 

interruption of the park’s scenic viewsheds. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ORIENTATION, 

EDUCATION, AND INTERPRETATION 

There are many opportunities for orientation, 

education, and interpretation within both 

districts of Saguaro National Park. Numerous 

guided walks are offered at each visitor center. 

Published schedules of programs are available 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

150 

during the winter season. Special environmental education programs are frequently 

conducted for local school groups. Several 

Junior Ranger Programs are available. Exhibits 

in the Rincon and Tucson Mountain Districts’ 

visitor centers focus on the natural and 

cultural history of the Sonoran Desert. "A 

Home in the Desert,” a fifteen-minute 

orientation program to Saguaro National 

Park, is shown throughout the day at the 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center and 

"Voices of the Desert," a 15-minute program 

exploring the Native American perspective of 

the Sonoran Desert, is shown throughout the 

day at the Tucson Mountain District visitor 

center. If visitors would like to identify the 

cactus they see while exploring the park, the 

cactus gardens at both visitor centers offer 

interpretive signs that identify many of the 

common cacti found in the park. 

The Desert Ecology Trail is a paved 0.25-mile 

wheelchair accessible loop located near the 

Mica View Picnic Area. Interpretive signs 

explain how plants and animals use the limited 

water resources of the Sonoran Desert. 

The Freeman Homestead Nature Trail is a 1-

mile loop trail located near the Javelina picnic 

area. Interpretive signs discuss early and modern Tucson as well as homesteading in the 

desert during the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

During the public scoping period for this 

management plan, the public noted the need 

for improvements to the visitor center in the 

Rincon Mountain District due to its small size 

and outdated exhibits. Further, the public 

commented on their enjoyment and appreciation of the newer, more modern Tucson 

Mountain District visitor center. Additional 

comments from the public on interpretive 

facilities and programs included suggestions 

for a research/learning center at Madrona, 

increased interpretation of cultural resources, 

more guided walks, and more park-related 

programs in the schools. In addition, the 

public noted the need for more signs for mile 

markers, trail etiquette, and the park’s flora 

and fauna. The benefits of increased 

coordination of environmental programs in 

the region were also noted. 

VISITOR ACCESS, INCLUDING 

ACCESS FOR VISITORS WITH 

DISABILITIES 

The park has two main access points to both 

units near the each of the main visitor centers. 

In addition, there are several trailhead access 

points around the park boundary to provide 

access to the park’s trail systems and day-use 

picnic areas. During the scoping process for 

this management plan, some respondents 

expressed concerns over high levels of use and 

access to certain portions of the park’s wilderness. There was some discussion about 

increasing access from nondesignated locations along the park’s boundary by neighbors 

to the park that might damage resources and 

increase conflicts between park users. In 

contrast, a number of respondents stated that 

the park needs additional access points, 

especially in some of the park’s expansion 

areas, to provide much needed access. 

There were also comments received on the 

need to improve access at a few existing trailheads in the park, particularly the Broadway 

and Speedway parking areas along the Rincon 

Mountain District boundary. Both sets of 

respondents commented on the congestion 

and user conflicts at these trailheads. Both 

trailheads have limited formal parking, which 

leads to haphazard parking of automobiles 

and horse trailers along the roadside, creating 

visitor safety conflicts and adversarial 

relations between user groups. 

There were also comments requesting 

increased public access to the Madrona area. 

This incredibly scenic and sensitive riparian 

area has been largely off-limits to visitors for 

many years due to the restricted road access 

from the adjacent gated community. The area 

can only be accessed by park visitors if they 

are willing to travel more than 15 miles on foot 
Visitor Use and Experience 

151 

or horseback. The residents of the gated community are the only people with close and easy 

access to the site. Although many respondents 

noted an interest in more access, there was an 

even higher number of respondents that 

requested that access to the site remain highly 

regulated, although not off-limits, to preserve 

the sensitive resources and scenic beauty of 

the area. 

Another visitor access related topic of interest 

for the local and regional public is connection 

of the city and county’s regional trail system to 

key locations in both districts. Specifically, 

comments were received about regional trail 

connections to the south expansion area of 

the Rincon Mountain District and the east 

expansion area of the Tucson Mountain 

District. 

Visitor centers, orientation programs 

(captioning available by request), bookstores, 

restrooms, picnic areas, cactus gardens, and 

one interpretive trail in each district are 

accessible by disabled visitors. There are six 

picnic areas in Saguaro National Park that can 

be reached by vehicle. Each of these picnic 

areas has one table with an overhang and a 

wheelchair accessible pit toilet. There was 

some mention about the need for more 

universally accessible nature trails in both 

districts. 

REGIONAL RECREATIONAL 

OPPORTUNITIES 

Actions in the alternatives could affect visitor 

use in other nearby recreational areas. For 

example, providing new recreational opportunities, particularly trail opportunities that 

connect the park to regional trail systems or 

other public lands, could encourage use at 

Saguaro as well as at other recreation areas. 

Further, if restrictions were placed on visitor 

use levels or activities at the park, this could 

displace some visitors who might decide to 

visit other areas in the region. Depending on 

the number of people who were displaced 

from the park, the visitor experiences offered 

in the surrounding areas and management of 

the areas could be affected. Other nearby 

regional recreational opportunities are outlined below. 

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 

The Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum is a 

world-renowned zoo, natural history 

museum, and botanical garden. The museum 

is very near the southern boundary of the 

Tucson Mountain District. Exhibits re-create 

the natural landscape of the Sonoran Desert 

Region with more than 300 animal species and 

1,200 kinds of plants. There are almost 2 miles 

of paths traversing the 21 acres, as well as two 

gift shops, a small picnic area, two restaurants, 

a coffee bar, and an ice cream shop. 

Tucson Mountain Park 

Tucson Mountain Park is 22,000 acres managed by Pima County. The park borders the 

southern boundary of Saguaro’s Tucson 

Mountain District. The park includes the 

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum and Old 

Tucson. It is estimated that the county park 

receives 1.5 million visitors annually. 

According to conversations with the park 

manager, most of the visitors to the park are 

coming to visit the Desert Museum or Old 

Tucson. Most other visitors are engaged in 

trail activities or watching the sunset on Gates 

Pass. There are 26 miles of designated 

multiuse trails in the park for hiking, bicycling, 

and horseback riding. Archery hunting is 

another activity permitted in the park. The 

park also has a developed 130-site campground that receives up to 95,000 campers per 

year. Approximately 95% of campers are 

winter visitors and are retirees, and about 50% 

of the campers are repeat visitors. According 

to the park manager, the park has a good 

reputation for its campground due to the 

amenities and well-buffered sites (Mark 

Brossel, Supervisor of Tucson Mountain Park, 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

152 

pers. comm. with Kerri Cahill, NPS Denver 

Service Center, January 24, 2003). Other 

facilities include three picnic areas with 

limited amenities. 

The county park has similar concerns and 

problems as Saguaro National Park with 

commuting traffic on Gates Pass Road and 

Kinney Road. Commuter traffic is impacting 

visitor experiences and natural resources in 

the park. In addition, the county park is 

experiencing similar degrees of high intensity 

development along park edges that is a concern for protecting resources and visitor 

experiences (personal communication, Mark 

Brossel, Supervisor of Tucson Mountain Park, 

January 24, 2003). 

Ironwood Forest National Monument 

Ironwood Forest National Monument is 

about 130,000 acres managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management. The monument is close to 

the west side of Saguaro’s Tucson Mountain 

District. The monument protects one of the 

richest stands of Ironwood trees and a 

significant system of cultural and historical 

sites covering a 5,000 year period. Main 

activities include wildlife viewing, scenic 

driving, hunting, hiking, bicycling, horseback 

riding, and camping. There are no visitor 

services in the monument at this time. 

Coronado National Forest 

The Santa Catalina Ranger District of the 

Coronado National Forest covers nearly a 

quarter million acres near Tucson, Arizona. 

This district of the forest surrounds the 

Rincon Mountain District on the north, east, 

and south sides. There are five developed 

campgrounds, the Santa Catalina Highway, 

numerous picnic areas, two visitor centers, 

and an adjacent wilderness area in this 

national forest district. The district has more 

than 20 developed picnic areas with almost 

400 sites, each with a table, a metal grill, or a 

fire ring. Main activities include hiking, 

camping, horseback riding, mountain biking, 

picnicking, hunting, and rock climbing. In 

Coronado National Forest, all roads and trails 

outside wilderness areas (except when posted 

closed) are open to bicycles. In addition, all 

forest roads and trails (except when posted 

closed) are open to horseback riding. 

Recreational use of the forest for fiscal year 

2001 was about 2.23 million visits (U.S. Forest 

Service 2002). However, it is important to note 

that this data is for all Coronado National 

Forest districts. In addition, the data is 

considered to be a low estimate due to several 

weather-and traffic-related issues that 

occurred during the survey season. 

Colossal Cave Mountain Park 

The Colossal Cave Mountain Park is near the 

southern boundary of the Rincon Mountain 

District. Major attractions at the site include 

tours of the cave, picnicking, camping, and 

guided trail rides. 

Catalina State Park 

Catalina State Park is near the northern 

boundary of the Rincon Mountain District. 

The park offers camping, hiking, picnicking, 

bicycling, horseback riding, plant and wildlife 

viewing, and an archeological site in a scenic 

desert setting spanning more than 5,000 acres. 

The park is in Coronado National Forest and 

is managed by Arizona State Parks in 

cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service. 

Cienega Creek Natural Preserve 

The Cienega Creek Natural Preserve is 

managed by Pima County Natural Resources, 

Parks and Recreation and is near the southern 

boundary of the Rincon Mountain District. 

The preserve is an exceptional area for 

wildlife viewing opportunities. Permits are 

required for daily entry. 
153 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The social and economic context in which 

planning decisions for Saguaro National Park 

occur is characterized by the needs, demands, 

and values of the local, regional, and national 

publics as well as the economic opportunities, 

benefits, and constraints that are represented 

by the national park. Economic and social 

statistics that are regularly collected can be 

compiled in a manner that provides this 

context for the park as (1) a measurable 

comparison of factors that characterize these 

needs, demands, and values and (2) economic 

indicators that describe or predict changes 

and trends in society. These statistics can 

provide data that documents historical trends, 

current conditions, or projections into the 

future. 

For the purposes of this document, 

socioeconomic indicators have been studied 

on the community, county, and state level. 

Local factors are represented by the following 

communities immediately surrounding the 

national park: 

• City of Tucson — the largest community 

studied in this analysis, located between 

the Rincon Mountain and Tucson 

Mountain Districts of Saguaro National 

Park 

• Town of Marana — located north of the 

Tucson Mountain District 

• Avra Valley Community — represented by 

Census Tract 44.09 and the expanded area 

west of Avra Valley Census Designated 

Place (CDP), located near the Tucson 

Mountain District 

• Rincon Community — represented by 

Census Tract 40.61, which encompasses 

the Rincon Mountain District and 

surrounding areas 

Data from Pima County and Arizona as a 

whole is provided as appropriate for 

comparative evaluation and to detail the larger 

context in which NPS decisions will occur. 

Socioeconomic indicators evaluated herein 

are consistent with the report, A Socioeconomic Atlas for Saguaro National Park and its 

Region (NPS 2004a) and include the following: 

• general population indicators, which 

measure the demographic characteristics 

of the people living in the vicinity of the 

national park, the number of persons 

living in the area, where and how densely 

the population is concentrated, and how 

they travel to work 

• social and cultural indicators, including 

race and ethnicity and other factors, to 

help define the identity of a population 

• economic indicators, which measure the 

flow and distribution of money, materials, 

and labor 

• recreation and tourism indicators, which 

measure park visitation and other activities specifically related to the economic 

impact of recreation and tourism 

• “sense of place” indicators, which identify 

the link between social experiences and 

geographic areas

POPULATION INDICATORS 

Current and projected population changes 

affect the management of Saguaro National 

Park in terms of the scope and volume of 

demands for different uses and the perceived 

value of opportunities provided by the park. 

Locally, increased population generally 

suggests an increase in park use. On a larger 

scale, population growth creates an increased 

tax base, adds new voters, and increases 

demand for public services at all levels. To 

demonstrate the characteristics for the study 

area population, data from the U.S. Census 

2000 have been compiled and the results are 

presented in Table 13. Demographic data 

presented include population numbers and 

density, gender, age, and race and ethnicity. 
154 

TABLE 13. SELECTED 2000 CENSUS DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

 City of Tucson Town of Marana 

(north of Tucson 

Mtn. District) 

Census Block 44.09 

(north/west of Tucson 

Mtn. District) 

Census Block 40.61 

(Rincon Mtn. 

District) 

Pima Coun

Total Population 486,699 13,556 9,397 2,047 843,746 Persons per Square Mile 390.3 41.3 23.4 6.1 91.8 Housing Units per Square Mile 168.9 15.9 N/A N/A 39.9 

Gender Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Pe

Male 238,408 49.0 6,791 50.1 4,756 50.6 1,049 51.2 412,562 Female 248,291 51.0 6,765 49.9 4,641 49.4 998 48.8 431,184 

Age 

Under 20 Years 139,499 28.6 3,895 28.7 2,985 31.8 674 32.9 235,880 20 to 64 Years 289,372 59.4 8,367 61.7 5,676 60.4 1,235 60.3 488,379 Age 65 and Older 57,828 11.9 1,294 9.5 736 7.8 138 6.7 119,487 Median Age 32.1 NA 34.5 NA 36.0 NA 36.6 NA 35.7 

Race and Ethnicity 

White 341,424 70.2 11,094 81.8 8,388 89.3 1,823 89.1 633,387 Black or African American 21,057 4.3 392 2.9 52 0.6 9 0.4 25,594 American Indian/ Alaska Native 11,038 2.3 286 2.1 138 1.5 17 0.8 27,178 Asian 11,959 2.5 334 2.5 35 0.4 10 0.5 17,213 Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander 796 0.2 20 0.1 11 0.1 4 0.2 1,088 Some other race 81,988 16.8 1,014 7.5 546 5.8 122 6.0 112,217 Two or more races 18,437 3.8 416 3.1 227 2.4 62 3.0 27,069 Hispanic or Latino (any Race) 173,868 35.7 2,663 19.6 1,333 14.2 309 15.1 247,578 

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau 2006a, 2006b NOTES: NA = Not available. 

 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 
Socioeconomic Environment 

155 

Population density reported in the Census 

2000 varies substantially within the study area. 

Pima County’s population density of 91.8 

persons per square mile is about twice the 

statewide average of 45.2 persons per square 

mile. Conversely, the city of Tucson has an 

average of 390.3 persons per square mile. 

These numbers are indicative of the urbanization in the Tucson metropolitan area as 

compared to Pima County’s more rural 

environment (U.S. Census Bureau 2006c). The 

town of Marana, with a 2000 population 

density of 41.3 persons per square mile, is 

similar in density to that of the state as a 

whole. 

Gender distribution among the state, county, 

city of Tucson, town of Marana, and the 

census tracts surrounding Saguaro National 

Park is similar; all areas have a relatively equal 

gender distribution of roughly half female and 

half male. The median age in all of the entities 

except the city of Tucson is slightly higher 

than that of the state, and there is the greatest 

percentage of persons under 20 in the newly 

developed areas west of the national park’s 

Tucson Mountain District and south of the 

Rincon Mountain District. Pima County has 

the highest percentage of people age 65 and 

older (14 percent), followed by the state of 

Arizona and the city of Tucson at 13% and 

12%, respectively. Only 2% of Arizona’s 

population was of retirement age in 1990, but 

by 2000 this number increased to 21% (NPS 

2004a). 

Population growth in Arizona and specifically 

in the area around Saguaro National Park is an 

important socioeconomic trend. Although 

population growth has tapered off slightly 

statewide, in Pima County, and in the city of 

Tucson, growth in the town of Marana and 

the census tracts near the national park’s 

districts has increased substantially. As shown 

in table 14, historical population growth in 

Marana has increased by 11,369 persons since 

1990, where a growth rate of 520% has been 

realized during the decade. Census tract 44.09, 

located near the Tucson Mountain District 

and representing the Avra Valley area, has 

increased by 5,419 persons since 1990, 

resulting in an 88.8% growth rate during the 

decade. No population information was 

available for census tract 40.61 before the 

2000 census, indicating that this is a new area 

of growth and development. 

Projected population growth figures for the 

United States, Arizona, and Pima County are 

presented in table 15. According to population 

projections issued by the Arizona Department 

of Economic Security and the U.S. Census 

Bureau, the state of Arizona is expected to 

experience a growth of 43.9% between 2005 

and 2025. Growth in Pima County over the 

same timeframe is expected to increase by 

36.8%. Both of these figures are substantially 

higher than the projected growth of the nation 

as a whole, at 17.4%. 

Table 16 shows the housing characteristics 

within the study area. Pima County has 

experienced a 23% growth in housing units 

since 1990, which is double that of the city of 

Tucson (14.3%). The percentage of housing 

units has increased in Arizona by 31.9%, more 

than twice that of the national average. During 

this same time period, the number of housing 

units in Marana has more than quintupled 

(570.8%). The area with the greatest density of 

housing units per square mile is Tucson, 

which demonstrates its urban status. 

Conversely, housing density in Marana at 15.9 

housing units per square mile suggests a more 

residential community development (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000a). 

Rental affordability may be measured by 

median gross rent as a percent of household 

income; this totaled 25% in Marana. The 

affordability of owner-occupied housing may 

be measured through a housing affordability 

index. In Marana, this index suggests that the 

median family can afford the median house. 

Overall, housing in the area 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

156 

TABLE 14. HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH

 Historical Population Growth Rate of Change 

Geographic area 1970 1980 1990 2000 

1970 to 

1980 

1980 to 

1990 

1990 to 

2000 

Arizona 1,770,900 2,718,215 3,665,228 5,130,632 53.5 34.8 40.0 

Pima County 351,667 531,443 666,957 843,746 51.1 25.5 26.5 

City of Tucson 267,418 330,537 405,390 486,699 23.6 22.6 20.1 

Town of Marana NA NA 2,187 13,556 NA NA 520.0 

Avra Valley area 

(Census Block 44.09, 

Tucson Mountain 

District) 

NA NA 4,978 9,397 NA NA 88.8 

Rincon area 

(Census Block 40.61, 

Rincon Mountain 

District) 

NA NA NA 2,047 NA NA NA 

 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2006b 

TABLE 15. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH

 Baseline 

Population 

Projected Population 

Growth 

Rate of Change 

by Decade 

Total Rate 

of Change 

Geographic 

Area 2005 2015 2025 2005 to 2015 

2015 to 

2025 

2005 to 

2025 

United States 287,716,000 312,268,000 337,815,000 8.5 8.2 17.4 

Arizona 5,553,849 6,744,754 7,993,039 21.4 18.4 43.9 

Pima County 943,795 1,119,342 1,290,996 18.6 15.3 36.8 

 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 1997, 2003b; ADES 2003 

TABLE 16. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS

Housing Characteristics City of 

Tucson 

Town of 

Marana 

Census 

Tract 

40.61 

Census 

Tract 

44.09 

Pima 

County 

Arizona 

Total Housing Units 1990 183,338 850 NA 2,012 298,207 1,659,430 

Total Housing Units 2000 209,609 5702 798 3,630 366,737 2,189,189 

Percent Change 1990 to 2000 14.3% 570.8% NA 80.4% 23.0% 31.9% 

Average household size of 

owner-occupied units 2.58 2.69 2.92 2.81 2.62 2.71 

Average household size of 

renter-occupied units 2.24 2.48 1.90 2.67 2.21 2.48 

Percent of housing units used 

for seasonal, recreational, or 

occasional use (2000) 1.7% 3.9% 2.1% 1.5% 2.9% 6.5% 

Homeowner vacancy rate 1.6% 3.6% 3.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.1% 

Rental vacancy rate 8.1% 21.7% 11.1% 7.2% 9.2% 9.2% 

Housing units per square mile 168.9 15.9 N/A N/A 39.9 19.3 

 SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2006c 

 NOTE: N/A= not available. 
Socioeconomic Environment 

157 

around Saguaro National Park generally is 

affordable for the population (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000a). 

Migration and residential stability figures 

define the movement of populations in a 

community. The foreign-born population in 

Arizona represented 13% of the total 

population in 2000. From 1995 to 2000, 

Arizona (at 74.3%) had the second highest 

rate of net domestic immigration and nearly 

one-third of this immigration was from 

California (U.S. Census Bureau 2003a). In 

addition, the U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service estimate that 283,000 

or 5.5% of Arizona’s 2000 population was 

unauthorized residents. By comparison, the 

estimated 7 million unauthorized immigrants 

living in the United States in 2000 constituted 

2.5% of the total U.S. population of just over 

281 million (U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service 2003). 

Generally, the longer people have lived in a 

community, the greater their connection to 

community and social groups as well as the 

land (Harp et al. 2001). In 2000, 77.3% of the 

residents in Pima County lived in the same 

house or same county as they did five years 

prior, compared to a lower rate of 74.9% for 

Arizona. The rate of residents of Marana who, 

in 2000, lived in the same house as they did 

five years prior is 24%; 33% lived in a different 

state in 1995 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). This 

most likely reflects the recent growth of this 

community. 

Most Americans (75.7%) drove alone to work 

in 2000. The U.S. mean travel time to work in 

2000 was 25.5 minutes. The travel time to 

work for Arizona in 2000 was 24.9 minutes. 

Travel time in Pima County (at 23.9 minutes) 

was lower than the U.S. mean. The per capita 

vehicle miles traveled in 2000 in Pima County 

at 20.5 miles was less than that of Arizona at 

26.2 miles (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). 

In Marana, only 18% of residents work in 

town, and 21% of residents have a commute 

time of less than 20 minutes. The majority 

(61%) commute to work for between 20 and 

45 minutes. Based on this information and 

Marana’s location, it is plausible that many 

residents work in the Tucson metropolitan 

area (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). According 

to a preliminary traffic study conducted for 

the National Park Service by David Evans and 

Associates (David Evans and Associates 2006) 

for the period from 1999 to 2004, an average 

of approximately 7,500 vehicles per day 

passed along Picture Rocks Road, the major 

east-west thoroughfare through the park’s 

Tucson Mountain District (Pima County DOT 

2006, NPS public workshop handouts that 

were partially based on David Evans and 

Associates 2006). 

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL 

INDICATORS 

Social and cultural indicators, including race 

and ethnicity, help define a group’s identity. 

The relatively newly developed communities 

including Marana and the census tract areas 

surrounding the two national park districts 

are also distinguishable in terms of racial 

characteristics. These populations have a 

greater percentage of white persons (81.8%, 

89.3%, and 89.1%, respectively, versus 70.2% 

in Tucson, 75.1% in Pima County, and 75.5% 

statewide), and a lower percentage of black or 

African American persons (2.9%, 0.6%, 0.4% 

versus 4.3% in Tucson, 3.0 % in Pima County, 

and 3.1% statewide). Percentages of other 

races closely follow this trend, with the 

exception of a higher percentage of Asians 

residing in Marana than in any of the other 

areas. 

Hispanic or Latino origin statistics represent 

ethnicity (not race) and include all persons 

who identify themselves as of Hispanic or 

Latino origin or descent. Within the study 

area, Tucson has the highest percentage of 

persons who identify themselves as being of 

Hispanic or Latino origin (35.7%). In Pima 

County, 29.3% of the people identify 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

158 

themselves of this origin, slightly more than 

the 25.3% statewide percentage. Marana and 

the two census tracts located near the national 

park’s districts have somewhat smaller 

percentages of persons who identify 

themselves as Hispanic or Latino, with 

numbers at 19.6%, 14.2% and 15.1%, 

respectively. In 2000, Arizona’s Hispanic 

proportion of the population was 25%, double 

the national average (ADOC 2002a). 

Educational attainment levels in a community 

may affect per capita income and other 

economic indicators. Rates of attainment of a 

high school education or above in 2000 were 

higher in Pima County (83.4%) than the 

statewide average of 81.0%. The percentage of 

the population with a high school degree in 

Marana and the surrounding Avra Valley area 

are 22% and 28%, respectively. In Tucson, 

24% of the population held a high school 

degree. Similarly, in 2000 the percentage of 

the population in Pima County with four years 

of college or bachelor’s degree or above was 

27%, compared with 24% in Arizona. In 

Marana and Tucson, these percentages were 

29% and 23%, respectively (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000a). (Note: educational attainment 

figures are a percentage taken from 

individuals older than 25 years of age.) 

ECONOMIC INDICATORS 

Overall, social and economic trends over the 

past 30 years indicate a shift among the 

dominant employment sectors and the major 

sources of personal income. As shown in 

Table 17, employment in Pima County over 

the past 30 years has been characterized by a 

large increase in the jobs centered in the 

Services and Professional sector, which 

accounted for approximately 72% of new 

jobs. This trend is statewide; over the past 30 

years, the Services and Professional sector has 

provided approximately 75% of the new jobs 

in Arizona. Conversely, employment in the 

Mining sector has declined in terms of both 

relative significance and total number of jobs. 

New job growth in the Government sector has 

also occurred over the 30-year timeframe. The 

Farm and Agricultural Services sector 

remained relatively flat in Pima County. 

From 1970 to 2000, Pima County added over 

$14 billion in personal income, in real terms. 

Of that new income, nonlabor sources 

accounted for 43%. In 1970 nonlabor income 

sources represented 30% of the total personal 

income, but by 2000 these sources comprised 

approximately 39% of personal income. Nonlabor income in Pima County exceeds the rate 

of growth in Arizona as a whole, where nonlabor income represented 34% of new income 

between 1970 and 2000. 

The employment figures in table 17 generally 

correlate with industry income figures for the 

labor categories. However, there is another 

source of income from nonlabor categories, 

which includes transfer payments (primarily 

related to retirement) and dividends, interest, 

and rent (money earned from past investments). When evaluated in these terms, 

nonlabor income is the fastest growing source 

of income and the Services and Professional 

sector is the second fastest growing source of 

income in Pima County. The increase in the 

percentage of nonlabor income suggests that 

the area is attracting retirees. 
Socioeconomic Environment 

159 

TABLE 17. PIMA COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY: CHANGES FROM 1970 TO 2000 

 

1970 

Percent 

of Total 2000 

Percent 

of Total 

New 

Employment1

Percent of 

Jobs Gained2

Total Employment 144,273 - 444,118 - 299,845 - 

Wage and Salary 

Employment 126,320 87.6 363,641 81.9 237,321 79.1 

Proprietors’ Employment 17,953 12.4 80,477 18.1 62,524 20.9 

Farm and Agricultural 

Services 2,054 1.4 5,983 1.3 3,929 1.3 

Farm 1,087 0.8 955 0.2 -132 NA 

Agricultural Services 967 0.7 5,028 1.1 4,061 1.3 

Mining 6,972 4.8 2,410 0.5 -4,562 NA 

Manufacturing (including 

forest products) 9,295 6.4 35,144 7.9 25,849 8.5 

Services and Professional 78,120 54.1 297,840 67.1 219,720 72.1 

Transportation 5,872 4.1 14,504 3.3 8,632 2.8 

Wholesale Trade 3,514 2.4 12,581 2.8 9,067 3.0 

Retail Trade 25,342 17.6 73,947 16.7 48,605 16.0 

Finance, Insurance and Real 

Estate 10,947 7.6 37,386 8.4 26,439 8.7 

Services (Health, Legal, 

Business, Others) 32,445 22.5 159,422 35.9 126,977 41.7 

Construction 11,064 7.7 28,081 6.3 17,017 5.6 

Government 36,768 25.5 74,660 16.8 37,892 12.4 

SOURCE: BEA 2000 

NOTES: 1 New employment includes new jobs less job losses. 

2

 The percentage of new employment for each sector is the proportion of new jobs added. 

3

 Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 

Information on per capita and household 

income, unemployment, and poverty within 

the study area is provided in table 18. Marana 

and the census tracts surrounding the national 

park districts have substantially higher per 

capital and household income than the city of 

Tucson, Pima County, and the state as a 

whole. Poverty rates in Tucson are 

substantially higher than in Marana and the 

census tracts around the national park, and 

these rates are somewhat higher than the 

county and the state. 

TOURISM AND RECREATION 

INDICATORS 

The National Park Service recorded a total of 

3,629,550 visitors to Saguaro National Park in 

2005. Of these, 727,208 were recreational 

visitors and 2,902,342 were nonrecreational 

visitors. Total visitation at the park has 

increased approximately 71.3% since 1990 

(NPS 2006f). The typical peak period of 

visitation at the park is January through 

March, when the southern Arizona weather is 

mild. July and August typically have lower 

visitation due to the extreme heat in the 

Sonoran Desert. Most park visitors participate 

in day activities such as hiking, walking, 

horseback riding, scenic driving, and 

educational programs; other visitors stay for 

extended time periods and include overnight 

camping in a rugged wilderness setting. There 

were 1,447 backcountry/overnight visitors 

during 2005, which represents less than 1% of 

the total recreational visitors. Table 19 summarizes the visitation to Saguaro National 

Park since 1979 (NPS 2006f, NPS public 

workshop handouts that were partially based 

on David Evans and Associates 2006). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

160 

TABLE 18. GENERAL INCOME, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND POVERTY CHARACTERISTICS

Tucson Marana 

Census 

Tract 

40.61 

Census 

Tract 

44.09 

Pima 

County Arizona 

Per capita personal 

income 1999 

 $16,322 $22,408 $20,881 $17,250 $19,785 $20,275

Median household 

income 1999 

$30,981 $52,870 $52,404 $44,744 $36,758 $40,558

Unemployment Rate 

2000 

4.1% 4.6% NA NA 5.3% 5.6%

Number of persons below 

poverty level 1999 

86,532 810 64 749 120,778 698,669

Poverty rate among 

individuals (%) 1999 

18.4% 6.2% 3.2% 8.1% 14.7% 13.9%

 SOURCE: ADOC 2003b; U.S. Census Bureau 2006d 

TABLE 19. SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK VISITATION FROM 1979 THROUGH 2005 

Year Recreational 

Visits 

NonRecreational 

Visits 

Total Visits Back Country 

Campers 

Total 

Overnight 

Stays 

1979 566,486 0 566,486 3,622 3,622

1980 611,317 0 611,317 3,881 3,881

1981 470,598 0 470,598 3,144 3,144

1982 566,807 796,946 1,363,753 2,799 2,799

1983 634,688 983,195 1,617,883 2,714 2,714

1984 699,292 972,349 1,671,641 2,301 2,301

1985 636,711 1,637,820 2,274,531 1,834 1,834

1986 613,651 1,199,153 1,812,804 1,796 1,796

1987 689,933 1,299,934 1,989,867 1,549 1,549

1988 675,397 1,451,151 2,126,548 1,822 1,822

1989 706,191 1,485,758 2,191,949 1,247 1,247

1990 702,328 1,416,160 2,118,488 1,129 1,129

1991 679,034 1,451,891 2,130,925 1,516 1,516

1992 810,059 1,567,787 2,377,846 1,523 1,523

1993 828,267 1,653,330 2,481,597 1,593 1,593

1994 768,685 2,040,105 2,808,790 1,501 1,501

1995 732,813 2,203,373 2,936,186 1,539 1,539

1996 671,643 2,103,595 2,775,238 1,573 1,573

1997 739,410 2,007,488 2,746,898 1,592 1,592

1998 716,160 2,593,876 3,310,036 1,839 1,839

1999 749,014 2,675,037 3,424,051 1,594 1,594

2000 765,195 2,633,397 3,398,592 1,560 1,560

2001 725,874 2,599,632 3,325,506 1,683 1,683

2002 615,045 2,822,786 3,437,831 1,424 1,424

2003 643,697 2,834,381 3,478,078 1,208 1,208

2004 651,464 2,950,311 3,601,775 2,203 2,203

2005 727,208 2,902,342 3,629,550 1,447 1,447

 SOURCE: NPS 2006f 
Socioeconomic Environment 

161 

Both the Rincon Mountain and Tucson 

Mountain districts provide exceptional 

opportunities for visitors to experience 

solitude, develop a close interaction with the 

environment, and enjoy the diverse scenic 

features of the desert landscape. Due to the 

proximity of the park to surrounding 

communities, including Tucson, many of the 

visitors are local to the area and visit the park 

often. However, many people travel from 

other parts of the state and nation to visit the 

park, bringing substantial recreational and 

tourism dollars to the area. 

Statewide, tourism is an important part of the 

Arizona economy. According to information 

provided by the Arizona Office of Tourism, 

there were 29.5 million domestic and 

international overnight visitors and 19.3 

million day trip visitors to Arizona in 2000. 

Spending by these visitors created direct, 

indirect, and induced jobs. Direct jobs are 

those that relate directly to tourism 

expenditures, both at tourist sites and in the 

surrounding community. Indirect jobs are 

those created in sectors beyond tourismrelated firms as a result of tourism spending. 

Induced jobs are those created as a result of 

household spending that occurs from income 

earned in a directly or indirectly affected 

industry. Total direct visitor spending in 2000 

was $13.8 billion and $2.0 billion for day trip 

visitors. This spending generated about 

451,600 total direct, indirect, and induced 

jobs, and the economic impact of these 

visitors is estimated to be nearly $30 billion. In 

addition, the fiscal impact (revenues from 

local, county, and state government taxes) 

totaled $1.3 billion. Tourist spending is 

considered “new” dollars injected into the 

economy each year because nonlocal dollars 

are used in spending on hotels, restaurants, 

retail shops, car rental agencies, and similar 

outlets (Pollack 2002). 

A study conducted for Arizona Game and Fish 

Department found the total economic effect 

(including secondary effects) from 2001 

watchable wildlife activities in Arizona to be 

$1.5 billion ($1.1 billion by residents and 

$434.7 million by nonresidents) (Southwick 

Associates 2003). Arizona resident expenditures for watchable wildlife recreation in 2001 

totaled $594.5 million, and nonresident 

expenditures totaled $226.2 million. In 

addition to this statewide data, this study 

provided county-based estimates of the 

economic impact of watchable wildlife 

recreation in 2001. Table 20 includes the 

county-level data applicable to Saguaro 

National Park. 

TABLE 20. ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM ALL WATCHABLE WILDLIFE RECREATION IN PIMA COUNTY IN 2001

(PARTICIPANTS 16 YEARS OLD AND OLDER) 

County 

Residents 

Residents from 

Other Counties 

Visitors from 

Other States TOTAL1 

Retail Sales $85,322,023 $36,240,245 $51,982,423 $173,544,691

Total Multiplier Effect $158,809,428 $67,834,927 $99,891,973 $326,536,328

Salaries and Wages $44,645,190 $19,140,009 $26,941,109 $90,726,309

Full- and Part-Time Jobs 1,454 635 1,107 3,196

State Sales and Fuel Tax Revenues $4,856,514 $2,029,235 $3,022,361 $9,908,109

State Income Tax Revenues $1,150,771 $495,093 $621,958 $2,267,822

Federal Income Tax Revenues $8,072,475 $3,470,619 $4,277,017 $15,820,112

 SOURCE: Southwick Associates 2003 

 NOTE: 1 Some totals may vary due to rounding.
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

162 

SENSE OF PLACE INDICATORS 

Galliano and Loeffler (1999) define a sense of 

place as a “link between social experiences 

and geographic areas.” Understanding sense 

of place issues assists land managers in 

understanding resource and land use conflicts 

and how to approach them most effectively. 

Qualities that contribute to sense of place may 

include personal memory, community history, 

physical landscape appearance, and emotional 

attachment (Galliano and Loeffler 1999). 

Sense of place is subjective, and individual 

people may develop a sense of place based on 

perceptions about amenities (such as 

recreational opportunities), historic or 

symbolic activities and places, or landscape 

and scenic vistas. 

Public and partner workshops and comments 

received on the Alternatives Newsletter (NPS 

2005c) provided input as to the issues that 

most concern the public and stakeholders. 

Major concerns included the need for 

protection of the ecological landscape (e.g., 

wildlife and habitat), reduction of habitat 

fragmentation, and the threat of urban 

encroachment and overuse of the national 

park diminishing the qualities of solitude, 

quiet, and naturalness. Recreational activities 

that occur in the national park are varied, with 

different types of users expressing their 

perceptions of the purpose of public lands 

with different responsibilities, such as the 

responsibility to maintain public land in as 

natural a state as possible, or to maximize 

access and use for the public. Finally, the 

maintenance and protection of cultural and 

symbolic archeological sites are identified as 

an important part of the area’s heritage and 

lifestyle. 
163 

TRANSPORTATION 

Transportation has been identified by the 

park as a major issue for this plan, with 

management action needed to improve park 

resources management, administrative 

operations, and visitor experience (mostly in 

the Tucson Mountain Unit). David Evans and 

Associates studied existing transportation 

conditions (Saguaro National Park 

Transportation and Visitor Use Study 2006) in 

the park. This study provides detailed 

information on traffic operations, safety, 

parking use and capacity, visitation patterns, 

etc. that support the information in this 

section. 

More than 90% of visitors use private 

automobiles to get to and around the park; 

however, many neighbors access the park on 

horses, on bikes, or on foot. Auto-touring is a 

popular activity in the park. Bicycling is 

limited in terms of opportunities and has been 

a controversial issue in the past. Many 

respondents during the scoping process 

commented that the park should provide 

more bicycle trail opportunities, specifically at 

key locations that would connect to regional 

trails and allow bicyclists to pass through the 

park. Horseback riding and hiking (most 

visitors and neighbors go hiking or walking 

during their visit) are frequent visitor 

activities. Many respondents during the 

scoping process stated that they valued the 

high quality of hiking, bicycling, and 

horseback riding opportunities in the park 

and the proximity of the park to the urban 

area, and that they used the park often. 

TUCSON MOUNTAIN UNIT 

During the scoping process for this plan, many 

respondents complained of tailgating, 

speeding, and traffic congestion on roads in 

this district. Many also agreed that these 

problems would likely worsen in the future, as 

residential growth in the area around the park 

is likely to continue. 

Roadway Network 

Interstate 10 is the backbone of the regional 

roadway network. Interstate 10 forks in South 

Tucson and becomes I-10 and I-19. State 

Highway 86 (Ajo Highway) is more than 2 

miles south of the park. These highways 

provide indirect access to the park and other 

nearby high-visitation tourist sites such as the 

Old Tucson Studios and the Arizona-Sonora 

Desert Museum. The number of east-west 

corridors linking Western Pima County and 

central Tucson is severely limited, which has 

put strong pressure on local access roads such 

as Picture Rocks Road. 

There are four access points to the park: Avra 

Valley Road, Picture Rocks Road, Kinney 

Road, and Sandario Road. Picture Rocks Road 

connects the park to central Tucson via Ina 

Road, a major arterial for local commuters. 

Kinney Road, which connects to Ajo Highway 

and then to I-19, is a major arterial. Gates Pass 

Road connects to Speedway Boulevard in 

central Tucson. However, the county is 

attempting to move traffic off of this route due 

to overuse. Sandario Road, which borders the 

park on the east, connects to Kinney Road 

and then to Highway 86. The most typical 

visitor routes are I-19 to Kinney Road from 

the east or Avra Valley Road to Sandario Road 

to Kinney Road from the west. There is no 

entrance station and there are no traffic delays 

during the fee paying and orientation process. 

Most roads and intersections in and near the 

park are operating at level of service “C” 

(acceptable operating conditions) or above, 

with additional roadway capacity available 

(David Evans and Associates 2006). 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

164 

TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF TUCSON MOUNTAIN DISTRICT ROADS

Road Width (feet) Paving Speed Character Users 

Picture Rocks 

Road 

25 Paved 35 mph 

(curves as low 

as 15 mph) 

Scenic, 

arterial 

Primarily non-user 

visitors (commuters), 

visitors 

Golden Gate 

Road 

Varies 12 to 

20 

Unpaved 25 mph Scenic Visitors 

Kinney Road 16 Chip and 

seal 

25 mph Scenic, 

visitor 

center 

access 

Visitors, some nonuser visitors 

(commuters) 

Hohokam 

Road/Bajada 

Loop Drive 

Varies, 16 feet 

average 

None Unposted Scenic, 

loop drive, 

mostly 

one way 

Visitors 

Sandario 

Road 

24 Paved 50 mph Arterial Non-visitor users 

(commuters) and 

visitors 

Picture Rocks Road 

The park has special concerns regarding 

management and use of Picture Rocks Road. 

Intended as a scenic park access experience, 

Picture Rocks Road was built with a low 

design speed to allow visitors to gradually 

experience dramatic views of the rocky 

Saguaro wilderness as they encounter changes 

in elevation and curvature. 

With the growth of private development to 

the west and north of the park, Picture Rocks 

Road has evolved into a combined scenic and 

commuter route. Primary use of Picture Rocks 

Road is from non-visitor users, whose driving 

patterns are causing negative impacts on the 

park’s resources and visitors. Slower-moving 

visitors have little time to safely pull over and 

savor scenic views and wildlife out of the flow 

of faster traffic, and there is very little roadside 

parking available, creating conflicts between 

user groups and potential safety hazards. The 

Saguaro National Park Transportation and 

Visitor Use Study. (David Evans and Associates 

2006) states that “The level of traffic volumes 

and speeds observed along this roadway are 

incompatible with the typical park experience 

and safety of visitors.” 

Traffic, speeding, and accidents have all 

dramatically risen on Picture Rocks Road. 

Traffic data from the Federal Highway 

Administration shows steadily rising average 

daily trips (more than 6% per year over the 

last 15 years), which have more than doubled 

since 1988. Traffic speeds typically exceed the 

posted speed limit by 10 mph or more. Picture 

Rocks Road east of Golden Gate Road is 

nearing capacity (estimated capacity is 8-

10,000 trips per day; in 2004 there were 7,440 

trips per day), and operates at a level of service 

“E” (below acceptable operating conditions) 

during the peak hour (David Evans and 

Associates, 2006). Changes in elevation and 

curvature produce some areas where sight 

distance is limited. From 1998 to 2003, 121 

accidents occurred along Picture Rocks Road, 

including one fatality and 79 accidents 

involving injuries, with the most accidentprone area being between Golden Gate Road 

and Box Canyon (David Evans and Associates, 

2006). More than half of these accidents 

occurred within the park’s boundaries, and 

67% of the accidents involved speeding. As a 

result of these conditions, the park estimates 

that more than 50,000 animals die on roads in 

and around the park each year, visitor 
Transportation 

165 

experience is diminished, and roadside 

ecology is degrading. 

The park expends considerable law enforcement resources patrolling Picture Rocks Road 

(enforcement typically involves speeding and 

DUI/DWI violations). To improve safety, 

visitor experience, resource management, and 

administrative operations, the park began 

working with David Evans and Associates, 

Inc. to create alternatives to calm traffic and 

increase safety. The park is also cooperating 

with Pima County and the state of Arizona to 

seek longer-term solutions for Picture Rocks 

Road. A draft “Memorandum of 

Understanding” between the park and Pima 

County would allow Pima County to assume 

all maintenance for Picture Rocks Road 

(currently the park maintains the road inside 

park boundaries). Pima County is also 

considering longer-term alternatives to 

alleviate traffic congestion on Picture Rocks 

Road and continue to provide access to the 

Tucson metropolitan area for area residents 

and visitors. One possibility is a new I-10 

interchange at Twin Peaks Road, about 2 

miles north of the Picture Rocks Road/ 

Sandario Road intersection. 

Roadway Issues and Concerns 

In addition to the situation on Picture Rocks 

Road, several other roadway-related issues 

exist. Maintenance, traffic speeds, and 

enforcement are also issues on Sandario Road. 

As with Picture Rocks Road, approximately 2 

miles of Sandario Road — a local arterial — is 

within the park’s boundary (the remainder of 

the road is owned and maintained by Pima 

County. Most accidents along Sandario Road 

in the park vicinity include speeding as a 

factor, and most occurred between Golden 

Gate and Kinney Road, or at the Kinney 

Road/Sandario Road intersection. 

The current configuration of the Scenic 

Bajada Loop Drive requires visitors to travel 

onto Sandario Road briefly to complete the 

western portion of the loop. This configuration was developed due to sensitive terrain 

conditions. However, keeping visitors off the 

higher-speed Sandario Road during their 

drive has also become a high priority as traffic 

volumes and speeds on Sandario continue to 

rise. The park is exploring other possible 

configurations for the western edge of this 

loop that would sever the access between 

Sandario Road and the loop drive. 

Issues related to the on-going difficulties of 

maintaining unpaved roads with fragile desert 

soils are discussed in the following “Park 

Operations and Facilities” section. 

Parking 

Tucson Mountain District has 141 formal 

parking spaces, located at the visitor center, 

picnic areas, and trailheads. Parking spaces are 

unpaved with the exception of the visitor 

center. All parking areas have excess capacity, 

with the exception of the Esperanza trailhead 

on weekends (David Evans and Associates, 

2006). Tour buses park only at the visitor 

center. Availability of parking is not a major 

concern to the park, except as it affects safety 

and visitor experience on Picture Rocks Road 

and on-going maintenance for roadsides 

eroded by informal parking (maintenance of 

roadsides is substantial due to fragile desert 

soil conditions). 

Trails 

The park is preparing a comprehensive trail 

planning effort as this general management 

plan is being finalized. Six trail system 

objectives and four criteria were identified as 

part of the public scoping process for the 

general management plan. To improve trail 

management and reduce administrative 

operations impacts, park managers may 

convert some roads to trails, existing trails 

may be removed for rehabilitation, and others 

may be restricted and/or limited to certain 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

166 

user groups (hiking, biking, and/or 

equestrian); also, some trails may be 

expanded. The trail plan is beyond the scope 

of this document. 

The Tucson Mountain District has an extensive backcountry trail system used primarily 

by hikers with some equestrian use. Three 

trails cross Picture Rocks Road. The park is 

experiencing some boundary violations by allterrain vehicles; however, these incursions are 

infrequent at this time. Golden Gate Road 

(used as a road and as a trail) connects to a 

regional trail system in Pima County, which 

passes into the Tucson Mountain County 

Park. The primary trails are Golden Gate 

Road/Trail, Picture Rocks Trail, and the 

Valley View Overlook Trail. Trails are restricted to daytime use because there is no 

camping in this district. Comments received 

during the scoping process revealed that there 

are congestion and user conflicts at the 

trailheads. 

Transit 

Sun Tran provides transit services for Tucson 

and close-in areas of Pima County. Sun Tran 

has very limited service west of I-10; the 

closest routes to the park are at the Pima 

Community College West Campus, and on Ina 

Road just east of the I-10 underpass. The Ina 

Road service ends more than 3 miles east of 

the park’s eastern boundary, and the 

Community College is roughly 9 miles east of 

the park’s southern border. Both services are 

more than 10 miles from the visitor center. 

Another possible provider in this area is Pima 

Rural Transit. Tour buses and school buses 

provide some limited services to the park. In a 

2003/2004 visitor study done for the park 

(David Evans and Associates 2006), less than 

14% of the visitors surveyed said they would 

take public transportation to this park district 

if transit service were available. 

RINCON MOUNTAIN DISTRICT 

The transportation system in this district of 

the park is quite different than the Tucson 

Mountain District, primarily because this 

district has no through roads and is therefore 

not appreciably impacted by non-visitor users. 

Roadway Network 

The Rincon Mountain District is about 5 miles 

from I-10. The closest major thoroughfares 

are Speedway Boulevard, Broadway 

Boulevard, and Old Spanish Trail, which is the 

major access to the visitor center. Of the five 

roads studied by David Evans and Associates’ 

study in 2006, all were operating well under 

capacity; all levels of service were “A” with the 

exception of Old Spanish Trail north of the 

park entrance, which operates at levels of 

service “C” (acceptable operating conditions) 

(David Evans and Associates 2006). 

There is only one road in this district, Cactus 

Forest Loop Drive, an 8-mile long paved 

scenic drive largely restricted to one-way, 

clockwise traffic. There is an entrance station 

east of the visitor center and slightly west of 

the Cactus Forest Loop Road. Occasionally, 

traffic queues back up past the visitor center. 

These traffic queues sometimes cause delays 

to cars wishing to park at the visitor center 

and impair pedestrian access. 

Parking 

The district has six developed parking areas, 

including the visitor center, picnic area and 

trailheads. The total parking capacity of the 

district is 105 spaces. Consistent with 

recreational travel patterns, parking demand 

is highest on the weekends, typically between 

10 am and noon (David Evans and Associates, 

2006). 

Parking demand substantially exceeds supply 

in this park district, with the Speedway- 
Transportation 

167 

Douglas Spring Trailhead, Speedway 

Wildhorse Trailhead, Broadway Boulevard 

Trailhead, and the visitor center all beyond 

capacity on weekdays and weekends. 

Overflow parking frequently occurs along the 

roadsides, causing damage to roadside flora 

and fauna, additional maintenance and 

operations concerns for the park staff, and 

safety issues for visitors and motorists. 

Trails 

The park staff is preparing a comprehensive 

trail plan as this management plan is being 

finalized. Six trail system objectives and four 

criteria were identified as part of the public 

scoping process for this management plan. To 

improve trail management and reduce 

administrative operations impacts, park 

managers may convert some roads to trails, 

remove some existing trails for rehabilitation, 

or restrict and/or limit access to other trails to 

certain user groups (hiking, biking, and/or 

equestrian); also, some trails may be 

expanded. Trail planning is beyond the scope 

of this document. 

With a minimal road network, the primary 

access to this park district is by unpaved trails, 

via horseback, bicycle, or on foot. Use of allterrain vehicles on trails is minimal. The main 

trails are Douglas Spring, Wildhorse, 

Broadway, Desert Ecology, Loma Alta, and 

Freeman Homestead. Comments received 

during the scoping process revealed that there 

are congestion and user conflicts at the 

trailheads. 

Transit 

Sun Tran currently provides four bus routes 

within about 2 miles of the visitor center. 

Another possible provider in this area is Pima 

Rural Transit. Tour buses and school buses 

provide some very limited services to the 

district. In a 2003/2004 visitor study done for 

the park, less than 14% of the visitors 

surveyed said they would take public 

transportation to this park district if transit 

service were made available. 
168 

PARK OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES 

PARK ORGANIZATION 

Two districts, the Rincon Mountain District 

and the Tucson Mountain District — east and 

west of Tucson, Arizona respectively, make up 

Saguaro National Park. Both districts 

comprise 94,337 acres total within park 

boundaries. 

The Park is administered by a superintendent 

and headquarters are located in the Rincon 

Mountain District. 

Management of Saguaro National Park is 

organized into the following divisions: Ranger 

Services, Science and Resource Management, 

Administration, Facility Management, and 

Fire Management. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

Ranger Services Division 

Visitor and Resource Protection Branch. 

The branch of Visitor and Resource 

Protection is responsible for law enforcement 

activities throughout the park. The law 

enforcement branch enforces laws and 

regulations intended to safeguard visitors and 

park resources. In addition to law enforcement, this division is responsible for searchand-rescue operations and emergency 

medical services park wide. Rangers make 

routine park visitor contacts to ensure that 

park regulations are understood and being 

met, to check for safety and resource 

violations, and to respond to or direct visitor 

inquiries to appropriate park staff. The law 

enforcement branch ensures that the park’s 

designated wilderness areas are managed in 

compliance with the Wilderness Act. 

Interpretive Branch. The Interpretive 

Branch is responsible for educating and 

instilling in visitors an understanding, 

appreciation, and enjoyment of the significance of this park and to ensure the protection and enjoyment of park resources. This 

includes educating visitors, stakeholders, and 

the general public about park resources, 

including the natural systems within the 

Sonoran desert ecosystem; cultural resources; 

wilderness and scenic values; scientific opportunities; and the role of this park in local, 

regional, and national contexts. NPS staff 

fulfills these responsibilities through formal 

education and orientation programs, interpretive programs, curriculum-based educational 

programs, and interpretive media. Personal 

services include staffing of the visitor center, 

ranger-led walks, talks and evening programs, 

demonstrations and special events and informal contacts with visitors. This branch is also 

responsible for supervision of publications 

and materials available at bookstores and sales 

outlets, exhibits and audiovisual media, 

website and electronic media. 

Fee Management Branch. Fee Management 

is responsible for the collection, accounting, 

and deposit of entrance fees. They provide the 

first and sometimes the only ranger that 

visitors see when they enter the park. In 

addition to collecting fees, they provide 

important park orientation and safety 

information to the public. 

Science and Resource 

Management Division 

The Division of Science and Resource 

Management includes the management of all 

natural resources within the park to ensure 

the preservation of fundamental physical and 

biological processes, as well as individual 

species, features, and plant communities. This 

division also coordinates with the Western 

Archeological and Conservation Center and 

other NPS cultural resource specialists for 

management of park cultural resources and 
Park Operations and Facilities 

169 

the associated research, and stewardship of 

those resources. This division administers the 

park’s Geographic Information System (GIS) 

database and all cooperative research and 

research permits within the park. 

Administration Division 

The Division of Administration is responsible 

for the park’s budget and financial accounting, 

property management, payroll, personnel 

management, procurement, contracting, mail 

services, administrative filing, and 

management of the park wide computer 

system. This division is also responsible for 

employee housing management and the 

parkwide radio communications system. 

Facility Management Division 

The Division of Facility Management is 

responsible for the operation and maintenance of all park facilities and equipment, 

including buildings and maintained grounds; 

utility systems such as power, water, sewer, 

and solid waste management; employee 

housing; roads; parking areas and trailheads; 

trails; picnic areas; and telephones. This 

division is responsible for routine 

maintenance on the park vehicle fleet. 

Fire Management Division 

The Fire Management Division is responsible 

both for fire-fighting activities and for restoring the natural fire regime to backcountry and 

wilderness areas where fires naturally occur. 

The effects of fire on natural ecological 

systems are monitored through a fire ecology 

program. The division manages the park pack 

mule program. 

STAFFING 

Park staffing in 2005 was 63 employees. At 

current visitation levels it is expected that 76.5 

employees would be sufficient to accommodate all operational needs. The minimum 

operating level is therefore defined as 76.5 

employees. Current staffing is pressed to meet 

current demands — such as deferred 

maintenance needs, demands for increases in 

educational opportunities and outreach to 

school groups, better enforcement on park 

roads, fire management and trail maintenance 

needs, coordination of volunteers, managing 

resource impacts and impacts of exotic 

species, the need for general inventorying and 

monitoring of park resources, and providing 

staff resources to work with pressures on the 

park from surrounding development. 

Volunteers in Parks (VIP) 

The park relies heavily on volunteers to 

complete a variety of tasks including trails 

maintenance, restoration and patrols, natural 

resource management for exotic plants, 

animal surveys and monitoring, monitoring 

archeological sites, staffing the visitor centers, 

and leading interpretive programs. The park 

has benefited from volunteer service hours. In 

FY 2002, 52,665 hours were contributed to the 

park as part of the VIP program. In FY 2003 

35,509 hours (446 volunteers) were donated; 

in FY 2004 and 2005, 36,800 (520 volunteers) 

and 29,308 (550 volunteers) hours were 

donated, respectively. 

Current Partnerships/Associations 

The park will continue to build relationships 

with new partners including, universities, 

colleges, schools, institutes and organizations 

as well as local, state and federal agencies to 

accomplish a variety of operational based 

programs. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

170 

PARK FACILITIES 

Park facilities are primarily designed to 

provide safe, enjoyable and educational access 

and support to visitors who come to 

experience the park as well as administrative 

space for park staff. Park facilities are typically 

located in areas that can sustain visitation 

while protecting park resources and natural 

systems. 

Public Facilities 

Trails and Trailheads. There are 72 officially 

designated and maintained trails within the 

park totaling more than 185 miles. The park 

trails crew, with assistance from a team of 

volunteers, patrols, maintains, and repairs all 

park trails. Trail use is divided primarily 

between hikers, runners, and horseback 

riders, with limited use by bicyclists. 

Currently, 14% of park trails are classified in 

good condition, 11% are in fair condition, 

53% are in poor condition, and 22% are in 

very poor (serious) condition. The park has 

begun a comprehensive trails plan that reflects 

existing and future use and associated impacts 

as well as addressing site-specific issues 

related to trails and trail management. 

Park Roads. In the Rincon Mountain District 

is the 8-mile-long, one-way, paved loop road 

(including a two-way section between the 

visitor center and the Javelina picnic area) 

known as the Cactus Forest Scenic Drive. In 

the Tucson Mountain District are five access 

roads including, Kinney Road, Sandario Road, 

Hohokam Road, Golden Gate Road, and 

Picture Rocks Road. Kinney Road provides 

the main, paved access route into the Tucson 

Mountain District of Saguaro National Park 

from the popular adjacent Tucson Mountain 

County Park, Old Tucson Studios, and the 

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Hohokam 

Road is a 6-mile-long graded dirt road that 

creates the Bajada Loop Drive. The Golden 

Gate Road is a (3.8 mile) graded dirt road that 

connects a portion of the Bajada Loop Drive 

with Picture Rocks Road. Two and a half 

miles of Sandario Road is within the park 

boundary and is the main paved north-south 

route on the western edge of the Tucson 

Mountain District. Picture Rocks Road is a 

paved road that crosses the northern portion 

of the Tucson Mountain District and connects 

Avra Valley to the city of Tucson. Both 

Sandario Road and Picture Rocks Road are 

currently used almost solely by commuters or 

as nonrecreational travel corridors. 

These uses are not fundamental to the purpose of this park, and there are not efficient 

safeguards to maintain and regulate safe 

conditions for park visitors and park 

resources. As a result, excessive high speeds 

and nonrecreational traffic create an unsafe 

environment and create regular conflicts 

between commuters and park visitors. The 

current condition of these roads requires 

considerable staff time related to law enforcement, emergency response, and resource 

protection. These activities pull staff from 

other areas of the park thereby depriving park 

users engaged in activities core to the park’s 

purpose from benefiting from the services of 

these personnel. 

The unpaved Golden Gate Road is in poor 

condition and consumes park staff time and 

resources to maintain this infrequently used 

road. 

For issues related to condition, design, and 

road hazards please refer to the transportation 

section. 

Entrance Stations. The park has one staffed 

fee entrance station in the Rincon Mountain 

District for the scenic Cactus Forest Loop 

Drive. Visitors to the Tucson Mountain 

District are asked to pay at the Red Hills 

Visitor Center on a voluntary basis. One area 

that lacks an appropriate visitor contact 

entrance station is along the Picture Rocks 

Road in the Tucson Mountain District. Without dedicated entrance stations, the park 
Park Operations and Facilities 

171 

cannot guarantee all park visitors have paid 

user fees. 

Parking Areas. There are 20 official parking 

areas in the park, 9 in the Tucson Mountain 

District and 11 in the Rincon Mountain 

District. Maintained parking areas include 

trailhead parking, picnic area parking, visitor 

center parking, and park administration and 

maintenance area parking. Current parking at 

the Rincon Mountain visitor center has 

several problems. The design and layout of the 

parking lot and entrance station creates 

unnecessary congestion within the parking lot 

contributing to user conflicts between visitors 

in queue to enter the Cactus Forest Loop 

Drive and visitors parking to enter the visitor 

center. Based on visitation, there is inadequate 

parking to accommodate use levels. 

Additionally, many visitors to the Rincon 

Mountain District use the visitor center 

parking lot as a trailhead for regional trail use. 

Most park trailheads are too small to 

accommodate existing use or are informal 

resulting in unregulated parking on road 

shoulders or on top of park resources. Parking 

issues and conflicts continue to consume park 

staff resources and time. 

Visitor Centers. Two visitor centers in the 

park provide services year-round. Both the 

Red Hills Visitor Center in the Tucson 

Mountain District, constructed in 1994, and 

the Rincon Mountain District visitor center, 

constructed in the early 1950s, are staffed by 

park rangers and offer exhibits, audiovisual 

programs, as well as books, maps, and guides 

for sale. Aside from routine maintenance, the 

Red Hills Visitor Center is in excellent 

condition and serves its purpose well. The 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center is 

outdated and does not have adequate space 

for necessary visitor service functions or staff 

offices. 

Orientation, Wayside Exhibits, and Interior 

Exhibits. Interior exhibits in the Rincon 

Mountain visitor center are outdated and 

require substantial upgrades to reflect current 

science and accessibility requirements. 

Several locations throughout the park lack 

adequate wayside exhibits and signs for park 

visitors. 

Camping. Designated camping exists above 

4,500 feet in the backcountry of the Rincon 

Mountain Wilderness area. No developed 

camping exists within the park. There are 21 

backcountry campsites in six designated 

camping areas in the Rincon Mountain 

District. 

Administrative Facilities 

Offices, Storage, and Park Buildings. Space 

allocation for park offices has increased over 

time, but remains inadequate to meet current 

needs. Office space is insufficient. Storage 

facilities are not adequate to meet park needs. 

With the exception of the main fire facility, 

located on adjacent Bureau of Land Management property, all park offices, storage and 

general use buildings are located within park 

boundaries. Many of the functions housed by 

these facilities are not necessary to be located 

within the park boundaries and could be 

located outside park boundaries. 

Corrals. The corral at Madrona has been 

condemned and is currently closed due to 

health hazards created by a rodent infestation, 

problems associated with lead-based paint, 

and proximity to water resources. Because 

pack operations that serve the Rincon 

Mountain District must operate from a 

remote location, considerable time and effort 

is added to the packer’s schedule for servicing 

this district in addition to strain on pack stock 

as a result of moving animals by trailer. The 

primary corral in the Rincon Mountain 

District is in the headquarters area and 

includes numerous buildings, shade structures, paddocks, and fenced enclosures. A 

basic corral exists at Manning Camp and 

includes a shed, paddock, and fenced 

enclosures. 
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

172 

The corral in the Tucson Mountain District, 

which contains a small building and a fenced 

enclosure, is in relatively poor condition and 

is used infrequently. 

Park Housing. There are three houses in the 

Rincon Mountain District (two in the 

headquarters area and one at Madrona) and 

three houses (one stand-alone house and one 

duplex) in the Tucson Mountain District for 

park employees. The house at Madrona has 

been condemned due to construction 

methods and biohazards associated with 

rodents that carry the hanta virus, lead-based 

pint, and insect infestations. The two houses 

in the headquarters area are listed in good 

condition. The three units in the Tucson 

Mountain District are adjacent to the Red 

Hills Visitor Center and are in good condition. 

Other Buildings. The use of Manning Camp 

for fire management activities creates 

considerable impacts on park operations due 

to the logistics required to support such 

activities in a remote wilderness area. This 

camp serves as a permanent base camp for 

four months every season. Support services 

include a bi-weekly mule train from lower 

elevations to the top of Mica Mountain to 

transport supplies, two helicopter supply 

drops per year and the routine maintenance 

and upkeep of developed uses. Developed 

infrastructure at Manning Camp that requires 

regular maintenance includes: seven weather 

ports, a water system with associated 

plumbing, a vault toilet, barn/storage building, 

propane tanks, refrigerator, stove, lighting 

system, solar panels and general building 

upkeep. 

The vacant Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration (CAA) building at Madrona is 

eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places yet serves no park purpose or 

useful function. This building is also infested 

with rodents that may carry the hanta virus 

and pose a health risk to humans. 
4

Environmental Consequences

175 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Environmental Policy Act 

requires that environmental documents 

discuss the environmental impacts of a 

proposed federal action, feasible alternatives 

to that action, and any adverse environmental 

effects that cannot be avoided if a proposed 

action is implemented. In this case the proposed federal action would be the adoption of 

a general management plan for Saguaro 

National Park. The following portion of this 

document analyzes the environmental impacts 

of implementing each of the three alternatives 

on natural resources, cultural resources, the 

visitor experience, the socioeconomic 

environment, and park operations. The 

analysis is the basis for comparing the beneficial and adverse effects of implementing the 

alternatives. By examining the environmental 

consequences of all alternatives on an 

equivalent basis, decision makers can evaluate 

which approach would create the most 

desirable combination of the greatest 

beneficial results with the fewest adverse 

effects on the park. 

Because of the general, conceptual nature of 

the actions described in the alternatives, the 

impacts of these actions are analyzed in 

general qualitative terms. Thus, this 

environmental impact statement should be 

considered a programmatic analysis. If and 

when site-specific developments or other 

actions are proposed for implementation 

subsequent to this General Management Plan, 

appropriate detailed environmental and 

cultural compliance documentation will be 

prepared in accord with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and National 

Historic Preservation Act requirements. 

The existing conditions for all the impact 

topics that are analyzed here were identified 

in the “Affected Environment” chapter. All 

the impact topics are assessed for each 

alternative. Impact analysis discussions are 

organized by alternative and then by impact 

topic under each alternative. For each impact 

topic, there is an analysis of the beneficial and 

adverse effects of implementing the 

alternative, a description of cumulative 

impacts (when this project is considered in 

conjunction with other actions occurring in 

the region), and a conclusion. At the end of 

each alternative there is also a brief discussion 

of unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible 

and irretrievable commitments of resources, 

and the relationship of short-term uses of the 

environment and the maintenance and 

enhancement of long-term productivity. The 

impacts of each alternative are briefly 

summarized in table 10, at the end of the 

“Alternatives, Including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS 

A cumulative impact is described in the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

regulation 1508.7 as follows: 

Cumulative impacts are incremental 

impacts of 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 action. 

Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a 

period of time. 

To determine potential cumulative impacts, 

other projects within and surrounding 

Saguaro National Park were identified. The 

area included Pima County and the city of 

Tucson. Projects were identified by discussions with the park staff, federal land managers, and representatives of county and city 

governments. Potential projects identified as 

cumulative actions included any planning or 

development activity that was currently being 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

176

implemented, or that would be implemented 

in the reasonably foreseeable future. Impacts 

of past actions were also considered in the 

analysis. 

These actions are evaluated in conjunction 

with the impacts of each alternative to determine if they have any cumulative effects on a 

particular natural, cultural, or socioeconomic 

resource or visitor use. Because most of these 

cumulative actions are in the early planning 

stages, the qualitative evaluation of cumulative 

impacts was based on a general description of 

the project. 

Actions and Projects inside 

Saguaro National Park 

The primary completed and ongoing projects 

and actions that could contribute to 

cumulative effects are described briefly below. 

• rehabilitate Cactus Forest Drive 

This action on the 8.4-mile drive along 

route 500 and route 100 improved 

deteriorating road edges and lateral 

cracking in the roadbed, primarily 

resulting from drainage control 

problems. 

• exotic plant management plan 

Exotic plants infest about 2.6 million 

acres in the national park system, 

reducing natural diversity. At Saguaro 

National Park, with 80 exotic plant 

species in the park, this plan describes 

the proposal to use a proactive, 

integrated approach to managing exotic 

plant infestations. 

• comprehensive trails plan 

Saguaro National Park has begun a 

comprehensive trails plan, which is 

being conducted in close coordination 

with this general management plan. 

More information on this plan can be 

found in the “Other Planning Efforts 

Related to This General Management 

Plan” section of this document. 

• fire management plan 

This plan is being undertaken because 

Congress has directed all agencies to 

take a strong look at vegetation and fuel 

accumulation in relation to safety for 

firefighters, the public, and surrounding 

communities. Another plan goal is to 

reduce the threat to real property from 

wildland fire concurrent with the park’s 

mission. The problems of fire hazard 

reduction, while still protecting, 

restoring, and maintaining the historic 

and natural systems, are complex. 

Actions and Projects outside 

Saguaro National Park 

Cienega Corridor. An area also known as the 

“missing link” lands, the Cienega Corridor 

Conservation Council and stakeholders 

involved in the creation of the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area have proposed 

expanding the conservation efforts north to 

encompass the land between the conservation 

area and Saguaro National Park. The goal 

would be to keep open an important wildlife 

movement corridor connecting the “sky 

islands,” which is especially important to 

mountain mammals such as black bears, 

mountain lions, coatimundis, and mule deer. 

The corridor is in a major watershed formed 

by the Rincon, Whetstone, Santa Rita, and 

Empire Mountain ranges. The watershed also 

provides Tucson up to 20% of its groundwater recharge system. 

Houghton Area Master Plan. The plan 

encompasses approximately 10,800 acres 

southwest of Saguaro National Park’s Rincon 

Mountain District along Houghton Road. 

Seventy-six percent of the land covered by the 

plan managed by the Arizona State Land 

Department and is undeveloped. The master 

plan establishes the policy and procedural 

frameworks necessary to guide growth and 

development within the area. The plan shows 

a mix of current and proposed high- and lowdensity residential development. About 15% 
Introduction 

177 

of the area is already high- to medium-density 

residential development. Most of the 

undeveloped area is proposed to be either low 

or very low density residential development. 

Ironwood Forest National Monument 

Resource Management Plan. The plan will 

guide management of public lands within the 

Ironwood Forest National Monument. The 

planning area covers approximately 129,068 

acres of federal land, 6,012 acres of private 

land, and 54,697 acres of Arizona State Trust 

land. 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

Resource Management Plan. This is a plan 

for managing 49,000 acres of public land, 

resources, and uses within the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area and the Sonoita 

Valley Acquisition Planning District. 

Pima Association of Governments (PAG) 

2030 Transportation Plan. This plan 

outlines the transportation projects and goals 

for the county, including the Twin Peaks 

Interchange and paving the scenic Bajada 

Loop Drive and Golden Gate Road. 

Pima County Comprehensive Plan (2001). 

This plan updates the 1992 Pima County 

Comprehensive Plan to reflect the land use 

concepts, policies, and principles of conservation identified in the draft Preliminary 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. 

Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan. This 

plan establishes future land use and 

development policies for the area on the south 

side of Saguaro National Park’s Rincon 

Mountain District, which have the potential 

for future annexation to Tucson. This plan 

covers about 400 square miles, which is mostly 

rural and sparsely populated. This 

demographic is rapidly changing. The plan 

goes into effect when an area is annexed by 

the city of Tucson. This subregion is broken 

into 15 areas. Most of the areas are zoned 

residential, ranging from low intensity rural 

(less than 0.3 residences/acre) to medium 

intensity urban (5 residences/acre). The 

remaining areas are either industrial or a 

resource transition area. 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. This 

regional plan was developed to address the 

long-term conservation needs of the full range 

of natural and cultural resources. It is a plan 

that can serve as the cornerstone of 

conservation as well as economic expansion. 

Tucson Mountains Subregional Plan. This 

plan establishes future land use and development policies for the area on the east, south, 

and west sides of Saguaro National Park’s 

Tucson Mountain District, which have the 

potential for future annexation to Tucson. 

This plan covers about 280 square miles. The 

current demographic ranges from medium 

density urban residential to rural. The plan 

goes into effect when one of the six areas 

within the plan is annexed by Tucson. Most of 

the area is designed as residential ranging in 

density from medium high intensity urban (24 

residences/acre) to low intensity urban (0.5 

residences/acre). The remaining area is zoned 

as industrial. 

IMPAIRMENT OF NATIONAL 

PARK RESOURCES 

In addition to determining the environmental 

consequences of implementing the preferred 

and other alternatives, NPS Management 

Policies (section 1.4) requires analysis of 

potential effects to determine whether or not 

proposed actions would impair park resources 

and values. 

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 to minimize to the greatest degree practicable, 

adverse impacts on park resources and values. 

However, the laws do give the National Park 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

178

Service the management discretion to allow 

impacts on park resources and values when 

necessary and appropriate to fulfill the 

purposes of the park, as long as the impact 

does not constitute impairment of the affected 

resources and values. Although Congress has 

given the National Park Service the management discretion to allow certain impacts 

within a national park, that discretion is 

limited by the statutory requirement that the 

National Park Service must leave resources 

and values unimpaired unless a particular law 

directly and specifically provides otherwise. 

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, 

in the professional judgment of the 

responsible NPS manager, would harm the 

integrity of park resources and values, 

including the opportunities that otherwise 

would be present for the enjoyment of those 

resources or values (NPS Management Policies 

2006 1.4.5). An impact on any park resource 

or value may, but does not necessarily, 

constitute an impairment. An impact would be 

more likely to constitute impairment to the 

extent that it affects a resource or value whose 

conservation is 

• necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation or 

proclamation of the park, or 

• key to the natural or cultural integrity of 

the park or to opportunities for enjoyment 

of the park, or 

• identified in the park’s general management plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents as being of significance. 

Impairment may result from visitor activities; 

NPS administrative activities; or activities 

undertaken by concessioners, contractors, 

and others operating in the park. A determination on impairment is made in the 

“Environmental Consequences” section in the 

conclusion section for each required impact 

topic related to the park’s resources and 

values. 

An evaluation of impairment is not required 

for some impact topics including visitor 

experience (unless the impact is resource 

based), transportation, NPS operations, or the 

socioeconomic environment. When it is 

determined that an action(s) would have a 

moderate to major adverse effect, a justification for nonimpairment is made. Impacts of 

only negligible or minor adverse intensity 

would by definition not result in impairment. 
179 

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR ANALYZING IMPACTS 

The planning team based the impact analysis 

and the conclusions in this chapter largely on 

the review of existing literature and studies, 

information provided by experts in the 

National Park Service and other agencies and 

park staff insights and professional judgment. 

The team’s method of analyzing impacts is 

further explained below. It is important to 

remember that all the impacts have been 

assessed assuming mitigative measures have 

been implemented to minimize or avoid 

impacts. If mitigative measures described in 

the “Alternatives Including the Preferred 

Alternative” chapter were not applied, the 

potential for resource impacts and the 

magnitude of those impacts would increase. 

Director’s Order 12, “Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision 

Making,” presents an approach to identifying 

the duration (short or long term), type 

(adverse or beneficial), context (the setting 

within which an effect would occur) and 

intensity or magnitude (e.g., negligible, minor, 

moderate, or major) of the impact(s), and that 

approach has been used in this document. 

Direct and indirect effects caused by an action 

were considered in the analysis. Direct effects 

are caused by an action and occur at the same 

time and place as the action. Indirect effects 

are caused by the action and occur later in 

time or farther removed from the place, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. 

The impact analyses for the no-action 

alternative compare resource conditions in 

the year 2021 to existing conditions in 2006 

assuming continuation of current 

management direction. The impact analysis 

for the action alternatives (the preferred 

alternative 2 and alternative 3) compares the 

action alternatives in the year 2021 to the noaction alternative in the year 2021. Said 

differently, the impacts of the action 

alternatives describe the difference between

implementing the no-action alternative and 

implementing the action alternatives. To 

understand a complete “picture” of the 

impacts of implementing any of the action 

alternatives, the reader must also take into 

consideration the impacts that would occur 

under the no-action alternative. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The natural resource impact topics analyzed 

in this document are soundscapes, soils, 

vegetation, wildlife, and special status species 

(which include both federally listed species 

and those listed by the state as threatened and 

endangered). Information about known 

resources was compiled and compared with 

the locations of proposed developments and 

other actions. The impact analysis was based 

on the knowledge and best professional 

judgment of planners, and biologists; data 

from park records; and studies of similar 

actions and effects, when applicable. The 

planning team qualitatively evaluated the 

intensities of effects on all the natural resource 

impact topics. Unless otherwise specified, the 

following terms are used to describe the 

duration of the impacts: 

Short term: The effect would be temporary, 

lasting a year or less, such as effects 

associated with construction. 

Long term: The effect would last more than 

one year and could be permanent; for 

example, the loss of soil due to the 

construction of a new facility. 

The intensity of effects on vegetation and 

wildlife was evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The action might result in a 

change in vegetation or wildlife, but the 

change would not be measurable or would 

be at the lowest level of detection. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

180

Minor: The action might result in a 

detectable change, but the change would 

be slight and have a local effect on a 

population. This could include changes in 

the abundance or distribution of 

individuals in a local area, but not changes 

that would affect the viability of local 

populations. Changes to local ecological 

processes would be minimal. 

Moderate: The action would result in a 

clearly detectable change in a population 

and could have an appreciable effect. This 

could include changes in the abundance or 

distribution of local populations, but not 

changes that would affect the viability of 

regional populations. Changes to local 

ecological processes would be of limited 

extent. 

Major: The action would be severely 

adverse or exceptionally beneficial to a 

population. The effects would be 

substantial and highly noticeable, and they 

could result in widespread change and be 

permanent. This could include changes in 

the abundance or distribution of a local or 

regional population to the extent that the 

population would not be likely to recover 

(adverse) or would return to a sustainable 

level (beneficial). Important ecological 

processes would be altered, and 

“landscape-level” (regional) changes 

would be expected. 

For threatened and endangered species and 

species of concern, the following impact 

intensities apply. These definitions are 

consistent with the language used to 

determine effects on threatened and 

endangered species under the federal 

Endangered Species Act: 

No effect: The action would cause no effect 

on the species or critical habitat if present. 

Not likely to adversely affect: The action 

would be expected to result in 

discountable effects on a species or critical 

habitat (that is, extremely unlikely to occur 

and not able to be meaningfully measured, 

detected, or evaluated), or it would be 

completely beneficial. 

Likely to adversely affect: The action 

would result in a direct or indirect adverse 

effect on a species or critical habitat, and 

the effect would not be discountable or 

completely beneficial. 

The intensity of effects on soils/geologic 

resources was evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The action would result in a 

change in soils or a geologic feature, but 

the change would be at the lowest level of 

detection, or not measurable. 

Minor: The action would result in a 

detectable change, but the change would 

be slight and local. Soils or geologic 

resources might be slightly altered in a way 

that would be noticeable. There could be 

changes in a soil’s profile in a relatively 

small area, but the change would not 

appreciably increase the potential for 

erosion. 

Moderate: The action would result in a 

clearly detectable change in soils or 

geologic resources — soils would be 

obviously altered, or a few features would 

show changes. There could be a loss or 

alteration of the topsoil in a small area, or 

the potential for erosion to remove small 

quantities of additional soil would increase. 

Major: The action would result in the 

permanent loss of an important soil or 

geologic resource, or there would be highly 

noticeable, widespread changes in many 

soils or features. There would be a 

permanent loss or alteration of soils or 

geologic resources in a relatively large area, 

or there would be a strong likelihood for 

erosion to remove large quantities of 

additional soil as a result of the action. 

The intensity of effects on soundscapes was 

evaluated as follows: 

Negligible: The natural sound environment 

might be affected, but the effects would be 

at or below the level of detection, or 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

181 

changes would be so slight they would not 

be of any measurable or perceptible 

consequence to wildlife or the visitor 

experience. 

Minor: There would be a detectable change 

in the natural sound environment, but the 

effects would be small, local, and of little 

consequence to wildlife or the visitor 

experience. 

Moderate: A change in the natural sound 

environment would be readily detectable, 

affecting the behavior of wildlife or visitors 

in a large area. 

Major: A severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial change in the natural sound 

environment would be obvious and would 

affect the health of wildlife or visitors or 

cause a substantial, highly noticeable 

change in the behavior of wildlife or 

visitors in a local or regional area. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural Resources Listed, or Eligible to Be 

Listed, in the National Register of Historic 

Places 

Potential impacts on cultural resources 

(archeological resources, prehistoric or 

historic structures, cultural landscapes, and 

traditional cultural properties) either listed in 

or eligible to be listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places were identified and 

evaluated in accordance with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s regulations 

implementing Section106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800, 

Protection of Historic Properties) by 

(1) determining the area of potential effects; 

(2) identifying national-register-listed or 

eligible cultural resources in the area of 

potential effects 

(3) applying the criteria of adverse effect to 

affected resources; and 

(4) considering ways to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects. 

Under the Advisory Council’s regulations a 

determination of adverse effect or no adverse 

effect must be made for affected nationalregister-listed or eligible cultural resources. 

An adverse effect occurs whenever an action 

alters directly or indirectly any of the characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify it 

for inclusion in the national register, i.e., 

diminishing the integrity (the extent to which 

a resource retains its historic appearance) of 

the resource’s location, design, setting, 

materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects also include reasonably 

foreseeable effects caused by the alternatives 

that would occur later in time, be farther 

removed in distance, or be cumulative (36 

CFR 800.5(a)(1)). A determination of no 

adverse effect means there is an effect, but the 

effect would not meet the criteria of adverse 

effect (36 CFR 800.5(b)). 

In this general management plan the criteria 

for characterizing the severity or intensity of 

impacts on national-register-listed or eligible 

archeological resources, prehistoric or 

historic structures, and cultural landscapes 

(there are no cultural resources designated 

traditional cultural properties in Saguaro 

National Park, but there is one potential area) 

are the Section106 determinations of effect: 

adverse effect or no adverse effect. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Ethnographic resources that are not traditional cultural properties, which are generally 

ineligible for listing in the national register, are 

not subject to Section106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. In this general 

management plan potential impacts on 

ethnographic resources are described in terms 

of context (are the effects site-specific, local, 

or even regional?), duration (are the effects 

short-term — lasting less than a year, longterm — lasting more than a year, or 

permanent?) and intensity (is the degree or 

severity of effects negligible, minor, moderate, 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

182

or major). The definitions of impact intensity 

for ethnographic resources follow: 

 

Ethnographic Resources 

Negligible: Impact(s) would be barely 

perceptible and would neither alter 

resource conditions, such as traditional 

access or site preservation, nor the 

relationship between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs. 

Minor: Adverse impact — impact(s) would 

be slight but noticeable but would neither 

appreciably alter resource conditions, such 

as traditional access or site preservation, 

nor the relationship between the resource 

and the affiliated group’s body of practices 

and beliefs. 

Beneficial impact — would allow access to 

and/or accommodate a group’s traditional 

practices or beliefs. 

Moderate: Adverse impact — impact(s) 

would be apparent and would alter 

resource conditions. Something would 

interfere with traditional access, site 

preservation, or the relationship between 

the resource and the affiliated group’s 

practices and beliefs, even though the 

group’s practices and beliefs would 

survive. 

Beneficial impact — would facilitate 

traditional access and/or accommodate a 

group’s practices or beliefs. 

Major: Adverse impact — impact(s) would 

alter resource conditions. Something 

would block or greatly affect traditional 

access, site preservation, or the 

relationship between the resource and the 

affiliated group’s body of practices and 

beliefs, to the extent that the survival of a 

group’s practices and/or beliefs would be 

jeopardized.

Beneficial impact — would encourage 

traditional access and/or accommodate a 

group’s practices or beliefs.

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE 

This impact analysis considers various aspects 

of visitor use and experience at Saguaro 

National Park, including the effects on: the 

range of recreational opportunities; 

opportunities for solitude and getting in touch 

with nature; visitor access including access for 

visitors with disabilities; opportunities for 

orientation, education, and interpretation; 

and visitor safety. The analysis is primarily 

qualitative rather than quantitative due to the 

conceptual nature of the alternatives. 

Impacts on visitor use and experience were 

determined considering the best available 

information regarding visitor use and experience. Information on visitor use and visitor 

opinions was taken from a survey of visitors 

conducted by the University of Arizona from 

November 2003 to March 2004 and compiled 

by David Evans and Associates (2006). This 

information was supplemented by data 

gathered during the planning process for this 

management plan, including opinions from 

national park visitors and neighbors and 

information provided by national park staff. 

Primarily, visitors expressed interest in 

preserving the natural and cultural resources 

of the park, continuing to provide high-quality 

trail opportunities, protecting opportunities 

for solitude and natural quiet, educating 

visitors and neighbors about the park’s unique 

resources and values, and exploring new 

opportunities for links to regional trails. 

For analysis purposes, impact duration, 

intensities, and types for visitor experience 

impact topics have been defined as follows: 

Duration of Impact. A short-term impact 

would last less than one year and would affect 

only one season’s use by visitors. A long-term 

impact would last more than one year and 

would be more permanent in nature. 

Intensity of Impact. Impacts were evaluated 

comparatively between alternatives, using the 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

183 

no-action alternative as a baseline for 

comparison with each action alternative: 

Negligible — Visitors would likely be 

unaware of any effects associated with 

implementation of the alternative. 

Minor — Changes in visitor use and/or 

experience would be slight but detectable, 

would affect few visitors, and would not 

appreciably limit or enhance experiences 

identified as fundamental to the park’s 

purpose and significance. 

Moderate — Some characteristics of visitor 

use and/or experience would change, and 

many visitors would likely be aware of the 

effects associated with implementation of 

the alternative; some changes to 

experiences identified as fundamental to 

the park’s purpose and significance would 

be apparent. 

Major — Multiple characteristics of visitor 

experience would change, including 

experiences identified as fundamental to 

park purpose and significance; most 

visitors would be aware of the effects 

associated with implementation of the 

alternative. 

Type of Impact. Adverse impacts are those 

that most visitors would perceive as 

undesirable. Beneficial impacts are those that 

most visitors would perceive as desirable. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Saguaro National Park primarily operates 

within the local social and economic 

environment of the surrounding communities 

and regionally within Pima County. As such, 

actions proposed in the alternatives could 

have a direct effect on some parts of the social 

and economic environment of the region. In 

the socioeconomic analysis, the duration of 

effects is considered to be either short term 

(lasting less than one year), or long term 

(lasting more than one year). Long-term 

effects could be considered as a permanent 

change in conditions. 

The Money Generation Model (MGM2) was 

developed by the National Park Service in 

1990 and updated in 2000 to help national 

parks estimate local economic impacts of 

visitor spending. The MGM2 estimates what 

park visitors spend in the local area and the 

impacts of this spending in terms of sales, 

income, jobs, and local tax receipts. Value 

added is the sum of employee compensation, 

income of sole proprietors, and indirect 

business taxes. As the name implies, it is the 

value added by the region to the final good or 

service being produced. It can also be defined 

as the final price of the good or service minus 

the costs of all of the non-labor inputs to 

production. Direct effects are measured in 

terms of change in sales, income, and jobs in 

those businesses or agencies that directly 

receive the visitor spending. Direct effects 

accrue largely to tourism-related businesses in 

the area. Secondary effects are measured to 

include both indirect and induced effects that 

result from the circulation of the initial 

spending through the local economy and are 

captured by multipliers. Indirect effects 

accrue to a broader set of economic sectors 

that serve tourism firms. Induced effects are 

the impacts of household expenditures, from 

the income earned in a directly or indirectly 

affected industry. Total effects are the sum of 

direct, indirect, and indirect effects (NPS 

1995; Stynes et al. 2000; Stynes and Sun 2003, 

NPS 2006c). 

The intensity of effects on socioeconomics 

was evaluated as follows: 

Negligible — No effects occur or the effects 

on socioeconomic conditions are below or 

equivalent to the level of detection. 

Minor — The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are slight but detectable, and 

only affect a small number of park services 

and/or a small portion of the surrounding 

population. The impact is considered slight 

and not detectable outside the affected 

area. 

Moderate — The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are readily apparent. Any 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

184

effects would result in changes to 

socioeconomic conditions on a local scale 

in the affected area. 

Major — The effects on socioeconomic 

conditions are readily apparent. 

Measurable changes in social or economic 

conditions at the county level occur. The 

impact is severely adverse or exceptionally 

beneficial within the affected area. 

TRANSPORTATION 

Methodology and Assumptions 

Transportation and land use planning in the 

areas surrounding the park have direct and 

indirect influences on transportation to, from, 

and within the park. Pima County land use 

and transportation plans, the Saguaro 

National Park Transportation and Visitor Use 

Study (David Evans and Associates 2006), 

information from park and other NPS staff, 

on-site observations, and professional 

judgment were all used to analyze 

transportation effects and impacts. Certain 

assumptions were used to develop the 

transportation impacts: 

• Growth in Pima County from 2005–2025 

will increase about 30%. Growth in 

Western Pima County will continue to be 

rural (low to very low density) with very 

limited commercial and public services. 

Tucson will continue to provide most 

goods, services, and economic 

opportunities for this area. 

• Recreational opportunities are dispersed 

throughout the region; the park is not the 

sole destination for residents. Visitation 

will remain fairly constant, with increases 

commensurate with regional growth and 

demand for recreation. 

• No new major east-west roadways will 

link Western Pima County with Tucson 

other than those shown in the 2030 

Regional Transportation Plan. No 

additional roads will be constructed in the 

park, loop roads will not become through 

roads. 

• A traffic impact study, model and/or similar methodology and NEPA compliance 

will be completed before permanent 

installation of traffic-calming measures on 

Picture Rocks Road. 

• Public transit service within one-quarter 

mile of any of the park’s primary facilities 

will not be available in the foreseeable 

future. Some park neighbors will continue 

to access the park on foot, bicycle, and/or 

horseback instead of in an automobile. 

• Picture Rocks Road remains open to 

traffic. 

• Trails and trail issues such as connectivity, 

crossings, conflicts with other users, and 

locations and parking for new trails will be 

addressed in the forthcoming comprehensive trails plan. 

• Transportation conditions at the Tucson 

Mountain District and Rincon Mountain 

District must be evaluated separately, due 

to the distance between the districts and 

their differing contexts for transportation. 

All park users in the Rincon Mountain 

District are assumed to be visitors; park 

users in the Tucson Mountain District are 

divided into two groups: non-visitor 

(generally commuters or pass-through 

traffic) and visitor users, due to their 

differing patterns of use. 

Impact Thresholds 

Impacts on visitors and non-visitor users were 

evaluated in four areas: 

• Circulation addresses potential impacts to 

the roadway network of the park and the 

nearby Tucson metropolitan area. It 

includes issues such as potential diversion 

of traffic, access, travel time, vehicle miles 

traveled, and capacity. 

• Safety refers to accident rates, frequent 

traffic violations (such as speeding), 

emergency response, and visitor/nonvisitor conflicts. 
Methods and Assumptions for Analyzing Impacts 

185 

• Parking addresses changes in parking 

supply and/or location. 

Transportation impacts were evaluated on a 

qualitative basis. The following thresholds 

were used to define the intensity of 

transportation impacts: 

No effect — the impact would cause no effect 

on visitor or non-visitor users. 

Negligible — the impact would be 

undetectable or barely detectable and/or 

would affect very few visitors or users. 

Visitors and/or users on-site and off-site 

would not likely be aware of the effects of 

transportation management actions. 

Minor — the impact would be detectable 

and/or would only affect a limited number 

of visitors or users. Visitors and/or users 

on-site and off-site would be aware of the 

effects of transportation management 

actions, but their satisfaction or 

dissatisfaction would not be measurably 

affected. 

Moderate — the impact would be apparent 

and/or would affect many visitors or users. 

Visitors and/or users on-site and off-site 

would be aware of the effects associated 

with transportation management actions, 

and their satisfaction or dissatisfaction 

would be measurably affected. 

Major — the impact would be readily 

apparent and/or would affect the majority 

of visitors or users. Visitors or users on-site 

and off-site would be strongly aware of the 

effects associated with transportation 

management actions, and their satisfaction 

or dissatisfaction would be measurably 

affected to a high degree. 

Duration 

The duration of an impact considers whether 

transportation management actions would last 

less than one year and and/or would be 

temporary in nature, or if the impact would be 

long-term (more than one year) and/or 

permanent in nature. A short-term impact is 

one that would be created during installation, 

construction, and/or testing of traffic-calming 

devices and/or parking, and would generally 

last one year or less. A long-term impact would 

be created through the ongoing operation and 

use of traffic-calming devices and increased 

parking supply. 

Type of Impact 

Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether the 

impacts on park and regional transportation 

resulting from management actions would be 

beneficial or adverse. Beneficial impacts would 

improve circulation, safety, capacity, and/or 

parking for visitors and/or non-visitor users. 

Adverse impacts would negatively affect 

visitors and/or non-visitor users and make 

circulation more difficult, decrease safety, 

decrease capacity and/or restrict parking for 

visitors and non-visitor users. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

Basis of Analysis 

The impacts of the alternatives on park 

operations and facilities were determined by 

examining the effects and changes on staffing, 

infrastructure, visitor facilities, and services. 

Intensity 

The intensity of the impact considers whether 

the impact would be negligible, minor, 

moderate or major. 

Negligible— Impacts would have no 

discernible effect on park operations and 

facilities. 

Minor — Impacts on park operations and 

facilities would be slightly detectable but 

would not be expected to have an overall 

effect on the ability of the park staff to 

provide services and facilities to the visiting 

public. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

186

Moderate — Impacts would be clearly 

detectable and could have a noticeable 

effect on park operations and facilities. 

Major — Impacts would have a substantial 

influence on park operations and facilities 

and include impacts that would change the 

park’s ability to provide adequate services 

and facilities to visitors and staff. 

Duration 

The duration of the impact considers whether 

the impact would occur for a short term and 

be temporary in nature, and associated with 

transitional types of activities, or if the impact 

would occur over a long period of time and 

have a permanent effect on park operations 

and facilities. 

Type of Impact 

Impacts are evaluated in terms of whether the 

impacts on park operations and facilities 

would be beneficial or adverse. Beneficial 

impacts would improve park operations 

and/or facilities. Adverse impacts would 

negatively affect park operations and/or 

facilities and could hinder the park staff’s 

ability to provide adequate services and 

facilities to the visiting public. 
187 

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Trampling would continue to affect 

vegetation along social trails and in and near 

campgrounds, campsites, picnic areas, 

trailheads, administrative buildings, and 

scenic and interpretive facilities, with the 

effects ranging from complete absence of 

vegetation to slight alterations in species 

composition. Similar effects would be evident 

along road shoulders, where cars crush 

vegetation and compact soil in informal pulloffs along Picture Rocks Road and other park 

roads. The long-term adverse effects of 

vegetation loss in localized areas would be 

minor. 

In addition, the unintentional transport of 

exotic plants into and around the park by 

visitors and wind would continue (as 

discussed on p. 37), although the magnitude of 

this effect is unknown. The park would 

continue to address this issue as directed in 

their exotic plant management plan, which 

would reduce the effects on the park’s native 

vegetation. 

Cumulative Effects. The recent 

rehabilitation of Cactus Forest Loop Drive 

had negligible short-term impacts and longterm beneficial impacts on vegetation. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the types and distribution of 

vegetation. The areas have been zoned to 

protect habitat while allowing for growth and 

the expansion of the Tucson area. The 

impacts from development would be longterm, adverse, and moderate. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on vegetation. The Cienega Corridor would protect an 

area south of the Rincon Mountain District 

and Coronado National Forest to the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area. This 

action would have a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on vegetation in the region. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres 

of land, of which almost 130,000 acres is 

federal property. This action, added to the 

effects of increasing educational and interpretive efforts in the national monument, has 

resulted in better protection of native vegetation. This action would continue to have a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on 

vegetation in the region. 

Overall, when all the effects of actions in and 

outside the park were added to the effects 

from alternative 1 (primarily continuing 

effects from visitor use), the long-term adverse cumulative effects on vegetation in the 

area would be minor. The beneficial impacts 

of several projects outside the project offset 

some of the adverse impacts from other projects. The contribution of alternative 1 to this 

cumulative impact would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Most of the natural vegetation in 

Saguaro National Park would not be affected 

under alternative 1. Minor long-term adverse 

effects on vegetation in localized areas would 

continue to be caused primarily by visitor 

activities. Long-term minor adverse cumulative effects on native vegetation would occur 

in the area. This alternative would contribute 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

188

a very small increment to the overall minor 

adverse cumulative effects. The levels of these 

effects would not be sufficient to constitute an 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Wildlife 

Analysis. Few of the actions of implementing 

alternative 1 would further affect the park’s 

wildlife populations or habitats. Wildlife 

populations and habitat already have been 

altered by visitors and employees, as have 

wildlife habits and movements; this would 

continue. The use of the park by visitors is 

concentrated mostly in developed areas, such 

as along the Cactus Forest Loop Road, the 

visitor centers, and Picture Rocks Road. 

Animals sensitive to human activities already 

tend to avoid such areas. 

Fire and trail crews would continue to use 

Manning Camp as a staging area. The level of 

activity would remain unchanged into the 

future. Wildlife sensitive to human activity 

would continue to avoid the area when the 

camp is in use. 

The presence of hikers would continue to 

disturb some sensitive wildlife occasionally, 

such as mountain lions, but this disturbance 

would be temporary and would not affect the 

health or viability of the park’s wildlife 

populations. The primary impact to wildlife 

would be the continued fragmentation of 

habitat within and outside the park 

boundaries. 

Injury or death of wildlife from motor vehicles 

on roads would continue. Some animals 

probably would continue to be attracted by 

visitors offering food or to areas where food 

and garbage are left out. The long-term 

adverse effects on wildlife from all the above 

activities would be minor. 

Cumulative Effects. The rehabilitation of 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive had negligible longterm adverse impacts on wildlife. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the types and distribution of 

habitat available to wildlife. The areas have 

been zoned to protect essential habitat while 

allowing for growth and expansion of Tucson. 

An increase in the number of structures and 

people in the currently undeveloped areas 

would reduce the amount of habitat available. 

Development in the Cienega Corridor would 

have the largest impact on wildlife; this is a key 

biological movement corridor for large 

mammals because it connects the Rincon 

Mountains with the Santa Rita and Empire 

Mountains. The long-term adverse impacts 

would be moderate. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

continue to protect the area. This would have 

a long-term beneficial effect on wildlife. 

Increasing the protection of this biological 

corridor would allow easier movement of 

wildlife between mountain ranges. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres 

of land, of which almost 130,000 acres is 

federal property. This action would continue 

to have a long-term minor beneficial impact 

on wildlife in the region. 

Overall, when the effects of alternative 1 were 

added to other actions within and outside the 

park, there would be moderate long-term 

adverse cumulative impacts on area wildlife 

populations. Alternative 1’s portion of this 

impact would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Minor long-term adverse effects 

on park wildlife populations would continue 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

189 

under alternative 1 in local areas, primarily in 

developed areas, from the presence of visitors 

and staff. Moderate long-term adverse 

cumulative effects would be expected on the 

area’s wildlife populations. Alternative 1’s 

portion of this impact would be relatively 

small. The level of these adverse effects would 

not be sufficient to constitute an impairment 

of park resources or values. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

Analysis. Alternative 1 would have increases 

in visitation that could affect the park’s four 

threatened, endangered, candidate species, or 

state specie of special concern: lesser longnosed bat, Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed 

cuckoo, and cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. 

Although visitor use levels could increase 

slightly in the future, these species would not 

likely be adversely affected because they most 

likely already avoid areas where they could be 

disturbed by human-caused noise or activity. 

Impacts on plant species of special concern 

would continue to be localized, but would not 

likely adversely affect plant populations over 

the long term. 

Increases in visitors would most likely be 

concentrated in the Tucson Mountain District 

and the lower elevations of the Rincon 

Mountain District. This would be in or near 

potential cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and 

lesser long-nosed bat habitat, but the people 

in these areas would not necessarily keep 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls and lesser 

long-nosed bats from dispersing into and 

using the areas. The cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl is active mostly during daylight 

hours. The presence of people could 

discourage nesting and feeding activities in 

high-use areas. However, cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owls have not been confirmed to be in 

the park since 1995. The chance of encounters 

with people or disturbance due to human 

activity is low because off-trail travel is 

prohibited below 4,500 feet and the owls have 

a maximum elevation range of 4, 000 feet. 

Optimal habitat is abundant in the park, and 

the small amount that would be disturbed due 

to visitation would leave the owls plenty of 

acreage to nest and feed with minimal 

disturbance. The bats, which are mostly 

nocturnal, would be in the areas when few 

people were present. 

Fire and trail crews would continue to use 

Manning Camp as a staging area. The level of 

activity would remain unchanged into the 

future. Manning Camp is in or near Mexican 

spotted owl habitat. Owls would continue to 

avoid the area and probably would nest 

elsewhere on the mountain during activities at 

the site. The activities may affect but would 

not likely adversely affect the owls. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat is primarily 

riparian areas. The primary habitat for the 

cuckoo would be at the Madrona and Rincon 

Creek area. The visitation levels at this 

location in the park should remain low as it 

difficult area to access due to the long hiking 

distance from any trailheads. The continued 

protection of the Madrona and Rincon Creek 

area with low visitation levels would continue 

to provide habitat for transient and breeding 

cuckoos. 

Cumulative Effects. The rehabilitation of 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive had no effect on the 

lesser long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted owl, 

and the yellow-billed cuckoo. It was 

determined to not likely adversely affect the 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the types and distribution of 

habitat. The construction of additional 

residential and commercial developments in 

open space between existing public lands 

would further increase habitat fragmentation. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

190

Pima County has adopted the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan and changed their land use 

zoning accordingly, which may reduce some 

impacts associated with continued development outside the park. This plan is designed to 

allow for growth while protecting the county’s 

unique biological resources. The development 

in the region would not likely adversely affect 

special status species because they are 

following an approved habitat conservation 

plan. However, if the zoning is changed so 

that it no longer follows the conservation plan 

recommendations, the long-term impacts 

would be adverse and major. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses. This would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on special 

status species. Maintaining the biological 

corridor connecting the mountain ranges 

would ensure that a variety of riparian and 

desert habitats remain available. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres 

of land, of which almost 130,000 acres is 

federal property. This would not likely 

adversely affect and would most likely 

continue to have a long-term beneficial impact 

on special status species in the region. 

The Gila topminnow is proposed to be 

reintroduced to the park by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service when habitat conditions 

support reintroduction. This would have a 

potential beneficial effect on the topminnow 

populations if efforts are successful. 

Adding the above effects from other actions to 

those of alternative 1 would not likely 

adversely cumulatively affect the park’s listed 

species and special status species. Alternative 

1 would contribute a relatively small amount 

to these cumulative impacts. 

Conclusion. Even with increased visitation, 

alternative 1 would not be likely to adversely 

affect the listed species in the park. The 

cumulative effects from alternative 1 and 

other actions would not be likely to adversely 

affect these species. Alternative 1 would 

contribute a relatively small amount to these 

cumulative impacts. The park’s resources and 

values would not be impaired by any changes 

in the park’s special status species. 

Soils/Geologic Resources 

Analysis. Soils would continue to be compacted and altered in local areas by hikers, 

backpackers, and horseback riders in the park. 

Soil compaction would continue in areas 

where vehicles are parked on road shoulders. 

In some areas, such as the Cactus Forest area 

in the Rincon Mountain District, erosion 

would continue from “social” trails created by 

visitors. These long-term adverse impacts 

would be minor because the effects would be 

localized and comprise a relatively small 

portion of the park. 

Cumulative Effects. The recent rehabilitation 

of Cactus Forest Loop Drive had a short-term 

adverse impact on soils due to increased 

impervious area. Long-term impacts due to 

restoration of most of the soils compacted in 

this rehabilitation project were negligible and 

beneficial. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the soils surrounding the 

park. The construction of additional 

residential and commercial developments in 

open space between existing public lands 

would further increase the amount of 

impervious area. 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

191 

Pima County has adopted the Sonoran Desert 

Conservation Plan and changed their land use 

zoning accordingly, which may reduce some 

impacts associated with continued development outside the park. The development in 

the region would have a moderate long-term 

adverse impact on soils. However, if the 

zoning is changed so that it no longer follows 

the conservation plan recommendations, the 

long-term impacts would be adverse and 

major. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on soils in 

the region. Reducing the amount of development occurring in this corridor would minimize the impacts associated with expansion of 

Tucson. This action would have a long-term 

minor beneficial impact on soils in the region. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres, 

of which almost 130,000 acres is federal 

property. Development in the national 

monument should be limited. These actions 

would continue to have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on soils in the region. 

Overall, the impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 1, would have moderate, long-term 

adverse cumulative impacts on soils in the 

region. The contribution of alternative 1 to 

these cumulative impacts would be relatively 

small. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would result in 

long-term minor adverse effects on soils in 

localized areas caused primarily by continued 

use of the park by visitors. The adverse 

cumulative effects on soils would be moderate 

and long-term; alternative 1’s contribution to 

these cumulative impacts would be relatively 

small. The effects on soils from this alternative 

would not result in any impairment of park 

resources or values. 

Soundscapes 

Analysis. No new actions would be taken 

under alternative 1 that would result in 

appreciable changes in noise levels. Increases 

in visitation over time would result in a slight 

increase in vehicle traffic and associated noise, 

causing a long-term minor local adverse effect 

in the vicinity of roads and parking areas. Park 

machinery and visitors also would continue to 

generate noise, most of which would continue 

to be confined to primary developed visitor 

and administrative areas, including the Cactus 

Forest Loop and Picture Rocks Road. The 

long-term adverse impacts on soundscapes 

would be minor. 

Cumulative Effects. At different times, shortterm minor adverse effects from noise would 

be caused by park construction machinery, for 

example during the recent repaving of the 

Cactus Forest Loop and paving the scenic 

Bajada Loop Drive. 

Outside the park, the construction of the Twin 

Peaks Interchange could cause temporary 

increased commuter traffic on through-park 

roads in the Tucson Mountain District, which 

would increase noise associated with vehicles 

in the park. Over the short term, the Twin 

Peaks interchange could reduce the volume of 

traffic in the park because commuters would 

have another available route. Over the long 

term, according to the Pima Association of 

Governments, Picture Rocks Road volume 

will increase due to the increased population 

on the west side of the park. This would be a 

negligible, long-term adverse impact on the 

soundscape. Commercial and military aircraft 

would continue to regularly fly over the park 

generating noise intrusions in both units. 

Aircraft would continue to have a short-term 

moderate impact on the soundscape during 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

192

the actual flyover, and a long-term minor 

adverse impact because the number of 

flyovers should continue to be relatively small. 

Overall, these effects added to noise caused by 

visitors and park operations under alternative 

1 would result in short-term moderate adverse 

and long-term minor adverse cumulative 

noise effects in local areas. Alternative 1 

would have a modest contribution to these 

cumulative effects. 

Conclusion. Most of Saguaro National Park 

would continue to be relatively quiet under 

alternative 1. However, there would continue 

to be long-term minor adverse effects on the 

park’s soundscape in local areas, largely from 

visitation and administrative activities in 

developed areas. Noise from activities 

proposed in alternative 1 added to noise from 

other actions within and outside the park 

could result in short-term moderate adverse 

and long-term minor adverse cumulative 

effects in local areas. Alternative 1 would have 

a modest contribution to these cumulative 

effects. These effects would not constitute an 

impairment of park resources or values. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Archeological resources adjacent to 

or easily accessible to visitors from trails, roads, 

and picnic areas, and from designated backcountry campgrounds in the Rincon Mountain 

District, would continue to be vulnerable to 

surface disturbance, inadvertent damage, and 

vandalism. Deterioration of cultural remains 

could result by way of a loss of surface 

archeological materials, alteration of artifact 

distribution, or a reduction of contextual 

evidence, which would be adverse impacts on 

archeological resources. However, continued 

ranger patrolling and emphasis on visitor 

education would discourage vandalism and 

inadvertent destruction of cultural remains, and 

any adverse impacts would be expected to be 

minimal if any. 

As appropriate, additional archeological surveys would precede any ground disturbance 

associated with excavation or the demolition 

of structures, such as the razing or removal of 

the Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

Building in the Madrona Area. National 

register eligible or listed archeological 

resources would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible and no adverse effects would 

be anticipated. If such resources could not be 

avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the 

Arizona state historic preservation officer. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the park such as trails, roads, housing, visitor 

centers, Manning Cabin, the later tentplatform camping at Manning Camp for trail 

workers and fire fighters, and the 1933–1941 

construction of frame and adobe structures 

and rustic stone picnic facilities by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps may have resulted in 

disturbance. There could have been loss of 

some archeological resources during 

excavation and construction activities, 

adversely impacting archeological resources. 

In addition, agricultural, ranching, and mining 

practices; the development of the historic 

town of Tucson and current city — with its 

rapidly growing population and associated 

new residential areas and industrial parks, 

such as the University of Arizona Science and 

Technology Park, including the metropolitan 

and surrounding regional development of 

pedestrian walkways and hiking trails and 

routes and trails for bicycles on municipal and 

county lands and those of other federal 

agencies — may also have adversely disturbed 

archeological resources. Some of these types 

of activities continue, such as the growth and 

expansion of residential areas impinging upon 

Saguaro National Park, and could also result 

in future adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

193 

As described above the impacts associated 

with implementing alternative 1 would result 

in predominantly no adverse effects on the 

park’s archeological resources. However, the 

few potential adverse impacts associated with 

alternative 1, in combination with the adverse 

impacts of other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, both within and 

outside the park, would result in an adverse 

cumulative impact. The adverse impacts of 

alternative 1 would only contribute minimally 

to the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Continued management actions 

under the no-action alternative would include 

minimal new construction, and no new 

adverse impacts on archeological resources 

would be anticipated. In the event that 

impacts on national-register-eligible archeological resources could not be avoided, a 

memorandum of agreement, in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse 

Effects, would be negotiated between Saguaro 

National Park and the Arizona state historic 

preservation officer (and/or the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum of agreement would 

stipulate how the adverse effects would be 

mitigated. 

The few potential adverse impacts associated 

with alternative 1, in combination with 

adverse impacts of actions by others, would 

result in an adverse cumulative impact. The 

adverse impacts of alternative 1 would only 

contribute minimally to the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities 

for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan 

or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

there would be no impairment of the park’s 

resources or values. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. As settings for continuity or change, 

the desert and mountainous areas of Saguaro 

National Park are important characterdefining features of the various potential 

cultural landscapes suggested in the cultural 

affected environment section of this 

document. Under alternative 1, closure and 

revegetation of social trails would continue, 

which would result in no adverse effects on 

potential cultural landscapes. The revegetation would have a beneficial impact upon such 

landscapes by returning them to more of a 

semblance of their historic appearances in the 

natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. There 

would be no impacts on any cultural 

landscapes from new construction because 

none would occur under alternative 1. 

Before the demolition of any structures, the 

structures would be evaluated to determine if 

they are contributing elements to a nationalregister eligible cultural landscape. If removal 

of a structure that is a contributing element to 

a national-register eligible cultural landscape 

would occur, appropriate documentation 

recording the structure would be prepared. 

This would be in accordance with Section 110 

(b) of the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966, as amended. Submittal of the 

documentation would be to the NPS Historic 

American Buildings Survey / Historic 

American Engineering Record / Historic 

American Landscapes Survey (HABS/ 

HAER/HALS) program. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the park — such as mining and lime-making 

activities, trails, roads, housing, visitor centers, 

Manning Cabin, the later tent-platform 

camping at Manning Camp for trail workers 

and fire fighters, and the 1933-1941 

construction of frame and adobe structures 

and rustic stone picnic facilities by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps — has resulted in the 

creation of potential historic cultural landscapes. With the cessation of original land 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

194

uses, certain structures, such as the lime kilns, 

have deteriorated. 

Prehistoric and historic human occupation 

and habitation including agricultural, 

ranching, and mining practices and the 

development of the historic town of Tucson 

and the current residential and industrial 

spread of the city have contributed to the 

history and current conditions of the potential 

cultural landscapes referred to in the cultural 

affected environment section of this 

document. Some of these types of activities 

continue, such as the growth and expansion of 

residential areas impinging upon Saguaro 

National Park, and could result in future 

adverse impacts on cultural landscapes. 

The recent (2006) rehabilitation of Cactus 

Forest Drive was done in accordance with the 

1995 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties, and there 

was no adverse effect. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative 1 would 

result in predominantly no adverse effects to 

the park’s potential cultural landscapes. 

However, the few potential adverse impacts 

associated with alternative 1, in combination 

with the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, both within and outside the park, 

would result in an adverse cumulative impact. 

The adverse impacts of alternative 1 would 

only contribute minimally to the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. No adverse effects would be 

associated with revegetation of social trails 

because such rehabilitation would have a 

beneficial impact upon potential cultural 

landscapes by returning them to more of a 

semblance of their historic appearances in the 

natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. 

Continued management actions under the noaction alternative would include minimal new 

construction, and no adverse impacts on 

cultural landscapes would be anticipated. In 

the event that impacts on any nationalregister-eligible cultural landscapes could not 

be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, in 

accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.6, Resolution 

of Adverse Effects, would be negotiated 

between Saguaro National Park and the 

Arizona state historic preservation officer 

(and/or the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, if necessary). The memorandum 

of agreement would stipulate how the adverse 

effects would be mitigated. 

The few potential adverse impacts associated 

with alternative 1, in combination with the 

adverse impacts of actions by others, would 

result in an adverse cumulative impact. The 

adverse impacts of alternative 1 would only 

contribute minimally to the adverse 

cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified 

as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents, there would be no impairment of the 

park’s resources or values. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Saguaro fruit harvesting by the 

Tohono O’odham in the southwestern corner 

of the park would continue via the annual 

issuing of a special permit, which would be a 

minor, beneficial, long-term impact for the 

Tohono O’odham because it would help 

perpetuate Tohono O’odham culture. 

Continuing the traffic conditions of often high 

speeds and high noise levels on Sandario and 

Kinney roads would continue a minor, 

adverse, long-term impact on the area selected 

by the Tohono O’odham as an ethnographic 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

195 

resource to harvest saguaro fruit because it 

would continue to detract from the area’s 

tranquility and make it less suitable for this 

fruit gathering practice. 

Cumulative Impacts. The past, current, and 

foreseeable park practice of tolerating highspeed/high noise level traffic conditions on 

Sandario and Kinney roads would continue to 

adversely affect the harvesting of saguaro fruit 

by detracting from the area’s tranquility and 

thus making it less suitable for the traditional 

use associated with plant gathering. This 

adverse impact would be minor and long term 

on the Tohono O’odham. 

The past park practice of allowing the 

harvesting of saguaro fruit by the Tohono 

O’odham in the park’s Tucson Mountain 

District would help support the practice of 

gathering saguaro fruit in the region (on the 

Tohono O’odham reservation), thus helping 

to perpetuate Tohono O’odham culture. This 

beneficial impact would be minor and long 

term on the Tohono O’odham. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative 1 are both 

beneficial and adverse on the park’s 

ethnographic resources. Accordingly, the 

actions associated with alternative 1 would 

contribute both beneficial, minor, long-term 

impacts and adverse, minor, long-term 

impacts to any cumulative impact. The 

beneficial impacts of implementing alternative 

1, however, would be very small components 

of the minor, beneficial, and long-term 

cumulative impact associated with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

both within and outside the park. 

Conclusion. Implementing alternative 1 

would impact adversely at a minor intensity 

level for the long term harvesting of saguaro 

fruit in the park area selected for this purpose 

as an ethnographic resource by the Tohono 

O’odham because high speed/high noise 

traffic would continue and would likely 

increase in this area. There would be a longterm minor beneficial impact from continuing 

the fruit-collecting practice in the park via 

permit. 

There would be minor, beneficial, and longterm cumulative impact associated with other 

actions both within and outside the park; 

implementing alternative 1 would be a small 

contributor to these cumulative impacts. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified 

as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning documents there would be no impairment of park 

resources or values. 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. To appropriately preserve and 

protect national-register-listed or -eligible 

historic structures, all stabilization, preservation and rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, 

cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, would be 

undertaken in accordance with the 1995 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. Stabilization, 

preservation, and rehabilitation would have 

no adverse effects upon historic structures 

and cultural landscapes. Sixty-five structures 

are entered in the NPS List of Classified 

Structures, which means that these entries are 

either listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places or eligible for listing. They 

would be managed for historic preservation. 

This List of Classified Structures is given in 

appendix H. 

Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

Building at Madrona. The Civilian 

Aeronautical Administration (CAA) building 

in the Madrona Area of the Rincon Mountain 

District would be monitored. The result of the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

196

action of alternative 1 would be no adverse 

effect on this historic property because 

periodic monitoring would determine what 

aspects of the CAA building might need 

stabilization from time to time to preserve it. 

Manning Cabin and Manning Dam at 

Manning Camp. Continuing to use Manning 

Camp for fire crew activities as part of a major 

fire-fighting base in the Rincon Mountains 

means that the existing level of general wear 

and tear on the historic fabric of the cabin 

would continue. There would be an adverse 

impact on the historic fabric. This conclusion 

is based upon findings of the recent report 

“Condition Assessment, Evaluation and 

Recommendations for Repair and Preservation, Manning Cabin at Manning Camp” (NPS 

2005a). There would be no change regarding 

Manning Dam and no adverse effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, historic 

structures in the park, such as remnant lime 

kilns, adobe, and other remains of Camp 

Pima, and the scant remains of the Freeman 

Homestead, have been adversely impacted by 

the wear and tear associated with visitation 

and by natural processes like weathering. 

Also, change has occurred among the CCC 

stone picnic structures, so much so that “the 

only structures that have survived in their 

original appearance are the bathrooms” (NPS 

1987a:225). Historic fabric in the form of 

adobe and brick houses associated with the 

settlement and subsequent growth of Tucson 

has been lost in the region, which is an adverse 

effect. Related to these houses, lime “for use 

as mortar or whitewash” (NPS 1987a:112) 

came from the lime kilns in what is now the 

park. Historic fabric has been lost — an 

adverse impact — because of settlement, 

mining, and ranching, and because of the 

spread of urban population growth and 

modernization. 

As a historic structure, Cactus Forest Drive 

would continue to be preserved by maintaining its naturalistic and rustic Civilian 

Conservation Corps road design. This design 

accommodates scenic views and shows 

natural features to their best advantage — like 

stands of native cacti. Distinctive construction 

features such as retaining walls and guard 

walls and culverts of native stone would 

continue to be rehabilitated for historic 

preservation in accordance with the 

secretary’s standards. There would be no 

adverse effect from continuing these actions. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative 1 are both 

not adverse and adverse on the park’s historic 

structures. Accordingly, the actions associated 

with alternative 1 would contribute both no 

adverse and adverse impacts to any 

cumulative impact. The adverse impacts of 

implementing alternative 1, however, would 

be very small components of the cumulative 

adverse impact associated with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

both within and outside the park. 

Conclusion. There would be no adverse 

effect concerning the monitoring of the CAA 

building, and there would be an adverse effect 

with the continuation of existing fire management and trail maintenance operations on the 

historic fabric of Manning Cabin at Manning 

Camp. There would be no change regarding 

Manning Dam and no adverse effect. 

The overall cumulative impact on historic 

structures would remain adverse; the impacts 

of implementing alternative 1 would be a very 

small component of this cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified 

as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant National Park Service 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

197 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Range of Recreational Opportunities 

In this alternative, visitor experiences of the 

park’s resources would continue to be mostly 

positive. Visitors would continue to have 

access to high-quality recreational opportunities, including close interaction with the sights 

and sounds of the Sonoran Desert, which is 

considered the most important element of 

most visitors’ experiences. Therefore, 

continuing to provide these high-quality 

opportunities would result in a continued 

long-term major beneficial impact for visitors. 

During scoping, most respondents 

acknowledged their enjoyment of the park’s 

recreational opportunities and suggested that 

the amount of opportunities should be 

maintained close to current levels. This 

alternative would continue existing 

opportunities, resulting in a continuing long 

term major beneficial impact. However, 

during scoping, some respondents mentioned 

the need for increased opportunities for 

bicyclists, especially to provide connections to 

regional trails on other public lands adjacent 

to the park. Bicycling opportunities would 

remain limited in terms of the number of trail 

opportunities and the lack of connections to 

regional trails in this alternative, resulting in a 

continuing long term moderate adverse 

impact for visitors seeking this type of 

recreational opportunity. 

Some respondents mentioned the need to 

reduce use of the park by bicyclists and 

horseback riders, citing concern over user 

conflicts and potential resource impacts, 

particularly from horseback riders on high 

elevation trails. The existing mix of recreation 

opportunities would be maintained in this 

alternative, so visitors who are experiencing 

user conflicts from different types of 

recreational users on the same trails would 

continue to experience a long term minor 

adverse impact in this alternative. 

Further, there was some concern over the 

amount of automobile traffic on roads passing 

through the park, particularly the Tucson 

Mountain District, which impacts scenic 

driving opportunities as well as poses potential risks to visitor safety. Under this alternative current impacts from commuter traffic on 

through-park roads would continue, and it is 

likely that this type of use would only increase, 

resulting in a long term major adverse impact 

on scenic driving opportunities. 

Opportunities for Solitude and 

Getting in Touch with Nature 

The park continues to provide outstanding 

opportunities for solitude and getting in touch 

with nature in an increasingly urban setting. 

During public scoping, many respondents 

indicated that the wilderness values of the 

national park, such as naturalness, opportunities for self-discovery, quiet, scenic vistas, and 

solitude, made the park a unique and special 

place and should be protected for such values. 

The wilderness areas at Saguaro National Park 

are particularly valued because they provide 

the highest level of protection for the park’s 

opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation, which are becoming rare in the 

region. The continuation of these types of 

opportunities in both units of the park is a 

long-term major beneficial impact. 

Some of the current impacts to opportunities 

for solitude are related to traffic conditions on 

Picture Rocks and Sandario Roads, which are 

near the designated wilderness area in the 

Tucson Mountain District. The current 

volume and speed of automobiles affect the 

natural ambient soundscape for up to 2 miles 

away from the roads, much of which is 

designated wilderness (Ambrose and Florian 

2006). This alternative would not affect the 

current traffic conditions on the road, 

allowing the long-term moderate adverse 

impact on opportunities for solitude to 

continue in the immediately adjacent 

wilderness area. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

198

Visitor Access, including Access 

for Visitors with Disabilities 

The park currently has two main access points 

to both units near each of the main visitor 

centers. In addition, there are several trailhead 

access points around the park boundary to 

provide access to the park’s trail systems and 

day use picnic areas. 

During scoping, some respondents expressed 

concerns over high levels of use and access to 

certain portions of the park’s wilderness. 

There was some discussion about increasing 

access from non-designated locations along 

the park’s boundary by neighbors to the park 

that may damage resources and increase 

conflicts between recreationists. This alternative would not take any steps to alleviate 

these impacts, resulting in a continuing longterm minor adverse impact. In contrast, a 

number of respondents during the scoping 

process stated that the park needs additional 

access points, especially in some of the park’s 

expansion areas, to provide access. Implementation of the no-action alternative would 

result in a continuing long-term minor 

adverse impact for visitors seeking these new 

access opportunities. 

Another access-related concern is safety and 

user conflicts occurring at the Broadway, 

Douglas Springs, and Kings Canyon trailheads 

due to high levels of use, haphazard parking, 

and pedestrian and automobile conflicts. This 

alternative would maintain the status quo, 

thereby continuing a long-term moderate 

adverse impact for visitors that use these areas 

to access the park. 

Access to the Madrona/Chimenea area has 

also been a topic of interest for many local 

residents that frequently visit the park. There 

has been a long-term debate over the 

appropriate level of access to this sensitive 

riparian area. This alternative would continue 

current access to this area, which precludes 

most visitors except those residents directly 

adjacent to the park’s boundary in the X-9 

ranch subdivision. This would continue to be 

a long term minor adverse impact on visitors 

seeking more access to the site. 

Another access-related concern is the amount 

of automobile traffic on roads passing through 

the park, particularly the Tucson Mountain 

District, which impacts scenic driving opportunities, as noted above, as well as general 

visitor access opportunities to the Tucson 

Mountain District. The amount of traffic and 

high levels of speed on Picture Rocks Road 

conflict with visitors wishing to access this 

district via Interstate 10 because of the unsafe 

and unpleasant road conditions. Under this 

alternative, park staff would not direct or encourage visitors to use this route to enter or 

exit the park, continuing a long-term 

moderate adverse impact on visitor access 

opportunities. 

One of the topics of most interest to the park’s 

partners and the public was the connection of 

regional trails to the park, providing new 

travel routes through the park to other public 

lands. This alternative would maintain current 

trail access points, continuing a long-term 

moderate adverse impact for visitors 

interested in connections with regional trails. 

Finally, the park has several facilities, 

including one interpretive trail in each district 

that is accessible to disabled visitors. Many 

respondents during the scoping process 

indicated support for more trail opportunities 

for disabled visitors. This alternative would 

maintain the limited accessible trail 

opportunities in each district, continuing a 

long-term minor adverse impact for visitors 

interested in more accessible trails. 

Opportunities for Orientation, 

Education, and Interpretation 

There are visitor centers at both districts of 

the park that offer numerous programs and 

services for visitor orientation and education. 

However, the Rincon Mountain District 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

199 

visitor center was designed and built in the 

1950s, and the exhibits have seen only 

superficial upgrades since then. Also, the 

facility can no longer handle the volume of 

visitors that it now receives, which restricts 

some visitors from getting information during 

peak times. The public commented during the 

scoping effort for this management plan on 

the need to update the Rincon Mountain 

District visitor center. This alternative would 

maintain the current visitor center, thereby 

continuing a long-term moderate adverse 

impact on visitor opportunities for orientation 

and education in this district. 

In addition, the public commented during 

scoping that there was a need to expand 

interpretation and education opportunities, 

including guided programs and opportunities 

outside the park boundaries (e.g., school 

partnerships). Further, the public noted the 

need for reaching out to a diverse local community for resource and cultural education 

opportunities, including improved meeting 

places in the park for school/ community 

group programs. This alternative would not 

provide any additional program or partnership opportunities or facilities for education 

and interpretation services, continuing a longterm minor adverse impact. 

Visitor Safety 

There have been 155 accidents (3 fatalities and 

42 injuries) on Picture Rocks Road and 95 

accidents (1 fatality and 40 injuries) on 

Sandario Road between 1998 and 2005 

(Saguaro National Park, Chief Ranger, pers. 

comm. with Kerri Cahill, NPS Denver Service 

Center, 7/2006). In addition to actual safety 

conflicts, there are perceived safety conflicts 

on the road due to high volumes and speeds of 

traffic during commuting hours. Many 

respondents commented on their concerns of 

safety along the through-park roads, particularly Picture Rocks Road. Many respondents 

asked that the National Park Service make 

safety improvements to the roadways. This 

alternative would not change the current 

management of the roads that cross through 

the park, continuing a long-term moderate 

adverse impact to real and perceived visitor 

safety in the Tucson Mountain District unit. 

Safety information would continue to be 

available, although occasional crowding at the 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

would continue to make it difficult to gain a 

comprehensive understanding of safety 

factors, leading to a long-term minor adverse 

impact. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several recent or proposed projects in the 

region may contribute to cumulative impacts 

on the visitor experience at both districts. 

Regarding the range of recreational opportunities, the Pima Association of Governments’ 2030 Transportation Plan proposes the 

addition of the Twin Peaks highway interchange at Interstate 10, which might, in the 

short term, alleviate some of the commuting 

traffic pressure along Picture Rocks Road, a 

continuing negative impact in this alternative. 

If implemented, in combination with alternative 1, this interchange might improve the 

traffic conditions on this road, which would 

improve park scenic driving opportunities and 

result in a short-term cumulative minor 

beneficial impact. 

However, over the long term, the Pima 

Association of Governments predicts that the 

traffic volume on Picture Rocks Road will 

increase, even with the proposed interchange, 

due to the increased growth of residential 

development on the west side of the park. 

With the increase of traffic volume on Picture 

Rocks Road over the long term, the proposed 

interchange, in combination with alternative 

1, would have a long-term negligible beneficial 

cumulative impact on scenic driving 

opportunities for park visitors. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

200

Other projects that may influence the range of 

recreational opportunities in Saguaro 

National Park include the designation of new 

public lands near both districts of the park. 

The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

is south of the Rincon Mountain District and 

the Ironwood Forest National Monument is 

near the western boundary of the Tucson 

Mountain District. Both of these new public 

conservation lands are managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management and are undergoing 

planning at this time. 

It is likely that these new lands would improve 

nature-based recreation opportunities in the 

region and help balance the range of recreational opportunities offered to regional visitors, including people that may visit Saguaro. 

The Ironwood Forest National Monument 

would provide extensive motor touring and 

bicycling opportunities, and the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would increase 

the amount of wildlife watching and primitive 

hiking opportunities that are available nearby. 

In summary, recreational opportunities on 

these new designated conservation lands, in 

combination with the continuing opportunities at Saguaro under alternative 1, would be a 

long-term moderate beneficial cumulative 

impact. 

Regarding opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature, the proposed 

Twin Peaks interchange would likely, in the 

short term, affect current impacts on 

opportunities for solitude that are related to 

traffic noise near the designated wilderness 

area in the Tucson Mountain District. The 

short-term improved traffic conditions 

resulting from the proposed interchange, in 

combination with alternative 1, would be a 

short-term negligible to minor beneficial 

cumulative impact on opportunities for 

solitude in the surrounding wilderness area. 

However, as noted above, the traffic volume 

on Picture Rocks Road is expected to increase 

in the long term even with the proposed interchange, leading to a long-term negligible 

beneficial cumulative impact on opportunities 

for solitude in the surrounding wilderness 

area. 

Regarding visitor access, the proposed Twin 

Peaks highway interchange at Interstate 10 

might, in the short term, improve visitor 

access opportunities to the north end of the 

Tucson Mountain District. However, with the 

long-term increase in traffic volumes, this 

proposed interchange, in combination with 

alternative 1, would be a long-term negligible 

beneficial cumulative impact on visitor access 

opportunities. 

There are no projects contributing to 

cumulative impacts regarding opportunities 

for orientation, education, and interpretation. 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative 

impacts on orientation, education, and 

interpretation under alternative 1. 

The proposed Twin Peaks interchange would 

also likely contribute to cumulative impacts 

on visitor safety. Current conditions, which 

would continue in this alternative, result in 

real and perceived visitor safety conflicts 

along Picture Rocks Road. The interchange, in 

combination with alternative 1, would likely 

improve traffic conditions by reducing use 

levels and changing the pattern of use from 

predominately commuters to national park 

visitors, resulting in slower speed levels, a 

short-term moderate beneficial cumulative 

impact on visitor safety. However, the 

increase in traffic volumes over the long term 

would result in a long-term negligible beneficial cumulative impact on visitor safety from 

the proposed interchange. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 1 would result in major beneficial 

impacts from continued opportunities to 

participate in diverse recreational opportunities that bring visitors in close contact 

with one of the most interesting and unusual 

collections of desert life in the United States, 

including the highly valued opportunities for 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

201 

solitude and getting in touch with nature. 

However, minor to major adverse impacts on 

the visitor experience from user conflicts on 

trails, limited bicycling opportunities, 

increasing use in wilderness areas that may 

threaten visitors’ opportunities for solitude, 

and increasing commuter traffic along 

through-park roads would continue. 

The designation of new public land conservation areas near both districts of the park in 

combination with the recreational and visitor 

experience opportunities provided by Saguaro 

would have moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts on the range of recreational opportunities and opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature. Also, in combination with alternative 1, the proposed new 

Twin Peaks interchange would have negligible 

long-term beneficial cumulative impacts on 

the range of recreational opportunities, visitor 

access, and visitor safety due to the increase in 

residential development on the west side of 

the park that would likely offset any 

improvements of traffic conditions on Picture 

Rocks Road resulting from the interchange. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis 

Alternative 1 provides for a continuation of 

national park management as it currently 

exists. Natural resources would continue to be 

preserved, and the range of visitor uses and 

experiences would continue to be provided as 

they were outlined under the 1988 General 

Management Plan. Based on anticipated 

population growth both locally and regionally, 

the number of potential visitors to the 

national park would likely increase in the long 

term. However, with no enhanced visitor uses 

and experiences occurring under alternative 1, 

visitation may not increase proportionately 

with population growth in the area. This could 

result in a minor long-term reduction of the 

importance of national-park-generated 

economic activity (i.e., direct spending by 

national park visitors and secondary 

distribution of spending in the community) 

relative to the dynamics of the local changing 

and growing economy. 

According to the Money Generation Model, 

total visitor spending associated with the 

national park was estimated at $39.67 million 

in 2003. This level of use translated in direct 

effects estimated at $33.44 million in sales, 

$5.59 million in personal income, 821 jobs, 

and $17.92 million in value added, and 

secondary effects estimated at $15.41 million 

in sales, $5.59 million in personal income, 218 

jobs, and $9.66 million in value added. 

Therefore, the total effects of the national 

park in 2003 were estimated at of $48.85 

million in sales, $17.52 million in personal 

income, 1,039 jobs, and $27.58 million in value 

added (NPS 2006d). If visitation does not 

increase proportionately with population and 

economic growth in the community, the 

relative importance of the economic activity 

associated with the national park (i.e., the 

impact of visitor spending in terms of sales, 

personal income, jobs, and value added from 

the money generation model) may lessen, 

even if visitor spending dollars increase from 

year to year. Ultimately, this continued 

pattern could reduce abilities to maintain 

current standards of service in the park. This 

would produce a moderate long-term adverse 

impact on the park and the local community. 

To place this in context, total domestic visitor 

spending in Arizona in 2003 was estimated at 

$12.14 billion (Arizona Office of Tourism 

2004). Therefore, the estimated $39.67 million 

in spending associated with Saguaro National 

Park represents less than 1% of the state’s 

tourism sector. 

Preservation, protection, and interpretation of 

cultural resources would continue under 

alternative 1 as they exist under the 1988 

General Management Plan. These actions 

further the passive use value of the park, 

which refers to the social value in the 

knowledge that the scarce resources of the 

park exist and are protected for future 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

202

generations. Passive use values are nonmarket values; they have economic value even 

if no money changes hands. These passive use 

values can be held by the surrounding community, including those people that regularly, 

rarely, or never visit the national park. In 

addition, as there is increasing urbanization in 

the vicinity of Saguaro National Park, the 

relative economic value resulting from the 

presence of a large open-space, recreation, 

and natural area amenity such as the national 

park may create continued gains in property 

values and support of resource-based 

industries such as outdoor recreation and 

tourism. Although these impacts are difficult 

to quantify, numerous studies have 

documented that open space can trigger local 

property value increases and other tangible 

economic gains (Muro 2002). The relative 

importance of open landscape, scenic vistas, 

and recreational opportunities and amenities 

represented by Saguaro National Park may 

increase in terms of relationship to economic 

development and quality of life gains for the 

surrounding community. 

Access to the Madrona/Chimenea Area would 

continue to be limited under alternative 1. 

Although this does not have an economic 

impact with regard to Saguaro National Park 

or the community, this action has non-market 

social value in that it preserves cultural 

resources and maintains a sense of place for 

those who have attached personal, 

community, or cultural value to the resources 

and environment in the Madrona/Chimenea 

area. Limitation of access to this area would 

create a moderate long-term adverse impact 

on those excluded or inconvenienced. 

Continued Saguaro National Park visitation 

would potentially result in fiscal impacts on 

the local community in terms of congestion, 

traffic, pollution, law enforcement, road 

repairs, or other public services. The existing 

level of such impacts is minor in context of the 

surrounding community and would not 

change appreciably with implementation of 

alternative 1. However, in terms of traffic and 

road issues, SNP visitation use would 

continue to have an additive impact with nonpark commuter traffic through the Tucson 

Mountain District along Picture Rocks Road. 

Commuter traffic through Saguaro National 

Park would continue as it currently exists 

under the no-action alternative, potentially 

creating a diminished visitor experience, 

resource damage, and safety issues. Based on 

traffic studies and population projections, 

commuter traffic through the Tucson 

Mountain District along Picture Rocks Road 

is expected to increase substantially over the 

next several years. Excessive traffic volume 

and speeds could result in costly damage to 

vegetation and wildlife, and would generate 

costs for road maintenance and repair and 

increased law enforcement. Increased 

roadway use also increases the potential for 

traffic accidents, which produces additional 

costs and can result in personal injury and 

potential loss of life. 

Increased regional population would most 

likely result in increased park use, creating the 

potential for social impacts in the form of 

increased user conflicts and fiscal impacts to 

the local community associated with use of 

the park. Without additional upgrades and 

services, visitation could diminish relative to 

the growing population and economy, 

resulting in a relative decrease in income to 

the park and the surrounding community 

from recreational and tourist use. Adverse 

impacts would most likely be negligible in 

terms of the overall local economy. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Past, present, and future population growth 

and urban development would continue to 

impact the social and economic environment. 

As the population in the area increases, 

demand for accessible recreation areas will 

also increase. Interactive effects of increasing 

urbanization are highlighted in context of the 

assessment of socioeconomic impacts of 

alternative 1 (i.e., the relative importance of 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

203 

Saguaro National Park to the local social and 

economic environment). However, urban 

growth results in changes to land use; changes 

in demographics; perceived changes in quality 

of life; ways in which people live, work, play, 

and relate to one another; community 

uniqueness; social relationship/interactions; 

community organization; and people-place 

connections/sense of place. There are 

increasingly perceived conflicts between 

traditional and new attitudes and values. The 

park’s general management plan has 

interactive and additive impacts with the 

changing socioeconomic dynamics of the 

community. Overall, the implementation of 

alternative 1 in combination with population 

growth and increasing urban development 

would continue the park’s role in providing 

islands of open space and wilderness for the 

community. This would in result in a 

moderate to major long-term beneficial 

impact for those areas closest to the park 

districts and dissipate to minor levels in 

context of the community as a whole. 

Within Saguaro National Park, the primary 

project having the potential to provide 

cumulative effects is the recent (fall 2006) 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive Rehabilitation 

project in the Rincon Mountain District. 

Completion of this project enhances the 

visitor experience. Economic gains were 

realized from increased employment 

opportunities during the construction and 

maintenance phases and the protection of 

natural resources through improved traffic 

coordination. Resource damage and 

expenditures to replace and repair damage is 

decreasing. These socioeconomic impacts are 

additive to those that would occur under 

alternative 1. Although there would be some 

costs associated in the short term, the effect 

associated with completion of the Cactus 

Forest Loop Drive rehabilitation project, in 

conjunction with the impacts of alternative 1, 

would result in a minor long-term beneficial 

cumulative effect. 

Outside Saguaro National Park, a number of 

land use and resource planning efforts are 

underway. These planning efforts would serve 

to coordinate activities in the region. Natural 

resource planning efforts are underway for 

the Cienega Conservation Corridor, 

Ironwood Forest National Monument, Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area, and the 

Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Each of 

these plans places an emphasis on preservation of open space and natural resources. 

Together, and in addition to the park’s general 

management plan, these plans substantially 

affect collective policy for open space and 

natural resource preservation. Planning for 

growth and urban development for which 

future infrastructure and services must be 

provided is the focus of the Pima County 

Comprehensive Plan, the Houghton Area 

Master Plan, the Rincon/Southeast Subregional 

Plan, and the Tucson Mountains Subregional 

Plan. The outcomes of these plans would have 

a direct impact on visitation levels at Saguaro 

National Park and the need for recreational 

services for residents of these surrounding 

communities. 

Finally, The Pima Association of Governments’ 2030 Transportation Plan outlines the 

transportation projects and goals for Pima 

County, including establishing the Twin Peaks 

Interstate 10 Interchange located north of the 

Tucson Mountain District. Construction of 

this new interchange would create an alternative route for commuters along Interstate 10 

between Avra Valley and Picture Rocks Road. 

This action would, potentially lessen traffic 

along Picture Rocks Road through Saguaro 

National Park while simultaneously 

decreasing the associated natural resource 

damage and the costs to maintain the roadway 

that is currently being experienced as a result 

of current heavy use volumes. Combining the 

impacts of implementing the various 

transportation plans along with the impacts of 

the no action alternative would result in a 

major long-term beneficial cumulative effect 

on the park and surrounding community. 

 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

204

Conclusion 

Moderate long-term adverse socioeconomic 

effects would occur with continued 

implementation of alternative 1, as the park 

may have difficulty maintaining its high 

standard of service while keeping pace with 

local and regional population growth and 

urban development. Without development of 

improved visitor experience and access, 

visitation might not increase proportionately 

with population and economic growth. In this 

case, the relative importance of the economic 

activity associated with the park in terms of 

visitor spending, sales, personal income, and 

jobs would decrease. 

Taking into consideration the impacts of 

projected population growth, in conjunction 

with the impacts of alternative 1, moderate 

long-term adverse cumulative impacts would 

be expected to occur. Current management 

under alternative 1 by itself would have a 

relatively small contribution to the overall 

cumulative effect. Likewise, the effect of 

concurrently implementing other management plans for the surrounding areas and 

implementation of new urban planning areas 

would create a moderate long-term adverse 

impact on the park’s socioeconomic contribution to the area if no improvement to visitor 

experience and access were to occur. Social 

value that preserves cultural resources and 

maintains a sense of place for those who have 

attached personal, community, or cultural 

value to the localized resources and 

environment would remain unchanged under 

implementation of alternative 1. 

TRANSPORTATION 

Under this alternative, the park would experience growth and traffic-related impacts from 

the rapidly expanding Tucson metropolitan 

area rather than from park-related actions. 

The park would not construct new or modify 

existing transportation facilities, and would 

continue to manage transportation infrastructure and issues with current methods (traffic 

signs and law enforcement ranger patrols). 

Tucson Mountain District 

Circulation. The road network in the park 

would remain as it is, as would the network in 

the area surrounding this district. Although 

Picture Rocks Road is a major access route for 

western Pima County, it is not a primary 

entrance route — the park designates Kinney 

Road for that purpose. 

Although there would be no direct changes in 

circulation, there would be some indirect 

impacts on Twin Peaks Road and Kinney 

Road if non-visitor users divert there to avoid 

congestion and safety problems on Picture 

Rock Road. There would be long-term minor 

adverse effects on both visitors and nonvisitor users from traffic diversion to Twin 

Peaks Road and Kinney Road, due to 

increased travel time and vehicle miles 

traveled associated the traffic diversion. 

Several roadways in, adjacent to or near the 

district are at or near capacity: Picture Rocks 

Road (portions are within the park), Wade 

Road, and Ina Road. All three of these roads 

are along the path of commuters going to and 

from Tucson. The capacity problems 

experienced on Picture Rocks Road are 

largely confined to commuter peaks on 

weekdays, so there is some off-setting capacity 

between peak times for non-visitor users 

(morning and evening rush hours weekdays) 

and visitors (typically 10 am-4 pm weekdays 

and on weekends) 

If congestion and safety levels on Picture 

Rocks Road cause some non-visitor users to 

choose other routes, they would likely divert 

to either Twin Peaks Road (once it is 

connected to I-10) or Kinney Road (resulting 

in some impacts to Sandario Road as well). 

Diversion of non-visitor users from Picture 

Rocks Road would not likely create any 

additional capacity for Picture Rocks Road; 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

205 

like “water seeking its own level” any capacity 

gained by traffic diversion is likely to be offset 

by others seeking to take advantage of any 

temporary capacity. Traffic diversion from 

Picture Rocks Road would result in long-term, 

minor adverse impacts for users on Twin 

Peaks Road and Kinney Road as a result of 

increased traffic volumes and congestion. 

Potential traffic diversion would have a longterm negligible beneficial effect for all users 

on Picture Rocks Road, Ina Road, and Wade 

Road, since these roads are nearing capacity. 

The scenic Bajada Loop Drive circulation and 

roadway alignment currently requires visitors 

to exit the park during their drive on this 

slow-moving, scenic dirt road and temporarily 

travel along Sandario Road, a regional arterial 

with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. Not only 

is this brief change in driver expectation and 

environment jarring for the visitor experience, 

slower-moving visitors also experience user 

conflicts entering and exiting the faster traffic 

on Sandario Road for such a short travel 

distance. Also, some portions of the loop are 

one-way and some are two-way, creating a 

somewhat confusing circulation pattern 

within the park that creates long-term, minor 

adverse impacts for visitors, and no impact on 

non-visitor users. 

Safety. There are numerous, welldocumented and on-going safety concerns on 

Picture Rocks Road. This scenic roadway is 

now predominately traveled by non-visitor 

users (i.e., commuters from western Pima 

County). Excessive speeds for the design of 

the road, visitor/non-visitor user conflicts 

(between commuters and visitors, and trail 

users and through traffic), lack of pullout 

parking, and high accident rates all contribute 

to an environment where the risk of injury to 

visitors remains substantial. 

The Picture Rocks Road/Golden Gate Road 

intersection is on a tight curve, resulting in 

sight distance and other safety concerns. A 

continuation of these conditions under 

alternative 1 would result in a long-term, 

major adverse impact on visitors and nonvisitor users. If congestion and safety 

conditions reach levels that are unacceptable 

to some non-visitor users, they would likely 

divert to either Twin Peaks Road or Kinney 

Road. As traffic increases on Picture Rocks 

Road, slower speeds would result due to 

congested conditions; slower speeds may 

divert commuters to Kinney Road and 

Sandario Road. This diversion would result in 

a “ripple effect” where visitors would be 

impacted by faster-moving commuter traffic 

at additional locations (additive impacts are in 

effect here, since this portion of Sandario 

Road has a very high accident rate). Nonvisitor users would experience long-term, 

minor, adverse impacts from the park’s 

management of Picture Rocks Road in 

alternative 1 because of safety problems 

associated with user conflicts with slowermoving visitors. 

Having a portion of the scenic Bajada Loop 

Drive on Sandario Road would result in a 

long-term, moderate to major adverse impacts 

on visitors and non-visitor users because of 

the high accident rate on this section of 

Sandario Road. Almost a third of the total 

accidents on Sandario Road occur in the 

section of roadway between Golden Gate 

Road and Kinney Road, and the accident rate 

TABLE 22. PICTURE ROCKS ROAD ACCIDENTS: MAJOR CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, 1998-2003 

Speed Alcohol Inattention/ 

Recklessness 

Turning Other Animal TOTAL 

Number of 

incidents 

81 18 16 2 2 2 121 

Overall: 3 fatalities, 79 injuries. Most accidents occurred between Golden Gate Road and Box 

Canyon, within park boundaries (all fatalities occurred in this area) 

Accident compilation: DEA 2006 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

206

on this corridor is rising steadily in the last five 

years (speed and turning are listed as the top 

contributing factors). Accidents would likely 

be reduced along Sandario Road if the park 

removed this user conflict. 

Parking. Parking lots in this district are well 

under capacity (with the exception of the 

Esperanza trailhead, which is full on 

weekends, but additional parking is available 

near by). The lack of parking pullouts on 

Picture Rocks Road is an on-going concern, 

because it could alleviate some of the current 

conflicts between slower-traveling visitors 

and the faster-moving non-visitor users (it 

would also offer visitors the opportunity to 

pull-off and enjoy scenic views safely). 

Alternative 1 would result in long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to parking for visitors and 

non-visitor users. 

Cumulative Effects. In its 2030 Regional 

Transportation Plan, the Pima Association of 

Governments proposes a series of 

transportation infrastructure improvements 

that could impact circulation, safety, and 

congestion inside and near the park. The 

largest of these improvements is the new 

interchange at Twin Peaks Road/I-10, which 

would provide a direct connection to I-10 for 

residents in the northwestern area of Pima 

County (a link that is not available now). 

Because traffic models show that this new link 

would reduce non-visitor traffic on Picture 

Rocks Road, this would result in long-term 

moderate to major beneficial improvements 

for visitors, because of reductions in 

commuter traffic, and changes in the roadway 

environment (more recreational and less 

commuter-oriented behavior and patterns). 

Non-visitor users would also experience some 

long-term, moderate beneficial impacts in 

improved travel time and safety related to the 

use of transportation infrastructure designed 

to accommodate faster-moving and higher 

volume traffic than is reasonable on Picture 

Rocks Road. 

Minor transportation improvements in the 

2030 plan include: Ina Road (improved 

capacity), Sandario Road (paved shoulders 

provide increased safety), traffic-calming on 

Picture Rocks Road (presumably in 

conjunction with park efforts for safety 

improvements), and reconstruction of the 

scenic Bajada Loop Drive. Overall, these 

minor improvements designed to increase 

safety and provide congestion relief would 

provide visitors and non-visitors with longterm, minor beneficial impacts. 

In addition to transportation plans, Pima 

County’s Comprehensive Plan Update 2001

and its policies also have an impact on 

transportation demand and circulation in the 

region, and their impact on the park 

(particularly the Tucson Mountain District). 

Western Pima County currently has very 

limited commercial and public services. The 

2001 Comprehensive Plan Update does not 

show land use patterns that would address or 

reverse this trend in the future. This means 

that the primary destination of residents for 

goods, services, and economic opportunities 

will continue to be to the east of the Tucson 

Mountains, in Tucson. The few east-west 

connector roads in this area are critical links 

in Pima County’s transportation system and 

likely to continue to experience commuter 

travel patterns (highest use on weekdays 

during morning and evening commuter rush) 

and overall high demand. 

With the annual growth rate in Pima County 

almost twice the national average, growth may 

continue to occur west of the Tucson 

Mountains before adequate transportation 

infrastructure needed to support it is in place. 

Limited east-west roadway connectivity, 

paired with rapid growth and a strong demand 

for services in Tucson would cause the 

demand on the existing east-west connector 

roadways (particularly Picture Rocks Road 

but also Kinney Road) to increase. The rise in 

demand will occur even with the 2030 

Regional Transportation Plan improvements 

for northwestern Pima County (DEA 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

207 

for northwestern Pima County (DEA 

estimates that daily traffic on Picture Rocks 

Road would grow by 20%–30% by 2025, even 

with the Twin Peaks Road interchange). 

Picture Rocks Road and Kinney Road would 

also likely experience additional recreational 

traffic (typically on weekends) if visitation 

rises along with the regional growth rate. 

Overall, alternative 1, in conjunction with the 

impact of other regional land use and 

transportation policies and actions described 

above, would have a long-term, moderate, 

adverse cumulative impact on visitors because 

of safety concerns and road congestion 

resulting from background regional growth 

and inadequate local transportation 

infrastructure to serve circulation demand. 

The impact of alternative 1 relative to the 

overall cumulative impact on transportation 

congestion and safety issues in northwestern 

Pima County from implementing alternative 1 

would be small. 

Conclusion. Congestion and safety problems 

on Picture Rocks Road could result in both 

visitors and non-visitors diverting to Twin 

Peaks and Kinney roads. Potential traffic 

diversion would have a long-term negligible 

beneficial effect for all users on Picture Rocks 

Road, Ina Road, and Wade Road, since these 

roads are nearing capacity. Long-term minor 

adverse effects to visitors and non-visitors 

would continue as a result of the confusing 

circulation pattern of the scenic Bajada Loop 

Drive. 

A continuation of current conditions at the 

Picture Rocks Road/Golden Gate Road 

intersection under alternative 1 would result 

in a long-term, major adverse impact to safety 

of visitors and non-visitor users. Non-visitor 

users would experience long-term, minor, 

adverse impacts to safety from the park’s 

management of Picture Rocks Road. Having a 

portion of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive on 

Sandario Road would result in a long-term, 

moderate to major adverse impacts on visitors 

and non-visitor users because of the high 

accident rate on this section of Sandario Road. 

Alternative 1 would result in long-term, minor 

adverse impacts to parking for visitors and 

non-visitor users. 

Rincon Mountain District 

Circulation. Circulation in the area adjacent 

to the park would remain as it is today. Cactus 

Forest Drive has sufficient capacity available 

for additional visitation. Access roads to the 

park (Speedway, Broadway, and Old Spanish 

Trail) have plenty of additional capacity, and 

all are operating at or above Level of Service 

(LOS) C. Additional traffic from modest 

increases in visitation or changes in visitation 

patterns may result in increased congestion at 

the park entrance, however this intersection 

currently operates at LOS A so there is room 

to accommodate additional visitation. As 

visitation rises, the area between the entrance 

station and Old Spanish Trail may experience 

a corresponding increase in congestion, since 

staff has already observed some traffic 

queuing in this area at peak times. As growth 

occurs in Tucson, Old Spanish Trail, Escalante 

Road, Freeman Road, Broadway Boulevard 

and Speedway Boulevard (the roads providing 

primary access to the park), and other regional 

roadways en route to the park would 

experience background increases in traffic 

levels that visitors would encounter en route 

to the park. This alternative would have longterm, negligible, adverse impacts on visitors, 

since the capacity exists to handle additional 

visitation and background growth with either 

existing facilities and/or minimal changes to 

park operations. 

Safety. Park staff has observed occasional 

conflicts between periodic traffic queues at 

the entrance station and pedestrians crossing 

Cactus Forest Drive between the visitor center 

parking lot and the Rincon visitor center. This 

alternative would not modify that situation, so 

there would be a continuing long-term, 

negligible adverse effect on visitor safety. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

208

Parking. Parking at the Douglas Spring 

trailhead, Wildhorse trailhead, Broadway 

trailhead, and the Rincon visitor center is at or 

beyond capacity. Without additional parking 

capacity, visitors may park outside parking 

boundaries, divert to other trailheads, or 

divert to other nearby recreation destinations 

with a better parking supply. With a modest 

increase in visitation, this alternative would 

result in long-term, minor adverse impacts on 

visitors due to a lack of parking. 

Cumulative Impacts. Impacts from the fast 

pace of growth and the slower pace of 

transportation infrastructure construction in 

the Tucson area would have very little impact 

on this district, since it has no through roads 

and non-visitor users are not a factor. Traffic 

demand on roads adjacent to the park such as 

Broadway, Speedway, Freeman, and Old 

Spanish Trail, is not likely to rise substantially, 

since these roads terminate at or near the 

district’s eastern and northern borders and 

service low density, rural development. There 

are no planned improvements shown in the 

2030 Regional Transportation Plan that would 

impact park access or roads (such as extensions) adjacent to the park. Transportation 

impacts from increased visitation resulting 

from regional growth would mostly be related 

to an increase in demand for parking and a 

turn lane at Old Spanish Trail to the visitor 

center and parking at trailheads. Parking in 

this district is already beyond capacity in most 

areas. Impacts of park visitation on regional 

roadways would be very small, as the road 

network in this area has many east-west and 

north-south options and any increases in 

visitation could be effectively spread out over 

the network, decreasing the possibility of 

congestion and safety concerns. Overall, 

impacts of alternative 1, in conjunction with 

the impacts of other plans and actions 

described above, would result in minor 

adverse cumulative impacts to transportation. 

Alternative 1 would contribute a relatively 

small increment relative to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Alternative 1 would have longterm, negligible, adverse impacts on visitors, 

since the capacity exists to handle additional 

visitation and background growth with 

existing facilities and/or minimal changes to 

park operations. There would be a continuing 

long-term negligible adverse impact on visitor 

safety from occasional conflicts between 

pedestrians and traffic queues. Long-term, 

minor adverse impacts are anticipated due to a 

lack of parking. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

Public Facilities 

Trails and Trailheads. Until the ongoing 

trails plan is completed, no new trails or 

trailheads would be developed. The Cactus 

Forest Trail Environmental Assessment and the 

Tucson Mountain District Trail Plan would 

continue to provide formal guidance for trails 

management in the park. These plans do not 

address certain areas in the park that are 

adversely impacted by intensive trail use. User 

group conflicts on trails and at trailheads, trail 

maintenance, and duplicate and parallel trails 

and associated resource damage would 

continue under this alternative. Park staff 

would continually approach problems with 

short-term, partial remedies to ongoing trails 

problems not covered by existing plans. 

The overall poor condition of the trails 

requires a level of staff time and effort not 

budgeted under this alternative to make 

repairs and manage multiple uses. Inadequate 

trail maintenance would continue, creating 

further problems for park operations in the 

long term. Because alternative 1 would 

continue current management strategies, the 

effects on park operations regarding trail and 

trailhead management and maintenance 

would be moderately adverse, both in the 

short term and long term. 

Park Roads and Entrance Stations. No 

changes to park roads or entrance stations 

would occur under this alternative. Current 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

209 

conditions on Picture Rocks Road and 

Sandario roads would continue and would 

require intensive staff time to patrol and 

enforce regulations due to congestion and 

vehicles exceeding parkwide speed limits. 

Continuing existing conditions would also 

require many emergency responses by park 

rangers to automobile-related accidents and 

violations along these roads. Implementing 

this alternative would continue to cause a long 

term major adverse effect on park operations. 

Aside from law enforcement patrols and 

traffic stops, there is very little staff presence 

on this road and no practical means to verify 

that park road users on Picture Rocks Road 

have paid required entrance fees. 

Golden Gate Road is in poor condition as a 

result of roadway design and multiple years of 

deferred maintenance. Under alternative 1, 

this unpaved road would remain open as a 

park road, requiring staff time and routine and 

backlogged maintenance and would continue 

a long-term moderate adverse effect on park 

operations. 

Parking Areas. Long-term moderate adverse 

effects due to the staff time required to 

address visitor use conflicts and resource 

impacts associated with insufficient parking 

would continue. Reliance on informal 

parking, inadequate design of parking 

facilities, and insufficient area available for 

parking would continue to result in traffic 

jams, user conflicts, and resource impacts. 

These impacts would continue to pull staff 

from other projects and duties as a result of 

the need to manage traffic, enforce 

appropriate visitor use, and repair damaged 

resources. 

Visitor and Education Centers. Under 

alternative 1, the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center would continue to operate as it 

does currently, creating a long term major 

adverse effect on park operations. This 

building is undersized and inadequate for 

current visitation. The building’s electrical 

and mechanical systems are outdated and 

insufficient for current use. The primary 

function of this building is for visitor services 

related to resource education and interpretation, yet half of this building is occupied by 

park offices that serve other operational functions. Mechanical breakdowns are frequent 

because of the outdated mechanical and 

electrical systems, the increased dependence 

on computers, and the need to keep the office 

space and visitor space cool in the hot summers. Breakdowns disrupt the day to day 

operations of the visitor facility and offices. 

The mix of incompatible uses creates operational inefficiency. Because of the outdated 

building systems, ongoing maintenance is a 

serious problem adding considerably to the 

backlogged maintenance list for the park. 

Orientation, Wayside Exhibits, and Interior 

Exhibits. There would be no changes to 

orientation and wayside exhibits. Because 

interior exhibits in the Rincon Mountain 

visitor center are outdated and several 

locations throughout the park lack adequate 

wayside exhibits and signs for park visitors, 

long-term, minor adverse impacts on park 

staff would continue due to the time required 

to supplement inadequate information 

provided to park visitors. 

Camping. No additional camping would be 

developed under this alternative. Camping 

would continue to be monitored by 

backcountry rangers, resulting in an ongoing 

negligible long-term adverse impact on park 

operations from use of staff time. 

Administrative Facilities 

Offices, Storage, and Park Buildings. There 

would be no changes to current office, 

storage, and park buildings under this alternative. Office space would remain insufficient. 

This deficiency would continue to have a 

long-term, moderate adverse effect on efficiencies and activities of park operations. 

Effects on park storage facilities would be 

negligible under this alternative. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

210

Corrals. The corral at Madrona would 

remain closed and would be removed under 

this alternative as funding became available. 

Removal of this facility would create shortterm, minor adverse impacts on park 

operations, including commitment of staff 

time during deconstruction. The loss of this 

facility for pack stock operations to support 

trails and fire service in this district would 

create a long-term moderate adverse impact. 

Park Housing. Park housing at Madrona 

would remain closed, and as funding becomes 

available this building would be removed as a 

result of a public health service recommendation to discontinue use. No replacement 

building would be constructed. The presence 

of NPS staff at the Madrona ranger station has 

been a component of park operations for this 

area. Because of proposed development 

outside park boundaries adjacent to Madrona, 

coupled with already increasing visitor use at 

this site, park staff would continue to be 

required to patrol and monitor this location. 

Because of the increased demands on park 

operations at this site, the absence of a facility 

at this location would constitute a long term 

minor adverse effect on park operations. The 

removal of this building would constitute a 

short-term minor adverse effect on park 

operations during deconstruction. The 

permanent removal of this building and the 

curtailing of associated upkeep and maintenance would create a moderate beneficial 

effect on park operations over the long term. 

Other Buildings. The Manning Camp area 

would continue to be used for fire crew and 

other activities. The area has been heavily 

developed to support administrative use and 

requires intensive support due to the remote, 

wilderness location of this area. Modern 

additions and infrastructure would continue 

to require ongoing maintenance to support 

administrative activities. The use of Manning 

Camp for seasonal fire and other park 

activities would continue to be a moderate 

adverse effect on park operations over the 

long term due to the extensive maintenance 

required. 

The Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

building in the Rincon Mountain District 

serves no park use. Federal historic preservation laws require ongoing maintenance to 

stabilize and preserve it. Ongoing maintenance would continue to create a long term 

minor adverse effect on park operations. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Alternative 1 continues the existing condition 

or current management practice. As currently 

structured and staffed, the park is at capacity 

regarding effective visitor services and 

performance of required duties to manage 

Saguaro National Park as legislated by 

Congress. 

Outside of park boundaries, all general and 

comprehensive plans for surrounding communities recognize that substantial future 

population growth will occur in this region. 

The Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan

documents an exponential increase in land 

developed and occupied by the city of Tucson 

over the past century and anticipates a 

continuation of this trend into the next two 

decades, doubling the current area occupied 

by the city. Marana and Oro Valley were the 

first and second fastest growing communities 

respectively in Arizona during the 1990s. 

General plans for Tucson, Marana, and Oro 

Valley all document and address expected and 

projected future population increases. Tucson 

Mountains, Catalina Foothills and Rincon/ 

Southeast subregional plans all anticipate and 

plan for an increase in population in these 

areas ̧ which are areas that directly adjoin 

Saguaro National Park. The Pima County 

Comprehensive Plan identifies a total net 

increase in land that will be rezoned for higher 

density as a result of anticipated population 

growth in the eastern part of this county. 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

211 

Regardless of methods employed by these 

plans to manage population growth increases 

in the region that surrounds Saguaro National 

Park, the one consistent factor in all plans is 

the expected increase in regional development 

to accommodate an expanding population. 

There is a direct correlation between park 

visitation and regional population, and as 

fewer and fewer open spaces are available for 

a growing population to recreate or 

experience an undeveloped natural setting in 

the Upper Sonoran Desert, land in Saguaro 

National Park would become increasingly 

valuable for these opportunities. Additionally, 

as adjacent private land is developed for 

residential use, management of park borders 

will require careful attention by park staff to 

manage desired conditions for park resources 

and visitor opportunities. 

An increase in unregulated social trails into 

and within park boundaries is expected to 

occur as a result of new development on 

adjacent private lands and would require 

additional staff time to correct, repair, and 

manage associated adverse effects. The 

occurrence of invasive exotic plants in the 

park is expected to increase as new 

development on adjacent lands would 

inevitably introduce exotic, invasive, 

ornamental species, which would also require 

additional park staff time to manage and 

control the associated adverse effects 

Impermeable hardened surfaces, buildings, 

and constructed barriers associated with 

development all influence and impact the 

natural migration of native species and would 

further create habitat fragmentation in the 

greater Tucson region. Park staff would be 

required to manage adverse effects. The 

incremental impacts of development on 

cultural resources within the park would 

continue to require park staff time and effort 

to enforce, monitor and correct adverse 

effects. 

An increase in highly flammable, nonnative 

plants on private property adjacent to park 

wilderness lands creates an incompatible and 

complex situation for wildfire management 

between these two types of land uses. A major 

fire could severely impact park operations as a 

result of necessary wildfire suppression 

required to protect adjacent private property. 

The expected increase in visitation to Saguaro 

National Park and increasing development on 

adjacent private lands would require greater 

staff intervention to provide adequate visitor 

services and to address associated resource 

impacts. Because this alternative would 

continue the existing condition or current 

management practices, the above-mentioned 

actions, in combination with actions proposed 

under this alternative, would result in moderate long-term adverse cumulative impacts on 

park operations due to the increased management requirements necessary to address 

these issues. Alternative 1’s contribution to 

these impacts would be modest. 

Conclusion 

Continuing the current trend in park staffing 

would likely result in an increasing inability to 

effectively meet demands on park operations 

due to steadily increasing visitation and traffic 

associated with non-visitors. This continued 

direction would create a long-term moderate 

adverse effect on park operations. 

Current law enforcement requirements to 

manage traffic along Picture Rocks Road and 

maintaining the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center would create long-term major 

adverse impacts on park operations. 

Actions in alternative 1 that would create 

long-term moderate adverse impacts on park 

operations and facilities include continuing 

current management practices regarding trails 

and trailheads, parking areas, maintenance of 

the Golden Gate Road, the continuation of 

inadequate office space for park staff, the 

removal of the corral at Madrona, and 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

212

monitoring the CAA building and stabilizing 

Manning Cabin. 

Outdated exhibits and lack of adequate 

information signs, and the removal of 

condemned park housing at Madrona with no 

replacement would create minor long-term 

adverse effects on park operations as a result 

of increased personal services required for 

visitors by park staff. 

Other actions, combined with the actions 

proposed in alternative 1, would create 

moderate adverse cumulative impacts on park 

operations. Alternative 1’s contribution to 

these impacts would be modest. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from 

implementing this alternative. These are 

residual impacts that would remain after 

mitigation was implemented. The negligible 

and minor impacts are described in the 

foregoing analysis. 

Under all alternatives, proposed actions 

would strictly avoid known archeological 

sites. Any such sites that could not be avoided 

because of ground-disturbing activity would 

be mitigated in concurrence with the Arizona 

state historic preservation officer. Mitigation 

such as data recovery would constitute an 

unavoidable adverse impact on the 

archeological sites involved. 

Alternative 1 actions would affect steadily 

increasing traffic volumes on through-park 

roads over the long term, with a possible 

short-term reduction with the opening of the 

proposed Twin Peaks interchange. Traffic 

congestion and speeding along through-park 

roads would continue to adversely impact 

visitor experiences by reducing visitor access 

opportunities and creating both real and 

perceived safety conflicts. These adverse 

impacts would also directly effect park 

operations due to the increased demand on 

staff to address these issues. The continued 

need to maintain the Golden Gate Road 

would also adversely impact park operations. 

Moderate adverse impacts on the visitor 

experience from user conflicts at trailheads, 

limited bicycling opportunities, and limited 

regional trail connections would continue in 

this alternative. Trailhead conflicts would also 

necessitate continued intervention by park 

staff to address conflicts between user groups. 

Additionally, trails, trailhead facilities, and 

resources that are impacted at these sites 

would continue to require staff time for 

maintenance and restoration as a result of 

current design and layout. The continued loss 

of corral facilities would adversely impact 

park staff engaged in trail maintenance and 

other activities within the Rincon Mountain 

District. 

Moderate adverse impacts on interpretation 

and education opportunities would continue 

as a result of crowded conditions and 

outdated exhibits at the Rincon Mountain 

District visitor center. Park operations would 

also continue to be impacted as a result of 

inadequate visitor center facilities, both as a 

result of required intervention to manage 

users and due to conflicting uses within this 

facility. 

Inadequate park offices would also continue 

to adversely impact park operations under this 

alternative. Manning Camp would continue to 

adversely impact park operations as a result of 

the intensive support required to maintain 

operations at this facility under this 

alternative. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible 

commitments of resources that are associated 

with this alternative are summarized below. 

Irreversible commitments are those that 
Impacts of Implementing the No-Action Alternative 

213 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 

extreme long term (e.g., the regrowth of an 

old-growth forest). Irretrievable commitments 

are those that are lost for a period of time (e.g., 

if a road is constructed, the vegetative 

productivity is lost for as long as the road 

remains). 

For cultural resources under any of the 

alternatives, although not anticipated, the 

mitigation of any archeological sites would 

constitute an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources. Mitigation such as 

data recovery would change the status of 

archeological artifacts and other archeological 

information and data from in situ preservation 

for the future to current extraction via 

excavation. It is possible that some 

information might be lost in the process 

because future excavation methods could 

improve, thereby potentially yielding more 

information than current methods provide. 

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND THE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Most of the park would remain protected in a 

natural state and would maintain its long-term 

productivity under alternative 1. Current 

short-term uses of the environment such as 

visitor use and park management would 

continue. Disturbances to natural resources 

from these activities may reduce long-term 

productivity in localized areas in the short 

term. However, these effects would be far 

outweighed by maintenance of the long-term 

productivity of the park as a whole. 
214

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 2 (PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The management zones promote the 

alternative’s emphasis of protecting natural 

resources. This alternative has the highest 

percentage of primitive and semi-primitive 

zones. These zones restrict the level of 

development and recommend lower levels of 

visitation to maintain pristine and excellent 

natural resource conditions. The natural zone 

allows for the potential of the most types of 

uses, such as higher trail densities, paved trails, 

bicycling, and stock use, which might result in 

greater adverse impacts on vegetation than the 

primitive or semi-primitive zones. The natural 

zone is located in limited areas in this 

alternative. The combination of zones in this 

alternative should provide the greatest overall 

protection for the park’s vegetation. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Vegetation would be lost or altered 

in local areas under alternative 2, primarily 

from the development or improvement of 

facilities and visitor services. Most new 

developments or improvements would be in 

the footprint of disturbed areas where the 

vegetation already has been altered; therefore, 

little additional loss of native vegetation 

would result from construction or improvements of trailheads, the Rincon Mountain 

District visitor center and parking area, 

Picture Rocks Road, staff offices, and 

employee housing. Given the previous 

vegetation disturbance in most of these areas, 

and with the use of appropriate mitigative 

measures to minimize additional impacts 

(such as ensuring that equipment stays within 

project area boundaries, revegetating 

disturbed areas, and taking steps to avoid the 

spread of exotic species), the long-term 

adverse effects on native vegetation from 

these actions would be minor. 

The installation of traffic-calming devices 

(adaptive management) could result in shortterm adverse impacts on vegetation. The 

devices could include curb and guttering, 

roundabouts, park entrance features, and road 

signs. The equipment needed to install the 

devices would need to be staged near the road. 

If the staging area was on an unimproved 

surface, vegetation would be trampled and 

crushed. Mitigative measures would include 

placing equipment in previously disturbed 

areas and revegetation of the sites. The 

installation would have short-term negligible 

adverse impacts. The long-term impacts 

would be minor and beneficial due to the 

restriction of informal pull-off locations 

(because of curbs and gutters) and slower 

speeds, which would allow for better handling 

of vehicles on the road and less roadside 

vegetation damage. 

Several indirect impacts also could result from 

the installation of traffic-calming devices. If 

erosion along the road increased because of 

the installation of these devices, more 

vegetation would be lost. Nonnative plants 

could be introduced or spread into areas that 

are disturbed during installation. If visitors 

parked on the side of the road, some roadside 

plants might be crushed, trampled, or picked. 

Roadside vegetation might also be inadvertently trimmed or removed during routine 

maintenance of the traffic-calming devices. 

Mitigative measures such as improved drainage, adding formal pull-off areas, and revegetation of disturbed areas would minimize the 

potential for vegetation loss. Depending on 

the location and design of traffic-calming 

devices, the indirect long-term adverse effects 

on native vegetation would be negligible. 

If the park’s desired conditions for visitor 

experience and/or biological protection still 

were not met, then the next level of trafficcalming would be implemented. This could 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

215 

consist of installing speed bumps, fee 

kiosks/entrance stations, or a combination of 

the two. Slowing traffic more would further 

improve habitat conditions on through-park 

roads by decreasing the risk of vegetation 

damage due to accidents and ensuring that 

visitors have an improved chance of stopping 

at formal pull-outs instead of creating their 

own. 

If this still does not enable the park to meet 

their goals, the final step in the process would 

be to work with Pima County to develop 

alternative routes around the park. This 

would be beneficial to vegetation in the park. 

Constructing the new segment of the scenic 

Bajada Loop Drive in the Tucson Mountain 

District would cause the loss and alteration of 

native desert vegetation. Some native plants 

would be lost permanently because of the 

road footprint. Even with mitigative measures, 

construction equipment in the project area 

would damage or cause the loss of some 

vegetation. Short-term minor adverse impacts 

on vegetation would occur due to construction activities. Mitigation would include 

revegetation of work areas. Several indirect 

impacts also could result from constructing 

the road segment, including the introduction 

and spread of nonnative plants. If visitors 

created “informal” pulloffs on this new 

segment by parking off the roadside, some 

plants might be crushed, trampled, or picked. 

Road maintenance also might indirectly affect 

roadside vegetation. Because the new segment 

would be paved, the vegetation would not be 

disturbed by the grading done for gravel 

roads. Depending on the road’s location and 

design, localized long-term adverse effects on 

native vegetation from the new road segment 

would be minor. 

The Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

and parking lot expansion would occur in the 

area between the visitor center and headquarters, in an area that is somewhat 

disturbed. The reconstruction of the 

employee housing at Madrona would be in an 

area that has been previously disturbed. The 

new corrals would be sited in an undisturbed 

area that would minimize impacts on vegetation. Short-term minor adverse impacts on 

vegetation would occur due to construction 

activities. Mitigation would include 

revegetation of work areas. Despite the use of 

mitigative measures to help reduce the loss of 

desert vegetation, some vegetation would be 

permanently disturbed or lost, resulting in a 

long-term, negligible, adverse impact. 

Vegetation also would be altered or lost 

through visitation in alternative 2. As in 

alternative 1, people walking over and 

trampling plants in and around existing 

facilities would result in the loss of native 

vegetation, a long-term negligible adverse 

effect. 

Building or designating new trails or realigning existing trails and routes would cause both 

beneficial and adverse consequences for the 

park’s vegetation. New trails and routes in the 

expansion areas would result in the trampling 

and loss of more vegetation than currently 

occurs. Increased erosion in any of these areas 

from loss of vegetative cover may cause the 

loss of additional plants, and the potential for 

visitors or stock animals to inadvertently carry 

in and spread exotic species also would 

increase. Trails would be designed and 

located in areas where risk of erosion could be 

mitigated. Depending on the level of use, time 

of use, and the vegetation, there could be a 

negligible long-term adverse impact on 

vegetation in these local areas. 

The park would revegetate social trails as part 

of their trails management activities. Restoring 

the habitat in these areas would have a longterm minor beneficial impact on vegetation. 

An increase in the number of temporary spike 

camps for fire and trail crews would result in 

an increase in the amount of vegetation 

trampled and crushed under feet, tents, and 

other equipment. Mitigative measures would 

be implemented to site camps away from 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

216

locations with sensitive plants, and camps 

would minimize how often they reuse the 

same area. Short-term minor adverse impacts 

on vegetation would occur. 

Reduction in the use of facilities at Manning 

Camp would have a beneficial impact on 

native vegetation. Reducing the footprint for 

administrative activities would allow native 

vegetation to return to previously disturbed 

areas. This would result in a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on vegetation. 

Restricting use to designated trails below 

4,500 feet elevation would help to reduce 

“social” trails and focus use. This would cause 

a long-term moderate beneficial effect on 

native vegetation. 

The conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail 

would reduce impacts on vegetation due to 

the elimination of vehicles, revegetation 

efforts to narrow the corridor, and drainage 

improvements. This would result in a longterm moderate beneficial impact on 

vegetation. 

Adding waysides and interpretive trails would 

benefit park vegetation by improving visitors’ 

education. Their appreciation of native and 

rare plants would be increased, and adverse 

effects on vegetation might be reduced. 

Another potential beneficial effect of such 

education could be that visitors would learn to 

help avoid the spread of exotic species in the 

park. The regular presence of staff at Madrona 

would help minimize the impacts on 

vegetation by visitors. Overall, the long-term 

beneficial effect on park vegetation from these 

actions would be minor. 

Surveys for rare plants would be conducted 

before developments were constructed in 

alternative 2, and in most cases developments 

(improvements to trailheads, roads, and 

visitor facilities) could be sited to avoid effects 

on these populations. Overall, alternative 2 

would have short-term moderate adverse 

impacts and long-term minor adverse impacts 

on vegetation from development and road and 

trail improvements. 

Cumulative Effects. The recent rehabilitation 

of Cactus Forest Loop Drive had negligible 

short-term and long-term beneficial impacts 

on vegetation. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the types and distribution of 

vegetation. The areas have been zoned to 

protect habitat while allowing for growth and 

expansion of Tucson. The long-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation from development 

would be moderate. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on 

vegetation. The corridor would protect an 

area south of the Rincon Mountain District 

and Coronado National Forest to the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area. This 

would have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact on vegetation in the region. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres, 

of which almost 130,000 acres is federal 

property. This action, added to the effects of 

increasing educational and interpretive efforts 

in the national monument, has resulted in 

better protection of native vegetation. The 

creation of this area would continue to have a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on 

vegetation in the region. 

Overall, when all the effects of actions in and 

outside the park were added to the effects 

from alternative 2, the long-term adverse 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

217 

cumulative effects on vegetation in the area 

would be minor. The beneficial impacts of 

several projects outside the park offset some 

of the adverse impacts from other outside 

projects. The contribution of alternative 2 to 

the cumulative impacts would be relatively 

small. 

Conclusion. This alternative would have 

more potential for both beneficial and adverse 

effects in more areas of the park than 

alternative 1. The loss of native vegetation 

would be reduced by better protection and 

revegetation of disturbed areas. Alternative 2 

would likely have a short-term moderate and a 

long-term minor adverse impact in localized 

areas. Overall, most native vegetation in 

Saguaro National Park would continue to be 

protected and self-sustaining under 

alternative 2. 

The long-term cumulative effects on 

vegetation from this alternative and other 

actions in and outside the park would be 

minor and adverse. The contribution of 

alternative 2 to cumulative impacts would be 

relatively small. The levels of these effects 

would not be sufficient to constitute an 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Wildlife 

The management zones promote the 

alternative’s emphasis of protecting natural 

resources. This alternative has the highest 

percentage of primitive and semi-primitive 

zones. These zones restrict the level of 

development and recommend lower levels of 

visitation to maintain pristine and excellent 

natural resource conditions. The natural zone 

allows for the potential of the most types of 

uses, such as higher trail densities, paved trails, 

bicycling, and stock use, which might result in 

greater adverse impacts on wildlife than the 

primitive or semi-primitive zones. The natural 

zone is located in limited areas in this 

alternative. The combination of zones in this 

alternative should provide the greatest overall 

protection to wildlife in the park. 

Analysis. New developments, improved 

access, and increased visitation to parts of the 

park would be the primary actions affecting 

wildlife and their habitat under alternative 2. 

Although a number of improvements would 

be made to existing facilities, most would be 

done in already disturbed areas: Picture Rocks 

Road improvements, Golden Gate Road 

conversion to a trail, trailhead improvements, 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

expansion, improvements to staff offices, and 

reconstruction of employee housing. Wildlife 

populations and their habitats have been 

altered by past human actions in these areas, 

and no additional habitat would be lost. 

Increased noise and human activity due to 

construction could temporarily displace some 

animals such as rodents, reptiles, and birds, 

resulting in minor short-term adverse impacts 

on wildlife populations in local areas. 

Increased visitation due to improved visitor 

facilities in a few areas could adversely affect 

some wildlife as a result of habitat quality, 

potentially causing displacement of some 

species, but any disturbance would be 

intermittent and the effect would be 

negligible. 

The installation of traffic-calming devices 

would have temporary, short-term adverse 

impacts on wildlife. Noise from construction 

equipment and people would displace some 

wildlife. Most birds, mammals, rodents, and 

reptiles would avoid the area during the 

construction period, but many would return 

after construction ceased. Some animals, 

primarily invertebrates, would be unable to 

move out of the construction area and would 

be killed. The short-term adverse impacts 

would be minor. 

The traffic-calming devices would also have 

indirect impacts on wildlife. The reduced 

vehicle speeds should allow wildlife more time 

to cross the road and reduce the number hit 

by vehicles and injured or killed along 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

218

through-park roads, resulting in beneficial 

impacts. Maintenance of the traffic-calming 

devices and the road also could disturb 

wildlife. The extent of the effects would 

depend partly on the location and nature of 

the maintenance activities. With careful design 

of the traffic-calming strategies/devices there 

would be a long-term moderate beneficial 

indirect effect on area wildlife. 

If the park must use the next level of traffic 

calming strategies to meet the park’s desired 

conditions for visitor experience and/or 

biological protection (installing speed bumps, 

fee kiosks, or a combination of the two), 

additional compliance would be undertaken. 

Slowing traffic more would further improve 

wildlife habitat conditions on through-park 

roads by decreasing the risk of wildlife being 

hit by vehicles. 

If this still does not enable to the park to meet 

their goals, the final step would be to work 

with Pima County to develop alternative 

routes around the park. It would be beneficial 

to wildlife in the park by reducing a 

contributor to habitat fragmentation. 

Building the new one-lane segment of the 

scenic paved Bajada Loop Drive would cause 

the permanent loss of a small portion of 

Sonoran desert habitat and displace wildlife. 

Clearing vegetation in that area would result 

in the loss of forage and cover. Disturbed 

areas that are not part of the new segment 

would be revegetated to minimize long-term 

impacts on wildlife habitat. Also, removing 

one lane of the existing two-lane section of the 

Bajada Loop Drive would restore desert 

wildlife habitat. Noise from construction 

equipment and future vehicles on the road 

could disturb wildlife, causing them to avoid 

the area. The new segment of road would be 

near Sandario Road. Most wildlife that are 

sensitive to traffic already avoid the area. 

Many desert animals are nocturnal, and the 

scenic Bajada Loop Drive would continue to 

be closed at night, which would reduce the 

risk of road kills. However, some animals 

would be active during daylight hours. Slower 

speed limits and signs typically associated with 

a park road would help reduce the potential 

for wildlife to be hit by vehicles, but even with 

these measures there could be some road kills. 

This would result in a short-term moderate 

and a long-term minor adverse impact on 

wildlife. 

The Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

and parking lot expansion would occur 

between the visitor center and the headquarters in an area that has been somewhat 

disturbed, causing the permanent loss of some 

habitat. This loss would primarily affect 

smaller, less mobile wildlife species and 

species with smaller home ranges, such as 

invertebrates. Some reptiles, small mammals, 

rodents, and birds also could be displaced. 

Most species sensitive to human activity 

already avoid the area. The loss of habitat and 

some animals would result in a long-term 

minor adverse effect on animals near this 

facility. 

Visitation to parts of the park probably would 

be increased by improved access from 

improving trailheads throughout the park and 

developing new trails and trailheads. In turn, 

habitat fragmentation due to trails would 

increase over current levels because of more 

visitor use of new trails and routes. Habitat 

fragmentation would affect movement 

corridors of some wildlife, such as mountain 

lions. However, the width of trails is generally 

no more than a few feet with intermittent 

presence of people so the level of fragmentation would be small, thus resulting in a longterm negligible adverse effect. Some wildlife 

sensitive to the presence of people might be 

displaced from areas around these corridors 

during the peak high use season. These 

actions would result in a minor short-term 

and long-term adverse impact on wildlife 

populations in local areas, depending on such 

factors as the level, duration, and type of 

visitor use; the season of use; and the wildlife 

species. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

219 

Conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail 

would reduce habitat fragmentation and 

improve the protection of wildlife populations 

and habitats. It would be easier and safer for 

wildlife to cross without the risk of being 

killed. A narrower, less traveled corridor 

would encourage wildlife sensitive to human 

presence to use the area more. Conversion 

would result in a long-term, moderate 

beneficial impact on wildlife. 

As with vegetation, increased educational and 

interpretive efforts under alternative 2 would 

generally benefit wildlife. The addition of 

waysides and interpretive trails would help 

educate visitors, increasing their appreciation 

of the park’s wildlife and minimizing impacts 

from actions such as feeding wildlife. The 

long-term beneficial effect on the park’s 

wildlife would be minor. 

Overall, the adverse effects of alternative 2 on 

wildlife would be moderate in the short term 

and minor over the long term. 

Cumulative Effects. The recent rehabilitation 

of Cactus Forest Loop Drive had a negligible 

long-term adverse impact on wildlife. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the types and distribution of 

habitat available to wildlife. The areas have 

been zoned to protect essential habitat while 

allowing for growth and expansion of Tucson. 

An increase in the number of structures and 

people in the currently undeveloped areas 

would reduce the amount of habitat available. 

Some wildlife would be displaced such as 

small mammals, rodents, reptiles, and birds by 

the expansion of residential and commercial 

developments. Development within the 

Cienega Conservation Corridor would have 

the largest impact on wildlife; this is a key 

biological movement corridor for large 

mammals because it connects the Rincon 

Mountains with the Santa Rita and Empire 

Mountains. The long-term adverse impacts 

would be moderate. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

continue to protect the area. This addition 

would have a long-term beneficial effect on 

wildlife. Increasing protection of this 

biological corridor would allow easier 

movement of wildlife between mountain 

ranges. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres 

of land, of which almost 130,000 acres is 

federal property. This would continue to have 

a long-term moderate beneficial impact on 

wildlife in the region. 

Overall, when the effects of alternative 2 were 

added to other actions within and outside the 

park, there would be moderate long-term 

adverse cumulative impacts on area wildlife 

populations. Alternative 2’s portion of this 

impact would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Most wildlife populations and 

habitats in Saguaro National Park would 

continue to be protected and would not be 

changed by the actions proposed in this 

alternative. No actions would substantially 

affect areas that are known to be important 

for breeding, nesting, or foraging, or that are 

key migration routes. The proposals in 

alternative 2 would result in short-term 

moderate and long-term minor adverse effects 

on wildlife populations and habitats. 

 

The cumulative effects of alternative 2 added 

to other actions outside the park on area 

wildlife and their habitat would include 

increased habitat fragmentation and wildlife 

displacement resulting in a long-term 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

220

moderate adverse effect. Alternative 2’s 

portion of this impact would be relatively 

small. These impacts would not constitute an 

impairment of park resources or values. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

The management zones promote the 

alternative’s emphasis of protecting natural 

resources. This alternative has the highest 

percentage of primitive and semi-primitive 

zones. These zones restrict the level of 

development and recommend lower levels of 

visitation to maintain pristine and excellent 

natural resource conditions. The natural zone 

allows for the potential of the most types of 

uses, such as higher trail densities, paved trails, 

bicycling, and stock use, which might result in 

greater adverse impacts to protected species 

than the primitive or semi-primitive zones. 

The natural zone is located in limited areas in 

this alternative. The combination of zones in 

this alternative should provide the greatest 

overall protection to threatened and 

endangered species in the park. 

Analysis. No proposed actions in alternative 2 

would be in areas known to contain lesser 

long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted owl, yellowbilled cuckoo, or cactus ferruginous pygmyowl populations. Most areas where visitation 

might increase because of new or improved 

trailheads, trails, or visitor center expansion 

would not be in areas known to be frequented 

by these populations. 

Alternative 2 would not be likely to adversely 

affect lesser long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted 

owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, or cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat in the area. 

Facilities that would be developed in the 

Tucson Mountain District and the lower 

elevations of the Rincon Mountain District 

would be in or near potential cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl and lesser long-nosed 

bat habitat, but the facilities and people in 

these areas would not necessarily keep cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owls and lesser longnosed bats from dispersing into and using the 

areas. The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl is 

active mostly during daylight hours. The 

presence of people could discourage nesting 

and feeding activities in high use areas. 

However, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls 

have not been confirmed to be in the park 

since 1995. The chance of encounters with 

people or disturbance due to human activity is 

low because off trail travel is prohibited below 

4,500 feet and the owls have a maximum 

elevation range of 4, 000 feet. Optimal habitat 

is abundant in the park, and the small amount 

that would be disturbed due to facility 

improvements or visitation would leave the 

owls plenty of acreage to nest and feed with 

minimal disturbance. The bats, which are 

mostly nocturnal, would be in the areas when 

few people were present. 

The reduction in use of Manning Camp 

proposed for alternative 2 would be in or near 

Mexican spotted owl habitat. This would be a 

negligible beneficial effect, improving 

Mexican spotted owl by having less personnel, 

equipment, and activity in the area. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat is primarily 

riparian areas. The presence of a ranger living 

at Madrona would provide a beneficial effect 

by providing interpretation and information 

on resource protection. The continued 

protection of the Madrona and Rincon Creek 

area with low visitation levels would continue 

to provide habitat for transient and breeding 

cuckoos. 

Cumulative Effects. Although residential and 

commercial development would continue to 

reduce cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, yellowbilled cuckoo, and lesser long-nosed bat 

habitat, independent of alternative 2, it is 

unlikely that such efforts would be permitted 

in areas where they are known to occur. 

Pima County has a habitat conservation plan, 

known as the Sonoran Desert Conservation 

Plan, to guide development and protect key 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

221 

habitats. Assuming future developments 

follow this approved habitat conservation 

plan, effects on threatened and endangered 

species should be minimized. However, if the 

zoning is changed so that it no longer follows 

the conservation plan recommendations, the 

long-term impacts would be adverse and 

major. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area, the corridor 

would allow this riparian corridor to continue 

with traditional recreational and ranching 

uses. This would have a long-term beneficial 

effect on special status species. Maintaining 

the biological corridor connecting the 

mountain ranges would ensure that a variety 

of riparian and desert habitats remain 

available. 

The Gila topminnow is proposed to be 

reintroduced to the park by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service when habitat conditions 

support reintroduction. This would have a 

potential beneficial effect on the topminnow 

populations if efforts were successful. 

Overall, the impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 2, would cumulatively affect but 

not likely adversely affect the lesser longnosed bat, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, 

Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

or Gila topminnow. Alternative 2’s 

contribution to these cumulative effects 

would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Before taking any action in 

alternative 2 that might affect federally listed 

species in the park, the National Park Service 

would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to ensure that potential impacts were 

identified and avoided. There is habitat for the 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl in the park. 

However, actions proposed in alternative 2 

would not be likely to adversely affect the 

populations of lesser long-nosed bat, Mexican 

spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Gila 

topminnow, or the cactus ferruginous pygmyowl in Saguaro National Park. 

Alternative 2 plus other actions may affect but 

would not be likely to cumulatively adversely 

affect the Mexican spotted owl, the yellowbilled cuckoos, Gila topminnow, lesser longnosed bats, and cactus ferruginous pygmyowl. Alternative 2’s contribution to these 

cumulative effects would be relatively small. 

No impairment of park resources or values 

would result from this the alternative. 

Soils/Geologic Resources 

The management zones promote the 

alternative’s emphasis of protecting natural 

resources. This alternative has the highest 

percentage of primitive and semi-primitive 

zones. These zones restrict the level of 

development and recommend lower levels of 

visitation to maintain pristine and excellent 

natural resource conditions. The natural zone 

allows for the potential of the most types of 

uses, such as higher trail densities, paved trails, 

bicycling, and stock use, which potentially 

may result in greater adverse impacts on soils 

than the primitive or semi-primitive zones. 

Higher levels of development are also allowed 

in the natural zone, which can lead to 

increased impacts on soils due to compaction 

and erosion. The natural zone is located in 

limited areas in this alternative. The combination of zones in this alternative should provide 

the greatest overall protection to soils in the 

park. 

Analysis. The conversion of Golden Gate 

Road to a trail in alternative 2 would affect the 

park’s soils. Depending on the design of the 

new trail, some parts of the former road may 

have to be graded to improve drainage and 

reduce erosion as part of the trail conversion, 

resulting in a long-term minor beneficial 

effect. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

222

The installation of traffic-calming devices 

could result in short-term adverse impacts on 

soils during construction. The devices could 

include curb and guttering, roundabouts, and 

road signs. The equipment needed to install 

the devices would need to be placed near the 

road. If the staging area was on an 

unimproved surface, the equipment could 

increase soil compaction and erosion. 

Mitigative measures would include placing 

equipment in previously disturbed areas. The 

installation of traffic-calming devices would 

have short-term, negligible adverse impacts on 

soils. 

Constructing the new segment of the scenic 

Bajada Loop Drive would result in soils being 

permanently disturbed or lost, a long-term 

moderate adverse effect. The road would be a 

paved, one-way, one-lane road, which would 

minimize the width of the road and the 

amount of soil impacted. Mitigative measures 

would be used to minimize erosion during 

construction. The road would be designed to 

minimize erosion from runoff over the life of 

the road. The new loop road segment 

construction would result in a long-term 

minor adverse impact on soils. Because the 

road would be paved, there would be less 

potential for erosion. (Gravel roads require 

regular grading, which keeps the soil on the 

road and along the shoulders loose and thus 

more easily moved by wind and water.) The 

paved road would create a barrier between the 

soil and the elements, thus reducing the 

amount of erodible soil. A new paved road 

segment would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on soils. 

Trail realignments would have an overall 

beneficial impact on soils because the new 

alignments would be located in areas with soil 

qualities that would minimize erosion 

potential. This would result in a long-term 

minor beneficial impact. However, soil 

compaction due to foot and/or stock traffic 

might increase in previously undisturbed areas 

where the realignments are located. The 

realigned trails would be located where soil 

compaction is minimized; thus a long-term 

negligible adverse impact would occur. The 

trails that were abandoned as part of the 

realignment would be restored. This would 

have a long-term minor beneficial effect on 

soils due to decreased erosion from the plants 

holding the soil and decreased compaction 

from the plant roots. Overall, trail realignments should have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on park soils. 

The creation of new trails would result in new 

disturbance to soils and the potential for 

increased erosion. Mitigative measures would 

include locating trails on soils with low 

erosion hazards, small changes in slope, and 

proper signs to minimize social trails. 

Trailhead improvements could result in a 

permanent loss and disturbance of soils if 

associated parking areas are built or 

expanded, and even with mitigative measures, 

some soil would be lost to erosion. If people 

parked their vehicles along the side of the 

road, it could cause a secondary adverse effect 

on soils through compaction and increased 

erosion due to vegetation loss. This could 

result in a minor long-term adverse impact on 

soils near improved trailheads. 

The Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

and parking area expansion would have 

adverse impacts on soils. Construction would 

increase the amount of impervious area in the 

park, resulting in increased potential for erosion around the parking lot and visitor center 

during rain storms that create runoff. 

Mitigative measures such as proper drainage 

and designing the parking area to be a 

retention area would reduce the impacts. With 

mitigative measures, the long-term adverse 

impacts would be minor. 

The soils in Saguaro National Park also would 

be adversely affected by several other actions 

in alternative 2. Park soils would be affected 

by constructing or improving park facilities, 

including reconstruction of the house at 

Madrona, improving staff offices, and the 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

223 

conversion of housing to office space. These 

developments would be in areas where the 

soils have been altered by past activities. 

Although some soils in these areas could be 

altered and erosion increased by construction, 

with mitigation such as barriers preventing 

runoff and watering to reduce wind erosion, 

the adverse effects on soils would be short 

term, minor, and localized. 

Increased visitation could have an adverse 

impact on soils. Larger numbers of people on 

park trails could increase soil compaction and 

the rate of erosion. Properly locating new 

trails, limiting off-trail travel, and monitoring 

for damage would reduce these effects. A 

long-term minor adverse impact on soils 

could result due to increased visitation. 

Overall, actions in alternative 2 would have 

short-term negligible and long-term minor 

adverse impacts on localized portions of the 

park’s soils. 

Cumulative Effects. The recent rehabilitation 

of Cactus Forest Loop Drive had a short-term 

adverse impact on soils due to increased 

impervious are and a long-term negligible 

beneficial impact due to restoration of most of 

the compacted soils. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the soils surrounding the 

park. The construction of additional 

residential and commercial developments in 

open space between existing public lands 

would further increase the amount of 

impervious area. Pima County has adopted 

the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and 

changed their land use zoning accordingly, 

which may reduce some impacts associated 

with continued development outside the park. 

The development in the region would have a 

moderate long-term adverse impact on soils. 

However, if the zoning is changed so that it no 

longer follows the conservation plan 

recommendations, the long-term impacts 

would be adverse and major. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on soils in 

the region. Reducing the amount of development occurring in this corridor would minimize the impacts associated with expansion of 

Tucson. This action would have a long-term, 

minor beneficial impact on soils in the region. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres 

of land, almost 130,000 acres of which is 

federal property. Development in the national 

monument should be limited. This action 

would have a long-term, minor beneficial 

impact on soils in the region. 

Overall, the impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 2, would have moderate long-term 

adverse cumulative impacts on soils in the 

region. The contribution of alternative 2 to 

these cumulative impacts would be relatively 

small. 

Conclusion. Most of the park’s soils would 

not be affected by alternative 2. Overall, 

actions in alternative 2 would have a shortterm negligible and long-term minor adverse 

impact on localized portions of the park’s 

soils. When actions outside the park are added 

to alternative 2, the cumulative result would 

be a moderate long-term adverse effect on 

area soils. The contribution of alternative 2 to 

these cumulative impacts would be relatively 

small. The effects on soils from alternative 2 

would not constitute an impairment of park 

resources or values. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

224

Soundscapes 

The management zones promote the alternative’s emphasis of protecting natural 

resources. This alternative has the highest 

percentage of primitive and semi-primitive 

zones. These zones restrict the level of 

development and recommend lower levels of 

visitation to maintain pristine and excellent 

natural resource conditions. The natural zone 

allows for the potential of the most types of 

uses, such as higher trail densities, paved trails, 

bicycling, and stock use, which might result in 

greater adverse impacts on the soundscape 

than the primitive or semi-primitive zones. 

The natural zone is located in limited areas in 

this alternative. The combination of zones in 

this alternative should provide the greatest 

overall protection to the soundscape in the 

park. 

Analysis. Traffic-calming devices and other 

facility improvement projects in alternative 2 

would affect the park’s soundscape in 

localized areas. Construction workers and 

equipment would generate noise during the 

construction or improvement of trails, 

housing, the Rincon Mountain District visitor 

center expansion, rehabilitation of existing 

buildings, road improvements, and parking 

areas. In some of these areas, the noise from 

construction equipment would be substantial, 

but it would be temporary and localized and 

would take place at different times and places 

in the park. Most noise from projects 

proposed in this alternative would be in or 

near developed areas that already are exposed 

to noise from vehicles, park equipment, and 

visitors. Depending on the presence of other 

facilities (such as the expanded visitor center 

and parking area) and people, vegetation, 

wind, and time of day, noise from the 

construction activities would have moderate 

short-term adverse impacts on the natural 

soundscape in localized areas. 

Constructing a new road segment for the 

scenic Bajada Loop Drive would make substantial noise, causing short-term moderate 

adverse effects on the soundscape near the 

road. Only park traffic would be using the 

road once construction is completed. The new 

segment would be located near Sandario 

Road, so it is unlikely that traffic sounds from 

the loop drive would be distinguishable from 

traffic sounds on Sandario Road. Noise also 

would come from road maintenance activities 

on both roads, particularly during the peak 

use season. Thus, alternative 2 would result in 

a short-term moderate and long-term 

negligible adverse effect on the soundscape 

near the new road segment. 

Noise levels would be likely to decrease under 

alternative 2 in several places that have been 

relatively loud in the past. Traffic-calming 

strategies on Picture Rocks Road should 

reduce vehicle speeds, resulting in lower 

engine noise being emitted. Slower, smoother 

vehicle speeds would reduce the road noise 

heard in wilderness areas surrounding Picture 

Rocks Road. Converting Golden Gate Road to 

a trail would further reduce road-related noise 

in the wilderness areas on either side of the 

road. These actions would result in a longterm minor beneficial impact. 

If the park must use the next level of trafficcalming strategies to meet the park’s desired 

goals for visitor experience and/or biological 

protection desired conditions, (i.e., installing 

speed bumps, fee kiosks, or a combination of 

the two). Slowing traffic more would further 

reduce noise intrusions into the park from 

vehicles. If this still does not enable the park 

to meet the desired conditions, park staff 

would work with Pima County to find alternative routes around the park. See the explanation of adaptive management on page 50. 

Improvements at trailheads could cause 

localized increases in noise due to a potential 

increase in the numbers of visitors using the 

trailheads and associated trails. This would 

result in a negligible long-term adverse affect 

on the soundscape because visitors would not 

stay long in one area. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

225 

During the construction of improvements 

such as expanded parking areas and the 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

expansion, the short-term impacts would be 

minor and adverse due to noise from 

construction equipment, vehicles, and 

workers. The improvements would be spread 

throughout the park and over time, and the 

effects would be localized. 

Overall, alternative 2 would have a short-term 

moderate adverse affect on the noise level in 

localized areas and a long-term negligible 

adverse effect on the soundscape. 

Cumulative Effects. Noise in parts of the 

park would temporarily increase from 

construction activities, the operation of 

machinery and vehicles, and the presence of 

workers. At different times, short-term minor 

adverse effects from noise would be caused by 

park construction machinery, for example the 

recent repaving of the Cactus Forest Loop and 

the paving of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive. 

Outside the park, the construction of the Twin 

Peaks Interchange could cause temporary 

increased commuter traffic on through-park 

roads in the Tucson Mountain District, which 

would increase noise associated with vehicles 

in the park. Over the long-term according to 

the Pima Association of Governments, Picture 

Rocks Road volume would increase due to the 

increased population on the west side of the 

park. This would be an undetermined longterm beneficial impact because it is unknown 

how many travelers on Picture Rocks Road 

would choose to use this new interchange. 

Commercial and military aircraft would 

continue to regularly fly over the park 

generating noise intrusions in both units. 

Aircraft would continue to have a short-term 

moderate adverse impact on the soundscape 

during the actual flyover, and a long-term 

minor adverse impact because the number of 

flyovers should continue to be relatively small. 

If the number of flights over the park 

increases, the impact on the soundscape could 

increase depending on altitude of the aircraft. 

The park staff would work with local airport 

and Federal Aviation Administration 

authorities to minimize the impacts on the 

park due to a change in flight paths or number 

of flights over and near the park. 

Overall, these effects added to noise caused by 

actions proposed in alternative 2, would result 

in short-term moderate and long-term minor 

cumulative adverse noise effects that are 

mostly in localized areas. Alternative 2’s 

contribution to these impacts would be 

relatively small. 

Conclusion. The soundscape in most of 

Saguaro National Park would continue to be 

relatively quiet under alternative 2. Over the 

long term, there would be less sources of noise 

in the park than in alternative 1. The construction of traffic-calming devices on throughpark roads, Rincon Mountain District visitor 

center and parking lot expansion, and other 

improvement projects would cause short-term 

moderate adverse effects on the soundscape, 

mostly in areas already exposed to some noise. 

Overall, alternative 2 would have a short-term 

moderate adverse effect on the noise level in 

localized areas and a long-term negligible 

adverse effect on the soundscape. 

There would be the potential for short-term 

moderate and minor long-term adverse 

cumulative effects on the soundscape from the 

operation of new and existing park facilities 

added to actions occurring outside the park. 

Alternative 2’s contribution to these impacts 

would be relatively small. The park’s 

resources and values would not be impaired 

by any of the proposed actions in alternative 2. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Archeological resources adjacent to 

or easily accessible to visitors from trails, roads, 

and picnic areas, and from designated back-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

226

country campgrounds in the Rincon Mountain 

District, would continue to be vulnerable to 

surface disturbance, inadvertent damage, and 

vandalism. Deterioration of cultural remains 

could result by way of a loss of surface 

archeological materials, alteration of artifact 

distribution, or a reduction of contextual 

evidence. However, increased ranger patrolling 

and emphasis on visitor education would 

discourage vandalism and inadvertent 

destruction of cultural remains, and any adverse 

impacts would be expected to be minimal if any. 

As appropriate, additional archeological 

surveys would precede any ground 

disturbance associated with excavation or 

construction. Ground disturbances would 

include development of new staff housing in 

the Madrona area; expansion of the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center; construction 

of an environmental education center near the 

Camino Loma Alta trailhead; adaptive reuse of 

park housing as an education center; and any 

ground disturbances associated with trail 

maintenance, the closure and revegetation of 

social trails, and the construction of new trails 

and trailhead parking areas. National-registereligible or -listed archeological resources 

would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible, and no adverse effects would be 

anticipated. If such resources could not be 

avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the 

Arizona state historic preservation officer and 

the traditionally associated tribes. 

Before the removal or razing of the Civilian 

Aeronautical Administration building in the 

Madrona area of the Rincon Mountain 

District, a survey for archeological resources 

in the general vicinity of the affected structure 

would be designed and conducted in 

consultation with the Arizona state historic 

preservation officer. The excavation, 

recordation, and mapping of any significant 

cultural remains would be completed before 

removal or razing of the building to ensure 

that important archeological data that 

otherwise would be lost is recovered and 

documented. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the park such as trails, roads, housing, visitor 

centers, Manning Cabin, the later tentplatform camping at Manning Camp for trail 

workers and fire fighters, and the 1933-1941 

construction of frame and adobe structures 

and rustic stone picnic facilities by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps may have resulted in the 

disturbance. There could have been loss of 

some archeological resources during 

excavation and construction activities, 

adversely impacting archeological resources. 

In addition, agricultural, ranching, and mining 

practices; the development of the historic 

town of Tucson and current city thereof with 

its rapidly growing population and associated 

new residential areas and industrial parks, 

such as the University of Arizona Science and 

Technology Park, including the metropolitan 

and surrounding regional development of 

pedestrian walkways and hiking trails and 

routes and trails for bicycles on municipal and 

county lands and those of other federal 

agencies may also have adversely impacted 

archeological resources. Some of these types 

of activities continue, such as the growth and 

expansion of residential areas impinging upon 

Saguaro National Park, and could also result 

in future adverse impacts on archeological 

resources. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative 2 are either 

adverse because avoidance could not be 

achieved and mitigation invoked or would 

result in no adverse effects to the park’s 

archeological resources because avoidance 

could be achieved. Accordingly, the actions 

associated with alternative 2 could contribute 

both adverse and no adverse impacts to any 

cumulative impact. However, because 

avoidance would be sought, no generally 

adverse impacts would be associated with 

alternative 2. Any adverse impacts would be a 

very small component of the adverse 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

227 

cumulative impact associated with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

both within and outside the park. 

Conclusion. Avoidance of national-registerlisted or -eligible archeological resources 

during the ground disturbances of trail and 

building construction would result in no 

adverse impacts on these resources. In the 

event disturbance of such archeological 

resources could not be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR 

Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would 

be negotiated between Saguaro National Park 

and the Arizona state historic preservation 

officer (and/or the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if necessary). The 

memorandum of agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Alternative 2 would contribute no adverse 

impacts to the adverse impacts of actions by 

others occurring both within and outside the 

national park. However, the overall 

cumulative impact would remain adverse. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. As settings for continuity or change, 

the desert and mountainous areas of Saguaro 

National Park are important characterdefining features of the various potential 

cultural landscapes suggested in the cultural 

affected environment section of this 

document. Under alternative 2, revegetation 

of social trails would continue. No adverse 

effects would be associated with revegetation 

of social trails because such rehabilitation 

would have a beneficial impact upon potential 

cultural landscapes by returning them to more 

of a semblance of their historic appearances in 

the natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. 

Before constructing any facilities or trail 

changes, cultural landscape inventories would 

be conducted to identify, document, analyze 

and evaluate cultural landscape characteristics. Such inventories would ensure that 

character-defining features such as topography, vegetation, circulation, spatial organization, land use, natural systems and elements, 

historic structures, and small-scale elements 

would not be affected or that the effects 

would be minimal. There would be no adverse 

effect on potential cultural landscapes. 

Before the demolition of any structures that 

might be associated with a potential cultural 

landscape, the structures would be evaluated 

to determine if they are contributing elements 

to a national-register-eligible cultural landscape. If removal of a structure that is a 

contributing element to a national-registereligible cultural landscape would occur, 

appropriate documentation recording the 

structure would be prepared. This would be in 

accordance with Section 110 (b) of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended. Submittal of the documentation 

would be to the NPS Historic American 

Buildings Survey / Historic American 

Engineering Record / Historic American 

Landscapes Survey (HABS/HAER/HALS) 

program. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the park — such as mining and lime-making 

activities, trails, roads, housing, visitor centers, 

Manning Cabin, the later tent-platform 

camping at Manning Camp for trail workers 

and fire fighters, and the 1933-1941 

construction of frame and adobe structures 

and rustic stone picnic facilities by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps — has resulted in the 

creation of potential historic cultural 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

228

landscapes. With the cessation of original land 

uses, certain structures, like the lime kilns, 

have deteriorated. 

Prehistoric and historic human occupation 

and habitation including agricultural, 

ranching, and mining practices; the 

development of the historic town of Tucson 

and the current residential and industrial 

spread of the city have contributed to the 

history and current conditions of the potential 

cultural landscapes referred to the cultural 

affected environment section of this 

document. Some of these types of activities 

continue, such as the growth and expansion of 

residential areas impinging upon Saguaro 

National Park, and could result in future 

adverse impacts to cultural landscapes. 

The recent rehabilitation of Cactus Forest 

Drive was done in accordance with the 1995 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, and there was 

no adverse effect. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative 2 would 

result in predominantly no adverse effects on 

the park’s potential cultural landscapes. 

However, the few potential adverse impacts 

associated with alternative 2, in combination 

with the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, both within and outside the park, 

would result in an adverse cumulative impact. 

The adverse impacts of alternative 2 would 

only contribute minimally to the adverse 

cumulative impact.

Conclusion. No adverse effects would be 

associated with revegetation of social trails 

because such rehabilitation would have a 

beneficial impact upon potential cultural 

landscapes by returning them to more of a 

semblance of their historic appearances in the 

natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. 

A site-specific study would take place if any 

potential cultural landscapes were to be 

affected by proposed actions of alternative 2, 

including national-register-listed or -eligible 

cultural landscapes, during trail and building 

construction activities; thus there would be no 

adverse impacts on these resources. In the 

event disturbance of such cultural landscapes 

could not be avoided, a memorandum of 

agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would be 

negotiated between Saguaro National Park 

and the Arizona state historic preservation 

officer (and/or the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if necessary). The 

memorandum of agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

The few potential adverse impacts associated 

with alternative 2, in combination with the 

adverse impacts of actions by others, would 

result in an adverse cumulative impact; implementing alternative 2 would only contribute 

minimally to the adverse cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities 

for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan 

or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

there would be no impairment of the park’s 

resources or values. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Management actions under alternative 2, the preferred alternative, would 

include placing Sandario and Kinney Roads in 

the Sightseeing Corridor Zone. That zone 

promotes a leisurely, unhurried, educational, 

pleasant and safe experience for visitors 

traveling along park corridors. Thus the road 

conditions adjacent to and in the vicinity of 

the area the Tohono O’odham use to gather 

saguaro fruit would be improved. This would 

be a moderate, beneficial, and long-term 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

229 

impact on the area as an ethnographic 

resource. Such reductions would benefit the 

gathering of saguaro fruit adding to the area’s 

tranquility and making it more suitable for 

traditional use. The sightseeing-zoning 

proposal would only better accommodate the 

Tohono O’odham traditional practice of 

gathering saguaro fruit. 

Cumulative Impacts. The past park practice 

of allowing saguaro-fruit harvesting by the 

Tohono O’odham in the park’s Tucson 

Mountain District would help support the 

practice of gathering saguaro fruit in the 

region (on the Tohono O’odham reservation), 

thus helping to perpetuate Tohono O’odham 

culture. This situation would mean a 

beneficial, moderate, long-term impact on 

saguaro-fruit harvesting as an ethnographic 

resource. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementing alternative 2 would be 

beneficial, moderate, long-term impacts on 

the park’s ethnographic resources. 

Accordingly, the actions associated with 

alternative 2 would contribute beneficial 

impacts to any cumulative impact. The 

beneficial impacts of implementing alternative 

2, however, would be very small components 

of the minor, beneficial, and long-term 

cumulative impact associated with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

both within and outside the park. 

Conclusion. Alternative 2, the preferred 

alternative, would impact beneficially and 

moderately for a long-term period the 

harvesting of saguaro fruit in the park’s 

Tucson Mountain District. There would be no 

adverse effect on the area as a potential 

traditional cultural property. Implementation 

of alternative 2 would contribute only 

beneficially to the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

occurring both within and outside the park. 

The cumulative effect would be beneficial, 

and implementation of alternative 2 would be 

a small contributor to the overall moderate 

long-term beneficial cumulative effect in the 

region. 

The beneficial impacts of implementing 

alternative 2 would be very small components 

of the minor, beneficial, and long-term 

cumulative impacts. 

Because road conditions involving an 

important ethnographic resource would be 

improved, there would be no adverse impacts 

on a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation of 

Saguaro National Park; (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. To appropriately preserve and 

protect national register listed or eligible 

historic structures, all stabilization, preservation and rehabilitation efforts, as well as daily, 

cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, would be 

undertaken in accordance with the 1995 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties. Stabilization, 

preservation, and rehabilitation would have 

no adverse effects upon historic structures 

and cultural landscapes. Sixty-five structures 

are entered in the park’s NPS List of Classified 

Structures, which means that these entries are 

either listed in the National Register of 

Historic Places or eligible for listing. They 

would be managed for historic preservation 

and be in accord with the Cultural Resources 

Parkwide Management Zone, which is 

defined elsewhere in this document. This List 

of Classified Structures is given in appendix 

H. 

Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

(CAA) Building at Madrona. The donation 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

230

of the Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

(CAA) building in the Madrona Area of the 

Rincon Mountain District to a willing taker 

for relocation out of the park would have an 

adverse effect because of its long association 

with the park. Razing the building would also 

be an adverse impact because the building 

would be destroyed. 

Mitigation of the adverse effect of relocating 

or razing this building under Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act would 

be through documentation and recordation 

and consultation and concurrence with the 

Arizona state historic preservation officer for 

documentation. 

Manning Cabin and Manning Dam at 

Manning Camp. Because the fire management and trail maintenance staging activities 

at Manning Camp would be simplified under 

alternative 2, there would be less general wear 

and tear to the historic fabric of Manning 

Cabin. That would be beneficial with no 

adverse effect. This conclusion is based upon 

findings of the recent report “Condition 

Assessment, Evaluation and Recommendations for Repair and Preservation, Manning 

Cabin at Manning Camp” (NPS 2005a). ). 

There would be no change regarding Manning 

Dam and no adverse effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, historic 

structures in the park, such as remnant lime 

kilns, adobe and other remains of Camp Pima, 

and the scant remains of the Freeman 

Homestead, have been adversely impacted by 

the wear and tear associated with visitation 

and by natural processes like weathering. 

Also, change has occurred among the CCC 

stone picnic structures, so much so that “the 

only structures that have survived in their 

original appearance are the bathrooms” (NPS 

1987a:225). Historic fabric in the form of 

adobe and brick houses associated with the 

settlement and subsequent growth of Tucson 

has been lost in the region, which is an adverse 

effect. Related to these houses, lime “for use 

as mortar or whitewash” (National Park 

Service 1987a:112) came from the lime kilns in 

what is now the park. Historic fabric has been 

lost because of settlement, mining, and 

ranching and because of the spread of urban 

population growth and modernization. 

As a historic structure Cactus Forest Drive 

would continue to be preserved by maintaining its naturalistic and rustic Civilian 

Conservation Corps road design. This design 

fits in with the physical setting to accommodate scenic views and to show natural features 

to their best advantage — like stands of native 

cacti. Distinctive construction features such as 

retaining walls and guard walls and culverts of 

native stone would continue to be rehabilitated for historic preservation in accordance 

with the secretary’s standards. There would 

be no adverse effect from continuing these 

actions. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative 2 would be 

both not adverse and adverse on the park’s 

historic structures. Accordingly, the actions 

associated with alternative 2 would contribute 

both no adverse and adverse impacts to any 

cumulative impact. The adverse impacts of 

implementing alternative 2, however, would 

be very small components of the adverse 

cumulative impact associated with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

both within and outside the park. 

Conclusion. There would be an adverse effect 

concerning relocating or razing the CAA 

building, and there would be no adverse effect 

with the simplification of the fire management 

and trail maintenance conditions on the 

historic fabric of Manning Cabin at Manning 

Camp. There would be no change regarding 

Manning Dam and no adverse effect. 

Alternative 2 would contribute both adverse 

and no adverse impacts in relation to the 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions occurring both 

within and outside the national park. The 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

231 

overall cumulative impact would remain 

adverse. 

The adverse impacts of implementing alternative 2 would be very small components of the 

adverse cumulative impact associated with 

actions by others both within and outside the 

national park. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities 

for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan 

or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

there would be no impairment of the park’s 

resources or values. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Range of Recreational Opportunities 

In alternative 2, both park districts would be 

zoned primarily with the primitive and semiprimitive zones, preserving high-quality trail 

and camping opportunities in a relatively 

pristine natural setting. 

This alternative would make substantial 

changes to the range of recreational 

opportunities and the related quality of visitor 

experiences. Alternative 2 would include a 

variety of traffic-calming strategies for the 

scenic through-park roads, particularly 

Picture Rocks Road, which would improve 

auto-touring opportunities along these routes. 

There may be a slight inconvenience to autotouring visitors related to some of the initial 

proposed traffic-calming strategies — such as 

delays at trail crossings, the visual intrusion of 

speed display signs, and slow downs related to 

increased speed enforcement. However, it is 

expected that the benefits to opportunities for 

auto-touring from the traffic-calming 

strategies would greatly outweigh the 

potential negative impacts, leading to a longterm moderate beneficial impact on visitors. If 

additional traffic-calming strategies were 

needed, such as entrance gates, to meet 

desired conditions on the roadways, visitors 

might experience a higher level of 

inconvenience. It would still be expected that 

the benefits resulting from the traffic-calming 

strategies would outweigh the adverse impacts 

on visitors’ recreational opportunities. 

Also related to improving auto-touring 

opportunities would be the paving, narrowing, 

and making a one-way loop configuration for 

the scenic Bajada Loop Drive that is proposed 

in this alternative. This modification to the 

road would improve scenic driving opportunities by reducing encounters between 

motorists, cyclists, and walkers because all 

users would travel in the same direction. This 

would lead to less crowding and safety 

conflicts on the road. In addition, by traveling 

only in a clockwise direction around the loop, 

the need to make a dangerous left turn from 

the scenic Bajada Loop Drive onto Sandario 

Road would be eliminated. Further, paving 

the loop would allow use of the road by a 

wider array of visitors. All of these benefits 

related to changes on scenic Bajada Loop 

Drive would be considered a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on the range of 

recreational opportunities, including scenic 

driving opportunities. 

Regarding trail opportunities, converting 

Golden Gate Road to a trail would provide 

additional mileage for hiking, horseback 

riding, and bicycling in the Tucson Mountain 

District. The trail would connect existing trails 

in the park, improving access and providing 

new routes. Trailhead parking would be 

developed at both ends of the proposed trail 

to provide access. This would be considered a 

long-term moderate beneficial impact on all 

trail user groups. 

The park’s comprehensive trail plan would 

have a long-term major beneficial impact on 

all trail opportunities in the park. The plan 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

232

would determine how the park would achieve 

the desired conditions in this general 

management plan’s management zones, 

including improving trail conditions, 

alleviating user conflicts, and providing a 

high-quality trail system that meets the needs 

of a diverse user population. In addition, the 

trails plan would be developed with stakeholder input and provide rationale for any 

needed adjustments to the park’s current trail 

system. Specifically in this alternative, the trail 

plan would explore opportunities for the 

following: 

Tucson Mountain District 

• The Natural Zone near the Valley View 

Overlook as well as the Natural Zone east 

of Sandario Road and south of Kinney 

Road would be considered for 

development of new accessible trails. 

• The Natural Zone in the northwest 

section of land west of Sandario would be 

considered for interpretive trails and signs 

to be developed near the CCC camp. 

Rincon Mountain District 

• Biking opportunities would be explored 

along the Hope Camp Trail. 

• The Camino Loma Alta trailhead would 

be improved. 

• The Douglas Springs, Wildhorse, and 

Broadway trailheads would be 

redesigned/improved. 

• Development of additional ADAaccessible trails would be explored. 

• The Natural Zone in the Cactus Forest 

Loop Drive would be considered to allow 

for exploration of additional improved 

nature trails. 

Trails in Both Districts 

• Off-trail travel below 4,500 feet would be 

restricted to protect cultural and natural 

resources. 

• Regional trail connections would be 

explored in conjunction with partners. 

The location of regional trail connections 

would be identified as part of the 

comprehensive trails plan. 

• The location of trail access points and 

possible trailheads would be identified. 

• The need for single-use trails to reduce 

trail user conflicts would be assessed as 

part of the comprehensive trails plan. 

• The need for trail realignments to protect 

resources would be evaluated. 

All of these proposed actions were raised as 

proposals for improving the park’s trail 

systems during the public scoping process for 

the general management plan. Providing 

additional ADA-accessible trails and nature 

trails in a few key locations would increase the 

range of recreational opportunities in the 

park, and provide more opportunities to a 

wider population. These improvements 

would be considered a long term moderate 

beneficial impact. Redesigning and improving 

trailheads to reduce user conflicts and 

resource impacts and to address visitor safety 

concerns would improve existing recreational 

opportunities by facilitating access to the 

park’s diverse trail system, a long term 

moderate beneficial impact. Providing single 

use trails may help reduce user conflicts, 

enhancing existing recreational opportunities 

– a long term moderate beneficial impact. 

Increasing bicycling opportunities, 

particularly the connection of regional bike 

trails, was highly desired by many respondents 

during public scoping for the general 

management plan. An increase in bicycle trails 

would be a long term moderate beneficial 

impact for visitors interested in this type of 

recreational opportunity. However, the 

increase in bicycling opportunities might be 

met with some concern by visitors that feel 

bicycling use should not be expanded in the 

park due to perceived user conflicts and 

resource damage. Because the proposals for 

new bicycle trails would be limited to the 

peripheral areas of the park, this would not be 

expected to be more than a long-term minor 

adverse impact on visitors who would prefer 

that bicycling be limited to the status quo. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

233 

Finally, the restriction of off-trail travel in the 

Tucson Mountain District to protect sensitive 

resources reduces the range of recreational 

opportunities in the park. However, the 

number of visitors that are interested in offtrail travel is relatively small and there is a 

good supply of designated trails in the Tucson 

Mountain District, leading to a long term 

minor adverse impact on the range of 

recreational opportunities. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 

Opportunities for Solitude and 

Getting in Touch with Nature 

The emphasis on primitive and semi-primitive 

zoning throughout most of the park would 

ensure that the values of natural quiet and 

solitude, and opportunities for visitor 

contemplation, naturalness, and primitive 

recreation would be protected. These are 

some of the most highly valued characteristics 

of the park, and the preservation of these 

values would be a long-term major beneficial 

impact. 

Some specific strategies that would aid the 

park in preserving the values of solitude and 

getting in touch with nature include the 

exploration of single-use trails in the comprehensive trails plan. The potential reduction in 

encounters between different user groups 

would eliminate real and perceived user 

conflicts, which often detract from visitors’ 

sense of solitude and contemplation. This 

would be a long-term minor beneficial effect. 

Further, adjustments to the fire and trail 

operations at Manning Camp would reduce 

the administrative presence at the site, 

minimizing the sound and visual impacts that 

detract from a visitor’s sense of solitude and 

naturalness in the vicinity of the camp. These 

changes would result in a long-term minor 

beneficial impact on visitor experiences in this 

area. 

The traffic-calming strategies on Picture 

Rocks and Sandario Roads would help 

mitigate sound impacts that are affecting the 

adjacent wilderness area. The current volume 

and speed of automobiles affect the natural 

ambient soundscape for up to 2 miles away 

from the roads (Ambrose and Florian 2006). 

The soundscape study identified the level of 

noise and the distance it carries into the 

surrounding area. The mitigation of some 

degree of these impacts due to the trafficcalming strategies would be considered a 

long-term minor beneficial impact on the 

visitor experience in the surrounding 

wilderness area. 

Finally, the park would monitor several 

indicators related to visitor experience and 

resource impacts that identify if and when 

additional management strategies are needed 

to achieve desired conditions. There would be 

several indicators related to the protection of 

the park’s values of solitude and experiencing 

nature, including visitor encounter levels on 

trails and traffic speed on roadways. The park 

would take all actions necessary to ensure that 

these indicators stay within standard to protect the highly valued opportunities for solitude in the park. The inclusion of these types 

of indicators in the park’s monitoring 

program would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. Specific actions proposed to 

achieve the standards identified in this 

management plan would be evaluated under 

the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other applicable laws 

and policies. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

234

Visitor Access, including Access 

for Visitors with Disabilities 

Several issues related to visitor access would 

be resolved in this alternative. First, this 

alternative calls for new trailhead/access 

points in the east expansion area of the 

Tucson Mountain District. The evaluation of 

potential sites would be done as part of the 

comprehensive trails plan. This area has never 

been evaluated for additional recreational 

opportunities, and many residents that live on 

the east side of the Tucson Mountain District 

have supported additional access points. The 

provision of new access points in this 

relatively underused portion of the park 

would be a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact. 

Further, traffic-calming strategies on throughpark roads would likely improve access 

opportunities to the Tucson Mountain 

District. Currently, the National Park Service 

does not encourage visitors to use Picture 

Rocks Road to access the park due to the 

safety and visitor experience impacts caused 

by the conflicts with commuter traffic. If some 

of these impacts were mitigated with the 

traffic-calming strategies, then use of Picture 

Rocks Road by visitors to access the park 

would be encouraged and would likely 

increase. Improving access via Picture Rocks 

Road would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. 

This alternative would regulate access to the 

Madrona/Chimenea area to protect sensitive 

natural and cultural resources. It is likely that 

the Arizona State Trail would connect to the 

south boundary of the Rincon Mountain 

District, providing trail access near the 

Madrona/Chimenea area, which would 

improve access opportunities. With the 

potential increase in visitation, Madrona/ 

Chimenea would be an important part of user 

capacity and biological monitoring programs. 

The park would implement a permit system if 

visitor use impacts indicated that further 

regulation on use levels was needed. Access to 

Madrona/Chimenea would be considered a 

long-term minor beneficial impact for visitors 

interested in this particular opportunity. The 

preservation of the area’s pristine resources 

and contemplative setting through the park’s 

visitor use monitoring program would be a 

long-term major beneficial impact. 

Under this alternative, the location of regional 

trail access points and possible trailheads 

would be identified during the trail planning 

process. Making key connections to already 

planned and developed regional trails was of 

strong interest to several stakeholders and 

many scoping respondents. These trail connections would greatly expand the connectivity of public lands in the region and provide 

more diverse recreational opportunities for 

local residents. This would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact to people 

interested in these regional trail connections. 

Further, this alternative proposes trailhead 

improvements at Camino Loma Alta, 

Broadway, Douglas Springs and Kings Canyon 

(as noted above). The details of these trailhead 

improvements would be included in the 

comprehensive trails plan. The emphasis 

would be on alleviating crowding and user 

conflicts through redesign and related 

infrastructure changes. These improvements, 

particularly at the Broadway and Douglas 

Springs trailheads, have been a topic of ongoing discussion, so the resolution of safety 

and user conflicts would be a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on visitors that use 

these areas to access the park. 

The natural zone near the Valley View Overlook, east of Sandario Road and south of 

Kinney Road, and near the proposed partnership education center would be considered 

for the development of new accessible paved 

nature trails. Many respondents noted interest 

and support for more trail opportunities for 

disabled visitors, as well as new nature trail 

opportunities for all visitors. These proposed 

trails would be a long-term moderate 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

235 

beneficial impact for visitors interested in 

these types of trail experiences. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 

Opportunities for Orientation, 

Education and Interpretation 

In alternative 2, the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center would be expanded to provide 

additional exhibit space, which was supported 

by numerous respondents during public 

scoping. Improving the center to be on par 

with the services and media available at the 

Tucson Mountain District visitor center 

would be a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact to opportunities for orientation and 

education for visitors to the Rincon Mountain 

District. 

Further, this alternative proposes development of an education center at the south 

boundary of the Rincon Mountain District as 

partners and funding become available. An 

existing park structure in this district is 

another facility for potential adaptive reuse as 

an education center as funding permits. These 

facilities would greatly increase organized 

group program opportunities and educational 

services for the park, which would be a longterm moderate beneficial impact on park 

visitors and the local community. This 

alternative also includes staff housing at the 

Madrona/Chimenea area which would 

provide a regular staff presence that could 

provide site protection, visitor interpretation 

and visitor information specific to the 

sensitive resources of the site. The Madrona/ 

Chimenea area has resources of special 

interest and sensitivity, so the presence of 

NPS staff to provide information would likely 

be highly desired by visitors, a long term 

minor beneficial impact. 

In addition, this alternative would include a 

few waysides and designated trails in the CCC 

Camp area as well as a potential increase in 

guided walks to off-trail historic sites. 

Learning more about the history of human 

habitation of a desert environment is of 

interest to many visitors, but there are 

currently limited opportunities. Self-guided 

and ranger-guided walks to these little-seen 

historic sites would provide educational 

opportunities for visitors. This new opportunity would have a long-term minor 

beneficial impact. 

Finally, this alternative calls for consideration 

of improved trail orientation (e.g., signs, trail 

etiquette materials, and maps) as part of the 

comprehensive trails planning effort. Many 

respondents mentioned the need for 

improved orientation to the park’s trail 

system. Inclusion of this strategy in the comprehensive trails plan would be a long-term 

minor beneficial effect on opportunities for 

orientation. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 

Visitor Safety 

There have been 155 accidents (3 fatalities and 

42 injuries) on Picture Rocks Road and 95 

accidents (1 fatality and 40 injuries) on 

Sandario Road between 1998 and 2005 

(Saguaro National Park, Chief Ranger, pers. 

comm. with Kerri Cahill, NPS Denver Service 

Center, 7/2006). In addition to actual safety 

conflicts, there are perceived safety conflicts 

on the road due to high traffic volumes and 

speeds during commuting hours. Many 

respondents commented on their concerns of 

safety along the through-park roads, particularly Picture Rocks Road. Many respondents 

asked that the National Park Service make 

safety improvements to the roadways. The 

traffic calming strategies suggested in this 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

236

alternative would be expected to reduce the 

number and severity of vehicle accidents 

along the roads by reducing vehicle speeds, 

particularly on Picture Rocks Road, which 

would be a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact on Tucson Mountain District visitors. 

The expansion and improvements of the 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

would also improve the distribution of visitor 

safety information, leading to a long-term 

minor beneficial impact. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several recent or proposed projects in the 

region may contribute to cumulative impacts 

on the visitor experience at both districts. 

Regarding the range of recreational 

opportunities, The Pima Association of 

Governments 2030 Transportation Plan

proposes the addition of the Twin Peaks 

highway interchange at Interstate 10. If 

implemented, this interchange in combination 

with the traffic-calming strategies proposed in 

this alternative for the park’s through-park 

roads would moderate traffic volume and 

reduce speed conflicts by providing an 

alternate route for commuting traffic around 

the park, resulting in improved scenic driving 

opportunities through the park — a long-term 

major beneficial cumulative impact. 

Other projects that may influence the range of 

recreational opportunities in Saguaro 

National Park include the designation of new 

public lands near both districts of the park. 

The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

is south of the Rincon Mountain District, and 

the Ironwood Forest National Monument is 

near the western boundary of the Tucson 

Mountain District. Both of these new public 

lands are managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management and are undergoing planning at 

this time. 

It is likely that these new lands would improve 

nature-based recreation opportunities in the 

region and help balance the range of 

recreational opportunities offered to regional 

visitors, including people that may visit 

Saguaro. The Ironwood Forest National 

Monument would provide extensive motor 

touring and bicycling opportunities, and the 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

would increase the amount of wildlife 

watching and primitive hiking opportunities 

that are available nearby. In summary, these 

new lands in combination with the improved 

recreational opportunities proposed in this 

alterative would likely lead to a long-term 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on the 

range of recreational opportunities. 

Regarding opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature, the proposed 

Twin Peaks interchange, in combination with 

the proposed traffic calming strategies in this 

alternative, would likely help moderate 

current impacts to the soundscape resulting 

from traffic conditions on Picture Rocks 

Road. This would improve opportunities for 

solitude in the designated wilderness areas 

adjacent to the road in the Tucson Mountain 

District, leading to a long-term moderate 

beneficial cumulative impact. 

Regarding visitor access, the proposed Twin 

Peaks highway interchange at Interstate 10, in 

combination with the traffic-calming strategies proposed in this alternative, might alleviate some of the commuting traffic pressure 

along Picture Rocks Road. Currently, visitor 

access to the north end of Tucson Mountain 

District is hindered by high traffic volumes 

and speeding, creating unsafe conditions for 

visitor access. This proposed interchange in 

combination with proposed traffic calming 

would be a moderate beneficial cumulative 

impact for visitor access opportunities. 

There are no projects contributing to cumulative impacts regarding opportunities for 

orientation, education, and interpretation. 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative 

impacts related to this topic under alternative 

2. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

237 

The proposed Twin Peaks interchange in 

combination with traffic calming on Picture 

Rocks Road would also likely contribute to 

cumulative impacts on visitor safety. The 

interchange along with the traffic-calming 

strategies would likely improve traffic conditions by reducing use levels and changing the 

pattern of use from predominately commuters 

to national park visitors, resulting in slower 

speed levels. In combination with the 

proposed traffic calming strategies in this 

alternative, the interchange would result in a 

long-term major beneficial cumulative impact 

on visitor safety. 

Conclusion 

Alternative 2 would result in moderate and 

major beneficial impacts resulting from 

enhanced protection of visitor experiences 

and recreational activities that are unique to 

the park, including outstanding primitive 

hiking and camping, opportunities for 

solitude and getting in touch with nature, and 

learning about the Sonoran Desert from an 

up-close perspective. In addition, the 

provision of new opportunities such as 

bicycling and educational programs would be 

a moderate beneficial impact on the range of 

recreational opportunities. Further, current 

adverse impacts from user conflicts on trails, 

increasing use in wilderness areas that may 

threaten visitors’ opportunities for solitude, 

and increasing commuter traffic along 

through-park roads would be moderated 

through a variety of proposals that would 

improve the visitor experience in the park 

over the long term, resulting in moderate to 

major beneficial impacts. 

Finally, the designation of new public lands 

near both districts of the park in combination 

with the improved recreational and visitor 

experience opportunities provided by Saguaro 

would have moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts on the range of recreational opportunities and opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature. The proposed 

new Twin Peaks interchange in combination 

with the proposed traffic-calming strategies in 

this alternative would have moderate to major 

beneficial cumulative impacts on the range of 

recreational opportunities, visitor access, and 

visitor safety due to the likely improvement of 

traffic conditions on Picture Rocks Road and 

other through-park roads. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis 

Under alternative 2, visitation would be 

managed and redirected, when necessary, and 

basic facilities for visitor safety and services 

would be provided inside the national park. 

These efforts would result in expenditures 

and earning gains for the local economy. 

Concurrently, providing a more desirable 

visitor experience would translate into social 

and economic gains for the local community. 

The improvements would allow the National 

Park Service to continue to provide a level of 

service that corresponds to the demand from 

the increasingly urban community. The local 

economic impacts of visitor spending would 

be expected to increase in a manner that is 

generally proportionate to population growth. 

Generally, national park visitors do not spend 

money while in the backcountry or engaged in 

activities such as hiking, observing nature, or 

participating in educational programs. 

Spending generally occurs outside the park at 

souvenir shops, restaurants, and other 

commercial attractions. This is particularly 

true for visitors who stay overnight in the area 

(Stynes and Sun 2003). It is expected that the 

improvements associated with alternative 2 

might result in increased stays and, thus, 

increased spending in the local community. 

The installation of traffic-calming devices 

would translate into moderate short and longterm economic gains to the local community 

from construction, maintenance, and 

enforcement expenditures and earnings. The 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

238

intent is that the visitor experience would be 

enhanced by implementing these measures. 

Other roadways in Saguaro National Park 

would be reclassified, and in some cases, 

redesigned, to enhance the visitor experience. 

A secondary benefit would be improved 

public safety, particularly for the scenic Bajada 

Loop Drive in the Tucson Mountain District, 

where a number of traffic accidents have 

occurred, and along Golden Gate Road, 

where vehicular traffic would be prohibited. 

As previously mentioned, traffic accident 

cleanup and police monitoring are a costly 

public expense. The Cactus Forest Loop Drive 

in the Rincon Mountain District would 

continue as a motor tour route and would be 

placed in the Sightseeing Corridor Zone, 

potentially increasing the number of visitors 

to the area and associated economic benefit. 

Under the ongoing trails plan for the park, 

trails would be evaluated to determine how 

Saguaro National Park would achieve the 

management zones desired conditions. Access 

to the trails through trailhead development 

and additional parking at the trailhead 

locations would be implemented. This 

construction and development would create 

short-term expenditures and earnings in the 

local community. Interpretive signs would 

also be developed. Implementing these 

visitor-friendly features would potentially 

change visitor sense of place/people-place 

connections in localized areas. If these 

improvements translate into increased 

visitation to Saguaro National Park and/or 

increased visitor stays, a moderate long-term 

economic gain could be realized as a result of 

visitor expenditures. 

Access to the Madrona/Chimenea area 

cultural site would continue to be highly 

regulated to protect this sensitive natural and 

cultural resource. Housing and new corrals 

for staff would be developed and utilities 

would be upgraded. These developments may 

result in social sense of place/people-place 

connection impacts that would likely vary 

based on individual and/or social groups. 

Negligible short-term economic gains would 

be realized during the period of construction 

in the form of expenditures and earnings. 

At Manning Camp, fire management and trail 

maintenance would be coordinated and a 

shared work center would be developed with 

the U.S. Forest Service. The cabin at the site 

would be rehabilitated to protect its historic 

value, and a ranger would be in attendance 

during the summer for law enforcement, 

initial fire response, interpretation, and 

routine maintenance. Hiring people to work 

at the site during the summer would have a 

short-term beneficial effect on local 

employment. 

The visitor center in the Rincon Mountain 

District would be expanded under alternative 

2, and an environmental educational center 

would be developed at the south boundary of 

this district. Short- and long-term economic 

gains would occur with the implementation of 

these projects, primarily related to additional 

employment. Partnerships to develop the 

outdoor environmental educational center 

would also be undertaken to assist with the 

funding. If these improvements translate into 

increased visitation to Saguaro National Park 

and/or increased visitor stays, a moderate 

long-term beneficial impact could be realized 

as a result of visitor expenditures. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable actions considered 

would be generally the same as mentioned 

under alternative 1. Under alternative 2, the 

implementation of traffic-calming devices to 

slow and control commuter traffic through 

Saguaro National Park, would result in minor 

expenditures and earnings and would 

enhance the sense of place values associated 

with travel along Picture Rocks Road. Some 

minor short-term expenditures and earnings 

would occur with implementation of these 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

239 

devices, including for installation and 

maintenance. The development of the Pima 

Association of Governments Transportation 

plan, in conjunction with the impacts of 

alternative 2, would result in a major longterm beneficial cumulative impact reducing 

the socioeconomic impact of increased 

commuter traffic through the park’s Tucson 

Mountain District. Construction of the 

proposed new Twin Peaks interchange would 

reduce costs for replacement and repair of 

damaged resources and public safety. The 

impacts of alternative 2 would comprise a 

relatively small portion of the overall 

cumulative impact on the socioeconomic 

environment. 

Conclusion 

Implementation of alternative 2 would result 

in an overall moderate long-term beneficial 

effect on the socioeconomic environment. 

Management and enhancement of the visitor 

experience, while protecting natural 

resources, would encourage visitation to 

Saguaro National Park and would benefit the 

local community by increasing spending 

related to recreational activity and possibly 

extended stays. The emphasis on protection 

of sensitive resources and reduction of habitat 

fragmentation would also provide a moderate 

long-term beneficial effect by maintaining the 

park’s naturalness and encouraging visitation. 

Improved traffic conditions along Picture 

Rocks Road through traffic-calming devices 

would likely encourage increased visitation 

and economically benefit the national park 

and the community through lower 

maintenance costs and increased visitation. 

TRANSPORTATION 

Analysis. Under this alternative, the park 

would manage Picture Rocks Road, Golden 

Gate Road and a portion of Sandario Road 

within the boundaries of the Tucson 

Mountain District to provide increased safety, 

reduced congestion, and more and safer 

parking. At the Rincon Mountain District, the 

park would construct more trailhead and 

visitor center parking. 

Background regional growth and trafficrelated impacts from the rapidly expanding 

Tucson metropolitan area (outlined in 

alternative 1) would continue to negatively 

impact the park’s transportation system in the 

Tucson Mountain District. 

Tucson Mountain District 

The park is proposing several transportation 

actions in alternative 2 related to park 

circulation, safety and parking: 

• adaptive management of traffic on Picture 

Rocks Road 

• addition of parking south of Picture Rocks 

Road/Golden Gate Road 

• conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail, 

and 

• conversion of the scenic Bajada Loop 

Drive/Hohokam Road to a one-way loop, 

road reconstruction, and partial 

realignment of the loop off of Sandario 

Road to the east.

Circulation. This alternative proposes one 

direct change to roadway circulation: Golden 

Gate Road would be converted to a trail. 

Traffic on Golden Gate Road (about 100 trips 

per day, with stable traffic volumes over the 

last 15 years) would be diverted to Sandario 

Road, Picture Rocks Road, or Mile Wide 

Road/Kinney Road. Visitors traveling on 

Picture Rocks Road could access park trails 

via the new Golden Gate trailhead just south 

of Picture Rocks Road, so some traffic would 

not need to divert to other routes. The 

Saguaro National Park Transportation and 

Visitor Use Study (David Evans and Associates 

2006) projects that Hohokam Road would 

experience some additional traffic as a result 

of the out-of-direction travel required for 

visitors wishing to drive to the Ez-Kim-In-Zin 

picnic area rather than access it from the trail. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

240

Closing Golden Gate Road would result in an 

increase of less than 100 trips/day on Picture 

Rocks Road and Sandario Road (less than a 

3% increase on these roads). All three roads 

that would experience traffic diversion from 

converting Golden Gate Road to a trail have 

the capacity available (although Picture Rocks 

Road is near capacity) to absorb this small 

amount of traffic. 

The conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail 

would result in long-term, negligible adverse 

impacts on visitors because this road has 

minimal traffic now and any corresponding 

traffic diversion would also be minimal. There 

would be a long-term, negligible adverse effect 

on non-visitor users; this dirt road is not used 

by through traffic, however, non-visitor users 

would experience some small amount of 

traffic diversion from visitors on either Picture 

Rocks Road, Sandario Road, or Mile Wide 

Road/Kinney Road. 

Conversion of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive/ 

Hohokam Road to a one-way loop will 

improve internal park circulation with the 

proposed conversion of Golden Gate Road to 

a trail. According to park staff observations, 

there are no congestion issues on this dirt 

road, and it is not a through road now. 

Further safety improvements along the scenic 

Bajada Loop Drive would be realized if the 

proposed realignment of the road could avoid 

Sandario Road at the west end of the loop. 

Conversion to a one-way loop with a new 

alignment off of Sandario Road would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial impacts to 

visitors — a one-way loop would result in a 

potential negligible impact to travel time, 

however, this would be off-set by the reduced 

accident potential along this section of 

Sandario Road. Impacts to non-visitor users 

from converting the scenic Bajada Loop Drive 

to a one-way loop and avoiding Sandario 

Road would have long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts on non-visitor users by 

reducing the accident potential on Sandario 

Road. There would be some short-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts on visitors 

during construction along the loop because of 

a complete or partial loss of access. There 

would be no construction impacts to nonvisitor users, since this dirt road is not being 

used by through traffic. 

The goal of the adaptive management 

approach to traffic calming on Picture Rocks 

Road is to reduce speeding, the number one 

cause of accidents along this roadway. Trafficcalming devices that are effective at reducing 

speeds may also result in reduced congestion, 

increased travel time, and reduced accidents, 

and may cause individual drivers to change 

their use of Picture Rocks Road and divert to 

other east-west connections (most likely to 

Twin Peaks Road or Kinney Road). The 

extent of traffic calming impacts depends on 

the specific type, number, and mixture of the 

devices. However, using conceptual, adaptive 

management approach, some generalized 

conclusions about traffic calming impacts can 

be drawn: 

• Low-level traffic calming (such as the use 

of additional law enforcement and mobile 

speed radar signs, testing of nonpermanent solutions like a temporary 

roundabout) — traffic diversion is 

unlikely; some modest reductions in 

speeding and accidents may occur. 

• Moderate-level traffic calming (such as 

the installation of parking pullout areas, 

neckdowns/median treatments, and/or 

roundabouts) — some non-visitor traffic 

diversion would result in decreased 

congestion on Picture Rocks Road and 

increased traffic on Twin Peaks Road and 

Kinney Road, and related increases to 

travel time and vehicle miles traveled. 

Speed reduction, reduced user conflicts, 

and lower accident rates are also likely. 

• High level traffic calming (such as 

controlled access with an entrance 

station) — higher levels of non-visitor 

users would divert to Twin Peaks Road 

and Kinney Road. This level would 

produce the greatest reductions in user 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

241 

conflicts, congestion, speeds, and accident 

rates. 

It is important to note that as congestion rises 

on Picture Rocks Road with increased 

demand from non-visitor users, traffic speeds 

would begin to fall naturally (similar to what 

happens on congested highways). This 

background impact would cause an increase 

in travel time, and if the congestion rises high 

enough, traffic diversion would also naturally 

occur. So, some speed reduction and traffic 

diversion are possible even without the park’s 

use of adaptive management techniques. 

However, waiting until congestion rises to this 

level would likely result in unacceptable safety 

impacts to all users and the visitor experience. 

As traffic increases on Picture Rocks Road, 

slower speeds would result due to congested 

conditions; slower speeds may divert 

commuters to Kinney Road and Sandario 

Road. This diversion would result in a “ripple 

effect” where visitors will be impacted by 

faster-moving commuter traffic at additional 

locations (additive impacts are in effect here, 

since this portion of Sandario Road has a very 

high accident rate). 

The specific type and extent of the impacts of 

the adaptive management approach to visitors 

and non-visitor users, combined with the 

effects of regional traffic, would be evaluated 

in a separate NEPA compliance document 

when the park is ready to implement the 

adaptive management approach and has 

specific proposals for which traffic-calmingtype devices would be used, the proposed 

number of devices, where they would be 

located, and what the cumulative effects of 

different devices might be. 

Safety. The addition of parking south of the 

Picture Rocks Road/Golden Gate Road 

intersection would provide a much needed 

area for slower-moving visitors to pull out of 

faster-moving commuter traffic. This parking 

should reduce conflicts between visitor and 

non-visitor users, resulting in a long-term, 

minor beneficial impact to safety for both user 

groups. However, although the park is 

proposing to convert Golden Gate Road to a 

trail, the addition of parking just south of the 

current Golden Gate Road/ Picture Rocks 

Road intersection would potentially offset any 

safety benefits that might be gained by converting the road to a trail. This would occur 

because the demand for trailhead parking 

would be similar to the demand for Golden 

Gate Road as an access road. In conjunction 

with the construction of new parking (and as 

part of the adaptive management plan for 

traffic calming on Picture Rocks Road), the 

park would investigate ways to improve safety 

in this area, such as moving the intersection 

away from the curve, improving sight 

distance, and/or installing traffic calming 

devices. Safety improvements and the addition of parking at the Golden Gate Road/ 

Picture Rocks Road intersection would result 

in long-term, moderate beneficial boosts to 

visitor and non-visitor safety, because this is 

the highest accident section of Picture Rocks 

Road. 

The use of adaptive management on Picture 

Rocks Road will likely result in some direct 

and/or indirect safety changes in the short 

and/or long-term, with possible safety impacts 

to speeds, accident rates, emergency access, 

etc. The type and extent of these impacts to 

visitors and non-visitor users would be 

evaluated in a separate NEPA compliance 

document when the park is ready to implement the adaptive management approach and 

has specific proposals for which trafficcalming devices would be used and where the 

devices would be located. 

The conversion of the scenic Bajada Loop 

Drive/Hohokam Road to a one-way loop 

should result in long-term, negligible 

beneficial impacts to visitor safety, since it 

would eliminate on-coming traffic on a 

narrow, slow-moving dirt road. There would 

be no effect on non-visitor users, since this is 

an internal park road not used by through 

traffic. There could be short-term, negligible 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

242

adverse impacts to visitor safety during 

construction of the proposed parking areas 

and roadbed because of the presence of heavy 

equipment and construction activities. There 

would be no safety impacts to non-visitor 

users, because parking and road reconstruction are not being proposed in areas used by 

non-visitor users. 

Parking. Along with the conversion of 

Golden Gate Road to a trail, the park is 

proposing new automobile and equestrian 

trailhead parking just south of the Picture 

Rocks Road/Golden Gate Road intersection. 

This parking would provide parking for active 

enjoyment of the park, and for visitors 

wishing to pull out of the traffic on Picture 

Rocks Road and enjoy scenic views well 

beyond the flow of traffic. New parking south 

of the Picture Rocks Road/Golden Gate Road 

intersection would result in long-term, minor 

beneficial impacts on visitors because of the 

provision of a formal pullout parking area on 

Picture Rocks Road (where none is available 

now) and a corresponding improvement to 

visitor experience. The addition of new 

parking would have no effect on non-visitor 

users. 

The use of adaptive management on Picture 

Rocks Road may result in some changes to the 

parking supply along this corridor. The park is 

proposing the addition of a parking pullout 

area south of Golden Gate Road as part of the 

conversion of that road to a trail, and not as 

part of the adaptive management approach. 

The park may provide additional pullout 

parking along Picture Rocks Road in the 

future. The type and extent of these impacts to 

visitors and non-visitor users would be 

evaluated in separate NEPA compliance 

documents when the park is ready to implement the adaptive management approach and 

has specific proposals for where the parking 

pullout areas would be located, and how many 

parking spaces would be provided. 

Cumulative Impacts. The impacts to 

transportation in this district from the 2030 

Regional Transportation Plan, regional growth 

rate and comprehensive land use planning 

were described in alternative 1. Also, in the 

2030 Regional Transportation Plan, the Pima 

Association of Governments identified the 

need for traffic calming on Picture Rocks 

Road in their long-term transportation 

improvement plan. This implies that the safety 

conditions on this corridor need improvement, either by actions from the park and/or 

the county. If the park does not install trafficcalming devices on Picture Rocks Road 

(through an adaptive management approach 

as proposed in alternative 2), according to the 

2030 Regional Transportation Plan, the county 

would install the devices (the plan is not 

specific about where the traffic calming would 

occur or whether it would be within park 

boundaries) 

Overall, alternative 2, in conjunction with the 

impact of other regional land use and 

transportation policies and actions, would 

have a long-term, minor adverse cumulative 

impact on visitors because of safety concerns 

and road congestion resulting from background regional growth and inadequate local 

transportation infrastructure to serve 

circulation demand. For example, even with 

the provision of additional transportation 

infrastructure called for in the 2030 Regional 

Transportation Plan, traffic volumes on 

Picture Rocks Road are expected to rise 

another 20%–30% due to increasing 

commuter demand for east-west road links. 

The extent of adverse impacts on visitors 

would be somewhat offset by the park’s 

proposed use of adaptive management for 

traffic calming on Picture Rocks Road, the 

addition of pullout parking and safety 

improvements at the Golden Gate Road/ 

Picture Rocks Road intersection, and the 

elimination of the Sandario Road portion of 

the scenic Bajada Loop Drive. 

Alternative 2 also would have adverse impacts 

to non-visitors, largely as a direct result of 

rapid growth in northwestern Pima County, 

without adequate transportation 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

243 

infrastructure (particularly the lack of eastwest connections), public services, or 

economic opportunities, which would allow 

residents to reduce their need for east-west 

travel. In conjunction with the impacts of 

other land use and transportation policies and 

actions, alternative 2 would have minor shortand long-term adverse cumulative impacts on 

non-visitor users. The impacts of alternative 2 

likely would comprise a relatively small 

portion of the overall cumulative impact, 

unless the park were to implement high levels 

of traffic calming such as the construction of 

an entrance station as a last resort to slow 

speeds along Picture Rocks Road. 

Conclusion. The conversion of Golden Gate 

Road to a trail would result in long-term, 

negligible adverse impact on visitors because 

this road has minimal traffic now and any 

corresponding traffic diversion would be 

minimal. There would be a long-term, 

negligible adverse effect on non-visitor 

motorists due to some small amount of traffic 

diversion to other roads as described above. 

Conversion of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive/ 

Hohokam Road to a one-way loop with a new 

alignment off of Sandario Road would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial impact on 

visitor and non-visitor motorists. 

 

The implementation of adaptive management 

approach to traffic calming on Picture Rocks 

Road to reduce speeding and accidents would 

result in short-term, moderate to major 

adverse impacts to non-visitor motorists due 

to increased travel time and/or the diversion 

of motorists to alternate routes described 

above until the Twin Peaks interchange is 

built. However the implementation of trafficcalming devices would result in long-term, 

moderate to major beneficial impact on park 

visitors due to providing a safer, more 

appropriate and leisurely park driving 

experience. 

The proposed new automobile and equestrian 

trailhead parking south of the Picture Rocks 

Road/Golden Gate Road intersection would 

result in long-term, minor beneficial impacts 

on visitors. Improving the intersection of 

Golden Gate Road/ Picture Rocks Road to 

provide safe access to the proposed parking 

area would result in long-term, moderate 

beneficial impacts on visitors. The addition of 

new parking would have a long-term 

negligible beneficial impact on non-visitor 

motorists by providing a designated safe 

parking area if needed. 

Rincon Mountain District 

The primary park-related actions proposed 

under alternative 2 in the Rincon Mountain 

District are as follows. 

• Expansion of two trailhead parking 

areas on Speedway Boulevard and 

trailhead parking on Broadway 

• Expansion/relocation of parking near 

the Rincon visitor center. 

Circulation. No changes to circulation are 

proposed as part of this alternative, and there 

are no background changes locally that would 

impact circulation in this area. There would be 

no long-term impacts to visitor circulation. 

Visitors may experience some short-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impacts while new 

parking is being constructed at the trailheads. 

Cactus Forest Drive has excess capacity 

available for additional visitation. Access 

roads to the park (Speedway, Broadway, and 

Old Spanish Trail) have plenty of additional 

capacity, and all are operating at or above 

Level of Service C. Additional traffic from 

modest increases in visitation or changes in 

visitation patterns may result in increased 

congestion at the park entrance; however, this 

intersection has capacity available (currently 

LOS A) to accommodate additional visitation. 

As visitation rises, the area between the 

entrance station and Old Spanish Trail may 

experience a corresponding increase in 

congestion, since staff has already observed 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

244

some traffic queuing in this area at peak times. 

With the additional parking proposed for the 

Speedway and Broadway trailheads the lack of 

congestion would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. However, non-visitor users 

may experience long-term, negligible adverse 

impacts due to some additional traffic on 

these roads en route to the parking areas. 

However, these are not through roads and 

have excess capacity for additional visitation. 

As growth occurs in Tucson, Old Spanish 

Trail, Escalante Road, Freeman Road, 

Broadway Boulevard and Speedway 

Boulevard (the roads providing primary 

access to the park) and other regional 

roadways en route to the park would 

experience background increases in traffic 

levels that visitors would encounter en route 

to the park. This alternative would have longterm, negligible, adverse impacts to visitors, 

since the capacity exists to handle additional 

visitation and background growth with either 

with existing facilities and/or minor changes 

to park operations. 

Safety. This alternative proposes to expand 

the visitor center parking lot. This presents an 

opportunity to improve management by 

avoiding conflicts with periodic traffic queues 

from the entrance station. This would result in 

a long-term, minor beneficial impact to visitor 

safety. 

Parking. Expansion of the parking at the 

Wildhorse and Douglas Springs trailheads and 

the Rincon visitor center is proposed in this 

alternative. ADA-required spaces would be 

incorporated into all construction. New 

parking should be sufficient to address 

current demands and provide some increase 

in demand as visitation rises along with 

regional growth. There would be some shortterm, negligible to minor adverse impact 

during construction of parking; however, all 

the parking proposals would ultimately result 

in long-term, minor beneficial impacts to 

visitors as a result of additional parking 

capacity. 

Cumulative Impacts. The impacts to 

transportation in this district from the 2030 

Regional Transportation Plan, regional growth 

rate and comprehensive land use planning 

were described in alternative 1. There was a 

short-term, negligible to minor adverse impact 

on visitor circulation during the recent 

reconstruction of the Cactus Forest Loop. 

Reconstruction of Cactus Forest Loop had a 

very short-term, negligible adverse effect on 

traffic outside the park entrance during 

construction in that area. The impacts of 

alternative 2, in conjunction with the impacts 

of other regional transportation-related plans 

and actions, would have negligible short- and 

long-term adverse cumulative impacts to 

circulation in this district. Impacts of 

alternative 2 would comprise a very small 

portion of the overall cumulative impact. 

Parking in this district is already beyond capacity in most areas. Impacts of park visitation 

on regional roadways would be very small 

because as the road network in this area has 

many east-west and north-south options and 

any increases in visitation could be effectively 

spread out over the network, decreasing the 

possibility of congestion and safety concerns. 

Overall, impacts of alternative 2, along with 

the impacts of other plans and actions, would 

result in minor adverse cumulative impacts to 

parking. Alternative 2 would contribute a 

small increment relative to the overall 

cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. There would be no long-term 

impacts to visitor circulation. Visitors may 

experience some short-term, negligible to 

minor adverse impacts while new parking is 

being constructed at the Golden Gate 

trailhead 

This alternative proposes to expand the visitor 

center parking lot. This would result in a longterm, minor beneficial impact to visitor safety. 

With the additional parking proposed for the 

Speedway and Broadway trailheads, the lack 

of congestion would be a long-term moderate 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

245 

beneficial impact. However, non-visitor users 

may experience long-term, negligible adverse 

impacts due to some additional traffic on 

these roads en route to the parking areas. 

Expansion of the parking at the Wildhorse 

and Douglas Springs trailheads and the 

Rincon visitor center is proposed in this 

alternative. There would some short-term, 

negligible to minor adverse impact during 

construction of parking; however, all the 

parking proposals would ultimately result in 

long-term, minor beneficial impacts to visitors 

as a result of additional parking capacity. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

The emphasis of alternative 2 is directed 

toward enhancing the protection of the park’s 

ecological processes and biological diversity. 

Impacts on park operations under alternative 

2 would be primarily in the areas of science 

and resource management, visitor and 

resource protection, trail maintenance, and 

interpretation. In addition to the minimum 

operating level of 76.5 employees, the 

following positions would be necessary if 

alternative 2 was implemented: 

3 biological technician positions (to manage 

park natural resources in a pristine to 

excellent condition, to preserve wildlife 

habitat, and to restore natural vegetation) 

2 law enforcement rangers (to regulate and 

protect sensitive natural and cultural 

resources in the Madrona section of the 

park, for law enforcement on park roads to 

ensure that drivers are traveling at safe 

speed limits, to assist with potential traffic 

and circulation problems, and to respond 

to visitor encounters with wildlife and 

other emergencies 

2.5 trail workers (for restoration and 

rehabilitation of existing trails, potential 

opportunities for developing bicycle trails 

and connecting park trails to regional trail 

networks) 

1 education specialist (for the proposed 

education centers 

1 community planner (to manage the 

proposed park’s partnerships program) 

Public Facilities 

Trails and Trailheads. A comprehensive trail 

plan is being developed and would recommend sustainable trail design, trail 

realignment/rehabilitation. The comprehensive trail plan would be an improvement to 

current trail management strategies that are 

either limited or piecemeal in nature and 

would result in a long-term major beneficial 

effect on park operations through reduced 

trail maintenance and reduced user conflicts 

requiring additional staff time. 

Off-trail travel below 4,500 feet would be 

restricted. The development of regional trail 

connections and single-use trails, if recommended in the comprehensive trails plan and 

implemented, would create short-term 

moderate adverse effects on park operations 

due to the staff time required to build these 

trails and connections. 

The Camino Loma Trailhead would be 

improved, and the Douglas Springs, 

Wildhorse, and Broadway trailheads would be 

improved and redesigned. If recommended in 

the comprehensive trails plan and implemented, the Hope Camp Trail in the Rincon 

Mountain District would be developed as a 

bicycle trail. Also, new ADA-accessible trail 

opportunities would be explored, especially 

inside Cactus Forest Loop Drive. New designs 

and new designated uses would create both 

short- and long-term minor adverse effects on 

park operations as a result of increased 

maintenance and staff time requirements. 

In the Tucson Mountain District, new 

trailheads and parking would be developed at 

both ends of the proposed Golden Gate Trail. 

The conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail 

would have short-term moderate adverse 

impacts on park operations during the 

conversion process, but would create major 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

246

beneficial effects on park operations over the 

long term as a result of decreased 

maintenance requirements. 

If recommended in the comprehensive trails 

plan and implemented, accessible trails would 

be developed at Valley View Lookout, and 

new trails would be designed and constructed 

between Sandario and Kinney roads and in 

the former CCC camp area ( in the 

northwestern half-section, west of Sandario 

Road). New trails would create moderate 

adverse short-term impacts on park staff time 

during construction and long-term minor 

adverse impacts on park operations as a result 

of increased maintenance requirements. 

The trails plan would also consider developing bicycling trails along the gas pipeline rightof-way near the eastern boundary of the 

district and improvement of the Kings Canyon 

trailhead. If these trails are developed/ 

redesigned, these actions would have a shortterm minor adverse impact on park operations 

during construction and a long-term minor 

adverse impact on park operations as a result 

of increased maintenance and staff time 

requirements once the trails are built. 

Park Roads and Entrance Stations. Under 

alternative 2, the primary changes to park 

roads would consist of installing intensive 

traffic-calming devices on Picture Rocks Road 

and the permanent conversion of Golden 

Gate Road (between Ez-Kim-In-Zin and 

Picture Rocks Road ) to a trail. 

Installation of traffic-calming devices would 

create a short term moderate adverse effect on 

park operations as a result of initial investment, construction, and the necessary precautions to provide a safe environment for 

employees and road users during construction. The long-term effects related to annual 

maintenance on these new facilities would be 

minor and adverse. 

If additional traffic calming is needed, the 

adverse effects of installing devices on staff 

time and the potential permanent staffing 

requirements of two new entrance stations/fee 

kiosks would be considerably offset as a result 

of increased entrance fee revenue collected 

and would constitute a negligible effect on 

park operations. 

Installation of these devices would also be 

accompanied by a limited period of increased 

law enforcement to ensure compliance with 

desired traffic management conditions would 

create an additional short-term moderate 

adverse effect on park operations. Over the 

long term, the installation of these devices 

would be expected to decrease the need for 

law enforcement and emergency services 

along Picture Rocks Road and would 

therefore create a major beneficial effect on 

park operations. 

Converting Golden Gate Road to a trail would 

create an immediate short-term moderate 

adverse effect on park operations due to staff 

requirements for road removal, but in the long 

term would create an overall major beneficial 

effect on park operations because of 

decreased annual maintenance. Additionally, 

the conversion of this road to a trail would 

eliminate the considerable deferred 

maintenance cost that currently exists due to 

the poor condition of this road. 

Making the scenic Bajada Loop Drive oneway and narrowing it would have moderate 

short-term adverse impacts on park 

operations during construction. Minor to 

moderate beneficial impacts would occur over 

the long term because reconstruction would 

not be needed after each major rain and there 

would be a decrease in law enforcement and 

emergency response staff requirements as a 

result of safer conditions. 

Parking Areas. Parking areas would be 

formalized and expanded at trailheads and at 

the Rincon Mountain District visitor center. 

As long as increases in parking areas and 

availability are proportionate to user capacity 

thresholds for the park and this new develop-
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

247 

ment does not create a larger management 

problem in the long run as a result of 

increased use, it is expected that park 

operations would experience long-term minor 

beneficial effects under alternative 2 with 

regard to parking improvements. More 

designated and better-defined parking would 

both decrease the need for park traffic management and lessen the impact on natural 

resources, thereby reducing staff time 

required to mitigate those impacts. Park 

operations would experience short-term 

moderate adverse effects as a result of 

construction activities. 

Visitor and Education Centers. The Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center would be 

expanded under this alternative. Visitation to 

this facility has steadily increased over the past 

50 years. A rehabilitated building with a new 

addition would better accommodate larger 

crowds through proper design and would 

improve the operational efficiency of this 

building. Outdated and inefficient building 

infrastructure currently requires frequent 

repair and maintenance to address regular 

breakdowns. A total overhaul of mechanical 

systems and upgrade of the existing building 

would greatly reduce the deferred 

maintenance backlog for this building. Under 

this alternative, offices in the annex building, 

which would become an education center, 

would be moved to the expanded area in the 

visitor center and/or to the existing park 

housing facility. The expansion and upgrade 

of the visitor center would create short-term 

moderate adverse effects on park operations 

during construction, but would in the long 

term be a major beneficial effect on park 

operations because of increased efficiency of 

park operations and elimination of the mix of 

incompatible uses. Long-term minor adverse 

effects would be expected as a result of 

increased maintenance requirements due to 

an increase in facility size. 

A partnership education center would be 

constructed at Camino Loma Alta. This 

facility would have a long-term major 

beneficial effect on park operations because of 

increased facilities to assist park staff in 

educating visitors. There would be minor 

adverse effects on park operations in the short 

term as a result of construction activities and 

in the long term as a result of increased 

requirements for facility maintenance. 

Orientation, Wayside Exhibits, and Interior 

Exhibits. Interior exhibits in the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center would be 

updated under this alternative. Additional 

wayside exhibits would be added on some 

existing and proposed interpretive trails. 

Orientation panels would be updated and 

added at park trailheads during trailhead 

improvements. New interpretive exhibits and 

information panels would assist staff in 

educating the public about the park. The new 

exhibits and panels would create a long-term 

moderate beneficial effect on park operations 

related to visitor services, but would also 

create a minor long-term adverse impact on 

park operations due to the need for ongoing 

maintenance. There would be short term 

moderate adverse effects during installation 

from needed staff time. 

Camping. The effects on park operations 

related to backcountry camping management 

would be negligible, because no additional 

campgrounds would be developed under this 

alternative. Impacts would continue to relate 

primarily to staffing requirements for 

backcountry patrols. 

Administrative Facilities 

Offices, Storage, and Park Buildings. As 

described above under visitor and education 

centers, the effect of having new office space 

in a portion of the visitor center and/or 

existing park housing facility would be a longterm major beneficial effect on park operations because of increased space and 

efficiency and the elimination of incompatible 

uses in the same spaces. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

248

Corrals. The corral at Madrona would be 

removed. A new corral would be constructed 

outside the riparian zone to support packing 

operations for fire management and trail 

operations. There would be short term, minor 

adverse effects during removal of the corral 

and during construction of a new corral due 

to staffing requirements. There would be 

long-term moderate beneficial effects as a 

result of the use of this proposed new facility 

and minor adverse effects due to necessary 

maintenance over the long term. 

Park Housing. Park housing at Madrona 

would be removed and a new house would be 

constructed to meet current codes. This new 

house would create long term major beneficial 

effects on park operations because of the 

presence of park staff on site in the Madrona 

area. The need for potable water to be hauled 

to this site for use by park staff under this 

alternative would create a long-term moderate 

adverse effect on park operations. Together, 

the adverse and beneficial long-term effects 

on park operations resulting from this 

alternative would be long-term, minor, and 

beneficial. There would be a short-term minor 

adverse effect on park operations during 

building construction due to staffing 

requirements. 

Other Buildings and Facilities. Fire and trail 

crew support facilities would be reduced at 

Manning Camp. The historic buildings would 

be preserved and other structures along with 

the developed water system, corrals, and vault 

toilet would remain at Manning Camp and be 

maintained by park staff for possible future 

use. This action would result in a long-term 

moderate beneficial effect on park operations 

during fire crew activities on Mica Mountain 

from decreased need for transport of supplies 

to service this remote site. However, a longterm moderate adverse effect on park 

operations would likely occur as a result of 

required maintenance and upkeep of facilities 

at Manning Camp. The overall effect on park 

operations related to Manning Camp would 

be negligible. 

The Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

building at Madrona would be donated to an 

interested organization and relocated or 

would be documented and razed. The 

removal of this building would create longterm moderate beneficial effects on park 

operations by removing stabilization and 

preservation requirements for this building. 

There would be short-term minor adverse 

effects on park operations during removal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As described in chapter 2, alternative 2 proposes several changes to park management, 

including facility improvements and increased 

staff to address and accommodate increased 

visitation. These changes would create an 

overall improvement to current management 

practices regarding effective visitor services 

and performance of required duties to manage 

Saguaro National Park as legislated by 

Congress. 

The recently (2006) rehabilitated Cactus 

Forest Drive created minor long-term 

beneficial effects because it is a defined, closed 

loop tour road, requiring less maintenance 

time for park staff. 

An increase in unregulated social trails into 

and within park boundaries is expected to 

occur as a result of new development on 

adjacent private lands and would require 

additional staff time to correct, repair, and 

manage associated adverse effects. The 

occurrence of invasive exotic plants in the 

park also is expected to increase as new 

development on adjacent lands would 

inevitably introduce exotic, invasive, 

ornamental species, which would also require 

additional park staff time to manage and 

control the associated adverse effects. 

Impermeable hardened surfaces, buildings, 

and constructed barriers associated with 

development all influence and impact the 

natural migration of native species and would 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

249 

further create habitat fragmentation in the 

greater Tucson region. Park staff would be 

required to manage adverse effects. The 

incremental impacts on cultural resources in 

the park would continue to require park staff 

time and effort to enforce, monitor and 

correct adverse effects. 

The anticipated increase in visitation to 

Saguaro National Park and increasing 

development on adjacent private lands would 

require greater staff intervention to provide 

adequate visitor services and to address 

associated resource impacts. Alternative 2 

would mitigate some of the incremental 

adverse effects on park operations created by 

increased visitation and use in the short term 

by increasing staff and improving facilities. 

Even with additional staff and improved 

facilities, the above-mentioned actions, in 

combination with actions proposed under 

alternative 2, would likely continue to create 

minor adverse cumulative impacts on park 

operations due to the increased management 

requirements necessary to address these 

issues. Cumulative impacts could become 

greater if an adequate ratio between staff and 

visitors is not maintained or facility conditions 

fail to meet demand and need over the long 

term. 

 

Conclusion 

Filling additional positions to meet the proposed actions described under alternative 2 

would be expected to create long-term 

moderate beneficial effects on park staff 

engaged in activities such as protecting 

biodiversity and resource and visitor 

protection. 

Actions in alternative 2 that would create 

short-term moderate adverse impacts on park 

operations due to construction and 

implementation requirements include the 

installation of traffic-calming devices along 

Picture Rocks Road, the development of the 

partnership environmental education center, 

the conversion of Golden Gate Road to a trail, 

the construction of new parking areas, the 

removal of some facilities at Manning Camp, 

and the expansion of the Rincon Mountain 

visitor center with new exhibits. The relocation of park offices to a new facility would also 

constitute a short-term moderate adverse effect on park operations during this transition. 

There would be long term minor adverse 

effects as a result of increased maintenance 

required to service new exhibits, the removal 

of park housing and corral at Madrona and 

rebuilding the corral to minimize resource 

impacts, developing a larger Rincon Mountain 

visitor center, developing the partnership 

environmental education center, converting 

office space for use as an education center, 

and proposing new trails under this 

alternative. 

Actions in alternative 2 that would create 

long-term major beneficial impacts on park 

operations and facilities include improvements to trails and trailheads, the addition of 

the partnership environmental education 

center, the conversion of Golden Gate Road 

to a trail, expansion of the Rincon Mountain 

District visitor center, construction of trafficcalming devices along the Picture Rocks Road, 

and development of adequate office space for 

park staff. 

Actions that would create long-term moderate 

beneficial effects on park operations and 

facilities include the removal and relocation of 

the CAA building, the removal and reconstruction of the corral and park housing at 

Madrona, the reduction of equipment and 

personnel at Manning Camp, and the new 

exhibits and other interpretive media installed 

in the Rincon Mountain visitor center and at 

key locations around the park. 

As long as increases in parking areas and 

availability are proportionate to user capacity 

thresholds for the park and this new development does not create a larger management 

problem in the long run as a result of 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

250

increased use, it is expected that long-term 

effects would be minor beneficial under 

alternative 2. 

Although increased staffing would be realized 

under this alternative, and the impacts would 

be mitigated, the overall cumulative effects on 

park operations would be minor and adverse 

over the long term.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from 

implementing this alternative. These are 

residual impacts that would remain after 

mitigation was implemented. The negligible 

and minor impacts are described in the 

foregoing analysis. 

There would likely be a short-term moderate 

adverse impact on native vegetation during 

construction activities such as new trailheads, 

visitor center expansion, improved parking 

lots, and the new scenic Bajada Loop Drive 

segment. Construction activities would also 

have a short-term moderate adverse impact 

on wildlife. 

Localized increases in noise/the soundscape 

would occur during construction, resulting in 

a moderate short-term adverse impact. 

Manning Camp would continue to adversely 

impact park operations as a result of the 

intensive support required to maintain 

operations at this facility under this 

alternative. 

Under all alternatives, proposed actions 

would strictly avoid known archeological 

sites. Any such sites that could not be avoided 

because of ground-disturbing activity would 

be mitigated in concurrence with the Arizona 

state historic preservation officer. Mitigation 

such as data recovery would constitute an 

unavoidable adverse impact on the 

archeological sites involved. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3 in the Madrona 

area of the Rincon Mountain District, there 

would be documentation and recordation as 

mitigation in concurrence with the Arizona 

state historic preservation officer about 

donating the Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building to a willing taker 

and removing and relocating it out of the 

park, or razing it. Either relocating or razing 

the CAA building would be an unavoidable 

adverse impact on this historic property. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources that are associated with 

this alternative are summarized below. 

Irreversible commitments are those that 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 

extreme long term (e.g., the regrowth of an 

old-growth forest). Irretrievable commitments 

are those that are lost for a period of time (e.g., 

if a road is constructed, the vegetative productivity is lost for as long as the road remains). 

The expanded visitor center would result in a 

loss of vegetative productivity and wildlife 

habitat for as long as the structure remains. 

The new scenic Bajada Loop Drive segment 

would cause a loss in the vegetative productivity of the soil under the roadway for as long 

as the road remains. 

For cultural resources under any of the 

alternatives, although not anticipated, the 

mitigation of any archeological sites would 

constitute an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources. Mitigation such as 

data recovery would change the status of 

archeological artifacts and other archeological 

information and data from in situ preservation 

for the future to current extraction via excavation. It is possible that some information 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) 

251 

might be lost in the process because future 

excavation methods could improve, thereby 

potentially yielding more information than 

current methods provide. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3, relocating the 

Civilian Aeronautical Administration building 

out of the park, or razing it, would not only be 

an unavoidable adverse impact on this historic 

property but also an irreversible and 

irretrievable commitment of resources. The 

historic fabric of the building would 

irreversibly change, or it simply would not 

physically exist any more. 

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND THE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Most of the park would be protected in a 

natural state and would maintain its long-term 

productivity under alternative 2. Only a very 

small percentage of the park would be 

converted to developed areas. Short-term 

impacts would result from construction, such 

as localized increases in air pollutants, as 

detailed in the foregoing analysis. Noise and 

human activity from construction and 

restoration activities might displace some 

wildlife from the immediate area. However, 

these activities would not jeopardize the longterm productivity of the environment. 
252

IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVE 3 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

The management zones promote the alternative’s emphasis of providing a wider range 

of opportunities for visitors while protecting 

the park’s resources. This alternative has the 

highest percentage of natural zone. The 

natural zone allows for the potential of the 

most types of uses such as higher trail 

densities, paved trails, bicycling, and stock 

use. Higher levels of development are allowed 

in the natural zone, which can have adverse 

impacts on vegetation at the site where the 

facilities are located. Most of the park is zoned 

primitive and semi-primitive because these 

zones are the ones that are appropriate for 

wilderness. These zones restrict the level of 

development and recommend lower levels of 

visitation to maintain pristine and excellent 

natural resource conditions. Overall, the 

combination of zones in this alternative 

should have less long-term adverse impacts on 

vegetation in the park than the no-action 

alternative. 

Vegetation 

Analysis. Vegetation would be lost or altered 

in local areas under alternative 3 as in alternative 2, primarily from the development or 

improvement of facilities and visitor services. 

Most new developments/improvements 

would be placed in the footprint of disturbed 

areas where vegetation already has been 

altered; therefore, little additional loss of 

native vegetation would result from 

construction, rehabilitation, or trailhead 

improvements. Given the previous vegetation 

disturbance in most of these areas, and with 

the use of appropriate mitigative measures to 

minimize impacts (such as ensuring that the 

equipment would stay within project area 

boundaries, revegetating disturbed areas, and 

taking steps to avoid the spread of exotic 

species), the adverse effects on native 

vegetation from these actions would be minor. 

The installation of traffic-calming devices 

(adaptive management) could result in shortterm adverse impacts on vegetation. The 

devices could include curb and guttering, 

roundabouts, and road signs. The equipment 

needed to install the devices would need to be 

placed near the road. If the staging area was 

on an unimproved surface, vegetation would 

be trampled and crushed. Mitigative measures 

would include placing equipment in 

previously disturbed areas and revegetation of 

the sites. The installation would have shortterm negligible adverse impacts. The longterm impacts would be minor and beneficial 

due to the restriction of informal pull-off 

locations and slower speeds, which would 

allow for better handling of vehicles on the 

road and less roadside vegetation damage. 

Several indirect impacts also could result from 

installing traffic-calming devices. If erosion 

along the road increased because of the 

installation of these devices, more vegetation 

would be lost. Nonnative plants could be 

introduced or spread into disturbed areas 

during installation. If visitors parked on the 

side of the road, some roadside plants might 

be crushed, trampled, or picked. Roadside 

vegetation might also be inadvertently trimmed or removed during routine maintenance 

of the traffic-calming devices. Mitigative 

measures such as improved drainage and 

adding formal pull-off areas, and revegetation 

of disturbed areas would minimize the 

potential for vegetation loss. Depending on 

the location and design of the traffic-calming 

devices, the disturbance to vegetation would 

be relatively small; therefore, the indirect 

long-term adverse effects on native vegetation 

would be negligible. 

If the park’s desired conditions for visitor 

experience and/or biological protection still 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

253 

were not met, the next level of traffic-calming 

would be implemented. This could consist of 

installing speed bumps, fee kiosks, or a 

combination of the two. Slowing traffic more 

would further improve habitat conditions on 

through-park roads by decreasing the risk of 

vegetation damage due to accidents and 

ensuring that visitors have an improved 

chance of stopping at formal pull-outs instead 

of creating their own. 

If this still does not enable the park to meet 

their goals, the final step would be to work 

with Pima County to develop alternate routes 

around the park. This action would be 

beneficial to vegetation in the park. 

The visitor center and parking area expansion 

in the Rincon Mountain District would occur 

between the visitor center and the headquarters, in a somewhat disturbed area. The new 

primitive campgrounds would be built in 

previously undisturbed areas. Despite the use 

of mitigative measures to help reduce the loss 

of native vegetation, some vegetation would 

be permanently disturbed or lost in these 

areas — a long-term minor adverse impact. 

Vegetation also would be altered or lost 

through visitation in alternative 3. As in 

alternatives 1 and 2, people walking over and 

trampling plants in and around existing 

facilities would result in the loss of native 

vegetation, a long-term, minor adverse effect. 

The creation of a visitor contact station and 

science center at Madrona would also have 

beneficial effects on vegetation in that area by 

having an on-site staff presence to educate 

people about the sensitive riparian vegetation. 

This would have a long-term minor beneficial 

impact on area vegetation. 

The removal of fire and trail crew support 

activities at Manning Camp would have a 

short-term minor adverse impact on 

vegetation because removal operations might 

disturb vegetation. Short-term minor adverse 

impacts on vegetation would occur during 

construction activities. Mitigation would 

include revegetation of work areas. Over the 

long term, removal would have a moderate 

beneficial impact because the regular presence 

of people would be drastically reduced and 

thus vegetation would have a chance to grow 

in disturbed areas. Temporary spike camps 

would have localized short-term minor 

impacts on vegetation because the camps 

would be removed upon completion of the 

work assignment. 

Surveys for rare plants would be conducted 

before developments were constructed in 

alternative 3, and in most cases developments 

(trailhead and visitor facilities improvements) 

could be sited to avoid effects on these 

populations. Overall, alternative 3 would have 

short-term moderate and long-term minor 

adverse impacts on vegetation. 

Cumulative Effects. The recent rehabilitation 

of Cactus Forest Loop Drive had negligible 

short-term and long-term beneficial impacts 

on vegetation. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the types and distribution of 

vegetation. The areas have been zoned to 

protect habitat while allowing for growth and 

expansion of Tucson. The long-term adverse 

impacts on vegetation from development 

would be moderate. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on 

vegetation. The corridor would protect an 

area south of the Rincon Mountain District 

and Coronado National Forest to the Las 

Cienegas National Conservation Area. This 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

254

would have a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact on vegetation in the region. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres, 

almost 130,000 acres of which is federal 

property. This action, added to the effects of 

increasing educational and interpretive 

efforts, would result in better protection of 

native vegetation and its possible decrease in 

previously disturbed areas. The creation of 

this area would continue to have a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on vegetation in 

the region. 

Overall, when all the effects of actions in and 

outside the park were added to the effects 

from actions proposed in alternative 3, the 

long-term adverse cumulative effects on 

vegetation in the area would be minor. The 

beneficial impacts of several projects outside 

the park negate some of the adverse impacts 

from other outside projects. The contribution 

of alternative 3 to these cumulative impacts 

would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Most native vegetation in 

Saguaro National Park would continue to be 

protected and self-sustaining under alternative 3. Overall, alternative 3 would have shortterm moderate and long-term minor adverse 

impacts on vegetation. 

The long-term cumulative effects on vegetation from alternative 3 and other actions in 

and outside the park would be minor and 

adverse. The contribution of alternative 3 to 

these cumulative impacts would be relatively 

small. The levels of these effects would not be 

sufficient to constitute an impairment of park 

resources or values. 

Wildlife 

The management zones promote the 

alternative’s emphasis of providing a wider 

range of opportunities for visitors while 

protecting the park’s resources. This 

alternative has the highest percentage of 

natural zone. The natural zone allows for the 

potential of the most types of uses such as 

higher trail densities, paved trails, bicycling, 

and stock use. Higher levels of development 

are allowed in the natural zone, which can 

have adverse impacts on wildlife at the site 

and near where the facilities are located. Most 

of the park is zoned primitive and semiprimitive because these zones are the ones 

that are appropriate for wilderness. These 

zones restrict the level of development and 

recommend lower levels of visitation to 

maintain pristine and excellent natural 

resource conditions. Overall, the combination 

of zones in this alternative should have less 

long-term adverse impacts on wildlife in the 

park than the no-action alternative. 

Analysis. Although several facility improvements would be made under alternative 3, 

most would be done in already disturbed 

areas such as the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center and parking expansion area, 

visitor contact station and science station at 

Madrona, and trailhead improvements. Most 

wildlife populations and their habitats have 

been altered by past human actions in these 

areas, and little additional habitat would be 

lost. Increased noise and human activity from 

construction activities could temporarily 

displace some animals such as rodents, 

reptiles, and birds, resulting in minor shortterm adverse impacts on wildlife populations 

in local areas. 

Increased visitation and types of visitor 

activities could indirectly affect some wildlife, 

but any disturbance would be an intermittent 

minor adverse impact. 

The installation of traffic-calming devices 

would have temporary short-term adverse 

impacts on wildlife. Noise from construction 

equipment and people would displace some 

wildlife. Most birds, mammals, rodents and 

reptiles would avoid the area during the 

construction period, but many would return 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

255 

after construction ceased. Some animals, 

primarily invertebrates, would be unable to 

move out of the construction area and would 

be killed. The short-term adverse impacts 

would be minor. 

The traffic-calming devices also would have 

indirect impacts on wildlife. The reduced 

vehicle speeds should allow wildlife more time 

to cross the road and reduce the number hit 

by vehicles and injured or killed along 

through-park roads, resulting in beneficial 

impacts. Maintenance of the traffic-calming 

devices and the road also could disturb wildlife. The extent of the effects would depend 

partly on the location and nature of the 

maintenance activities. With careful design of 

the traffic-calming devices there would be a 

long-term minor beneficial indirect effect on 

area wildlife. 

If needed to meet the park’s desired conditions for visitor experience and/or biological 

protection, the next level of traffic calming 

strategies would be implemented — installing 

speed bumps, fee kiosks, or a combination of 

the two. Slowing traffic more would further 

improve wildlife habitat conditions on 

through-park roads by decreasing the risk of 

wildlife being hit by vehicles. 

If this still does not enable to the park to meet 

their goals, the final step would be to work 

with Pima County to find alternative routes 

around the park. 

The visitor center expansion and new visitor 

center parking in the Rincon Mountain 

District would be built between the visitor 

center and park headquarters, in a somewhat 

disturbed area. The new primitive campgrounds would be built in previously undisturbed areas. These actions could result in the 

permanent loss of some habitat. Construction 

activities also would temporarily disturb and 

displace animals near these facilities. The 

species primarily affected would be some 

smaller, less mobile wildlife species and 

species with smaller home ranges, such as 

invertebrates. Some reptiles, small mammals, 

and birds would be displaced. The short-term 

adverse impacts during construction would be 

moderate. The loss of habitat and some animals would be mitigated through revegetation 

and would result in a long-term minor adverse 

effect on these populations. 

As in alternative 2, visitation to parts of the 

park probably would be increased from 

improving trailheads throughout the park and 

developing new trails and trailheads in the 

expansion areas of the Tucson Mountain 

District along with allowing more types of use 

throughout the park. In turn, habitat fragmentation would increase over current levels 

because of more visitor use of trails and 

routes. The increase would be greater than 

under alternative 2 because the management 

focus of this alternative would be on 

improving visitor access and variety of recreational opportunities. Habitat fragmentation 

would affect movement corridors of some 

wildlife such as mountain lions. This would 

result in long-term minor adverse effect. Some 

wildlife sensitive to the presence of people 

might be displaced from areas around these 

corridors during the peak high use season. 

These actions would result in short-term and 

long-term minor adverse impacts on wildlife 

populations in local areas, depending on such 

factors as the level, duration, and type of 

visitor use; the season of use; and the wildlife 

species. 

As with vegetation, increased educational and 

interpretive efforts under alternative 2 would 

generally benefit wildlife. The addition of 

waysides and interpretive trails would help 

educate visitors, increasing their appreciation 

of the park’s wildlife and minimizing impacts 

from actions such as feeding wildlife. The 

long-term beneficial effect on the park’s 

wildlife would be minor. 

Overall, alternative 3 would have short-term, 

moderate and long-term minor adverse 

impacts. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

256

Cumulative Effects. The rehabilitation of 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive created negligible 

long-term adverse impacts on wildlife. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the types and distribution of 

habitat available to wildlife. The areas have 

been zoned to protect essential habitat while 

allowing for growth and expansion of the City 

of Tucson. An increase in the number of 

structures and people in the currently 

undeveloped areas would reduce the amount 

of habitat available. Some wildlife would be 

displaced such as small mammals, rodents, 

reptiles, and birds by the expansion of 

residential and commercial developments. 

Development within the Cienega Conservation Corridor would have the largest impact 

on wildlife because this is a key biological 

movement corridor for large mammals and it 

connects the Rincon Mountains with the 

Santa Rita and Empire Mountains. The longterm adverse impacts would be moderate. 

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

continue to protect this area. This addition 

would have a long-term beneficial effect on 

wildlife. Increasing protection of this biological corridor would allow easier movement of 

wildlife between mountain ranges. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres, 

130,000 acres of which is federal property. 

This would continue to have a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on wildlife in the 

region. 

Overall, when the effects of alternative 3 were 

added to other actions within and outside the 

park, there would be moderate long-term 

adverse cumulative impacts on area wildlife 

populations. Alternative 3’s portion of this 

impact would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Most wildlife populations and 

habitats in Saguaro National Park would 

continue to be protected and would not be 

changed by the actions proposed in this 

alternative. Overall, alternative 3 would result 

in short-term moderate and long-term minor 

adverse effects on the park’s wildlife 

populations and habitats. 

The effects of alternative 3 and actions outside 

the park on area wildlife and their habitat 

would result in a cumulative long-term moderate adverse effect. Alternative 3’s portion of 

this impact would be relatively small. None of 

the effects on wildlife from alternative 3 

would impair park resources or values. 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species and Species of Concern 

The management zones promote the alternative’s emphasis of providing a wider range of 

opportunities for visitors while protecting the 

park’s resources. This alternative has the 

highest percentage of natural zone. The 

natural zone allows for the potential of the 

most types of uses such as higher trail 

densities, paved trails, bicycling, and stock 

use. Higher levels of development are allowed 

in the natural zone, which could but is not 

likely to have adverse impacts on threatened 

and endangered species at or near where the 

facilities are located. Most of the park is zoned 

primitive and semi-primitive because these 

zones promote wilderness qualities necessary 

in designated wilderness. These zones restrict 

the level of development and recommend 

lower levels of visitation to maintain pristine 

and excellent natural resource conditions. 

Overall, the combination of zones in this 

alternative should be less likely to have long-
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

257 

term adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species in the park than the noaction alternative. 

Analysis. No proposed projects in alternative 

3 would be in areas known to contain lesser 

long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted owl, or 

yellow-billed cuckoo, or cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl populations. Most areas where 

visitation might increase because of new or 

improved trailheads or trails or visitor center 

expansion would not be in areas known to be 

frequented by these populations. 

Alternative 3 would not be likely to adversely 

affect lesser long-nosed bat, Mexican spotted 

owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, or cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat in the area. 

Facilities that would be developed in the 

Tucson Mountain District and the lower 

elevations of the Rincon Mountain District 

would be in or near potential cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owl and lesser long-nosed 

bat habitat, but the facilities and people in 

these areas would not necessarily keep cactus 

ferruginous pygmy-owls and lesser longnosed bats from dispersing into and using the 

areas. The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl is 

active mostly during daylight hours. The 

presence of people could discourage nesting 

and feeding activities in high use areas. 

However, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls 

have not been confirmed to be within the park 

since 1995. The chance of encounters with 

people would be greater than alternative 2 

because the management focus would be on 

improving visitor access and the variety of 

recreational opportunities. Optimal habitat is 

abundant in the park, and the small amount 

that would be disturbed due to facility 

improvements or visitation would leave the 

owls plenty of acreage to nest and feed with 

minimal disturbance. The bats, which are 

mostly nocturnal, would be in the areas when 

few people were present. 

The removal of support facilities at Manning 

Camp would have a long-term minor beneficial impact on Mexican spotted owls. The 

reduction of human presence and disturbance 

would allow the owls opportunity to resume 

using the habitat at Manning Camp. The 

removal operation might have a temporary 

effect on the owls due to the increased 

activity; however, the removal operations 

should not have an adverse effect because the 

owls currently avoid this area. The spike 

camps would not likely adversely affect the 

owls because the camps would be temporary 

and would not be placed near known 

populations. 

Yellow-billed cuckoo habitat is primarily 

riparian areas. The increased staffing presence 

due to the visitor contact station and science 

station at Madrona would provide a beneficial 

affect by providing interpretation and information on resource protection. The continued 

protection of the Madrona and Rincon Creek 

area with low visitation levels would continue 

to provide habitat for transient and breeding 

cuckoos. 

Cumulative Effects. Although residential and 

commercial development activities would 

continue to reduce yellow-billed cuckoo, 

lesser long-nosed bat, and cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl habitat, independent of alternative 

3, it is unlikely that such efforts would be 

permitted in areas where they are known to 

occur. Pima County does have a Sonoran 

Desert Conservation Plan to guide development and protect key habitats. Assuming 

future developments follow this plan, effects 

on threatened and endangered species should 

be minimized. However, if the zoning is 

changed so that it no longer follows the 

conservation plan recommendations, the 

long-term impacts would be adverse and 

major. 

The Gila topminnow is proposed to be 

reintroduced to the park by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service when habitat conditions 

support reintroduction. This would have a 

potential beneficial effect on the topminnow 

populations if efforts were successful. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

258

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area, would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses. This would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on special 

status species. Maintaining the biological 

corridor connecting the mountain ranges 

would ensure that a variety of riparian and 

desert habitats remain available. 

Overall, the impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 3, would cumulatively affect but 

not likely adversely affect the lesser longnosed bat, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, 

Mexican spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, 

Gila topminnow, or cactus ferruginous 

pygmy-owl. Alternative 3’s contribution to 

these cumulative effects would be relatively 

small. 

Conclusion. Before taking any action in 

alternative 3 that might affect federally listed 

species in the park, the National Park Service 

would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to ensure that potential impacts were 

identified and avoided. There is habitat for the 

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl in the park. 

However, actions proposed in alternative 3 

would not be likely to adversely affect the 

populations of lesser long-nosed bat, Mexican 

spotted owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Gila 

topminnow, or cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl 

in Saguaro National Park. 

Alternative 3 plus other actions may affect but 

would not be likely to adversely cumulatively 

affect Mexican spotted owls, yellow-billed 

cuckoos, Gila topminnows, lesser long-nosed 

bats, or cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls. 

Alternative 3’s contribution to these 

cumulative effects would be relatively small. 

No impairment of park resources or values 

would result from this the alternative. 

Soils/Geologic Resources 

The management zones promote the 

alternative’s emphasis of providing a wider 

range of opportunities for visitors while 

protecting the park’s resources. This 

alternative has the highest percentage of 

natural zone. The natural zone allows for the 

potential of the most types of uses such as 

higher trail densities, paved trails, bicycling, 

and stock use. Higher levels of development 

are allowed in the natural zone, which can 

lead to increased impacts on soils due to 

compaction and erosion. Most of the park is 

zoned primitive and semi-primitive because 

these zones promote wilderness qualities 

necessary in designated wilderness. These 

zones restrict the level of development and 

recommend lower levels of visitation to 

maintain pristine and excellent natural 

resource conditions. Overall, the combination 

of zones in this alternative should be less likely 

to have long-term adverse impacts to 

threatened and endangered species in the 

park than the no-action alternative. 

Analysis. The installation of traffic-calming 

devices could result in short-term adverse 

impacts on soils during construction. The 

devices could include curb and guttering, 

roundabouts, and road signs. The equipment 

needed to install the devices would need to be 

placed near the road. If the staging area was 

on an unimproved surface, the equipment 

could increase soil compaction and erosion. 

Mitigative measures would include placing 

equipment in previously disturbed areas. The 

installation of these devices would have shortterm, negligible adverse impacts on soils. 

Trail realignments would have an overall 

beneficial impact on soils because the new 

alignments would be located in areas with soil 

qualities that would minimize erosion 

potential. This would result in a minor longterm beneficial impact. However, soil 

compaction due to foot, bicycle, and/or stock 

traffic might increase in previously 

undisturbed areas where the realignments are 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

259 

located. The realigned trails would be located 

where soil compaction is minimized; thus a 

negligible long-term adverse impact would 

occur. Overall, trail realignments should have 

a long-term minor beneficial impact on park 

soils. 

The creation of new trails would result in new 

disturbance to soils and the potential for 

increased erosion. Mitigative measures would 

include locating trails on soils with low 

erosion hazards, small changes in slope, and 

proper signs to minimize social trails. 

Trailhead improvements could result in a 

permanent loss and disturbance of soils if 

associated parking lots are built or expanded, 

and even with mitigative measures, some soil 

would be lost to erosion. The short-term 

adverse impacts would be minor. If people 

parked their vehicles along the side of the 

road, it could cause a secondary adverse effect 

on soils. This could result in a minor longterm adverse impact on soils along the roads 

near trailheads. 

The Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

and parking area expansion, Madrona science 

center, and Madrona visitor contact station 

would have adverse impacts on soils. 

Construction would increase the amount of 

impervious area within the park resulting in 

increased potential for erosion around the 

structures during rain storms that create 

runoff. Mitigative measures such as proper 

drainage and designing the parking area to be 

a retention area would reduce the impacts. 

With mitigation, the long-term adverse 

impacts would be minor. 

The soils in Saguaro National Park also would 

be adversely affected by several other actions 

in alternative 3. Park soils would be affected 

by constructing or improving park facilities, 

including improving staff offices and 

adaptation of structures from life estates for 

administrative use. Most of these developments would be in areas where the soils have 

been altered by past activities. Although some 

soils in these areas could be altered and 

erosion increased by construction, with 

mitigation the local adverse effects on soils in 

most areas would be minor, short term, and 

localized. 

Increased visitation could have an adverse 

impact on soils. Larger numbers of people on 

park trails could increase soil compaction and 

the rate of erosion. Properly locating new 

trails, regular maintenance, and monitoring 

for damage would mitigate these effects. A 

long-term moderate adverse impact on soils 

could result due to increased visitation. 

Overall, actions in alternative 3 would have 

short-term minor and long-term moderate 

adverse impacts on localized portions of the 

park’s soils. 

Cumulative Effects. The rehabilitation of 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive had a short-term 

adverse impact on soils due to increased 

impervious area. Long-term negligible 

beneficial impacts were created due to 

restoration of most of the compacted soils. 

Outside the park, development in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area surrounding the park would 

continue to alter the soils surrounding the 

park. The construction of additional 

residential and commercial developments in 

open space between existing public lands 

would further increase the amount of 

impervious area. Pima County has adopted 

the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and 

changed their land use zoning accordingly, 

which may reduce some impacts associated 

with continued development outside the park. 

The development in the region would have a 

moderate long-term adverse impact on soils. 

However, if the zoning is changed so that it no 

longer follows the conservation plan 

recommendations, the long-term impacts 

would be adverse and major. 

 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

260

The Cienega Conservation Corridor is being 

managed by a partnership composed of 

private, nonprofit, and governmental partners. 

Potentially connecting to the Las Cienegas 

National Conservation Area would allow this 

riparian corridor to continue with traditional 

recreational and ranching uses, which would 

have a long-term beneficial effect on soils in 

the region. Reducing the amount of development occurring in this corridor would minimize the impacts associated with expansion of 

Tucson. This action would have a long-term, 

minor beneficial impact on soils in the region. 

The creation of the Ironwood Forest National 

Monument west of Tucson increased the level 

of protection on approximately 190,000 acres, 

almost 130,000 acres of which is federal 

property. Development in the national 

monument should be limited. This action 

would have a long-term, minor beneficial 

impact on soils in the region. 

 

Overall, the impacts of other actions described 

above, in combination with the impacts of 

alternative 3, would have moderate long-term 

cumulative impacts on soils in the region. The 

contribution of alternative 3 to these 

cumulative impacts would be relatively small. 

Conclusion. Most of the park’s soils would 

not be affected by alternative 3. Overall, 

actions in alternative 2 would have short-term 

minor and long-term moderate adverse 

impact on localized portions of the park’s 

soils. When outside developments are added 

to new park developments, improvements, 

and increased use in parts of the park under 

alternative 3, the cumulative result would be a 

moderate long-term adverse effect on area 

soils. The contribution of alternative 3 to 

these cumulative impacts would be relatively 

small. The effects on soils from alternative 3 

would not constitute an impairment of park 

resources or values. 

Soundscapes 

The management zones promote the alternative’s emphasis of providing a wider range 

of opportunities for visitors while protecting 

the park’s resources. This alternative has the 

highest percentage of natural zone. The 

natural zone allows for the potential of the 

most types of uses such as higher trail 

densities, paved trails, bicycling, and stock 

use. Higher levels of development are allowed 

in the natural zone. Higher densities of visitors 

partaking in a greater number of types of 

activities potentially will lead to greater sound 

levels associated with human use. However, 

the natural zone areas have been located to 

minimize impacts on the soundscape. Most of 

the park is zoned primitive and semi-primitive 

because these zones promote wilderness 

qualities necessary in designated wilderness. 

These zones restrict the level of development 

and recommend lower levels of visitation to 

maintain pristine and excellent natural 

resource conditions. Overall, the combination 

of zones in this alternative should be less likely 

to have long-term adverse impacts on the 

soundscape in the park than the no-action 

alternative. 

Analysis. Traffic calming devices and other 

facility improvement projects in alternative 3 

would affect the park’s soundscape in local 

areas. Construction workers and equipment 

would generate noise during the construction 

or improvement of trails and parking areas, 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

expansion, rehabilitation of existing buildings, 

and road improvements. In some of these 

areas, the noise from construction equipment 

would be substantial, but it would be 

temporary and local and would take place at 

different times and places in the park. Most 

noise from projects proposed in this 

alternative would be in or near developed 

areas that are exposed to noise from vehicles, 

park equipment, and visitors. Depending on 

the presence of other facilities (such as the 

expanded visitor center and parking) and 

people, vegetation, wind, and time of day, 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

261 

noise from the construction activities would 

have minor short-term adverse impacts on the 

natural soundscape in localized areas. 

Noise levels would be likely to decrease under 

alternative 3 in places that have been relatively 

loud in the past. Traffic calming on Picture 

Rocks Road should reduce vehicle speeds, 

resulting in lower engine noise being emitted. 

Slower, smoother vehicle speeds would 

reduce the road noise heard in wilderness 

areas surrounding Picture Rocks Road. These 

actions would result in a long-term negligible 

beneficial impact. 

If necessary, the park would use the next level 

of traffic-calming strategies to meet the park’s 

goals for visitor experience and/or biological 

protection, (i.e., installing speed bumps, fee 

kiosks, or a combination of the two). Slowing 

traffic more would further reduce noise 

intrusions into the park from vehicles. If these 

strategies still do not enable the park to meet 

their goals, the final step would be to work 

with Pima County to find alternative routes 

around the park. See the explanation of 

adaptive management on page 50. 

Improvements at trailheads could cause 

localized long-term increases in noise due to a 

potential increase in the numbers of visitors 

using the trailheads and associated trails. This 

would result in a long-term, localized minor 

adverse affect on the soundscape because 

visitors would not stay long in one area. 

During the construction of improvements 

such as expanded parking areas and the 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

expansion, the short-term impacts would be 

minor and adverse due to noise from construction equipment, vehicles, and workers. 

The improvements would be spread throughout the park and over time and the effects 

would be localized. 

Overall, implementing alternative 3 would 

have localized, minor short-term and 

negligible long-term adverse impacts on the 

soundscape. 

Cumulative Effects. As in the no-action 

alternative and alternative 2, noise in parts of 

the park would temporarily increase from 

construction activities, the operation of 

machinery and vehicles, and the presence of 

workers. At different times, short-term minor 

adverse effects from noise would be caused by 

park construction machinery, for example the 

recent repaving of the Cactus Forest Loop and 

the paving of the Bajada Loop Drive and 

Golden Gate Road. 

Outside the park, the construction of the Twin 

Peaks Interchange could cause temporary 

increased commuter traffic on through park 

roads in the Tucson Mountain District, which 

would increase noise associated with vehicles 

within the park. Over the long term according 

to the Pima Association of Governments, 

Picture Rocks Road traffic volume would 

increase due to the increased population on 

the west side of the park. This would be an 

unknown long-term beneficial impact because 

it is not known how many travelers on Picture 

Rocks Road would choose to use this new 

interchange. 

Commercial and military aircraft would continue to regularly fly over the park generating 

noise intrusions in both units. Aircraft would 

continue to have a short-term moderate 

adverse impact on the soundscape during the 

actual flyover, and a long-term minor adverse 

impact because the number of flyovers should 

continue to be relatively small. 

Overall, these effects added to noise caused by 

actions proposed in alternative 3, would result 

in short-term moderate and long-term minor 

cumulative adverse noise effects that are 

mostly in localized areas. Alternative 3’s 

contribution to these impacts would be 

relatively small. 

Conclusion. The soundscape in most of 

Saguaro National Park would continue to be 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

262

relatively quiet under alternative 3. There 

would be more sources of noise in the park 

than in alternative 2 because Golden Gate 

Road would remain open to vehicular traffic. 

The construction of traffic-calming devices on 

through-park roads, Rincon Mountain 

District visitor center and parking lot 

expansion, and other improvement projects 

would cause short-term minor adverse effects 

on the soundscape, mostly in areas already 

exposed to some noise. The long-term adverse 

affects would be negligible. 

The adverse cumulative effects on the soundscape would be moderate in the short term 

and minor over the long term. Alternative 3’s 

contribution to these impacts would be 

relatively small. Park’s resources and values 

would not be impaired by any of the proposed 

actions in alternative 3. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archeological Resources 

Analysis. Archeological resources adjacent to 

or easily accessible to visitors from trails, roads, 

and picnic areas, and from designated backcountry campgrounds in the Rincon Mountain 

District, would continue to be vulnerable to 

surface disturbance, inadvertent damage, and 

vandalism. Deterioration of cultural remains 

could result by way of a loss of surface archeological materials, alteration of artifact distribution, or a reduction of contextual evidence. 

However, increased ranger patrolling and 

emphasis on visitor education would discourage vandalism and inadvertent destruction 

of cultural remains, and any adverse impacts 

would be expected to be minimal if any. 

As appropriate, additional archeological 

surveys would precede any ground 

disturbance associated with excavation or 

construction. Ground disturbances would 

include development of new staff housing in 

the Madrona area; expansion of the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center; construction 

of an environmental education center near the 

Camino Loma Alta trailhead; adaptive reuse of 

park housing as an education center; and any 

ground disturbances associated with trail 

maintenance, the closure and revegetation of 

social trails, and the construction of new trails 

and trailhead parking areas. National-registereligible or -listed archeological resources 

would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible, and no adverse effects would be 

anticipated. If such resources could not be 

avoided, an appropriate mitigation strategy 

would be developed in consultation with the 

Arizona state historic preservation officer and 

the traditionally associated tribes. 

Before the removal or razing of the Civilian 

Aeronautical Administration building in the 

Madrona area of the Rincon Mountain 

District, a survey for archeological resources 

in the general vicinity of the affected structure 

would be designed and conducted in consultation with the Arizona state historic preservation officer. The excavation, recordation, and 

mapping of any significant cultural remains 

would be completed before removal or razing 

of the building, to ensure that important 

archeological data that otherwise would be 

lost is recovered and documented. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the park such as trails, roads, housing, visitor 

centers, Manning Cabin, the later tentplatform camping at Manning Camp for trail 

workers and fire fighters, and the 1933-1941 

construction of frame and adobe structures 

and rustic stone picnic facilities by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps may have resulted in the 

disturbance. There could have been loss of 

some archeological resources during excavation and construction activities, adversely 

impacting archeological resources. 

In addition, agricultural, ranching, and mining 

practices; the development of the historic 

town of Tucson and current city thereof with 

its rapidly growing population and associated 

new residential areas and industrial parks, 

such as the University of Arizona Science and 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

263 

Technology Park, including the metropolitan 

and surrounding regional development of 

pedestrian walkways and hiking trails and 

routes and trails for bicycles on municipal and 

county lands and those of other federal 

agencies may also have adversely impacted 

archeological resources. Some of these types 

of activities continue, such as the growth and 

expansion of residential areas impinging upon 

Saguaro National Park, and could also result 

in future adverse impacts to archeological 

resources. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementing alternative 3 would be 

either adverse because avoidance could not be 

achieved and mitigation invoked or would 

result in no adverse effects on the park’s 

archeological resources because avoidance 

could be achieved. Accordingly, the actions 

associated with alternative 3 could contribute 

both adverse and no adverse impacts to any 

cumulative impact. However, because 

avoidance would be sought, no generally 

adverse impacts would be associated with 

alternative 3. Any adverse impacts would be a 

very small component of the adverse cumulative impact associated with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

both within and outside the park. 

Conclusion. Avoidance of National Register 

listed or eligible archeological resources 

during the ground disturbances of trail and 

building construction would result in no 

adverse impacts to these resources. In the 

event disturbance of such archeological 

resources could not be avoided, a memorandum of agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR 

Part 800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would 

be negotiated between Saguaro National Park 

and the Arizona state historic preservation 

officer (and/or the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if necessary). The 

memorandum of agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

Alternative 3 would contribute no adverse 

impacts to the adverse impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

occurring both within and outside the 

national park. However, the overall 

cumulative impact would remain adverse. 

Any adverse impacts of implementing 

alternative 3 would be a very small component 

of the adverse cumulative impacts associated 

with actions by others both within and outside 

the national park. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts to 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified 

as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of 

the park’s resources or values. 

Cultural Landscapes 

Analysis. Under alternative 3, revegetation of 

social trails would continue. No adverse 

effects would be associated with revegetation 

of social trails because such rehabilitation 

would have a beneficial impact upon potential 

cultural landscapes by returning them to more 

of a semblance of their historic appearances in 

the natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. As 

settings for continuity or change, the desert 

and mountainous areas of Saguaro National 

Park are important character-defining 

features of the various potential cultural 

landscapes suggested in the cultural affected 

environment section of this document. Under 

alternative 3, revegetation of social trails 

would continue, which would result in longterm minor to moderate beneficial effects on 

cultural landscapes. 

Before constructing any facilities or trail 

changes, cultural landscape inventories would 

be conducted to identify, document, analyze 

and evaluate cultural landscape characteris-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

264

tics. Such inventories would ensure that 

character-defining features such as 

topography, vegetation, circulation, spatial 

organization, land use, natural systems and 

elements, historic structures, and small-scale 

elements would not be affected or that the 

effects would be minimal. There would be no 

adverse effect on potential cultural 

landscapes. 

Before the demolition of any structures that 

might be associated with a potential cultural 

landscape, the structures would be evaluated 

to determine if they are contributing elements 

to a national-register-eligible cultural landscape. If removal would occur of a structure 

that is a contributing element to a nationalregister-eligible cultural landscape, appropriate documentation recording the structure 

would be prepared. This would be in accordance with Section 110 (b) of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended. Submittal of the documentation 

would be to the NPS Historic American 

Buildings Survey / Historic American 

Engineering Record / Historic American 

Landscapes Survey (HABS/HAER/HALS) 

program. 

Cumulative Impacts. Past development in 

the park — such as mining and lime-making 

activities, trails, roads, housing, visitor centers, 

Manning Cabin, the later tent-platform 

camping at Manning Camp for trail workers 

and fire fighters, and the 1933-1941 

construction of frame and adobe structures 

and rustic stone picnic facilities by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps — has resulted in the 

creation of historic cultural landscapes. With 

cessation of original land uses, certain 

structures, such as the lime kilns, have 

deteriorated. 

Prehistoric and historic human occupation 

and habitation including agricultural, 

ranching, and mining practices; the 

development of the historic town of Tucson 

and the current residential and industrial 

spread of the city have contributed to the 

history and current conditions of the potential 

cultural landscapes referred to the cultural 

affected environment section of this 

document. Some of these types of activities 

continue, such as the growth and expansion of 

residential areas impinging upon Saguaro 

National Park, and could result in future 

adverse impacts to cultural landscapes. 

The recent rehabilitation of Cactus Forest 

Drive was done in accordance with the 1995 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties, and there 

would be no adverse effect. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementing alternative 3 would result 

in predominantly no adverse effects on the 

park’s potential cultural landscapes. However, 

the few potential adverse impacts associated 

with alternative 3, in combination with the 

adverse impacts of other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, both 

within and outside the park, would result in an 

adverse cumulative impact. The adverse 

impacts of alternative 3 would only contribute 

minimally to the adverse cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. No adverse effects would be 

associated with revegetation of social trails 

because such rehabilitation would have a 

beneficial impact upon potential cultural 

landscapes by returning them to more of a 

semblance of their historic appearances in the 

natural setting of the Sonoran Desert. 

A site-specific study would take place if any 

potential cultural landscapes were to be 

affected by proposed actions of alternative 3, 

including national-register-listed or -eligible 

cultural landscapes, during trail and building 

construction activities; thus there would be no 

adverse impacts on these resources. In the 

event of disturbance of such cultural landscapes could not be avoided, a memorandum 

of agreement, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

800.6, Resolution of Adverse Effects, would be 

negotiated between Saguaro National Park 

and the Arizona state historic preservation 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

265 

officer (and/or the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, if necessary). The 

memorandum of agreement would stipulate 

how the adverse effects would be mitigated. 

The few potential adverse impacts associated 

with alternative 3, in combination with the 

adverse impacts of actions by others, both 

within and outside the park, would result in an 

adverse cumulative impact; implementing 

alternative 3 would only contribute minimally 

to this adverse cumulative impact. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities 

for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified as 

a goal in the park’s general management plan 

or other relevant NPS planning documents, 

there would be no impairment of the park’s 

resources or values. 

Ethnographic Resources 

Analysis. Management actions concerning 

ethnographic resources under alternative 3 

would be the same as under alternative 2, the 

preferred alternative. They would include 

placing Sandario and Kinney Roads in the 

Sightseeing Corridor Management Zone. 

Since that zone promotes a leisurely, 

unhurried, educational, pleasant and safe 

experience for visitors traveling along park 

corridors, the road conditions adjacent to and 

in the vicinity of the area the Tohono 

O’odham use to gather saguaro fruit would be 

improved. The improvements would mean a 

moderate, beneficial, and long-term impact on 

the area as an ethnographic resource. Such 

reductions would benefit the gathering of 

saguaro fruit by increasing the area’s 

tranquility and making it more suitable for 

traditional use. The sightseeing-zoning 

proposal would only better accommodate the 

Tohono O’odham traditional practice of 

gathering saguaro fruit. 

Cumulative Impacts. The past park practice 

of allowing saguaro-fruit harvesting by the 

Tohono O’odham in the park’s Tucson 

Mountain District would help support the 

practice of gathering saguaro fruit in the 

region (on the Tohono O’odham reservation), 

thus helping to perpetuate Tohono O’odham 

culture. This situation would mean a 

beneficial, moderate, long-term impact on 

saguaro-fruit harvesting as an ethnographic 

resource. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementation of alternative 3 are 

beneficial, moderate long-term impacts on the 

park’s ethnographic resources. Accordingly, 

the actions associated with alternative 3 would 

contribute beneficial impacts to any cumulative impact. The beneficial impacts of implementing alternative 3, however, would be very 

small components of the minor, beneficial, 

and long-term cumulative impact associated 

with other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions both within and outside 

the park. 

Conclusion. Alternative 3 would impact 

beneficially and moderately for a long-term 

period the harvesting of saguaro fruit in the 

park’s Tucson Mountain District. There 

would be no adverse effect on the area as a 

potential traditional cultural property. 

Implementing alternative 3 would contribute 

only beneficially to the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

occurring both within and outside the park. 

The moderate long-term cumulative effect 

would be beneficial, and implementation of 

alternative 3 would be a small contribution to 

the overall beneficial cumulative effect in the 

region. 

The beneficial impacts of implementing alternative 3 would be very small components of 

the minor, beneficial, and long-term 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

266

cumulative impact associated with actions by 

others both within and outside the national 

park. 

Because road conditions involving an 

important ethnographic resource would be 

improved, there would be no adverse impacts 

to a resource or value whose conservation is 

(1) necessary to fulfill specific purposes 

identified in the establishing legislation of 

Saguaro National Park; (2) key to the natural 

or cultural integrity of the park or to 

opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) 

identified as a goal in the park’s general 

management plan or other relevant NPS 

planning documents, there would be no 

impairment of the park’s resources or values. 

Historic Structures 

Analysis. To appropriately preserve and 

protect national register listed or eligible 

historic structures, all stabilization, 

preservation and rehabilitation efforts, as well 

as daily, cyclical, and seasonal maintenance, 

would be undertaken in accordance with the 

1995 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties. 

Stabilization, preservation, and rehabilitation 

would have no adverse effects upon historic 

structures and cultural landscapes. Sixty-five 

structures are entered in the park’s NPS List 

of Classified Structures, which means that 

these entries are either listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places or eligible for 

listing. They would be managed for historic 

preservation and would be in accord with the 

Cultural Resources Parkwide Management 

Zone, which is defined elsewhere in this 

document. This List of Classified Structures is 

given in appendix H. 

Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

(CAA) Building at Madrona. The donation 

of the historic Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building in the Madrona Area 

of the Rincon Mountain District to a willing 

taker for relocation out of the park would 

have an adverse effect because of its long 

association with the park. Razing the building 

would also be an adverse impact because the 

building would be destroyed. 

Mitigation of the adverse effect of relocating 

or razing under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act would be through 

documentation and recordation and consultation and concurrence with the Arizona state 

historic preservation officer for 

documentation. 

Manning Cabin and Manning Dam at 

Manning Camp. Because the fire crew and 

trail crew support facilities would be moved 

away from Manning Camp to a new off-site 

administration area under alternative 3, there 

would be less general wear and tear to the 

historic fabric of Manning Cabin. That would 

be beneficial with no adverse effect. This conclusion is based upon findings of the recent 

report “Condition Assessment, Evaluation 

and Recommendations for Repair and 

Preservation, Manning Cabin at Manning 

Camp” (NPS 2005a). There would be no 

change regarding Manning Dam and no 

adverse effect. 

Cumulative Impacts. Over the years, historic 

structures in the park, such as remnant lime 

kilns, adobe and other remains of Camp Pima, 

and the scant remains of the Freeman 

Homestead, have been adversely impacted by 

the wear and tear associated with visitation 

and by natural processes like weathering. 

Also, change has occurred among the CCC 

stone picnic structures, so much so that “the 

only structures that have survived in their 

original appearance are the bathrooms” (NPS 

1987a:225). Historic fabric in the form of 

adobe and brick houses associated with the 

settlement and subsequent growth of Tucson 

has been lost in the region, which is an adverse 

effect. Related to these houses, lime “for use 

as mortar or whitewash” (National Park 

Service 1987a:112) came from the lime kilns in 

what is now the park. Historic fabric has been 

lost because of settlement, mining, and 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

267 

ranching and because of the spread of urban 

population growth and modernization. 

As a historic structure Cactus Forest Drive 

would continue to be preserved by maintaining its naturalistic and rustic Civilian 

Conservation Corps road design. This design 

fits in with the physical setting to accommodate scenic views and to show natural features 

to their best advantage like stands of native 

cacti. Distinctive construction features such as 

retaining walls and guard walls and culverts of 

native stone would continue to be rehabilitated for historic preservation in accordance 

with the secretary’s standards. There would 

be no adverse effect per Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act from 

continuing these actions. 

As described above, the impacts associated 

with implementing alternative 3 would be 

both not adverse and adverse on the park’s 

historic structures. Accordingly, the actions 

associated with alternative 3 would contribute 

both no adverse and adverse impacts to any 

cumulative impact. The adverse impacts of 

implementing alternative 3, however, would 

be very small components of the adverse 

cumulative impact associated with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 

both within and outside the park. 

Conclusion. There would be an adverse effect 

concerning relocating or razing the CAA 

building, and there would be no adverse effect 

with the moving away of the fire management 

and trail maintenance support facilities on the 

historic fabric of Manning Cabin at Manning 

Camp. There would be no change regarding 

Manning Dam and no adverse effect. 

The adverse impacts of implementing 

alternative 3 would be very small components 

of the adverse cumulative impact associated 

with actions by others both within and outside 

the national park. 

Because there would be no adverse impacts on 

a resource or value whose conservation is (1) 

necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified 

in the establishing legislation of Saguaro 

National Park; (2) key to the natural or 

cultural integrity of the park or to opportunities for enjoyment of the park; or (3) identified 

as a goal in the park’s general management 

plan or other relevant NPS planning 

documents, there would be no impairment of 

the park’s resources or values. 

VISITOR EXPERIENCE 

Range of Recreational Opportunities 

In alternative 3, both park districts would be 

zoned with a mixture of primitive, semiprimitive and natural zones, providing a larger 

range of recreational opportunities than 

alternatives 1 and 2, particularly around the 

existing developed areas of the park. The 

higher degree of semi-primitive and natural 

zoning would provide more diverse trail 

opportunities. 

Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would 

include a variety of traffic calming strategies 

for the park’s thru-park roads, which would 

improve auto touring opportunities along 

these routes. These are highly scenic roads 

that can provide extensive touring opportunities if conditions are improved with trafficcalming strategies. There may be a slight 

inconvenience to auto touring visitors related 

to some of the initial proposed traffic calming 

strategies such as delays at trail crossings, 

visual intrusions of speed display signs, and 

slow downs related to increased speed 

enforcement. However, it is expected that the 

benefits to opportunities for auto touring 

from the traffic calming greatly outweigh the 

negative impacts, leading to a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact to visitors. If 

additional traffic-calming strategies are 

needed, such as entrance gates, to meet 

desired conditions on the roadways, visitors 

may experience a higher level of 

inconvenience. It is still expected that the 

benefits resulting from the traffic calming 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

268

would outweigh the negative impacts on 

visitors’ recreation opportunities. 

Also related to improving auto-touring 

opportunities would be the paving, narrowing, 

and making a one-way loop configuration for 

the scenic Bajada Loop Drive that is proposed 

in this alternative. This modification to the 

road would improve scenic driving opportunities by reducing encounters between 

motorists, cyclists, and walkers because all 

users would travel in the same direction. This 

would lead to less crowding and safety 

conflicts on the road. In addition, by traveling 

only in a clockwise direction around the loop, 

the need to make a dangerous left turn from 

the scenic Bajada Loop Drive onto Sandario 

Road would be eliminated. Further, paving 

the loop would allow use of the road by a 

wider array of visitors. All of these benefits 

related to changes on scenic Bajada Loop 

Drive would be considered a long-term 

moderate beneficial impact on the range of 

recreational opportunities, including scenic 

driving opportunities. 

In this alternative, Golden Gate Road would 

be left as a motorized route, continuing to 

provide scenic motorized touring through the 

park. Leaving Golden Gate open for 

motorized vehicles would compliment the 

improved scenic touring along Picture Rocks 

Road. Visitors would be able to travel from 

Kinney and Sandario Roads, through the park 

and onto Picture Rocks Road, for a leisurely 

scenic drive. Keeping Golden Gate Road 

open to motorized vehicles would be 

important to this scenic tour opportunity, 

resulting in a long-term minor beneficial 

impact for visitors. 

Further, alternative 3 proposes additional 

camping opportunities in the Rincon 

Mountain District as needed to accommodate 

new trail connections to and through the 

park’s wilderness area — a long-term minor 

beneficial impact. 

The comprehensive trails plan would have a 

long-term major beneficial impact on all trail 

opportunities in the park. The plan would 

seek to determine how the park would achieve 

the desired conditions in the general management plan’s management zones including 

improving trail conditions, alleviating user 

conflicts and providing a high quality trail 

system that meets the needs of a diverse user 

population. In addition, the trails plan will be 

developed with stakeholders input and 

provide rationale for any needed adjustments 

to the park’s current trail system. Specifically 

in this alternative, the trail plan will explore 

opportunities for the following: 

Tucson Mountain District 

• Opportunities for developing bicycling 

trails would be explored along the gas 

pipeline right-of-way near the eastern 

boundary of the district. 

• Opportunities for trails for visitors with 

disabilities would be explored in the CCC 

camp area. 

Rincon Mountain District 

• Biking opportunities would be explored 

along the Hope Camp Trail. 

• The Camino Loma Alta trailhead would 

be improved. 

• The Douglas Springs, Wildhorse, and 

Broadway trailheads would be 

redesigned/improved. 

• Development of additional ADAaccessible trails would be explored. 

Trails in Both Districts 

• Regional trail connections would be 

explored in conjunction with partners. 

The location of regional trail connections 

would be identified as part of the 

comprehensive trails plan. 

• The location of trail access points and 

possible trailheads would be identified. 

• The need for single-use trails to reduce 

trail user conflicts would be assessed as 

part of the comprehensive trails plan. 

• The need for trail realignments to protect 

resources would be evaluated. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

269 

All of these proposed actions were raised as 

proposals for improving the park’s trail 

systems during the public scoping process for 

the GMP. Providing additional wheelchair 

accessible trails and nature trails in a few key 

locations would increase the range of 

recreational opportunities in the park, and 

provide more opportunities to a wider 

population. These improvements would be 

considered a long term moderate beneficial 

impact. Redesigning and improving trailheads 

to reduce user conflicts, resource impacts and 

to address visitor safety concerns would 

improve existing recreational opportunities by 

facilitating access to the park’s diverse trail 

system, a long term moderate beneficial 

impact. Providing single use trails may help 

reduce user conflicts, enhancing existing 

recreational opportunities — a long term 

moderate beneficial impact. 

Increasing bicycling opportunities, particularly the connection of regional bike trails, was 

highly desired by many respondents during 

public scoping for the GMP. An increase in 

bicycle trails would be a long term moderate 

beneficial impact for visitors interested in this 

type of recreational opportunity. However, 

the increase in bicycling opportunities may be 

met with some concern by visitors that feel 

bicycling use should not be expanded in the 

park due to perceived user conflicts and 

resource damage. More opportunities for 

bicycle trails would be explored in this 

alternative compared to alternative 2, but the 

trails would still be limited to the peripheral 

areas of the park, so this is not expected to be 

more than a long-term minor adverse impact 

on visitors’ that would prefer bicycling to be 

limited to the status quo. 

In this alternative, off-trail travel would 

continue in the Tucson Mountain District, 

resulting in a long-term minor beneficial 

impact for the range of recreational 

opportunities. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 

Opportunities for Solitude and 

Getting in Touch with Nature 

Alternative 3 has the largest area of natural 

and semi-primitive zones, which allows for a 

more diverse range of uses and higher levels of 

use that could result in more encounter rates 

and a higher degree of user conflicts in comparison to the zoning scheme in alternative 2. 

Opportunities for solitude and getting in 

touch with nature were considered some of 

the most important values of the park to 

respondents during the GMP scoping process. 

Although the zoning scheme in alternative 3 

should largely protect these values, there is a 

chance of minor impacts to these values with 

higher amounts of the natural and semiprimitive zone. 

Similar to alternative 2, this alternative has 

some specific strategies that would aid the 

park in preserving the values of solitude and 

getting in touch with nature including the 

exploration of single use trails in the comprehensive trails plan. The potential reduction 

in encounters between different types of user 

groups can eliminate real and perceived user 

conflicts which often detract from visitors’ 

sense of solitude and contemplation. This 

would be a long-term minor beneficial effect. 

The fire and trail support facilities at Manning 

Camp would be moved away from Manning 

Camp to a new off-site location. Temporary 

spike camps would be used by trail and fire 

crews as needed when working in the backcountry. The reduction of administrative 

activities as Manning Camp would reduce the 

visual and sound impacts that intrude on 

visitor’s opportunities for solitude and getting 

in touch with nature. However, the increased 

need for spike camps to support trail and fire 

activities may occasionally impact solitude 

opportunities along the backcountry trail 

system. It is likely that the change in 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

270

operations and support facilities at Manning 

Camp would be a long term minor beneficial 

impact on visitor’s opportunities for solitude 

and getting in touch with nature. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 

Visitor Access including Access 

for Visitors with Disabilities 

Several issues related to visitor access would 

also be resolved in this alternative. Traffic 

calming on through-park roads would likely 

improve access opportunities to the Tucson 

Mountain District. Currently, the National 

Park Service does not encourage visitors to 

use Picture Rocks Road to access the park due 

to the safety and visitor experience impacts 

caused by the conflicts with commuting 

traffic. If some of these impacts are mitigated 

with the traffic calming strategies, then use of 

Picture Rocks Road by visitors to access the 

park would be encouraged and would likely 

increase. Improving access via Picture Rocks 

Road would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact. 

This alternative would provide the highest 

level of access to the Madrona/Chimenea 

area, while still protecting the sensitive natural 

and cultural resources. It is likely that the 

Arizona State Trail will connect to the south 

boundary of the Rincon Mountain District, 

providing trail access in closer proximity to 

the Madrona/Chimenea area, which could 

increase visitation. Due to this potential 

increase in visitation, there would be a visitor 

contact station built at the Madrona/ 

Chimenea area with daily ranger presence to 

help manage visitor use. In addition, this area 

would be a focus of systematic monitoring as 

part of the park’s user capacity and biological 

monitoring programs. The park would 

implement new management strategies if 

visitor use impacts indicate that further 

regulation on use levels was needed. Closer 

access to Madrona would be considered a 

long-term minor beneficial impact. The 

preservation of the highly valued qualities of 

the area including its pristine resources and 

contemplative setting through the presence of 

park staff at the visitor contact station and the 

park’s visitor use monitoring program would 

be considered a long-term major beneficial 

impact. 

 

This alternative would expand regional trail 

connections in conjunction with partners. The 

location of regional trail access points and 

possible trailheads would be identified during 

the trail planning process. Making key connections of already planned and developed 

regional trails was of strong interest to several 

stakeholders and many scoping respondents. 

These trail connections would greatly expand 

the connectivity of public lands in the region 

and provide more diverse recreation opportunities for local residents. This would be 

considered a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact to people interested in these regional 

trail connections. 

Further, this alternative proposes trailhead 

improvements at Camino Loma Alta, and 

Broadway, Douglas Springs and Kings Canyon. The details of the trailhead improvements would be included in the comprehensive trails plan. At Camino Loma Alta the 

emphasis would be on formalizing parking 

with associated amenities for multiple user 

groups to access the Hope Camp area of the 

Rincon Mountain District. The improvements 

at Camino Loma Alta would be on a larger 

scale in this alternative than in alternative 2 to 

provide even more access to this area of the 

park. In association with improved bicycling 

opportunities, the trailhead improvements 

would be a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact. 

The natural zones inside both loop roads, east 

of Sandario Road and south of Kinney Road, 

and near the proposed partnership education 

center would be considered for the 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

271 

development of new accessible paved nature 

trails. Many respondents noted interest and 

support for more trail opportunities for 

disabled visitors, as well as new nature trail 

opportunities for all visitors. These proposed 

trails would be a long-term minor beneficial 

impact for visitors interested in these types of 

trail experiences. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 

Opportunities for Orientation, 

Education and Interpretation 

In Alternative 3, the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center would be expanded to provide 

additional exhibit space, which was supported 

by numerous respondents during public 

scoping. The Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center is small for the amount of use it 

receives and the exhibits are outdated. Most 

visitors do not spend much time in the visitor 

center and it currently is the main source of 

information and interaction with park staff for 

this unit. Improving the center to be on par 

with the services and media available at the 

Tucson Mountain District visitor center 

would be a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact to opportunities for orientation and 

education for Rincon Mountain District 

visitors. 

Further, this alternative proposes an education center to be developed at the south 

boundary of the Rincon Mountain District as 

partners and funding become available. An 

existing life-lease structure in the Rincon 

Mountain District is another facility for 

potential adaptive reuse as an education 

center when the property is released to the 

National Park Service. Further, if headquarters were moved off-site, the existing building 

could be used as an education center. These 

expansion or reuse of any of these facilities for 

education centers would greatly increase 

organized group programming opportunities 

and educational services for the park, which 

would be a long-term moderate beneficial 

impact for park visitors and the local 

community. 

The visitor contact station at Madrona/ 

Chimenea would also expand the orientation, 

interpretation and educational opportunities 

available at the park, leading to a long-term 

minor beneficial impact for visitors. 

In the short term, any construction might 

result in negligible impacts on the visitor 

experience because of noise, temporarily 

restricted access, and visual intrusions. 

Visitor Safety 

There have been 155 accidents (3 fatalities and 

42 injuries) on Picture Rocks Road and 95 

accidents (1 fatality and 40 injuries) on 

Sandario Road between 1998 and 2005 

(Saguaro National Park, Chief Ranger, pers. 

comm. with Kerri Cahill, NPS Denver Service 

Center, 7/2006). In addition to actual safety 

conflicts, there is a high level of perceived 

safety conflicts on the road due to high 

volumes and speeds of traffic during commuting hours. Many respondents commented 

on their concerns of safety along the throughpark roads, particularly Picture Rocks Road. 

Many respondents asked that the NPS make 

safety improvements to the roadways. The 

traffic calming strategies suggested in this 

alternative would be expected to reduce the 

number and severity of vehicle accidents 

along the roads, particularly Picture Rocks 

Road, which would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial impact on Tucson Mountain 

District visitors. 

The expansion and improvements of the 

Rincon Mountain District visitor center 

would also improve the distribution visitor 

safety information, leading to a long-term 

minor beneficial impact. 

 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

272

Cumulative Effects 

Several recent or proposed projects in the 

region may contribute to cumulative impacts 

on the visitor experience at both districts. 

Regarding the range of recreational 

opportunities, The Pima Association of 

Governments 2030 Transportation Plan

proposes the addition of the Twin Peaks 

highway interchange at Interstate 10. If 

implemented, this interchange in combination 

with the traffic-calming strategies proposed in 

this alternative for the park’s through-park 

roads would moderate traffic volume and 

speed conflicts, resulting in improved scenic 

driving opportunities through the park — a 

long-term major beneficial cumulative impact. 

Other projects that may influence the range of 

recreational opportunities in Saguaro 

National Park include the designation of new 

public lands near both districts of the park. 

The Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

is south of the Rincon Mountain District and 

the Ironwood Forest National Monument is 

near the western boundary of the Tucson 

Mountain District. Both of these new public 

lands are managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management and are undergoing planning at 

this time. 

It is likely that these new lands would improve 

nature-based recreation opportunities in the 

region and help balance the range of 

recreational opportunities offered to regional 

visitors, including people that may visit 

Saguaro. The Ironwood Forest National 

Monument would provide extensive motor 

touring and bicycling opportunities, and the 

Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

would increase the amount of wildlife 

watching and primitive hiking opportunities 

that are available nearby. In summary, these 

new lands in combination with the improved 

recreational opportunities proposed in this 

alterative would likely lead to a long-term 

moderate beneficial cumulative impact on the 

range of recreational opportunities. 

Regarding opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature, the proposed 

Twin Peaks interchange, in combination with 

the proposed traffic calming in this alternative, would likely help moderate current 

impacts to the soundscape resulting from 

traffic conditions on Picture Rocks Road. This 

would improve opportunities for solitude in 

the designated wilderness areas adjacent to 

the road in the Tucson Mountain District, 

leading to a long-term moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact. 

Regarding visitor access, the proposed Twin 

Peaks highway interchange at Interstate 10, in 

combination with the traffic-calming strategies proposed in this alternative, might 

alleviate some of the commuting traffic 

pressure along Picture Rocks Road. Currently, 

visitor access to the north end of Tucson 

Mountain District is hindered by high traffic 

volumes and speeding, creating unsafe 

conditions for visitor access. This proposed 

interchange in combination with proposed 

traffic calming would be a moderate beneficial 

cumulative impact for visitor access 

opportunities. 

There are no projects contributing to cumulative impacts regarding opportunities for 

orientation, education, and interpretation. 

Therefore, there would be no cumulative 

impact related to this topic under alternative 

3. 

The proposed Twin Peaks interchange in 

combination with traffic calming on Picture 

Rocks Road would also likely contribute to 

cumulative impacts on visitor safety. The 

interchange along with the traffic-calming 

strategies would likely improve traffic conditions by reducing use levels and changing 

the pattern of use from predominately commuters to national park visitors, resulting in 

slower speed levels. In combination with the 

proposed traffic-calming strategies in this 

alternative, the interchange would result in a 

long-term major beneficial cumulative impact 

on visitor safety. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

273 

Conclusion 

Alternative 3 would result in moderate beneficial impacts resulting from more opportunities to participate in diverse recreation 

opportunities that bring visitors in close 

contact with unusual and interesting desert 

life. Further, current adverse impacts from 

user conflicts on trails, increasing use in 

wilderness areas that may threaten visitors’ 

opportunities for solitude, and increasing 

commuting traffic along through-park roads 

would be moderated via a variety of proposals 

that would greatly improve the visitor 

experience in the park over the long term — 

long-term moderate to major beneficial 

impacts. 

Finally, the designation of new public lands 

near both districts of the park in combination 

with the improved recreational and visitor 

experience opportunities provided by Saguaro 

would have moderate beneficial cumulative 

impacts on the range of recreational opportunities and opportunities for solitude and 

getting in touch with nature. The proposed 

new Twin Peaks interchange in combination 

with the proposed traffic calming strategies in 

this alternative would have moderate to major 

beneficial cumulative impacts on the range of 

recreational opportunities, visitor access and 

visitor safety due to the likely improvement of 

traffic conditions on Picture Rocks Road and 

other through-park roads. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Analysis 

Under alternative 3, the emphasis would be on 

providing a wider range of opportunities for 

visitors while still maintaining compatibility 

with the national park’s resource preservation 

and wilderness characteristics. Implementation of this alternative would result in a longterm beneficial impact on park visitors’ sense 

of place while providing protection for park 

resources. This alternative takes into 

consideration the potential urban growth 

surrounding the national park and emphasizes 

the visitor experience. 

As with alternative 2, roadways throughout 

both districts of Saguaro National Park would 

be reclassified to emphasize resource 

protection and safety. Traffic-calming devices 

would be implemented on Picture Rocks 

Road in the Tucson Mountain District as 

outlined in alternative 2. Likewise, the twoway scenic Bajada Loop Drive would be 

converted to a one-way loop drive. Unlike 

alternative 2, however, Golden Gate Road 

would remain open to vehicles under 

alternative 3. These proposed actions would 

generate income in the form of expenditures 

and earnings and would accommodate 

projected population growth. Installation of 

traffic-calming devices would generate construction, maintenance, and enforcement 

spending and earnings in the local economy. 

The visitor experience would be enhanced by 

implementation of these measures, which in 

turn would promote increased visitation and 

resulting spending in the community. Overall, 

these measures would generate a minor longterm beneficial socioeconomic impact to the 

local community. 

Additional hiking and biking opportunities 

would be provided under alternative 3. 

Realignment and rehabilitation of selected 

trails would occur, and many trails would 

need to be redesigned to accommodate 

increased bicycle use. Additionally, some new 

trails would be developed. Trailheads would 

be improved and/or redesigned. Development 

of wheelchair accessible trails would be 

explored. All of these actions would be 

expected to translate into increased expenditures that would in turn generate earnings in 

the local economy in the short term. 

Moderate long-term increases in visitor 

expenditures would be expected. Social 

impacts would potentially be mixed, since 

changes in the visitor experience along trails, 

where visitors have often formed localized 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

274

sense of place associations, would be 

subjective. 

Infrastructure in the Madrona/Chimenea 

Area would be replaced with a visitor contact 

station under alternative 3. A day ranger 

would be stationed at the visitor contact 

station, and only one trail would be accessible 

from the area. A small science center would 

also be constructed in the area and staff 

housing and corrals would be removed. Shortterm expenditures and employment in the 

local economy would occur as a result of the 

modification and addition of infrastructure. 

Social impacts would likely be mixed, as these 

projects would have different impacts on user 

sense of place/people-place connections at the 

Madrona/Chimenea area. 

Manning Camp would no longer house the 

fire and trail crew support facilities; these 

facilities would be removed to an off-site 

administrative area. As in alternative 2, the 

Manning Camp cabin would be maintained 

through rehabilitation and monitoring. 

Increased manpower would be required to 

accomplish this task, resulting in an economic 

gain. A ranger would also be assigned to the 

cabin during the summer, creating a minor 

beneficial economic impact in the form of at 

least one seasonal job. 

Some new campgrounds could also be 

developed in the Rincon Mountain District 

above 4,500 feet, generating short-term 

expenditures and employment for construction and development activities. As in 

alternative 2, the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center would be expanded to provide 

additional exhibit space. Additional 

interpretive media and programs would be 

developed, and a learning center, visitor 

contact station, and educational center could 

be developed. The Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center, visitor services, and parking 

area would also be expanded. Additional job 

opportunities as well as increased construction expenditures would generate short-term 

economic gains during the implementation of 

these projects. Like alternative 2, partnerships 

to develop the outdoor environmental 

educational center would also be undertaken 

to assist with the funding. As with other 

improvements, if these improvements 

translate into increased visitation, there could 

be long-term minor economic gains in 

Saguaro National Park’s contribution to the 

local economy. Social impacts would be 

mixed and subjective to individual and group 

values tied to visitor experiences. 

Cumulative Impacts 

Other past, present, and foreseeable future 

actions that would potentially contribute to 

the actions considered under alternative 3 are 

similar to those listed for alternative 2 in that 

the visitor experience would be enhanced and 

visitation would increase, translating into a 

long-term economic benefit due to increased 

spending and generation of income. 

Considered alone, the impacts from alternative 3 would be minor. Implementation of 

alternative 3, in conjunction with other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would have a moderate long-term 

cumulative effect. Increased urban development surrounding the national park in the 

Houghton area, Rincon/Southeast 

Subregional area, and the Tucson Mountain 

Subregional area would generate economic 

growth for the community, and potentially 

increase visitation at the national park. 

Provision for enhanced visitor experiences 

would create a moderate long-term beneficial 

economic effect on the community and the 

national park through increased spending and 

income. Improvement of the traffic conditions 

through creation of additional routes outside 

the national park and traffic-calming devices 

within the park would offer a moderate longterm beneficial effect, increasing visitation and 

the related spending for recreational activity. 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

275 

Conclusion 

Overall, there would be a moderate long-term 

beneficial effect created by the actions 

proposed under alternative 3. Enhancement 

of the visitor experience would serve to 

encourage visitors to Saguaro National Park 

and the local community, creating a long-term 

economic benefit from tourism and 

recreational activities. Installation of trafficcalming measures would enhance the visitor 

experience and would diminish the risk of 

resource loss and threat to public safety. 

Financial benefit would be realized in the 

form of a minor decrease in maintenance and 

law enforcement costs. 

TRANSPORTATION 

From a transportation impact perspective, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 are identical, with one 

exception: in alternative 3, Golden Gate Road 

in the Tucson Mountain District would 

remain open to traffic, and there would be no 

parking added south of the Golden Gate 

Road/Picture Rocks Road intersection. 

Tucson Mountain District 

Circulation. The road network within the 

district would be exactly the same as 

described for alternative 2, but Golden Gate 

Road would remain open to through traffic. 

Because traffic volumes on Golden Gate Road 

are very low (less than 100 vehicles per day), 

the impact of traffic on this road to circulation 

within the district and the surrounding 

roadway network would be minimal. Keeping 

Golden Gate Road open would have longterm, negligible, beneficial impacts for visitors 

and non-visitor users, because it preserves 

convenient access the Esperanza trailhead and 

the Ez-Kin-In-Zin picnic area from Picture 

Rocks Road. 

For other circulation impacts from alternative 

3, refer to the transportation impact analysis 

for alternative 2. 

Safety. The Golden Gate Road/Picture Rocks 

Road intersection is one of the highest 

accident locations along the Picture Rocks 

Road corridor. The intersection is on a tight 

curve, resulting in sight distance and other 

safety concerns. A continuation of these 

conditions under alternative 3 would result in 

a long-term, major adverse impact on visitors 

and non-visitor users because of the high 

potential for accidents at this location. 

For other safety impacts from alternative 3, 

see transportation impact analysis for 

alternative 2. 

Parking. Parking lots in this district is 

generally well under capacity, with the 

exception of the Esperanza trailhead on 

Golden Gate Road (at capacity on weekends, 

but with additional parking near by). The lack 

of parking pullouts on Picture Rocks Road is 

an on-going concern because it could alleviate 

some of the current conflicts between slowertraveling visitors and the faster-moving nonvisitor users (it would also enhance the visitor 

experience by offering the opportunity to pull 

off and enjoy scenic views safely). As a result, 

no additional parking on Golden Gate Road 

(as proposed in alternative 2) would result in 

long-term, minor adverse impacts to parking 

for visitors and long-term, negligible adverse 

impacts to non-visitor users. 

For other parking impacts from alternative 3, 

see transportation impact analysis for 

alternative 2. 

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts 

under alternative 3 would be the same as those 

described under alternative 2 with the 

exception of the following. Keeping Golden 

Gate Road open to through traffic would 

result in long-term, moderate, adverse safety 

impacts for visitors since this intersection is 

within the highest accident area along Picture 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

276

Rocks Road, and visitors would not be able 

take advantage of the pullout parking (and 

related safety benefits) that alternative 2 

proposes. Non-visitor users would have a 

long-term, negligible to minor adverse impact 

because conflicts with visitors seeking 

roadside parking on Picture Rocks Road 

would continue. Implementation of alternative 3, in conjunction with other transportation plans and actions, would result in minor 

long-term adverse cumulative impacts to 

visitors and non-visitors. Alternative 3 would 

contribute a relatively small increment to the 

overall cumulative impact. 

Conclusion. Keeping Golden Gate Road 

open to traffic would result in long-term, 

negligible, beneficial impact for visitors and 

non-visitors. 

Conversion of the scenic Bajada Loop Drive/ 

Hohokam Road to a one-way loop with a new 

alignment off of Sandario Road would have 

long-term, moderate beneficial impact to 

visitor and non-visitor motorists. 

 

The implementation of adaptive management 

approach to traffic calming on Picture Rocks 

Road to reduce speeding and accidents would 

result in short-term, moderate to major 

adverse impacts to non-visitor motorists due 

to increased travel time and/or the diversion 

of motorists to alternate routes described 

above until the Twin Peaks interchange is 

built. However the implementation of trafficcalming devices would result in long-term, 

moderate to major beneficial impact to park 

visitors due to providing a safer, more 

appropriate and leisurely park driving 

experience. 

No safety improvements to the intersection of 

Golden Gate Road/ Picture Rocks Road 

would result in long-term, moderate adverse 

impacts on visitors and non-visitors. No 

additional parking on Golden Gate Road 

would result in long-term, minor adverse 

impacts to parking for visitors and long-term, 

negligible adverse impacts to non-visitor 

users. 

Rincon Mountain District 

Transportation impacts for alternative 3 

would be identical to those described under 

alternative 2 for this district. Please refer to 

the transportation impact analysis for 

alternative 2 for this district. 

PARK OPERATIONS 

The emphasis of alternative 3 is directed 

toward providing a wider range of educational 

and recreational opportunities for visitors. 

Impacts on park operations under alternative 

3 would be primarily on the divisions of 

Ranger Services, Facility Management, and 

Science and Resource Management. In 

addition to the minimum operating level of 

76.5 employees, the following positions would 

be necessary if alternative 3 was implemented: 

1 education specialist (for the learning center, 

science center, and education centers) 

1 interpretation ranger (for the learning 

center, science center, and education 

centers) 

1 maintenance mechanic (for the learning 

center, science center, and education 

centers) 

2 law enforcement rangers (one for regulating 

and protecting sensitive natural and 

cultural resources in the Madrona section 

of the park and one for law enforcement 

on Picture Rocks Road to ensure safe 

speed limits, to assist with potential traffic 

and circulation problems, and to assist with 

increased visitor encounters with wildlife 

and other emergencies 

1.5 trail workers (for restoration and 

rehabilitation of trails and potential 

opportunities for developing bicycle trails 

and connecting park trails to regional trail 

networks 

1 community planner (the proposed 

partnerships program) 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

277 

1 biological technician (to protect and restore 

natural resources and in response to 

greater demands on these same resources 

due to increased visitation) 

Public Facilities 

Trails and Trailheads. A comprehensive trail 

plan is being developed and would recommend sustainable trail design and trail 

realignment/rehabilitation. The trail plan 

would be an improvement to current trail 

management strategies that are either limited 

or piecemeal in nature and would create a 

long-term major beneficial effect on park 

operations through reduced trail maintenance 

and reduced user conflicts requiring 

additional staff time. 

As recommended by the comprehensive trails 

plan, regional trail connections would be 

made, single-use trails would be established, 

and new trails might be developed under this 

alternative. These actions, if implemented, 

would have short-term moderate adverse 

effects on park operations due to the staff time 

required to build these trails and connections, 

and minor adverse effects on park operations 

as a result of increased long-term maintenance. Some trailheads would be upgraded, 

creating short-term minor adverse effects on 

park operations during construction and 

long-term minor beneficial effects on park 

operations over the long term as a result of 

decreased maintenance. 

Within the Rincon Mountain District, the 

Camino Loma Alta Trailhead would be 

formalized, including the construction of a 

vault toilet, and the Hope Camp Trail would 

be explored for development as a bicycle trail. 

A large portion of areas outside designated 

wilderness in both districts would be 

designated as natural zone under this alternative, thereby opening these areas to trail use 

options not currently offered, such as paved 

accessible trails, interpretive trails, and trails 

for bicycles. A bicycle trail along the pipeline 

right-of-way in northeastern portion of this 

district might be developed. New trails and 

new designated uses would create moderate 

adverse effects on park operations in the short 

term as a result of construction and related 

staffing requirements, and in the long term as 

a result of increased maintenance 

requirements. 

Public Access Park Roads and Entrance 

Stations. Under alternative 3, the primary 

changes to park roads would consist of 

installing traffic-calming devices on the 

Picture Rocks Road and converting the scenic 

Bajada Loop Drive to a one-way road. 

Under this alternative, traffic-calming devices 

would be installed on an incremental basis, as 

needed, in response to traffic management 

issues and speeding violations on this road. 

The installation of traffic-calming devices 

would create a short term moderate adverse 

effect on park operations as a result of initial 

investment, construction, and the necessary 

precautions to provide a safe environment for 

employees and road users during construction 

activities. The long-term effect related to 

annual maintenance on these new facilities 

would be minor and adverse. The increase in 

fee collections would provide funding for the 

additional maintenance requirements. 

If additional traffic calming is needed, the 

adverse effects of installing the devices and 

the potential permanent staffing of two new 

entrance stations/fee kiosks would be 

considerably offset as a result of increased 

entrance fee revenue collected and would 

constitute a negligible beneficial effect on park 

operations. 

Installation of these devices would also be 

accompanied by a limited period of increased 

law enforcement to ensure compliance with 

desired traffic management conditions, 

creating an additional short term moderate 

adverse effect on park operations/staff time. 

Over the long term, the installation of these 

devices would be expected to decrease the 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

278

need for law enforcement and emergency 

services along Picture Rocks Road, which 

would have a major beneficial effect on park 

operations. 

Parking Areas. Parking areas would be 

formalized and expanded at trailheads and at 

the Rincon Mountain District visitor center, 

and a new parking area would be developed at 

the Camino Loma Alta trailhead. More 

parking would be developed under this 

alternative than under alternative 2, creating 

more area that would require maintenance. As 

long as increases in parking areas and availability are proportionate to user capacity 

thresholds and this new development does 

not create a larger management problem in 

the long run as a result of increased use, it is 

expected that there would be long-term minor 

beneficial effects on park operations under 

alternative 3 with regard to parking improvements. More designated and better defined 

parking would decrease the need for park 

traffic management and lessen the impact on 

natural resources thereby reducing staff time 

required to mitigate those impacts. There 

would be short term minor adverse effects on 

park operations as a result of construction 

activities. 

Visitor and Education Centers. The Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center would be 

expanded under this alternative. Visitation to 

this facility has increased over the past 50 

years. A rehabilitated building with a new 

addition would better accommodate larger 

crowds through proper design and would 

improve the operational efficiency of this 

building. Outdated and inefficient building 

infrastructure currently requires frequent 

repair and maintenance to address regular 

breakdowns. A total overhaul of mechanical 

systems and upgrade of the existing building 

would greatly reduce the deferred 

maintenance backlog for this building. Under 

this alternative, offices in the visitor center/ 

headquarters and the annex would be moved 

to an off-site location. The expansion and 

upgrade of the visitor center would create 

short-term moderate adverse effects on park 

operations during construction, but would in 

the long term be a major beneficial effect on 

park operations because of increased 

efficiency and the elimination of incompatible 

uses in the current visitor center. Long-term 

minor adverse effects would be expected as a 

result of increased maintenance and 

operational requirements because of the 

proposed increase in the size of the facility. 

A partnership education center would be 

constructed at Camino Loma Alta, and a 

visitor contact and science station would be 

constructed at Madrona. If the headquarters 

were moved off site, the existing building 

could be used as an education center. A 

separate learning center would be developed 

when private facilities on the life estate 

property (just off Speedway Boulevard) are 

transferred to the park. Along with the education facilities in the headquarters building 

mentioned above, all of these education 

facilities would have a long-term major 

beneficial effect on park operations because of 

increased facilities to assist park staff in 

educating visitors. There would be minor 

adverse effects on park operations in the short 

term as a result of construction activities and 

in the long term as a result of increased 

requirements for facility maintenance. 

Orientation, Wayside Exhibits, and Interior 

Exhibits. Additional interpretive media and 

exhibits would be developed and installed to 

provide information on the history of the area 

and stewardship of natural resources. Interior 

exhibits in the Rincon Mountain District 

visitor center would be updated under this 

alternative. Additional wayside exhibits would 

be added on some existing and proposed 

interpretive trails. Orientation panels would 

be updated and added at park trailheads 

during trailhead improvements. New interpretive exhibits and information panels would 

assist staff in educating the public about the 

park. The new exhibits and panels would 

create a long-term moderate beneficial effect 

on park operations related to visitor services, 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

279 

but would also create a minor adverse impact 

on park operations regarding ongoing 

maintenance. There would be short term 

moderate adverse effects during installation. 

Camping. Additional backcountry campgrounds might be developed in the Rincon 

Mountain District above 4,500 feet. This 

would have minor short-term adverse effects 

on park operations regarding the construction 

of dispersed sites within the campground, and 

long-term moderate adverse effects on park 

operations as a result of ongoing maintenance 

to service these sites. 

Administrative Facilities 

Offices, Storage, and Park Buildings. All 

park facilities that house staff operations at 

the Rincon Mountain District that are not 

essential to be located within the park would 

be moved outside the park boundary to minimize development within the park. (Existing 

facilities would be converted to public education facilities with individual classrooms.) The 

headquarters annex building would be 

removed when an appropriate facility for 

administrative functions is located or 

constructed. All new office space would be 

increased in size to accommodate increased 

staff levels and would therefore constitute a 

long term major beneficial effect on park 

operations. There would be short-term 

moderate adverse effects on park operations 

during this proposed move and short-term 

moderate adverse impacts during building 

removal. 

Corrals. The overall long-term effects of 

removing the corral at Madrona would be 

minor and beneficial (a combination of a 

minor adverse impact not having a facility to 

use and a moderate beneficial impact of not 

having a building to maintain). 

Park Housing/Visitor Contact Station. 

Existing park housing at Madrona would be 

removed as a result of a public health service 

recommendation to discontinue use. A new 

visitor contact station would be constructed in 

this same area. This new contact station would 

create long term major beneficial effects on 

park operations because of the presence of 

park staff on-site in the Madrona area. The 

need for potable water to be hauled to this site 

for use by park staff under this alternative 

would create a long-term moderate adverse 

effect on park operations. The adverse and 

beneficial long term effects on park operations created by this alternative when 

considered together renders an overall longterm minor beneficial effect on park 

operations. There would be a short term 

minor adverse effect on park operations 

during building removal and construction. 

Other Buildings. Many of the facilities at 

Manning Camp that require maintenance and 

upkeep would be removed, and fire operations that use this facility would be discontinued under this alternative. This action 

would result in a long-term moderate beneficial effect on park operations and a shortterm moderate adverse effect on park 

operations during removal. Fire crew support 

facilities would be moved from Manning 

Camp to a new off-site administration area. 

There would be a long-term moderate 

beneficial effect as a result of moving fire 

operations to a less remote location. 

The Civilian Aeronautical Administration 

building would be donated to an interested 

organization and relocated or would be 

documented and razed. The removal of this 

building would create long term moderate 

beneficial effects on park operations by 

removing stabilization and preservation 

requirements for this building. There would 

be short-term minor adverse effects on park 

operations during removal. 

Cumulative Impacts 

As described in chapter 2, alternative 3 

proposes several changes to park manage-
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

280

ment, including facility improvements and 

increased staff to address and accommodate 

increased visitation and educational 

opportunities. These changes would create an 

overall improvement to current management 

practices regarding effective visitor services 

and performance of required duties to manage 

Saguaro National Park as legislated by 

Congress. 

The recently rehabilitated (fall 2006) Cactus 

Forest Loop created minor long-term 

beneficial impacts because it is a defined, 

closed loop tour road, requiring less 

maintenance time for park staff. 

An increase in unregulated social trails into 

and within park boundaries is expected to 

occur as a result of new development on 

adjacent private lands and would require 

additional staff time to correct, repair, and 

manage associated adverse effects. The 

occurrence of invasive exotic plants in the 

park is expected to increase as new 

development on adjacent lands would 

inevitably introduce exotic, invasive, 

ornamental species, which would also require 

additional park staff time to manage and 

control the associated adverse effects. 

Impermeable hardened surfaces, buildings, 

and constructed barriers associated with 

development all influence and impact the 

natural migration of native species and would 

further create habitat fragmentation in the 

greater Tucson area. Park staff would be 

required to manage adverse effects. The 

incremental impacts on cultural resources 

within the park would continue to require 

park staff time and effort to enforce, monitor 

and correct adverse effects. Improvements to 

park facilities and management practices, 

coupled with the addition of a biological 

technician, law enforcement rangers, and trail 

workers, is expected to assist park operations 

in managing the above-mentioned impacts. 

An increase in highly flammable, nonnative 

plants on private property adjacent to park 

wilderness lands creates an incompatible and 

complex situation for wildfire management 

between these two types of land uses. A major 

fire could severely impact park operations as a 

result of necessary wildfire suppression 

required to protect adjacent private property. 

The anticipated increase in visitation to 

Saguaro National Park and increasing 

development on adjacent private lands would 

require greater staff intervention to provide 

adequate visitor services and to address 

associated resource impacts. Alternative 3 

would mitigate some of the incremental 

adverse effects to park operations created by 

increased visitation and use in the short term 

by increasing staff and improving facilities. 

Even with additional staff and improved 

facilities, the above mentioned actions in 

combination with actions proposed under this 

alternative would have adverse cumulative 

impacts on park operations due to the 

increased management requirements necessary to address these issues. Cumulative 

impacts could become appreciable if an 

adequate ratio between staff and visitors is not 

maintained or facility conditions fail to meet 

demand and need over the long term. 

Although increased staff would be realized 

under this alternative, and the impacts would 

be mitigated, the overall cumulative effect on 

park operations would be minor and adverse. 

This alternative’s contribution to those 

impacts would be relatively small. 

Conclusion 

The additional positions required to address 

expanded programs and opportunities for 

park visitors described under alternative 3 

would be expected to result in long-term 

moderate beneficial effects on park operations 

by accommodating increased use. 

Actions that would create long-term moderate 

adverse effects on park operations would be 

the required ongoing maintenance of the 
Impacts of Implementing Alternative 3 

281 

Golden Gate Road, new trails, and possible 

new campsites. 

The lack of housing at Madrona, and longterm maintenance requirements for the new 

education centers, new exhibits, and a new 

vault toilet at the Camino Loma Alta Trailhead 

would all create long-term minor adverse 

effects on park operations. 

Actions that would create short-term 

moderate adverse impacts on park operations 

due to construction and implementation 

requirements include the installation of 

traffic-calming devices along Picture Rocks 

Road, the potential construction of new trails, 

and the expansion of the Rincon Mountain 

visitor center with new exhibits. The relocation of park offices to a new facility would also 

constitute a short-term moderate adverse 

effect on park operations during this 

transition. 

Actions that would create short-term minor 

adverse effects include the construction of 

new parking areas and the removal of the 

corral, park housing, and CAA building at 

Madrona. 

Actions that would create long-term major 

beneficial impacts on park operations and 

facilities would include improvements to trails 

and trailheads, expansion of the Rincon 

Mountain District visitor center, construction 

of traffic-calming devices along Picture Rocks 

Road, development of adequate office space 

for park staff, and construction of a visitor 

contact station and science station at 

Madrona and rehabilitation of existing 

facilities for learning and education centers. 

Actions that would create long-term moderate 

beneficial effects on park operations and 

facilities include the relocation or removal of 

the CAA building at Madrona, the removal of 

the corral and park housing at Madrona, and 

the new exhibits and interpretive media 

installed in the Rincon Mountain visitor 

center and at key locations around the park. 

The removal of nonhistoric facilities at Manning Camp would create long-term moderate 

beneficial effects on park operations. 

As long as increases in parking areas and availability were proportionate to user capacity 

thresholds for the park and this new development does not create a larger management 

problem in the long run as a result of increased use, it is expected that long-term 

effects would be minor beneficial under 

alternative 3. 

Although increased staffing would be realized 

under this alternative, and the impacts would 

be mitigated, the overall cumulative effects on 

park operations would be adverse over the 

long term. This alternative’s contribution to 

those impacts would be minimal. 

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

The following paragraphs describe the more 

important (moderate and major intensity) 

adverse impacts that would result from 

implementing this alternative. These are 

residual impacts that would remain after 

mitigation was implemented. The negligible 

and minor impacts are described in the 

foregoing analysis. 

There would likely be a short-term moderate 

adverse impact on native vegetation during 

construction activities such as new trailheads, 

visitor center expansion, improved parking 

lots, and the new scenic Bajada Loop Drive 

segment. 

Construction activities would have a shortterm moderate adverse impact on wildlife. 

Increased visitation throughout the park, 

especially on park trails, might result in a longterm moderate impact on soils. The creation 

of additional backcountry campsites in the 

Rincon Mountain District would adversely 

impact park operations as a result of increased 

maintenance requirements. 
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

282

Under all alternatives, proposed actions 

would strictly avoid known archeological 

sites. Any such sites that could not be avoided 

because of ground-disturbing activity would 

be mitigated in concurrence with the Arizona 

state historic preservation officer. Mitigation 

such as data recovery would constitute an 

unavoidable adverse impact on the 

archeological sites involved. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3 in the Madrona 

area of the Rincon Mountain District, there 

would be documentation and recordation as 

mitigation in concurrence with the Arizona 

state historic preservation officer about 

donating the Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building to a willing taker 

and removing and relocating it out of the 

park, or razing it. Either relocating the CAA 

building or razing it would be an unavoidable 

adverse impact on this historic property. 

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE 

COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

The irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources that are associated with 

this alternative are summarized below. 

Irreversible commitments are those that 

cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the 

extreme long term (e.g., the regrowth of an 

old-growth forest). Irretrievable commitments 

are those that are lost for a period of time (e.g. 

if a road is constructed, the vegetative productivity is lost for as long as the road remains). 

The expanded visitor center would result in a 

loss of vegetative productivity and wildlife 

habitat for as long as the structure remains. 

For cultural resources under any of the 

alternatives, although not anticipated, the 

mitigation of any archeological sites would 

constitute an irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of resources. Mitigation such as 

data recovery would change the status of 

archeological artifacts and other archeological 

information and data from in situ preservation 

for the future to current extraction via excavation. It is possible that some information 

might be lost in the process because future 

excavation methods could improve, thereby 

potentially yielding more information than 

current methods provide. 

Under alternatives 2 and 3, relocating the 

Civilian Aeronautical Administration building 

out of the park, or razing it, would not only be 

an unavoidable adverse impact on this historic 

property but also an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. The historic 

fabric of the building would irreversibly 

change, or it simply would not physically exist 

any more. 

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SHORTTERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

AND THE MAINTENANCE AND 

ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Most of the park would be protected in a 

natural state and would maintain its long-term 

productivity under alternative 3. Only a very 

small percentage of the park would be 

converted to developed areas. No actions in 

this alternative would jeopardize the longterm productivity of the environment. Shortterm impacts might result from construction 

— such as localized increases in air pollutants, 

as detailed in the foregoing analysis. Noise 

and human activity from construction and 

restoration activities might displace some 

wildlife from the immediate area. However, 

these activities would not jeopardize the longterm productivity of the environment.
5

Consultation and Coordination

285 

PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

The Draft General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement for Saguaro 

National Park represents thoughts of the 

NPS/park staff, 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 several avenues by which it 

participated during the development of the 

plan: participation in public meetings, 

responses to newsletters, comments on the 

park’s Website, participation in a visitor or 

neighborhood survey, and participation in 

focus groups. 

PUBLIC MEETINGS 

AND NEWSLETTERS 

Public meetings and newsletters were used to 

keep the public informed and involved in the 

planning process for Saguaro National Park. A 

mailing list of about 4,000 names and 

addresses was compiled that consisted of 

members of governmental agencies, 

organizations, businesses, legislators, local 

governments, and interested citizens. 

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on August 8, 2003. 

The first newsletter, issued in June 2003, 

described the planning effort. Advertisements 

were placed in local newspapers and on radio 

stations. Public meetings were held during 

July 2003 in Tucson and were attended by 

about 75 people. A Spanish translator was 

present. The National Park Service also met 

with city, county, and state agencies in July 

2003. The National Park Service received 

comments in the meetings and in the response 

to the first newsletter. Nearly 300 electronic 

and mailed comments were received in 

response to this newsletter. 

The National Park Service also held focus 

group meetings to provide additional input for 

this management plan. The purpose of the 

focus group meetings was to meet with representatives from organized interest groups, 

such as recreation users, neighborhood 

associations, and conservation groups to gain 

input on issues and concerns related to the 

general management plan. Approximately 30 

individuals participated. During the focus 

group meetings, participants commented on 

what they valued about the park and concerns 

they had about park management. The 

participants also provided input on ways to 

resolve perceived conflicts/concerns. 

The following is a brief summary of the major 

comments received by the public during the 

scoping process for this management plan. 

Summary of Public Scoping Comments 

from Newsletters One and Two, Public 

Meetings, and Focus Groups 

Most of the newsletter respondents and 

public meeting attendees were from the 

Tucson area, and most appear to live near the 

park. Most people believe the park is special 

because it protects the Sonoran Desert, as well 

as a unique desert fauna and flora. Many 

specifically mentioned the saguaro and cacti 

as being special. Interestingly, quiet was 

specifically mentioned by many respondents 

as a special quality of the park. People 

appreciate the special resources, scenery, 

views, and open space, and the serenity, 

peace, and relaxation it brings. Many enjoy 

the visitor centers and the trails for hiking, 

biking, and horseback riding. Many people 

noted how much they like the diversity of 

visitor opportunities in the park. Although 

most people did not mention wilderness as a 

special resource, a number of people appreciated attributes associated with wilderness, 

particularly natural quiet, solitude, and getting 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

286 

close to nature. Some of the special places in 

the park that people highlighted in their 

comments included Bridal Wreath Falls, 

Douglas Springs camping area, the summit of 

Pink Hill, the picnic areas, Wasson Peak, and 

the park’s visitor centers. 

Many respondents mentioned not liking the 

amount of trash they have seen in or near the 

park, especially along the park boundaries. 

Poor trail condition (e.g., trail rutting/erosion 

and widening) was frequently mentioned as a 

problem by trail users. Other commonly 

mentioned topics that people least enjoyed 

included high levels of traffic on roads 

through the park, development along the park 

boundaries, ATVs (all-terrain vehicles), and 

trail closures. Several trail users brought up 

the steps that had been installed on trails, 

which they strongly disliked. Some mentioned 

the need for more maintenance, while others 

complemented the trail maintenance. Some 

people mentioned disliking bicyclists on the 

trails or noted conflicts between horseback 

riders and bicyclists. A few people mentioned 

disliking fees being charged, although others 

supported additional fees if needed, as long as 

they were equally applied to all park users. 

By far, most respondents would like to see no 

change, or very little change, in the park in the 

future — they like the park’s natural setting as 

it is. They want the park to continue to protect 

resources and do not support more park 

developments, particularly roads and 

commercial developments. Many people 

appreciate and support NPS management of 

the park. Some people wanted to see a few 

more trails or parking areas/trailheads, or 

trails designated for a single use. Several 

respondents wanted additional horse trailer 

parking facilities. A number of respondents 

wanted to see traffic levels limited and/or 

slowed down on through-park roads, and 

some specifically mentioned supporting the 

closure of Picture Rocks Road. Picture Rocks 

Road was viewed by many people as being a 

problem, with litter, accidents, speeding, etc. 

Many brought up law enforcement concerns, 

particularly along the park boundary. Quite a 

few people wanted to see the park expanded, 

some wanting this as a buffer against adjacent 

development. Several respondents brought up 

the need for continuing or increased 

partnerships with others to ensure that the 

park is protected. Some people wanted more 

signs, maps, and interpretive programs. 

The most frequently mentioned concern for 

the future of the park was encroachment by 

houses and other developments along the 

park boundaries, which brings increased 

traffic, pollution, trash, illegal activities, loss of 

habitat, etc. Overuse of the park due to 

Tucson’s increasing population and traffic 

were also frequently mentioned as concerns. 

Future trail closures were frequently 

mentioned as a concern, particularly by 

horseback riders and bicyclists. A few people 

were concerned about impacts of the park on 

adjacent landowners. There were comments 

both supporting and opposing restrictions on 

recreational use, such as on the use of bicycles 

and horses. Other concerns included NPS 

funding, lack of staff, commercial developments in the park, and fear of the park being 

downsized or sold to developers. 

All of these comments were considered/ 

incorporated into the issues for the plan, as 

appropriate. 

A second newsletter distributed in March 

2005 provided a summary of the public 

scoping process and information gathered as a 

result of the ongoing visitor use and 

transportation studies. In addition, this 

newsletter provided background on some of 

the major issues that would be addressed by 

the plan. Public meetings, attended by about 

50 people, were held in March to allow the 

interested public to ask questions about the 

scoping and research/study information and 

related issues. The National Park Service also 

met with city, county, and state agencies in 

March 2005 to review the information. 
Public and Agency Involvement 

287 

Summary of Public Scoping Comments 

from Newsletter Three and Public 

Meetings 

A third newsletter distributed in June 2005 

described the draft alternatives for managing 

the national park. Approximately 300 

electronic and mailed comments were 

received in response to that newsletter. Public 

meetings were held during June 2005 in 

Tucson and were attended by about 250 

people, with the highest turnout at the 

meeting near the Tucson Mountain District. 

The National Park Service also met with city, 

county, and state agencies in June 2003 to 

review the proposed alternatives. 

Most respondents to the newsletter and 

attendees to the public meetings preferred 

alternative 2 overall, along with particular 

elements of alternative 3 that were related to 

specific recreation opportunities. Most comments stressed the importance of protecting 

the unique and fragile resources of the park. 

In addition, many respondents noted the 

importance of protecting the park’s wilderness qualities as part of the management plan. 

Many comments were related to the road 

management alternatives — both in support 

and in opposition to the traffic-calming 

strategies proposed. Many respondents 

suggested that the park should continue to 

seek closure of Picture Rocks Road to protect 

park resources. Several people also noted a 

variety of specific traffic-calming strategies 

that should be considered for managing the 

roads through the park including pull-outs, 

lower speed limits, better law enforcement, 

bike paths along the roads, and restrictions on 

commercial vehicles. Other respondents were 

concerned about traffic-calming strategies 

that might hinder emergency vehicle access to 

the local community and increase traffic 

congestion on nearby roads. 

Many people also commented on trail 

management concerns related to the 

alternatives. Many people supported 

improvements to Broadway, Speedway and 

Camino Loma Alta trailheads in the Rincon 

Mountain District. There was also support for 

the connections of regional trails to the park, 

particularly the Arizona Trail to the south 

boundary of the Rincon Mountain District. 

There were an equal amount of comments 

supporting and opposing more bicycling 

opportunities. There was a similar split of 

comments in support and opposition to the 

issue of restricting horses as well as providing 

single-use trails for different user groups. 

Most people that commented on the elements 

of the alternatives related to the Madrona area 

were in favor of keeping access to the site 

highly regulated to protect the area’s sensitive 

resources. Other comments were received in 

support of keeping facility development in the 

park low and on the periphery. Several comments suggested that the National Park 

Service seek an increase in the park’s 

boundary and acquisition of current inholdings in the park. Finally, some people supported the need for a new educational center. 

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER 

AGENCIES/ OFFICIALS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS (TO DATE) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, requires in section 7 (a) (2) that 

each federal agency, in consultation with the 

secretary of the interior, ensure that any 

action the agency authorizes, funds, or carries 

out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. This section of the 

act sets out the consultation process, which is 

further implemented by regulation (50 CFR 

402). 

In July 2004 the planning team initiated 

informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to determine the presence of 

federally listed threatened and endangered 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

288 

species in Saguaro National Park. A telephone 

conversation with the Tucson Field Office of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006 was held 

to discuss the project and get input on the last 

species list for the park. 

In February 2006, the planning team 

requested an updated list of listed and 

proposed threatened and endangered species, 

candidate species, and species of concern that 

might be present in the park. To remain up to 

date about listed and proposed threatened 

and endangered species, the National Park 

Service has consulted the USFWS website. 

Copies of the three newsletters also were 

provided for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the agency will be given a copy of 

this draft document for review. 

Consultation with Native Americans 

The National Park Service recognizes that 

indigenous peoples have traditional and 

contemporary interests and ongoing rights in 

lands now under NPS management, as well as 

concerns and contributions to make for the 

future via the scoping process for NPS general 

management plans and other projects. Related 

to tribal sovereignty, the need for 

government-to-government Native American 

consultations stems from the historic power 

of Congress to make treaties with American 

Indian tribes as sovereign nations. Consultations with American Indians and other Native 

Americans, such as Alaska Natives and Native 

Hawaiians, are required by various federal 

laws, executive orders, regulations, and 

policies. For example, such consultations are 

needed to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended. Implementing regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969), 

as amended, also call for Native American 

consultations. 

During October 2002, Saguaro National Park 

superintendent Sarah Craighead requested by 

letter that the heads of government (chairpersons, governors, or presidents as the case 

may be) of the American Indian tribes 

traditionally associated with the park meet for 

government-to-government consultations 

about the commencement of the general 

management plan. The letter was sent to the 

Ak Chin Indian Community Council, the Fort 

McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Gila River 

Indian Community Council, the Hopi Tribe, 

the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, and the 

Tohono O’odham Nation. A letter to the 

governor of the Pueblo of Zuni was sent on 

July 1, 2003. It came to the superintendent’s 

attention that because of prehistoric contacts 

with the Hohokam, who once lived in what is 

now the park, the Pueblo of Zuni might wish 

to be considered and included as an American 

Indian tribe traditionally associated with 

Saguaro National Park. (See also appendix I 

for a list of tribes traditionally associated with 

the park.) 

These tribes were subsequently sent letters 

about the three partners’ workshops in July 

2003, March 2005, and June 2005 to which 

representatives from federal, tribal, state, 

county, and municipal governments were 

invited. The park superintendent made 

follow-up telephone calls to the tribal heads of 

government to reiterate her requests for 

consultation and to invite them to the 

partners’ meetings. 

Such telephone calls by the superintendent 

were also part of making the arrangements 

with the leadership of the Tohono O’odham 

Nation for the ongoing ethnographic study on 

the traditional Tohono O’odham harvesting of 

the saguaro fruit in the Tucson Mountain 

District. That study is being conducted by Dr. 

Rebecca Toupal of the Bureau of Applied 

Research in Anthropology of the University of 

Arizona at Tucson. 

A representative from the Tohono O’odham 

Nation attended the March 11, 2005, partners’ 

meeting and expressed concern for the 
Public and Agency Involvement 

289 

protection and preservation of cultural 

resources and the need to be informed if 

cultural resources might be disturbed by any 

park plans. An understanding exists that a 

tribe will contact the national park when there 

is a particular concern but normally not 

otherwise. The national park’s staff respects 

tribal sovereignty and the fact that tribes 

decide their own priorities and ways of doing 

business. The staff of the national park has 

worked well with tribes in the past when 

issues of concern have materialized. Examples 

are the responses of the Hopi Tribe and the 

Tohono O’odham Nation to the rehabilitation 

of Cactus Forest Drive in the Rincon 

Mountain District. The tribes suggested that 

any trails from the turnouts be away from 

known archeological sites and that paving, 

curbs, and interpretive signs should be used 

“to encourage visitors to stay on the 

pavement, curtailing or perhaps even 

eliminating the proliferation of social trails 

that affect such resources” (Baldridge et al. 

2004:79). 

During June 2006, Saguaro National Park 

superintendent Sarah Craighead received 

comments from the Cultural Affairs Division 

of the Tohono O’odham Nation. The 

statement was made that the park staff should 

ensure that cultural resources are always 

included in considerations about how to 

manage the park as part of a continuing focus 

on the preservation and protection of all 

cultural resource sites. In general, there 

should be more involvement with the tribes 

traditionally associated with the park. More 

specifically, the idea of directing visitors away 

from known cultural resource sites was 

reiterated. For the interpretation of cultural 

resources to visitors, the request was made to 

expressly consult with the Tohono O’odham 

Nation in designing wayside signs for cultural 

site interpretation of relevance to the Tohono 

O’odham. It was mentioned that new trail 

development should be minimized to avoid 

possible archeological sites. Visitor behavior 

respectful of the cultural significance of the 

park, especially during off-trail use, should be 

encouraged through different ways of 

education, including law enforcement. 

Consultations for the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 

1990 

Museum collections of Saguaro National Park 

stored at the NPS Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center in Tucson have been 

partially inventoried for items covered by the 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, such as human remains, 

funerary objects, and sacred or other objects 

of cultural patrimony. There are human 

remains from five prehistoric individuals. The 

remains (now in the NPS Western Archeological and Conservation Center) relate to the 

Rincon Mountain District. Associated with 

these remains are five funerary objects. No 

inventorying has been carried out on artifacts 

that could be items of cultural patrimony. 

Consultations have not yet been conducted 

about the human remains or items of cultural 

patrimony. Park staff, under the direction of 

the superintendent, in each instance will 

conduct the consultations. A tribe or tribes 

traditionally associated with the park could 

adopt the remains for repatriation, since lineal 

descent of the historic/ contemporary tribes 

from prehistoric peoples in the area is possible 

but not directly apparent. When the requisite 

procedures of inventorying and consulting are 

completed, all mandates of the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act will have been met. 

Consultation with the Arizona 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

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 listed in or 

eligible for listing in the National Register of 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

290 

Historic Places. Saguaro National Park 

superintendent Sarah Craighead informed 

and invited the Arizona state historic 

preservation officer as follows. By way of a 

letter dated September 17, 2002, to start 

meeting the requirements of 36 CFR 800, the 

superintendent informed SHPO James W. 

Garrison about the start of the General 

Management Plan / Environmental Impact 

Statement and invited him and his staff to 

participate in the planning process and to 

comment on the draft plan as it progressed. 

On September 18, 2002, the superintendent 

sent a similar letter of information and 

invitation for participation, if necessary, to the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation by 

way of copying Western Office of Project 

Review historic preservation specialist Jane 

Crisler. As the schedule developed, the state 

historic preservation officer was kept 

informed of public meetings and other 

planning events and benchmarks. All of the 

planning newsletters were also sent these 

officials with a request for any comments. 

Although there was no SHPO attendance at 

the meetings, SHPO comments and advice 

were welcome at any time on planning for 

possible decisions regarding protection and 

preservation of Saguaro National Park’s array 

of significant historic properties. At the 

appropriate time, SHPO review and comment 

upon the draft plan is called for. 

Consultation with the Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Officer on the 

Preferred Alternative 

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 will work 

in consultation with the state historic 

preservation officer. Actions that qualify as 

programmatic exclusions under IV A and B 

will be identified, as well as will other undertakings that will require further review and 

comment under 36 CFR 800.4-6. The actions 

listed in table 23 are in the latter category. 

Other compliance, as appropriate, is also 

listed. 

TABLE 23. FUTURE COMPLIANCE REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC ACTIONS (ALTERNATIVE 2) 

Action Section 106 Compliance 

Requirement 

Removal and relocation or razing of the Civilian Aeronautical 

Administration building 

Further SHPO consultation 

necessary 

If eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, discovery 

of archeological sites that cannot be avoided via survey of areas 

for new ways of visitor access, buildings, trails, campsites, or 

expansion of existing ones 

Further SHPO consultation 

necessary 

Adaptive reuse of historic structures for visitors or park 

personnel 

Further SHPO consultation 

necessary 

Reconfiguration of Manning Camp in relation to Manning 

Cabin 

Further SHPO consultation 

necessary 

 

Other Compliance Requirements 

Development in previously undisturbed areas. Determine if in a floodplain or 

a wetland.
291 

AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING A COPY OF 

THIS DOCUMENT 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Forest Service 

Coronado National Forest 

Santa Catalina Ranger District 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Customs and Border Protection, Tucson 

Sector 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Ironwood Forest National Monument 

National Park Service 

Casa Grande Ruins National Monument 

Chiricahua National Monument/Ft. 

Bowie National Historic Site 

Coronado National Memorial 

Flagstaff Group NPS 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area 

Grand Canyon National Park 

Hubbell Trading Post National 

Historic Site 

Lake Mead National Recreation Area 

Montezuma Castle/Tuzigoot National 

Monuments 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 

Navajo National Monument 

Petrified Forest National Park 

Pipe Spring National Monument 

Rocky Mountain National Park 

Southern Arizona Group office 

Tonto National Monument 

Tumacacori National Historical Park 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. SENATORS AND 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Honorable John McCain, Senator 

Honorable Jon Kyl, Senator 

Honorable Raul M. Grijalva, House of 

Representatives 

Honorable Gabrielle Giffords, House of 

Representatives 

STATE AGENCIES 

Arizona Department of Agriculture 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Arizona State Land Department 

Arizona State Parks 

State Historic Preservation Office 

State of Arizona 

University of Arizona, Tucson 

STATE OFFICIALS 

Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor 

State Representative Manuel V. Alvarez 

State Representative Olivia Cajero Bedford 

State Representative David T. Bradley 

State Representative Jennifer J. Burns 

State Representative Steve Farley 

State Representative Pete Hershberger 

State Representative Phil Lopes 

State Representative Linda Lopez 

State Representative Marian A. McClure 

State Representative Jonathan Paton 

State Representative Tom Prezelski 

State Representative Lena S. Saradnik 

State Senator Paul Aboud 

State Senator Marsha Arzberger 

State Senator Timothy S. Bee 

State Senator Jorge Luis Garcia 

State Senator Charlene Pesquiera 

State Senator Victor Soltero 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

292 

AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES 

TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED WITH 

PARKLANDS 

Ak Chin Indian Community Council 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

Gila River Indian Community Council 

Hopi Tribe 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

Pueblo of Zuni 

 

LOCAL AND REGIONAL 

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

City of Tucson 

City of Tucson Parks and Recreation 

City of Tucson, Department of 

Transportation 

Colossal Cave Mountain Park 

Pima Association of Governments 

Pima County 

Pima County Board of Supervisors 

Pima County Flood Control 

Pima County Natural Resources, Parks and 

Recreation 

Pima County Sheriff's Posse 

Special Staff Assistant, District 4, Pima County 

Board of Supervisors 

Town of Marana 

Tucson City Council 

Tucson Department of Transportation 

Tucson Fire Department 

ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES 

49er Water Company 

A & S Holdings Limited Partnership 

Academy Village Neighborhood Association 

Adventure Travel 

Alaska Coalition 

Aline-Goodman Properties 

All Creeds Brotherhood Inc. 

Alliance of Backcountry Parachutists 

Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona 

Api Land Limited Partnership 

Arizona Alliance Planning Commission 

Arizona Archeological and Historical Society 

Arizona Fish and Wildlife, UA 

Arizona Native Plant Society 

Arizona Natural Plant Society 

Arizona Open Land Trust 

Arizona Quail Alliance 

Arizona Trail Association 

Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum 

Aurora Loan Services Inc. 

Avra Water Co-Op Inc. 

Bankers Trust Co of California 

Bear Canyon Neighborhood Association 

Blue Sky Fitness and Recreation 

Canyon Ranch Resort 

Catalina Line Riders 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Center for Desert Archaeology 

Cernus & Associates Inc. 

Citizens for Picture Rocks 

Civano Neighborhood Association 

Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection 

Commonwealth Properties Inc. 

Country Walkers, Inc. 

Coyote Creek 

Deer Creek Ranch 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Desert Path Tours 

Desert View Estates HOA 

Diamond Ventures, Inc. 

Dow Pak, Inc. 

Eastside Neighborhood Association 

Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, UA 

El Adobe Ranch Portales 

Emerali 

Fable Arabians Organization 

Firth & Associates 

Friends of Saguaro National Park 

Friends of the Sonoran Desert 

Gates Pass Area Neighborhood Association 

Greater Arizona Bicycling Association 

Greater Tucson Economic Council 

Harris Trust Bank of Arizona 

Harrison East-South Neighborhood 

Association 

Harrison Jeffrey Thomas Reserving Life 

Historic Notch Neighborhood Association 

Houghton HOA 

Houghton Neighborhood Association 
Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals Receiving a Copy of This Document 

293 

International Mountain Bicycling Association 

Jcountry Realty 

La Cebadilla Estates Corporation 

Lawyers Title of Arizona 

Lazy C Ranch Estates 

Lazy K Bar Guest Ranch 

Lost Canyon Estates HOA 

Lp-1 Trust 

LS Development Company Limited 

Maco Realty 

Mar Fran Enterprises Inc 

Mile Wide Land & Cattle 

Millstone Manor No2 Neighborhood 

Association 

Miraval 

Mountain Bike Association of Arizona 

Mule Deer Foundation 

National Parks and Conservation Association 

Native & Nature Inc. 

Nirtricks 

Northern Trust Bank of Arizona 

Notch Neighborhood Association 

Off The Beaten Path 

Old Spanish Trail Church of Christ 

Old West Ranchettes HOA 

Oldooz Development Inc. 

Peoples Heritage Bank 

Pima County Trails Association 

Pima Trails Association 

Pioneer Trust of Arizona 

Premier Group 

Qwest Corporation 

R L Commercial Inc. 

Rancho Chimayo 

Rancho Verdad 

Recon 

Reddington Ranch Neighborhood 

Association 

Redemptorist Society of Arizona Inc. 

Regency Holding Company 

Renewable Natural Resources 

RI Farmer's Market 

Rincon Creek Estates HOA 

Rincon Desert Estates HOA 

Rincon Institute 

Rincon Land Investments 

Rincon Water Company 

Rio Verde Ventures 

Rising Spirits Inc. 

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Association 

Roadrunners 

Rocking K Development 

Ronnie Hilliard Living Trust 

Saddlebags 

Saddlebrooke Hiking Club 

Saguaro Horsemen 

Saguaro National Park West Volunteers 

Senior Trekkers Club 

Sierra Club 

Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter 

Sky Island Alliance 

Sky Island Treks 

Smith Family Revocable Lifetime 

Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists 

Sonoran Institute 

South Harrison Neighborhood Association 

Southeastern Arizona Horsemen's 

Association 

Southern Arizona Group 

Southern Arizona Hiking Club 

Southern Arizona Mountain Bike Association 

Southern Arizona Roadrunners 

Southwest Trekking 

Spanish Trail Outfitters 

Spanish Trail Water Company 

Stewart Title & Trust 

Sun City Vistoso Club 

Sun Southwest Contracting Inc. 

Sundance Center (The) 

Suntrek Tours, Inc. 

Surban Wash Committee 

Sweetwater Properties 

Tangue Verde Ranch 

Tanque Verde Guest Ranch 

Tanque Verde Valley Association 

The Academy Village 

The Academy Village Neighborhood 

Association 

The Carriage House 

The County Line Riders of Catalina, Inc. 

The Nature Conservancy 

The NPS Southwest Center 

Trails End 

Tucson Audubon Society 

Tucson Clean & Beautiful 

Tucson Herpetological Society 

Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 

Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce 
CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

294 

Tucson Mountain Association 

Tucson Mountain Investors 

Tucson Mountain Riders 

Tucson Old Pueblo Credit Union 

Tucson Saddle Club 

Tucson Trail Runners 

Tucson Volkssport Walking Klub 

U S Bank National Association 

Udall Center for Study of Public Policy 

University Of Arizona 

University Of Arizona, School of Renewable 

Resources 

Urban Trails Coalition 

Vail School District, Vail, AZ 

Voyager Resort Hiking Club 

Wagon Wheel Liquors, Inc. 

Walking the World 

Western National Parks Association 

Westland Resources 

White Stallion Ranch 

Wild Horse Ranch Estates HOA 

Wilderness Watch 

Wildlands Project 

Wrong Mountain Wildlife Reserve 

X-9 Ranch Owners Association 

INDIVIDUALS 

The list of individuals is available from park 

headquarters. 
Appendixes, 

Bibliography,

Preparers, and Index

297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306 

APPENDIX B: SERVICEWIDE MANDATES AND POLICIES 

As summarized in the “Servicewide Laws and 

Policies” discussion, the alternatives 

considered in this document incorporate and 

comply with the provisions of the following 

mandates and policies as funding and staffing 

allow. Conditions prescribed by servicewide 

mandates and policies that are particularly 

important to this document are summarized 

below. These mandates and policies illustrate 

that a general management plan is not needed 

to decide, for instance, that it is appropriate to 

protect endangered species, control exotics 

species, protect archeological sites, conserve 

artifacts, or provide for handicapped access. 

Those and other things are already laws, 

mandates, or policies. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

307

Relations with Private and Public Organizations, Owners of Adjacent Land, and 

Governmental Agencies 

RELATIONS WITH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS, OWNERS OF ADJACENT LAND, AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The national park is managed as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, and cultural 

system. 

Good relations are maintained with adjacent landowners, surrounding communities, and 

private and public groups that affect, and are affected by, the park. The park is managed 

proactively to resolve external issues and concerns and ensure that park values are not 

compromised. 

Because the national park is an integral part of larger regional environment, the National Park 

Service works cooperatively with others to anticipate, avoid, and resolve potential conflicts, 

protect national park resources, and address mutual interests in the quality of life for 

community residents. Regional cooperation involves federal, state, and local agencies, Indian 

tribes, neighboring landowners, and all other concerned parties. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Actions 

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

park neighbors and other agencies: 

Continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and private organizations to achieve the mission and 

purposes of the national park. Partnerships will be sought for resource protection, research, education, and 

visitor enjoyment. 

NPS staff will keep landowners, land managers, local governments, and the general public informed about national 

park management activities. Periodic consultations will occur with landowners and communities affected by 

national park visitors and management actions. The National Park Service will work closely with local, state, 

and federal agencies and tribal governments whose programs affect or are affected by activities in the national 

park. NPS staff will continue their regular consultations with such entities as the Arizona state historic 

preservation office, the Arizona State Land Department, American Indian tribes, Pima County, Tucson, and 

Marana planning commissions and zoning boards, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the city of Tucson, the city of Marana, the Pima County Sheriff’s 

Department, and the Arizona State Police,. 

Frequent consultations will continue to take place with the U.S. Forest Service, Customs and Border Protection, 

Pima County, and other property owners. 

Continue to establish and foster partnerships with public and private organizations to achieve the purposes and 

mission of the park. Partnerships will be sought for resource protection, research, education, and visitor 

enjoyment purposes. 

To foster a spirit of cooperation with neighbors and encourage compatible adjacent land uses, park staff will keep 

landowners, land managers, local governments, and the public informed about park management activities. 

Periodic consultations will occur with landowners and communities who are affected by, or potentially 

affected by park visitors and management actions. Park staff will respond promptly to conflicts that arise over 

their activities, visitor access, and proposed activities and developments on adjacent lands that may affect the 

park. Park managers will seek agreements with landowners to encourage their lands to be managed in a 

manner compatible with park purposes. Park staff also will seek ways to provide landowners with technical 

and management assistance to address issues of mutual interest. 

Work closely with local, state, federal agencies, and tribal governments whose programs affect, or are affected by, 

activities in the park. The National Park Service will continue to coordinate with the Pima County Association 

of Governments, and with other local, state, and federal agencies. In particular, park managers will maintain a 

close working relationship with Pima County and the U.S. Forest Service, whose lands abut much of the park, 

to meet mutual management needs. Park managers also will pursue cooperative regional planning whenever 

possible to integrate the park into issues of regional concern. 
APPENDIXES

308 

BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS 

Desired Condition Source 

As part of the planning process, the National Park Service identifies and 

evaluates boundary adjustments that may be necessary or desirable in 

order to carry out the purposes of the park unit. The boundary of a 

national park may be modified only as authorized by law. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

Actions 

Boundary adjustments may be recommended for the following reasons: 

Protect significant resources and values, or to enhance opportunities for public enjoyment related to park 

purposes; 

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 other natural features or roads; or 

Otherwise protect park resources that are critical to fulfilling park purposes. 

Government-to-Government Relations between American Indian Tribes and Saguaro 

National Park 

GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS BETWEEN AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES AND SAGUARO 

NATIONAL PARK 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service and tribes culturally affiliated with the park 

maintain positive, productive, government-to-government relationships. 

Park managers and staff respect the viewpoints and needs of the tribes, 

continue to promptly address conflicts that occur, and consider 

American Indian values in park management and operation. 

NPS Organic Act, American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

National Historic Preservation 

Act, Archeological Resources 

Protection Act, Native American 

Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act, NPS 

Management Policies 2006, 

Executive Order 13007 “Sacred 

Sites,” The National 

Environmental Policy Act 

Actions 

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

related to park neighbors and other agencies: 

Continue regular consultations with affiliated tribes to continue to improve communications, resolve any 

problems or misunderstandings, and identify traditional-use resources. 

Continue to encourage the employment of American Indians on park staff to improve communications and 

working relationships, and encourage cultural diversity in the workplace. 

Consider culturally affiliated tribal values in efforts to improve overall management and park interpretation. 

Implement a joint monitoring program to monitor plant-gathering sites for potential impacts. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

309

Natural Resource Management 

Requirements 

AIR QUALITY 

The park is designated as a class I air quality area. Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be 

achieved in the park. 

Desired Condition Source 

Air quality in the park meets national ambient air quality standards for 

specified pollutants. The park’s air quality is maintained or enhanced with no 

significant deterioration. 

Nearly unimpaired views of the landscape both within and outside the park 

are present. Scenic views are substantially unimpaired. 

Clean Air Act, NPS Organic Act, 

NPS Management Policies 2006; 

NPS-77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Actions

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

quality.

Although the National Park Service has very little direct control over air quality in the air shed encompassing the 

park, park managers will continue to cooperate with the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to monitor air quality and ensure that air quality is not impaired. 

Inventory the air quality-related values associated with each park. 

Monitor and document the condition of air quality and related values. 

Evaluate air pollution impacts and identify causes. 

Minimize air quality pollution emissions associated with park operations, including the use of prescribed fire and 

visitor use activities. 

Conduct air quality monitoring in conjunction with other government agencies. 

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

Ensure healthful indoor air quality at NPS facilities. 

Participate in federal, regional, and local air pollution control plans and drafting of regulations and review permit 

applications for major new air pollution sources 

Maintain constant dialogue with the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality regarding visibility 

conditions at the park. 

Participate with the NPS-WASO Air Resources Division on the regional planning group that includes the Sonoran 

Desert Vital Signs Network was formed to address regional haze issues in Arizona and New Mexico. 

Reduce emissions associated with administrative and recreational uses. 

Develop educational programs to inform visitors and regional residents about the threats of air pollution. 

Form regional partnerships to develop alternative transportation systems and promote clean fuels. 

Participate in research on air quality and effects of air pollution. Determine changes in ecosystem function caused by 

atmospheric deposition and assess the resistance and resilience of native ecosystems in the face of these 

external perturbations. 

Research effects of atmospheric deposition on plants, soils, and wetlands in the park. 
APPENDIXES

310 

BACKCOUNTRY 

The National Park Service will manage backcountry areas for the use and enjoyment of the American people in 

such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment.

Desired Condition Source 

Backcountry use is managed in accordance with a backcountry management plan (or 

other plan addressing backcountry uses) that is designed to avoid unacceptable impacts 

on park resources or adverse effects on visitor enjoyment of appropriate recreational 

experiences. The Park Service seeks to identify acceptable limits of impacts, monitors 

backcountry use levels and resource conditions, and takes prompt corrective action 

when unacceptable impacts occur. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with the policies mentioned above. 

The park’s backcountry management plan will be updated to avoid unacceptable impacts on park resources or 

adverse effects on visitor enjoyment of appropriate recreational experiences. 

Special attention will be paid to occupancy limits in primitive campsites and the primitive and semi-primitive 

management zones. 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 

Current laws and policies require that the conditions delineated below be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The park is managed holistically, as part of a greater ecological, social, economic, 

and cultural system. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006 

Actions 

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

to ecosystem management: 

Continue to seek cooperative agreements with the U.S. Forest Service, the state of Arizona, Pima County, and 

other adjacent land managing agencies to protect ecosystem habitat and wildlife corridors. 

Continue to develop cooperative agreements, partnerships, and other feasible arrangements to set an example 

in resource conservation and innovation, and to facilitate research related to park resources and their 

management. 

Work collaboratively with the landowners inside and outside the park to protect viewsheds leading into and in 

the park and seen from inside the park. 

Use cooperative agreements, conservation easements, donation, land exchanges, cooperatively produced 

management plans, boundary adjustments, or other tools to accomplish the protection of the fundamental 

park resources and values. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

311

EXOTIC SPECIES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The management of populations of exotic plant and animal species, up to and 

including eradication, are undertaken wherever such species threaten park 

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

NPS Management Policies 

2006; EO 13112, 

“Invasive Species”; NPS77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Actions 

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

to exotic species. 

Complete an inventory of plants and animals in the park and regularly monitor the distribution and condition 

(e.g., health, disease) of selected species that are (a) invasive exotics or (b) native species capable of creating 

resource problems (e.g., habitat decline due to overpopulation). 

Develop a long-term program for reversing the destructive effects of exotic species. 

Study the environmental and ecological effects of exotic species invasion to assess threats and prioritize 

management actions. 

Undertake research to assess the methods by which exotic species become established and spread into native 

plant communities so that strategies for preventing introduction and establishment can be developed and 

implemented. 

Manage exclusively for native plant species in pristine and primitive management prescriptions. In other 

management prescriptions, limit planting of nonnative species to noninvasive plants that are justified by the 

historic scene or operational needs. 

Control or eliminate exotic plants and animals, exotic diseases, and pest species where there is a reasonable 

expectation of success and sustainability. Base control efforts on: 

the potential threat to legally protected or uncommon native species and habitats 

the potential threat to visitor health or safety 

the potential threat to scenic and aesthetic quality 

the potential threat to common native species and habitat 

Manage exotic diseases and pest species based on similar priorities. 

Provide interpretive and educational programs on the preservation of native species for visitors and for residents 

neighboring the park. 
APPENDIXES

312 

FIRE MANAGEMENT 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

Park fire management programs are designed to meet resource 

management objectives prescribed for the various areas of the park and 

to ensure that the safety of firefighters and the public are not 

compromised.

NPS Management Policies 2006; 

DO 41, “Wilderness Preservation 

and Management” 

All wildland fires are effectively managed, considering resource values to 

be protected and firefighter and public safety, using the full range of 

strategic and tactical operations as described in an approved fire 

management plan. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

Actions 

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

to management of fire: 

Maintain a current fire management plan to reflect changes in wildland fire policy, fire use applications, and the 

body of knowledge on fire effects within the park’s vegetation types. 

Maintain a cooperative agreement for fire suppression with appropriate federal, tribal, state, and local agencies 

and organizations. 

To provide information on whether specified objectives for prescribed fires are met, monitoring programs are 

instituted for such fires to record fire behavior, smoke behavior, fire decisions, and fire effects. 

Conduct research and monitor the effects of fire to ensure that resource objectives are met. 

Use fire as a management tool to maintain native plant communities and control exotic species. 

Provide visitors information so that they can learn the role of fire in the ecosystem. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

313

FLOODPLAINS 

Current laws and policies require that the conditions delineated below be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

Natural floodplain values are preserved or restored. EO 11988 “Floodplain Management”; Rivers 

and Harbors Act; NPS Management Policies 

2006; Special Directive 93-4 “Floodplain 

Management, Revised Guidelines for National 

Park Service Floodplain Compliance” (1993); 

Long-term and short-term environmental effects associated with 

the occupancy and modification of floodplains are avoided. 

DO 77-2, “Floodplain Management”; 

National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 

60); Special Directive 93-4 “Floodplain 

Management, Revised Guidelines for National 

Park Service Floodplain Compliance” (1993) 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or 

inappropriate human activities to a site outside the floodplain or 

where the floodplain will be affected, the National Park Service 

• Prepares and approves a statement of findings in accordance 

with DO 77-2. 

• Uses nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce 

hazards to human life and property while minimizing impacts 

on the natural resources of floodplains. 

• Ensures that structures and facilities are designed to be 

consistent with the intent of the standards and criteria of the 

National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 60). 

NPS Management Policies 2006, Special 

Directive 93-4 “Floodplain Management, 

Revised Guidelines for National Park Service 

Floodplain Compliance” (1993) 

Actions 

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

floodplains: 

Any future construction in the 500-year floodplain will be accompanied by a statement of findings describing the 

need to develop within the maximum estimated flood (Qme), the flood hazard associated with the proposed 

development site, and the plans for mitigation of this flood hazard. 

Visitors, including those hiking, parking, and picnicking in or near small channels, would be made aware of hazards 

associated with flash flooding and informed of what to do when water is flowing in low-water road crossings. 
APPENDIXES

314 

GENERAL NATURAL RESOURCES / RESTORATION 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park: 

Desired Condition Source 

Native species populations that have been severely reduced in or 

extirpated from the park are restored where feasible and 

sustainable. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; NPS-77, 

“Natural Resources Management 

Guidelines” 

Populations of native plant and animal species function in as 

natural condition as possible except where special considerations 

are warranted. 

Actions 

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

to protection and restoration of native species. 

Complete an inventory of plants and animals in the park and regularly monitor the distribution and condition 

(e.g., health, disease) of selected species that are indicators of ecosystem condition and diversity. 

Develop methods to restore native biological communities. 

Research soil properties including nutrients, microorganisms and soil crusts to learn how to restore native plant 

communities. 

Determine source of soil nutrients and the effects of atmospheric pollution on soils and soil biological crusts. 

Continue annual mountain lion monitoring strategies; develop and institute a food source monitoring strategy 

to identify periods when insufficient food is available. 

Determine the frequency and extent of human-caused lion mortality in the park lion population due to 

administrative actions. 

Determine genetic integrity and viability of the mountain lion population through DNA analysis. 

Monitor desert tortoise population movements, habitat use, reproduction and predation. Determine threats to 

population growth and recolonization of park habitat. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

315

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The park’s geologic resources are preserved and protected as integral 

components of the park’s natural systems. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; 

NPS-77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

The Park Service manages caves and karst in accordance with approved 

cave management plans to perpetuate the natural systems associated with 

the caves and karst. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; 

NPS-77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Actions

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

to geologic resources: 

Assess the impacts of natural processes and human-related events on geologic resources. 

Maintain and restore the integrity of existing geologic resources. 

Integrate geologic resource management into NPS operations and planning. 

Interpret geologic resources for visitors. 

Manage caves in accordance with approved cave management plans to perpetuate the natural systems 

associated with the caves. 

Partner with the U.S. Geological Survey and others to identify, address, and monitor geologic hazards. 

Develop programs to educate visitors about geologic resources. 

Collect baseline information on surficial geologic resources. 

Develop a plan to address geologic research, inventory, and monitoring. 

Update geologic map of the park in digital format that can be used in the park’s geographic information system 

(GIS). 

Update geologic history of the park, using modern theory and techniques. 

Update geologic interpretations of localities that are the subject of interpretive stops or displays. 

Prepare a geologic inventory, including the identification of the significant geologic processes that shape park 

ecosystems and the identification of the human influences on those geologic processes (i.e., 

“geoindicators”); identification of geologic hazards; inventory of type sections or type localities within the 

park; inventory of “textbook” localities that provide particularly good or well-exposed examples of geologic 

features or events, and that may warrant special protection or interpretive efforts; and, identification of 

interpretive themes or other opportunities for interpreting the significant geologic events or processes that 

are preserved, exposed, or occur in the park. 

Prepare a cave survey, including maps, locations, and assessments of park caves, using NPS protocols. 

Prepare a cave management plan. 

LAND PROTECTION 

The National Park Service will manage for protection of park lands.

Desired Condition Source 

Land protection plans are prepared to determine and publicly document what lands 

or interests in land need to be in public ownership, and what means of protection 

are available to achieve the purposes for which the national park was created. 

NPS Management 

Policies 2006

Actions 

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with the policies mentioned above.

• Prepare a land protection plan for the park. 
APPENDIXES

316 

LIGHTSCAPE MANAGEMENT / NIGHT SKY 

The park’s night sky is a feature that contributes to visitors’ experiences. Current laws and policies require that 

the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

Excellent opportunities to see the night sky are available. Artificial light sources 

both within and outside the park do not unacceptably adversely affect 

opportunities to see the night sky. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006

Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with the policy mentioned above: 

The National Park Service will cooperate with park visitors, neighbors, and local government agencies to find 

ways to prevent or minimize the intrusion of artificial light into the night scene in the park. 

In natural areas, artificial outdoor lighting will be limited to basic safety requirements and will be shielded when 

possible. 

The park staff will evaluate the impacts on the night sky caused by park facilities. If light sources in the park are 

affecting night skies, the staff will study alternatives such as shielding lights, changing lamp types, or 

eliminating unnecessary sources. 

NATIVE VEGETATION AND ANIMALS 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park: 

Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service will maintain as parts of the natural ecosystem, 

all native plants and animals in the park. 

NPS Management Policies 2006;

NPS-77 “Natural Resources 

Management Guideline” 

Actions 

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

to native wildlife and vegetation: 

Complete inventory of the plants and animals in the park and regularly monitor the distribution and condition of 

selected species that are indicators of ecosystem condition and diversity. 

Develop methods to restore native biological communities. 

Minimize human impacts on native plants, animals, populations, communities and ecosystems and the processes 

that sustain them. 

Restore native plant and animals populations in the park that have been extirpated by past human-caused 

action, where feasible. 

Whenever possible, natural processes will be relied upon to maintain native plant and animal species, and to 

influence natural fluctuations in populations of these species. 

Protect a full range of genetic types (genotypes) of native plant and animals populations in the park by 

perpetuating natural evolutionary processes and minimizing human interference with evolving genetic 

diversity. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

317

SOUNDSCAPES 

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

park system units. The sounds of nature are among the intrinsic elements that combine to form the 

environment of our national park system units. Current laws and policies require that the following conditions 

be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service preserves the natural ambient soundscapes, restores 

degraded soundscapes to the natural ambient condition wherever possible, and 

protects natural soundscapes from degradation due to human-caused noise. 

Disruptions from recreational uses are managed to provide a high-quality visitor 

experience in an effort to preserve or restore the natural quiet and natural 

sounds. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006, DO 47,“Sound 

Preservation and Noise 

Management” 

Noise sources are managed to preserve or restore the natural soundscape. Executive memorandum 

signed by President Clinton 

on April 22, 1996 

Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with the policies mentioned above. 

Actions will be taken to monitor and minimize or prevent or minimize unnatural sounds that adversely affect 

park resources or values or visitors’ enjoyment of them. 

The park staff continues to require tour bus companies to comply with regulations designed to reduce noise 

levels (e.g., turning off engines when buses are parked). 

Noise generated by NPS management activities will be minimized 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 park staff. 

Work with the Department of Defense to address problems from military flights. 

Work with tour operators and all other interested parties to develop an air tour management plan. The National 

Park Service will continue to work with the Federal Aviation Administration, tour operators, commercial 

businesses, and general aviation interests to encourage aircraft to fly around the park, especially for those 

flights where the presence of the park is incidental to the purpose of the flight (i.e., transit between two 

points). Actions that might be considered to encourage pilots to fly outside the park include identifying the 

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

from the park, and encouraging pilots to comply with FAA regulations and advisory guidance, in a manner 

that will minimize noise and other impacts. 

Encourage visitors to avoid unnecessary noise, such as through the use of generators and maintaining quiet 

hours in the campgrounds. 
APPENDIXES

318 

SOILS 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The National Park Service actively seeks to understand and preserve the 

soil resources of the park, and to prevent, to the extent possible, the 

unnatural erosion, physical removal, or contamination of the soil, or its 

contamination of other resources. 

NPS Management Policies 2006;

NPS-77 “Natural Resources 

Management Guideline” 

Natural soil resources and processes function in as natural a condition as 

possible, except where special considerations are allowable under policy. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; 

NPS-77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Actions 

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

to soils: 

Update soils map of the park in digital format that can be used in the park’s geographic information system 

(GIS). 

Whenever possible, park staff would educate visitors about soils. 

Collect baseline information on soils. 

Take actions to prevent — or if that is not possible, to minimize — adverse, potentially irreversible impacts on 

soils. Possibly implement soil conservation and soil amendment practices to reduce impacts, and import offsite soil or use soil amendments to restore damaged sites. Off-site soil normally is salvaged soil, not soil 

removed from pristine sites, unless the use of pristine site soil can be achieved without causing any 

unacceptable adverse impacts on the overall ecosystem. 

When use of a soil fertilizer or other soil amendment is an unavoidable part of restoring a natural landscape or 

maintaining an altered plant community, use is guided by a written prescription. The prescription ensures 

that such use of soil fertilizer or soil amendment does not unacceptably alter the physical, chemical, or 

biological characteristics of the soil, biological community, or surface or ground waters. 

Minimize soil excavation, erosion, and off-site soil migration during and after any ground-disturbing activity. 

Survey areas of the park with soil resource problems and take actions appropriate to the management 

prescription to prevent or minimize further erosion, compaction, or deposition. 

Apply effective best management practices to problem soil erosion and compaction areas in a manner that stops 

or minimizes erosion, restores soil productivity, and reestablishes or sustains a self-perpetuating vegetative 

cover. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

319

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

Federally listed and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species and their habitats are protected 

and sustained. 

Endangered Species Act; equivalent state protective 

legislation; NPS Management Policies 2006; NPS-77, 

“Natural Resources Management Guidelines” 

Native threatened and endangered species 

populations that have been severely reduced in or 

extirpated from the park are restored where feasible 

and sustainable. 

Actions 

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

to species of special concern: 

Support research that contributes to management knowledge of rare and protected species and their habitat. 

To protect rare or protected species and their habitat, complete an inventory of rare or protected plants and 

animals in the park and regularly monitor the distribution and condition (e.g., health, disease). Modify 

management plans to be more effective based on the results of monitoring. 

Cooperate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries, as appropriate, to ensure that NPS 

actions comply with the Endangered Species Act. 

Survey for, protect, and strive to recover all species native to the park that are listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Participate in the recovery planning process when appropriate. 

Manage designated critical habitat, essential habitat, and recovery areas to maintain and enhance their value for 

listed species. 

To the greatest extent possible, inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally listed species in a manner 

similar to federally listed species. 

Continue to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to explore options to reintroduce species extirpated 

from the park (e.g., Gila topminnow). 
APPENDIXES

320 

WATER RESOURCES 

Current laws and policies require that the conditions delineated below be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

Surface water and groundwater are protected and 

water quality meets or exceeds all applicable water 

quality standards. 

Clean Water Act; Executive Order (EO) 11514 “Protection 

and Enhancement of Environmental Quality”; NPS 

Management Policies 2006; NPS-77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines”

NPS and NPS-permitted programs and facilities are 

maintained and operated to avoid pollution of surface 

water and groundwater. 

Clean Water Act; EO 12088, “Federal Compliance with 

Pollution Control Standards”; Rivers and Harbors Act; NPS 

Management Policies 2006; NPS-77, “Natural Resources 

Management Guidelines” 

Actions 

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

water resources: 

Work with appropriate governmental bodies to obtain the highest possible water quality standards available under 

the Clean Water Act. 

Cooperate with other government agencies to maintain and/or restore quantity and quality of park water resources. 

Take all necessary actions to maintain or restore the quantity and quality of surface and ground waters in the park 

consistent with the Clean Water Act. 

Determine means to protect and preserve acceptable stream flows, spring flows, and ground water levels under 

state law, federal law, and agreements. 

Determine acceptable stream flows, spring flows, and ground-water levels to sustain aquatic and bottomland life 

and provide recreational opportunities. 

Pursue methods to preserve and protect acceptable stream flows, spring flows, and ground-water levels. 

Promote research to improve understanding of water resources in the park, including further studies of 

sedimentation, mountain recharge, water budgets, and other important baseline data for which we lack 

information. 

Investigate and monitor water quality including salinity and trace elements. Study the effects of the water quality on 

aquatic life. 

Promote water conservation, and the role of the Rincon wilderness watershed in providing high-quality water to the 

Tucson Basin, by the National Park Service, partners, concessioners, visitors, and park neighbors. 

Apply best management practices to all pollution-generating activities and facilities in the park, such as NPS 

maintenance and storage facilities and parking areas. 

Minimize the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals and manage them in keeping with NPS policy and 

federal regulations. 

Continue to monitor stream flows, spring flows, ground-water levels, and water quality. 

Continue to work with Coronado National Forest and Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. 

Work with other entities to determine the effects of NPS activities on aquifers of Saguaro National Park, Coronado 

National Forest, Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, Tucson Mountain County Park, and gateway 

communities. 

Promote, with the assistance of other agencies, the development of pretreatment programs for existing and new 

maquiladora facilities. 

Press for continued and expanded monitoring to fulfill the database requirements to determine unknown water 

quantity and quality issues. 

Continue to evaluate issues and concerns identified in the 1997 “Water Resources Scoping Report” for Saguaro 

National Park. 

Continue to monitor the effects of visitor use on water resources. 

Continue to assess effects of stormwater runoff. 

Promote greater public understanding of water resource issues at Saguaro National Park and encourage public 

support for and participation in protecting the Santa Cruz River Basin watershed. 

Pursue unique waters classification of the Madrona Pools by Arizona Department of Water Quality. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

321

WETLANDS 

Current laws and policies require that the conditions delineated below be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

The natural and beneficial values of wetlands are preserved and 

enhanced. 

Clean Water Act; EO 11990; “Protection of 

Wetlands”; NPS Management Policies 2006;

DO 77-1, “Wetland Protection”; Rivers and 

Harbors Act; 

The National Park Service implements a “no net loss of wetlands” 

policy and strives to achieve a longer-term goal of net gain of 

wetlands across the national park system through the restoration of 

previously degraded wetlands. 

DO 77-1, “Wetland Protection”; EO 11514 

“Protection and Enhancement of 

Environmental Quality,” NPS Management 

Policies 2006

The National Park Service avoids to the extent possible the long- and 

short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or 

modification of wetlands and avoids direct or indirect support of 

new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable 

alternative. 

EO 11990; “Protection of Wetlands,” NPS 

Management Policies 2006

The National Park Service compensates for remaining unavoidable 

adverse impacts on wetlands by restoring wetlands that have been 

previously degraded. 

“Protecting America’s Wetlands: A Fair, 

Flexible, and Effective Approach,” White 

House Office on Environmental Policy, 1993; 

NPS 77-1, “Wetland Protection,” NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Actions 

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

wetland resources: 

All facilities would be located to avoid wetlands if feasible. If avoiding wetlands was not feasible, other actions 

would be taken to comply with Executive Order 11990 (“Protection of Wetlands”), the Clean Water Act, and 

Director’s Order 77-1 (“Wetland Protection”). 

A statement of findings for wetlands will be prepared if the NPS actions would result in adverse impacts on 

wetlands. The statement of findings would include an analysis of the alternatives, delineation of the wetland, a 

wetland restoration plan to identify mitigation, and a wetland functional analysis of the impact site and 

restoration site. 

Conduct or obtain parkwide wetland inventories to ensure proper planning, management, and protection of 

wetlands. 

Enhance natural wetland values by using them for educational and scientific purposes that do not disrupt natural 

wetland functions. 

If natural wetland functions have been degraded or lost due to human action, the National Park Service will work to 

restore wetlands to predisturbance conditions, to the extent practicable. 
APPENDIXES

322 

WILDERNESS 

The National Park Service will manage wilderness areas including those proposed for wilderness designation for 

the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use 

and enjoyment as wilderness.

Desired Condition Source 

The park ensures that wilderness characteristics and 

values are retained and protected, that visitors 

continue to find opportunities for solitude and 

primitive, unconfined recreation, and that signs of 

people remain substantially unnoticeable. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; DO 41 “Wilderness 

Preservation and Management,” Wilderness Act of 

1964 

Actions

The National Park Service will take the following kinds of actions to comply with the policies mentioned above. 

If new areas are added to a park, a wilderness suitability assessment will be prepared if appropriate. Should 

areas be determined suitable, a wilderness study will be prepared. 

Areas proposed/recommended for wilderness will continue to be managed so as to not diminish their wilderness 

characteristics until Congress has taken action on the proposal/recommendation. 

Uses that are in keeping with the definitions and purpose of wilderness, and do not degrade wilderness 

resources and character, will be encouraged. Appropriate restrictions may be imposed on any authorized 

activity to preserve wilderness character and resources, or to ensure public safety. 

Develop and maintain a wilderness management plan or equivalent planning document to guide the 

preservation, management and use of these resources. 

Managers considering the use of aircraft or other motorized equipment or mechanical transportation within 

wilderness must consider impacts to the character, aesthetics, and traditions of wilderness before 

considering the costs and efficiency of the equipment. 

All management decisions affecting wilderness must be consistent with the minimum requirement concept: a 

proposed management action must be appropriate or necessary for administration of the area as 

wilderness and not pose a significant impact to wilderness resources and character, and the management 

method (tools) used must cause the least amount of impact to the wilderness resources and character. 

Administrative use of motorized equipment or mechanical transport will be authorized only if the 

superintendent determines it is the minimum requirement needed to achieve the purposes of the area as 

wilderness, or it is needed in an emergency situation involving the health or safety of persons actually 

within the area. 

In evaluating environmental impacts, the National Park Service will take into account wilderness characteristics 

and values, including the primeval character and influence of the wilderness; the preservation of natural 

conditions (including the lack of man-made noise); and assurances that there will be outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, that the public will be provided with a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreational experience, and that wilderness will be preserved and used in an unimpaired condition. 

Managers will be expected to appropriately address cultural resources management considerations in the 

development and review of environmental compliance documents for actions that might impact wilderness 

resources. 

Scientific activities will be encouraged and permitted when consistent with NPS responsibilities to preserve and 

manage wilderness. 

Wilderness education/interpretive programs will be used to inform visitors about wilderness ethics and how to 

minimize their impacts on wilderness. Leave-no-trace practices will be emphasized. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

323

Cultural Resource Management Requirements 

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the parks:

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. When disturbance or deterioration is 

unavoidable, the site is professionally documented and 

excavated and the resulting artifacts, materials, and 

records are curated and conserved in consultation with 

the Arizona state historic preservation office (and 

American Indian tribes if applicable). Some 

archeological sites that can be adequately protected 

may be interpreted to the visitor. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act; the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation; Programmatic Agreement 

among the National Park Service, the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference 

of State Historic Preservation Officers (1995); NPS 

Management Policies 2006, DO 28 “Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline” 

Actions

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

to archeological sites:

• Continue to conduct a parkwide cultural resource inventory. 

• Continue to survey and inventory archeological sites parkwide; determine and document their significance. 

The most critical area for study is park land where development or visitor activity is planned. 

• Determine which archeological sites should be added to the Archeological Sites Management Information 

System (ASMIS) and the National Register of Historic Places. 

• Educate visitors on regulations governing archeological resources and their removal and transport. 

• Monitor archeological sites. 

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

formal determination by the National Park Service, the state historic preservation office, and associated 

Indian tribes as to their significance. 

• 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 the Arizona state historic preservation office and Indian tribes in accordance with the 

National Historic Preservation Act and implementing regulations. 
APPENDIXES

324 

HISTORIC STRUCTURES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved for historic structures (e.g., 

buildings, structures, roads, and trails):

Desired Condition Source 

Historic structures are inventoried and their 

significance and integrity are evaluated under 

National Register of Historic Places criteria. The 

qualities that contribute to the listing or eligibility 

for listing of historic structures on the national 

register are protected in accordance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines 

for Archeology and Historic Preservation (unless it is 

determined through a formal process that 

disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable). 

National Historic Preservation Act; Archeological and 

Historic Preservation Act; the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic 

Preservation; Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties; Programmatic 

Agreement among the National Park Service, the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers (1995); NPS Management Policies 2006, DO 28 

“Cultural Resource Management Guideline.” 

Actions 

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

to historic structures: 

• Update and certify the list of classified structures (LCS). 

• Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each historic structure 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 (e.g., materials, colors, shape, massing, scale, architectural details, and site 

details) of historic structures in the park (e.g., intersections, curbing, signs, and roads and trails) to guide 

the rehabilitation and maintenance of sites and structures. 

• Prepare historic preservation plans to guide maintenance. 

• Document history through oral histories of individuals, groups, and others who have ties to the park. 

• Before modifying any historic structure on the National Register of Historic Places, such as Manning Cabin, 

the National Park Service will consult with the state historic preservation officer and the Advisory Council 

for Historic Preservation, as appropriate. 

• Before modifying any structures associated with “Mission 66,” the structures would be evaluated for listing 

on the national register in consultation with the state historic preservation officer. 

• Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of historic properties. 

• Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the state historic preservation officer for review and 

comment. Forward the final nomination to the keeper of the national register with recommendations for 

eligibility to the national register. 

• Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for such structures. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

325

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 NPS resources with which they are 

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

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

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

associated with them. Consultation with traditionally associated peoples or groups would occur before any NPS 

proposals are acted upon. Consultations would identify and address any concerns the peoples or groups might 

have regarding potential impacts on resources in the NPS unit related to a people’s or group’s cultural heritage 

or social identity.

Desired Condition Source 

Appropriate cultural anthropological research is conducted in 

cooperation with groups associated with the park. 

National Historic Preservation Act; Advisory 

Council for Historic Preservation implementing 

regulations; NPS Management Policies 2006, 

DO 28 “Cultural Resource Management 

Guideline” 

To the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly 

inconsistent with essential agency functions, the National Park 

Service accommodates access to and ceremonial use of Indian 

sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and avoids 

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 use of natural and 

cultural resources in the national park are applied in an 

informed and balanced manner that is consistent with 

national park purposes and does not unreasonably interfere 

with American Indian use of traditional areas or sacred 

resources and does not result in the degradation of national 

park resources. 

EO 13007 on American Indian Sacred Sites; 

NPS Management Policies 2006

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 are consulted when such items 

may be disturbed or are encountered on park lands. 

NPS Management Policies 2006; Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

Access to sacred sites and park resources by American Indians 

continues to be provided when the use is consistent with park 

purposes and the protection of resources. 

All ethnographic resources determined eligible for listing or 

listed on the national register are protected. If disturbance of 

such resources is unavoidable, formal consultation with the 

state historic preservation officer and the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, and with American Indian tribes as 

appropriate, is conducted. 

All executive agencies are required to consult, to the greatest 

extent practicable and to the extent permitted by law, with 

tribal governments before taking actions that affect federally 

recognized tribal governments. These consultations are to be 

open and candid, and confidential as needed, so that all 

interested parties may evaluate for themselves the potential 

impact of relevant proposals. 

Presidential memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

on government-to-government relations with 

tribal governments; National Historic 

Preservation Act; Advisory Council for Historic 

Preservation implementing regulations 

In addition to the inadvertent discoveries of cultural resource, 

NPS Management Policies 2006 states in part that a park’s 

“traditionally associated peoples should be consulted about . . 

. other proposed NPS actions that may affect the treatment of, 

use of, and access to park resources with cultural meaning to 

a group.” 

NPS Management Policies 2006
APPENDIXES

326 

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES (cont.) 

Actions

To accomplish the above goals, the National Park Service will do the following:

• Prepare a cultural affiliation study to determine which tribes and other traditionally associated groups 

should be consulted for actions at the park. 

• Prepare an ethnographic overview and assessment. 

• 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 by the National Park Service and the state historic preservation officer as to their 

significance. 

• Conduct regular consultations with affiliated tribes and other traditionally associated groups to continue to 

improve communications and resolve any problems or misunderstandings that occur. 

• Continue to encourage the employment of American Indians on the park staff to improve communications 

and working relationships and encourage cultural diversity in the workplace. 

• Continue to provide access to sacred sites and park resources by American Indians when the use is 

consistent with park purposes and the protection of resources. 

• Provide for access to and use of natural and cultural resources in the park and collections by American 

Indians that are consistent with park purposes; do not reasonably interfere with American Indian use of 

traditional areas or sacred resources, and do not degrade park resources. 

• 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 associated tribes and the 

state historic preservation officer, and, as appropriate, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, in 

accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

• Conduct consultation with affiliated Indian tribes and other traditionally associated groups throughout the 

course of the planning process for this and other documents. 

• Have tribes and other traditionally associated groups identify resources important to Indian tribes during the 

scoping process, and carefully incorporate this information into the design of all the alternatives so that 

these resources are protected under any alternative considered. 

• Document oral histories with individuals, groups, and tribes linked to the park to establish cultural affiliation 

and obtain information necessary to better manage park ethnographic resources. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

327

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES 

According to the National Park Service’s Cultural Resource Management Guideline (DO-28), a cultural landscape is 

a reflection of human adaptation and use of natural resources and is often expressed in the way land is 

organized and divided, patterns of settlement, land use, systems of circulation, and the types of structures that 

are built. The character of a cultural landscape is defined both by physical materials, such as roads, buildings, 

walls, and vegetation, and by use reflecting cultural values and traditions. 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved for cultural landscapes.

Desired Condition Source 

Cultural landscape inventories are conducted to identify landscapes 

potentially eligible for listing in the national register and to assist in 

future management decisions for landscapes and associated resources, 

both cultural and natural.

The management of cultural landscapes focuses on preserving the 

landscape’s physical attributes, biotic systems, and uses when those 

uses contribute to its historical significance. 

Treatments are based on sound preservation practices for the 

preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of cultural 

landscapes is undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the 

Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with 

Guideline’s for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended (16 USC 470); Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation’s 

implementing regulations regarding the 

“Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR 

800); Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes (1996); NPS 

Management Policies 2006; National Park 

Service’s Cultural Resources Management 

Guideline (DO-28, 1996) 

Actions

To accomplish the above goals, the National Park Service will do the following: 

• Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of landscapes under national register criteria. 

• Complete a survey, inventory, and evaluation of cultural landscapes. 

• Submit the inventory and evaluation results to the state or tribal historic preservation officer for review and 

comment; forward final nomination form to the keeper of the national register with recommendations for 

eligibility to the national register. 

• Determine the appropriate level of preservation for each landscape formally determined to be eligible for listing 

or actually listed on the national register, subject to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 

• Implement and maintain the appropriate level of preservation for such resources. 

• Prepare cultural landscape reports for cultural landscapes to determine historical significance, to support 

preservation needs and guide the rehabilitation and maintenance of cultural landscapes. 
APPENDIXES

328 

MUSEUM COLLECTIONS 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park for museum collections:

Desired Condition Source 

All museum collections (objects, specimens, and manuscript 

collections) are identified and inventoried, catalogued, 

documented, preserved, and protected, and provision is made 

for their access to and use of these items for exhibits, research, 

and interpretation in consultation with traditionally associated 

groups. 

The qualities that contribute to the significance of collections are 

protected in accordance with established standards. 

National Historic Preservation Act; 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act; 

Archeological Resources Protection Act; 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act; NPS Management Policies 

2006, DO 28 “Cultural Resource 

Management Guideline”; NPS Museum 

Handbook; NPS Museum Collection 

Facilities Strategy, Intermountain Region, 

2005; Management of Museum Properties 

Act of 1955 (the “Museum Act”), 16 USC 

18f, Historic Sites Act of 1935, Management of Museum Properties Act of 1955 

(commonly known as the Museum Act), 16 

USC 18f; Historic Sites Act of 1935, 16 USC 

461-467 

Actions 

To accomplish the above goals, the National Park Service will do the following: 

• Inventory and catalog all park museum collections in accordance with standards in the NPS Museum 

Handbook.

• In accord with NPS standards, develop or update a collections management plan for the park and 

implement it in relation to the 2005 plan titled “Museum Collection Facilities Strategy, Intermountain 

Region,” which will guide the protection, conservation, and research use of museum objects. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

329

Other Requirements 

VISITOR USE AND EXPERIENCE AND PARK USE REQUIREMENTS 

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

use activities, programs, and facilities. For this reason, most decisions related to visitor experience and use are addressed in the 

alternatives. However, all visitor use of national park system units must be consistent with the following guidelines.

Desired Condition Source 

Park resources are conserved “unimpaired” for the enjoyment 

of future generations. Visitors have opportunities for forms of 

enjoyment that are uniquely suited and appropriate to the 

superlative natural and cultural resources found in the park. No 

activities occur that would cause derogation of the values and 

purposes for which the park has been established. 

NPS Organic Act, National Park System General Authorities 

Act, NPS Management Policies 2006; Title 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations 

For all zones, districts, or other logical management divisions 

within a national park system unit, the types and levels of visitor 

use are consistent with the desired resource and visitor 

experience conditions prescribed for those areas consistent with 

the unit’s purpose. 

National Park System General Authorities Act, NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Park visitors will have opportunities to understand and 

appreciate the significance of the park and its resources, and to 

develop a personal stewardship ethic by directly relating to the 

resources. 

NPS Management Policies 2006

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

park are accessible to and usable by all people, including those 

with disabilities within an inviting atmosphere accessible to 

every segment of American society. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990; 28CFR36, Architectural Barriers Act 

Accessibility Guidelines (May 2006); U.S. Access Board Draft 

Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas of 

1999; NPS Management Policies 2006; DO-42, Accessibility 

for Visitors with Disabilities in NPS Programs, Facilities, and 

Services; Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Secretary of the Interior’s regulation 43CFR17, Enforcement on the Basis of 

Disability in Interior Programs;

Actions

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

understanding and use of the park: 

• Park staff will continue to monitor visitor comments on issues such as crowding, availability of campsites at busy times of 

the year, availability of parking, user conflicts, and facility conditions. 

• Conduct periodic visitor surveys to stay informed of changing visitor demographics and desires to better tailor programs to 

visitor needs and desires. 

• Pets must be crated, caged, restrained on a leash six feet long or less, or otherwise physically confined at all times. Pets are 

not allowed on park trails. 36 CFR 2.15 

• Bicycles are prohibited in the national park except on established public roads and parking areas and on routes designated 

for their use by posting signs or by marking on a map available at the superintendent’s office. 36 CFR 4.30 

• The use of off-road vehicles is prohibited except on public roads and parking areas. 36 CFR 4.10 
APPENDIXES

330 

COMMERCIAL SERVICES 

Commercial services are another way of providing for the visitor use and experience and park use requirements 

already described. Commercial operators are “partners” with the National Park Service to provide goods and 

services to visitors that are necessary and appropriate but not provided by NPS personnel. The Park Service 

manages commercial service levels and types to achieve the same resource protection and visitor experience 

conditions required by the NPS Organic Act, General Authorities Act, management policies, and other 

regulations and policies. In addition, commercial services must comply with the provisions of the NPS 

Concessions Management Improvement Act of 1998. By law, all commercial activities in national park system 

units must be authorized in writing by the superintendent. A commercial activity is defined as any activity for 

which compensation is exchanged. It includes activities by for-profit and nonprofit operators. Commercial 

services are more than just concessions. They include concession contracts, commercial use authorizations, 

leases, cooperative agreements, rights of way, and special use permits. All commercial services must be 

managed. All commercial services must be necessary and/or appropriate by achieving the resource protection 

and visitor use goals for the park unit. 

Desired Condition Source 

Same as Visitor Use and Experience and Park Use Requirements (above) Same as Visitor Use and Experience 

and Park Use Requirements 

All commercial services must be authorized, must be necessary and/or 

appropriate, and must be economically feasible. Appropriate planning 

must be done to support commercial services authorization. 

NPS Concessions Management 

Improvement Act of 1998, NPS 

Management Policies 2006

Actions 

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

to commercial services: 

Establish and document that all commercial services in the park unit are necessary and/or appropriate before 

they are proposed or reauthorized. 

Ensure that all necessary and/or appropriate commercial activities in the park unit are authorized in writing by 

the superintendent. 

Stop all unauthorized commercial activities in the park unit. 

Use the most appropriate authorization tool (concession contracts, commercial use authorizations, leases, 

cooperative agreements, rights of way, and special use permits) to manage the commercial services 

program effectively and efficiently. 

Ensure that all commercial activities in the park unit provide high-quality visitor experiences while protecting 

important natural, cultural, and scenic resources. 

Ensure that new or modified concessions are economically feasible and that the operator has a reasonable 

opportunity to make a profit before they are proposed in a planning document. 

Establish levels of commercial use that are consistent with resource protection and visitor experience goals for 

the park unit and do not unduly interfere with the independent visitor’s ability to participate in the same 

activity. 

Ensure that all commercial services are safe and sustainable. 

Authorize only those commercial services that are not or cannot be made available within a reasonable distance 

outside the park unit. 

Prepare a commercial services plan if necessary to describe in detail the actions required to achieve commercial 

services and related visitor experience goals. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

331

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 

NPS Management Policies 2006 state that the saving of human life will take precedence over all other 

management actions as the Park Service strives to protect human life and provide for injury-free visits. Current 

laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

While recognizing that there are limitations on its capability and 

constraints imposed by the Organic Act to not impair resources, the 

service and its concessioners, contractors and cooperators will seek to 

provide a safe and healthful environment for visitors and employees. 

The park staff will strive to identify recognizable threats to safety and 

health and protect property by applying nationally accepted standards. 

Consistent with mandates and nonimpairment, the park staff will reduce 

or remove known hazards and/or apply appropriate mitigating measures, 

such as closures, guarding, gating, education, and other actions. 

NPS Management Policies 2006, 

DO-50 and RM-50 “Safety and 

Health”; DO-58 and RM-58 

“Structural Fire Management”; DO83 and RM-83 “Public Health”; DO51 and RM-51 “Emergency Medical 

Services”; DO-30 and RM-30 

“Hazard and Solid Waste 

Management; OSHA 29CFR. 

Actions 

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

to public health and safety: 

Establish a documented Safety Program in the park to address health and safety concerns and identify 

appropriate levels of action and activities. 

Ensure that all potable water systems and waste water systems in the park meet state and federal requirements. 

Provide for interpretive signs and materials to notify visitors of potential safety concerns, hazards and procedures 

to help provide for a safe visit to the park and to ensure that visitors are aware of possible risks of certain 

activities. 

Establish a Structural Fire Program and Maintain a Structural Fire Brigade to provide prevention programs and 

protection of life and property. 

Develop an emergency preparedness program to maximize visitor and employee safety and protection of 

resources and property. 

Develop an emergency operations plan including a hazardous spill response plan to plan for and respond to 

spills. 

Provide a search and rescue program to make reasonable efforts to search for lost persons and rescue sick, 

injured or stranded persons. 

Provide an emergency medical services program to provide for the care of the ill and injured, including 

emergency pre-hospital care and the emergency medical transport of sick and injured by hospital from the 

park’s remote setting to medical help. 
APPENDIXES

332 

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT 

Sustainability can be described as the result achieved by managing units of the national park system in ways that do not 

compromise the environment or its capacity to provide for present and future generations. Sustainable practices minimize 

the short- and long-term environmental impacts of developments and other activities through resource conservation, 

recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and ecologically responsible materials and techniques.

Desired Condition Source 

NPS and concessioner visitor management facilities are harmonious with 

park 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 2006; 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.” 

All decisions regarding park operations, facilities management, and 

development in the park — from the initial concept through design and 

construction — reflect principles of resource conservation. Thus, all park 

developments and park operations are sustainable to the maximum 

degree possible and practical. New developments and existing facilities 

are located, built, and modified according to the Guiding Principles of 

Sustainable Design (NPS 1993) or other similar guidelines. 

“Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, 

Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide 

for Federal Facility Managers and Designers,” 2nd

ed. 

Management decision-making and activities throughout the national 

park system should use value analysis, which is mandatory for all 

Department of the Interior bureaus, to help achieve this goal. Value 

planning, which may be used interchangeably with value analysis/value 

engineering/value management, is most often used when value methods 

are applied on general management or similar planning activities. 

Director’s Order #90 “Value Analysis” 

Actions 

The NPS Guiding Principles of Sustainable Design (1993b) directs NPS management philosophy. It provides a basis for 

achieving sustainability in facility planning and design, emphasizes the importance of biodiversity, and encourages 

responsible decisions. The guidebook articulates principles to be used in the design and management of tourist facilities that 

emphasize environmental sensitivity in construction, the use of nontoxic materials, resource conservation, recycling, and 

integrating visitors with natural and cultural settings. Sustainability principles have been developed and are followed for 

interpretation, natural resources, cultural resources, site design, building design, energy management, water supply, waste 

prevention, and facility maintenance and operations. The Park Service also reduces energy costs, eliminates waste, and 

conserves energy resources by using energy-efficient and cost-effective technology. Energy efficiency is incorporated into the 

decision-making process during the design and acquisition of buildings, facilities, and transportation systems emphasizing 

the use of renewable energy sources. 

In addition to following these principles, the following also will be accomplished: 

• Have NPS staff work with appropriate experts to make park facilities and programs sustainable. Perform value analysis 

and value engineering, including life cycle cost analysis, to examine the energy, environmental, and economic 

implications of proposed developments. 

• Support and encourage suppliers, permittees, and contractors to follow sustainable practices. 

• Address sustainable practices within and outside the national park in interpretive programs. 

• Promote the reduction, reuse, and recycling of materials; support the rehabilitation (recycling) of existing buildings and 

facilities over new construction; require new developments or modifications of existing facilities to be built using NPS 

sustainability guidelines. 

• The park has state-of-the-art water systems for conserving water, and energy conservation technologies and renewable 

energy sources whenever possible. Biodegradable, nontoxic, and durable materials are used in the park whenever 

possible. Park personnel promote the reduction, use, and recycling of materials and avoid as much as possible materials 

that are nondurable or environmentally detrimental or that require transportation from great distances. 

• Promote and encourage modes of transportation other than the single-occupancy vehicle. 

• Promote land use planning for transportation that can efficiently meet human needs and can be responsibly planned to 

conserve the finite resources. 
Appendix B: Servicewide Mandates and Policies 

333

TRANSPORTATION TO AND WITHIN THE PARK 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the park:

Desired Condition Source 

Visitors have reasonable access to the park, and there are connections from the 

park to regional transportation systems as appropriate. Transportation facilities in 

the park provide access for the protection, use, and enjoyment of park resources. 

They preserve the integrity of the surroundings, respect ecological processes, 

protect park resources, and provide the highest visual quality and a rewarding 

visitor experience. 

The National Park Service participates in all transportation planning forums that 

may result in links to parks or impact park resources. Working with federal, tribal, 

state, and local agencies on transportation issues, the National Park Service seeks 

reasonable access to parks, and connections to external and alternative 

transportation systems.

“NPS Transportation 

Planning Guidebook,” 

p.1. 

NPS Management Policies 

2006 

Actions 

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

to transportation to and in the park: 

• Work with gateway communities and local, regional, state, tribal, and federal agencies to develop a 

regional approach to transportation planning in Pima County. Encourage a multiagency, multicounty 

regional transportation planning group. 

• Work with the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, the Arizona 

Department of Transportation, and other sources to seek funding and staff to participate in and encourage 

effective regional transportation planning and enhancements, including both road and nonroad 

transportation (e.g., bikeways, road signs, trails, intelligent transportation systems, historic preservation, 

recreational access and facility development, visitor centers, traffic calming devices, gateway community 

enhancements). 

• Encourage, where appropriate, alternative transportation systems that contribute to maximum visitor 

enjoyment of and minimum adverse impacts on park resources and values. 

• Advocate for corridor crossings for terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, and other accommodations to promote 

biodiversity. 

• Avoid or mitigate (1) harm to individual animals, (2) the fragmentation of plant and animal habitats, and (3) 

the disruption of natural systems. 
APPENDIXES

334 

UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATION FACILITIES 

Current laws and policies require that the following conditions be achieved in the national park:

Desired Condition Source 

Park resources or public enjoyment of the park are not denigrated by 

nonconforming uses. Telecommunication structures are permitted in 

the park to the extent that they do not jeopardize the park’s mission 

and resources. No new nonconforming use or rights-of-way are 

permitted through the park without specific statutory authority and 

approval by the director of the National Park Service or his 

representative, and are 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 2006; DO 53A, 

“Wireless Telecommunications”; 

Reference Manual 53, “Special Park 

Uses.” 

Actions 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 directs all federal agencies to assist in the national goal of achieving a 

seamless telecommunications system throughout the United States by accommodating requests by 

telecommunication companies for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements to the extent allowable 

under each agency’s mission. The National Park Service is legally obligated to permit telecommunication 

infrastructure in the parks if such facilities can be structured to avoid interference with park purposes. 

• Locate new or reconstructed utilities and communications infrastructures in association with existing 

structures and along roadways or other established corridors in developed areas. For reconstruction or 

extension into undisturbed areas, select routes that will minimize impacts on the park’s natural, cultural, 

and visual resources. 

• Place utility lines underground to the maximum extent possible. 

• Work with service companies, local communities, and the public to locate new utility lines so that there is 

minimal effect of park resources. 

• Follow NPS policies in processing applications for commercial telecommunications applications. 
335

APPENDIX C: LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRAINTS ON 

PLANNING 

Saguaro National Park – General Management Planning 

LAWS

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) 

5 USC 551 et seq. 2 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA) 

42 USC 12101—12213 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 

1979 

16 USC 470aa—470mm 

Clean Air Act 

42 USC 7401—7671q 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 

16 USC 1531—1544 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(commonly known as the Clean Water Act) 

33 USC 1251—1387 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

5 USC 552 

Government Performance and Results Act of 

1983 (GPRA) 

31 CFR 1115 et seq. 4 

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act 

16 USC 461—467 

Lacey Act (Amended) 

16 USC 3371—3378 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 

16 USC 4601-4—4601-11 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

16 USC 703—712 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) 

42 USC 4321—4370d 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

16 USC 470—470x-6 

National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 

2000 

114 Stat. 61 

National Park Service Concessions 

Management Improvement Act of 1998 

16 USC 5951—5966 

National Park Service Organic Act 

16 USC 1—4 

National Park System General Authorities Act 

16 USC 1a-1 

National Park System Resource Protection Act 

16 USC 19jj 

National Trails System Act 

16 USC 1241—1251 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 

25 USC 3001—3013 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

29 USC 651—678 

Solid Waste Disposal Act 

42 USC 6901—6992k 

Volunteers in the Parks Act of 1969 

16 USC 18g—18j 

Wilderness Act 

16 USC 1131—1136 
APPENDIXES

336 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND MEMORANDA

Executive Order No. 11644 (Use of Off-road 

Vehicles on Public Lands) Feb. 8, 1972, 37 FR 

2877, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11989, May 

24, 1977, 42 FR 26959; Ex. Ord. No. 12608, 

Sept. 9, 1987, 52 FR 34617 [42 USC 4321] 

Executive Order No. 11988 (Floodplain 

Management) May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26951, as 

amended by Ex. Ord. No. 12148, July 20, 1979, 

44 FR 43239 [42 USC 4321] 

Executive Order No. 11990 (Protection of 

Wetlands) May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26961, as 

amended by Ex. Ord. No. 12608, Sept. 9, 1987, 

52 FR 34617 [42 USC 4321] 

Memorandum on Government-toGovernment Relations with Native American 

Tribal Governments April 29, 1994, 59 FR 

22951 [25 USC 450] 

Executive Order No. 13006 (Locating Federal 

Facilities on Historic Properties in Our 

Nation’s Central Cities) May 21, 1996, 61 FR 

26071 [40 USC 601a] 

Executive Order No. 13007 (Indian Sacred 

Sites) May 24, 1996, 61 FR 26771 [42 USC1996] 

Executive Order No. 13031 (Federal 

Alternative Fueled Vehicle Leadership) Dec. 

13, 1996, 61 FR 66529 [42 USC 13212] 

Executive Order No. 13058 (Protecting 

Federal Employees and the Public from 

Exposure to Tobacco Smoke in the Federal 

Workplace) August 9, 1997, 62 FR 43451 [5 

USC 7301] 

Executive Order No. 13101 (Greening the 

Government through Waste Prevention, 

Recycling, and Federal Acquisition) Sept. 14, 

1998, 63 FR 49643 [42 USC 6961] 

Executive Order No. 13112 (Invasive Species)

Feb. 3, 1999, 64 FR 6183 

Executive Order No. 13123 (Greening the 

Government through Efficient Energy 

Management) June 3, 1999, 64 FR 30851 

Executive Order No. 13148 (Greening the 

Government through Leadership in 

Environmental Management) April 21, 2000, 

65 FR 24595 

Executive Order No. 13149 (Greening the 

Government through Federal Fleet and 

Transportation Efficiency) April 21, 2000, 65 

FR 24607 

Executive Order No. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) November 6, 2000, 65 FR 67249 

[25 USC 450] 
337

APPENDIX D: OTHER PLANS CONSULTED FOR THE GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT PLAN, SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK 

Note: The following references are for information only and are not part of the bibliographic 

references found in the text of this document. Those text references refer to documents listed in 

the “Selected References” section. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

2001 “Pre-plan Analysis for the Ironwood 

Forest National Monument, February 

9, 2001.” By Darrell Tersey, Becky 

Drennen, and Daniel Moore. Tucson, 

Arizona: Tucson Field Office. 

Bureau of Land Management, and the 

National Park Service, both U.S. Department 

of the Interior 

2000 “Tucson Field Office and Saguaro 

National Park Fire Management 

Complex Improvements, 

Environmental Assessment, Finding of 

No Significant Impact.” Approved 

September 28, 2000, by both Jess Juen, 

manager, BLM Tucson Field Office 

and Frank Walker, superintendent, 

Saguaro National Park. Tucson, 

Arizona. 

CH2M HILL, Inc. 

2003 “Town of Marana, Arizona, 

Conservation Planning Process, Phase 

1 Report, June 2003.” Sacramento, 

California: CH2M HILL Inc. 

City of Tucson 

1990 “Tucson Water Resources Plan, 1990 

to 2100.” Tucson, Arizona: Water 

Department. 

2001 “The General Plan, Tucson, Arizona, 

December 6, 2001.” Tucson, Arizona: 

Planning Department, Planning 

Commission, and Mayor and Council. 

2003 “Comprehensive Planning Task Force, 

Houghton Road Area (HAMP) 

Project.” Planning Department. 

Floyd, Myron F. 

2001 “Managing National Parks in a 

Multicultural Society: Searching for 

Common Ground.” The George Wright 

Forum 18 (3): 41-51. 

Gruber, Alexandra, Brandon Moyle, and 

Andreas Schramm 

2002 “Goals and Activities of Saguaro 

National Park in the Eyes of Its 

Stakeholders.” Completed for Saguaro 

National Park. Tucson, Arizona: 

School of Public Administration and 

Policy, University of Arizona. 

Hendricks, William W., Roy H. Ramthun, and 

Deborah J. Chavez 

n.d. “To Cross or Not to Cross: Mountain 

Bicyclists’ Resource Trail Etiquette 

Behavior.” Circa 2000 based upon the 

literature cited. Study conducted at 

Mount Tamalpais State Park, 

California. San Luis Obispo, 

California: Department of Natural 

Resources Management, California 

Polytechnic State University. Available 

online at http://www.imba.com/ 

resources/science/trail_etiquette.html 

Katzel, Bill 

2003 “Testimony of Bill Katzel, Citizen 

Advocate, before the Tucson-Pima 

County Bicycle Advisory Committee, 

Wednesday, January 8, 2003.” 

Himmel Park Library, Tucson, 

Arizona, Typescript. Tucson, Arizona. 

McGann and Associates, Incorporated 

2000a “Town of Marana, Arizona, Trail 

System Master Plan, September 2000.” 

Tucson, Arizona. 
APPENDIXES

338 

2000b “Town of Marana, Arizona, Park, 

Trail, and Open-space System Master 

Plan.” Tucson, Arizona. 

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

n.d. “Desert Southwest Cooperative 

Ecosystem Studies Unit.” Brochure. 

Larry L. Norris, coordinator. Tucson, 

Arizona. 

1991a “Draft Saguaro National Park 

Parkwide Exhibit Proposal, April 

1991.” Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

1991b “Trails Management Plan, Cactus 

Forest Section, Rincon Mountain 

District, Saguaro National 

Monument.” Trail Planning Team. 

Tucson, Arizona. 

1995 “Saguaro National Park Wayside 

Exhibit Proposal, August 1995.” By 

Jack Spinnler. Harpers Ferry, West 

Virginia: NPS Harpers Ferry Center. 

1996 “Saguaro National Park, Tucson 

Mountain District, Draft Trails Plan, 

1996.” Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

1997a “Draft Environmental Assessment for 

Tucson Mountain District Trail Plan, 

Saguaro National Park, July 25, 1997.” 

By Mark Holden, Natasha Kline, 

Stanley Lawhead, Dwayne Moates, 

Paula Nasiatka, and Robert Stinson. — 

Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro National 

Park. 

1997b “Interim Trails Plans, Rincon 

Mountain District and Tucson 

Mountain District, Saguaro National 

Park.” Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

1999 “Saguaro National Park Fire Complex 

Design Charrette.” Tucson, Arizona: 

Saguaro National Park. 

2001 “Saguaro National Park 

Comprehensive Interpretive Plan.” 

Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro National 

Park. 

2002a “Saguaro National Park, Annual 

Performance Plan, FY 2002.” Tucson, 

Arizona: Saguaro National Park. 

2002b “Strategic Plan for Saguaro National 

Park, October 1, 2000 – September 30, 

2005.” Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

2002c Cactus Forest Trail Environmental 

Assessment, Saguaro National Park, 

Arizona. By Laurie Domler. Denver, 

Colorado: Intermountain Regional 

Office. 

2003 “Finding of No Significant Impact, 

Reinstating Mountain Bike Use, 

Cactus Forest Trail, Saguaro National 

Park. Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

National Parks Conservation Association and 

the National Park Service, U.S. Department of 

the Interior 

2001 “Saguaro National Park Business Plan 

2001.” Washington, District of 

Columbia, and Tucson, Arizona. 

Pima Association of Governments, Pima 

County 

2001a “2001-2025, Regional Transportation 

Plan, Executive Summary, January 24, 

2001.” Tucson, Arizona. 

2001b “2001-2025, Regional Transportation 

Plan, January 24, 2001. Tucson, 

Arizona. 

2002 “Comparison of Regional Planning 

Efforts, Selected Plans, Studies, and 

Reports in the PAG [Pima Association 

of Governments] Region, February 

2002.” Tucson, Arizona. With research 

assistance from Venture Catalyst, 

Incorporated, Tucson, Arizona. 

2003a “2030 Regional Transportation Plan, 

Vision and Goals. April 2003.” 

Tucson, Arizona. 

2003b “Regional Transportation 

Improvement Plan, 2003-2007.” 

Tucson, Arizona. 

2004 “Regional Transportation 

Improvement Plan, 2004-2008.” 

Tucson, Arizona. 
Appendix D: Other Plans Consulted for the General Management Plan, Saguaro National Park 

339

Pima County 

1998 “Colossal Cave Mountain Park Master 

Plan Background Report, March 

1998.” Tucson, Arizona: Colossal Cave 

Mountain Park Staff, Pima County 

Parks and Recreation Department, 

and Pima County Parklands 

Foundation. 

1999 “Mountain Parks and the Sonoran 

Desert Conservation Concept Plan: A 

Discussion Paper about Protecting 

and Enhancing the Pima County 

Mountain Park and Natural Preserve 

System.” Tucson, Arizona: Pima 

County Parks and Recreation 

Department. 

2000 “Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, 

September 2000.” Tucson, Arizona: 

Pima County Board of Supervisors. 

Rasker, Ron, and Ben Alexander 

2002 “Bureau of Land Management 

Incorporates Socioeconomics into 

Resource Planning.” Newsletter of the 

Sonoran Institute 2 (2, Fall 2002): 8. 

Saguaro Rib

2002 “Sarah Craighead, New Saguaro 

Superintendent.” Saguaro Rib (Friends 

of Saguaro National Park newsletter) 

2002-2003 (Winter): 1. 

Sonoran Institute 

n.d. “Sonoran Institute: Advancing 

Conservation through Community 

Stewardship.” Tucson, Arizona. 

2002a “Building from the Best of Tucson. 

Final Report/Policy 

Recommendations Presented to the 

Mayor and Council of Tucson, 

Arizona.” Tucson, Arizona. 

2004 “Prosperity in the 21st Century West: 

The Role of Protected Public Lands.” 

By Ray Rasker, Ben Alexander, Jeff 

van den Noort, and Rebecca Carter. 

Tucson, Arizona. 

The Rincon Institute 

2003a “Project Summary: Rincon Creek 

Community Stewardship, 

Community-driven Restoration, 

Conservation, and Long-term 

Protection of Rincon Creek, April 25, 

2003.” Tucson, Arizona. 

2003b “Project Summary: Recreation Impact 

on Wildlife in Saguaro National Park, 

The Consequences and Mitigation of 

Uncontrolled Access from Adjacent 

Developments on the Park, April 25, 

2003.” Tucson, Arizona. 

Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory 

Committee 

2003 “Agenda. Meeting of the Tucson-Pima 

County Bicycle Advisory Committee, 

Wednesday, January 8, 2003.” Himmel 

Park Library, Tucson, Arizona. 

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

Agriculture 

1986 Coronado National Forest Plan. 

Tucson, Arizona: Southwestern 

Region. 
340 

APPENDIX E: TRAIL SYSTEM CRITERIA AND TYPES 

TRAIL SYSTEM CRITERIA 

The future designated trail system and access 

points would be developed based on four 

criteria — cultural resources, natural 

resources, visitor experience, and park 

operations. These criteria were derived using 

recommendations from the public, park staff, 

current park trail plans, and national trail 

models. Trails will be sustainable and 

developed with good engineering practices. 

Natural and cultural resources vary in both 

their value and their sensitivity. That is, some 

resources in the park, such as saguaros or 

particularly large archeological sites, are 

considered more valuable than others. Some 

resources, such as an endangered species or a 

cultural site on an eroding slope, are more 

sensitive than others. The park’s future trail 

plan should provide for visitor access and 

education while protecting the most valued 

and sensitive resources. 

A) Cultural Resources Criteria — Trails will be 

located to protect important cultural areas 

that are unique to the park and sensitive to 

trail impacts, and to avoid archeological sites, 

Native American sacred sites, and sensitive 

historic sites. 

B) Natural Resource Criteria — Trails will be 

designed and located to protect important 

vegetation and wildlife communities that are 

unique to the park, help restore heavily 

impacted and environmentally sensitive areas, 

and direct trail use to areas with suitable soils. 

C) Visitor Experience Criteria — Trails will be 

designed to provide access to a wide range of 

trail users and to various locations in the park 

and to avoid or minimize conflicts between 

trail user types. Trails will be designed to 

enhance visitor safety. The trail system should 

provide opportunities for access to a variety of 

educational and visitor experiences without 

excessive duplication. 

 

D) Park Operations Criteria — Trails will be 

designed to maximize the efficiency of 

maintenance, interpretation, resource 

management, and visitor protection staffs 

while minimizing financial costs to the park. 

TRAIL TYPES 

Type A — Wheelchair accessible trails in the 

frontcountry constructed and maintained 

according to Americans with Disability Act 

standards. The trails typically access primary 

park features. Trail surfaces would be 

hardened. The use of directional and 

interpretive signs and structural elements to 

enhance safety and mitigate erosion is likely. 

Type B — Single or multiuse trails constructed 

and maintained for moderate to heavy use by 

visitors with beginner to intermediate skills. 

Trails are maintained to minimize safety 

hazards and resource impacts. Trails would be 

constructed of natural materials and have 

moderate variations and occasional rock or 

root protrusions. Trail surfaces would be 

unpaved. Trails would feature directional 

signs and structures that would minimize 

safety hazards and mitigate erosion. 

Type C — Single or multiuse trails constructed 

and maintained for light to moderate use by 

visitors with intermediate to high skill levels. 

Trails are maintained primarily to minimize 

resource impacts. Trails would be constructed 

of natural materials and have moderate to 

difficult variations and frequent rock or root 

protrusions. Trail surfaces would be unpaved. 

Trails might feature directional signs and 

structures that would minimize safety hazards 

and mitigate erosion. 
341 

APPENDIX F: WILDERNESS SUITABILITY ASSESSMENT 

The purpose of wilderness designation, which may be accomplished only through congressional 

action, is to preserve and protect wilderness characteristics and values over the long term, while 

providing opportunities for solitude and unconfined recreation. With passage of the Wilderness 

Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), Congress declared that it is national policy to secure for 

present and future generations the benefits of enduring wilderness resources. 

Although Congress can act on the suitability findings in the General Management Plan for 

Saguaro National Park and any other information it chooses, the usual procedure would be for 

the National Park Service to conduct a formal wilderness study, including an environmental 

impact statement and formal hearings before the Executive Branch makes an actual 

recommendation on 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....” 16 U.S.C 1131(c). 

The Wilderness Act, regulations at 43 CFR 19, Management Policies of the NPS (2001), and 

Director’s Order #41 require that the National Park Service (NPS) review all areas within a park 

to determine if any meet the criteria laid out in the Wilderness Act and NPS Policies. 

This determination applied the following Management Policies criteria: 

National Park Service lands will be considered suitable for wilderness if they are at least 

5000 acres or of sufficient size to make practicable their preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition, and if they possess the following characteristics (as identified in 

the Wilderness Act): 

• The earth and its community of life are untrammeled by humans, where humans 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; and 

• The area offers outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined 

type of recreation. 

NPS Management Policies (2001) 6.2.1.1 

Primary Suitability Criteria 

An interdisciplinary team composed of park and Denver Service Center staff determined that the 

areas within the expansion lands identified on the attached maps meet the criteria; and therefore, 

are suitable for wilderness. Significant portions of these expansion lands generally appear to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature with minimal evidence of human activity. These 

areas of Saguaro National Park offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or for primitive and 

unconfined recreation. 
APPENDIXES

342 

The suitable areas are located in both districts. Tucson Mountain District has two units (A and B) 

located north of the existing designated wilderness and one unit (C) east of the existing 

wilderness. Rincon Mountain has one unit (D) located south of the existing wilderness. 

Unit A is composed of approximately 618 suitable acres. This area is undeveloped with few signs 

of people. Unit A supports a diversity of Sonoran Desert environments including steep cliffs and 

washes. It includes suitable habitat for the California leaf nosed bat and desert tortoise and is part 

of the proposed critical habitat for Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owls. 

Unit B is composed of approximately 615 suitable acres. This area is undeveloped and appears to 

be affected primarily by forces of nature. This area has excellent opportunities for solitude. Unit 

B contains primarily Sonoran Desert scrub vegetation. It includes suitable habitat for the 

California leaf nosed bat and desert tortoise and is part of the proposed critical habitat for Cactus 

Ferruginous Pygmy Owls. 

Unit C is composed of approximately 1292 suitable acres. This area is also undeveloped and 

appears to be affected primarily by forces of nature. Few people use this unit as only one primitive 

trail is located within the unit. This area contains some of Tucson’s Mountain District’s highest 

peaks, semi-desert grasslands, and Sonoran Desert scrub vegetation. It includes suitable habitat 

for the California leaf nosed bat and desert tortoise and is part of the proposed critical habitat for 

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owls. 

Unit D is composed of approximately 2191 suitable acres. Much of Unit D is undeveloped and 

appears to be affected primarily by forces of nature. Few people use this area, which is difficult to 

access without extensive hiking. Unit D contains sensitive and vital riparian areas including a year 

round stream and pools. It provides excellent habitat for the lowland leopard frog, lesser long 

nosed bat, Mexican long-tongued bat, desert tortoise, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, and many 

other sensitive riparian species. 

All federally-owned expansion lands not mentioned above were found not suitable. Non-federal 

lands were not evaluated. If state, county, or private lands within the park boundaries are ever 

purchased or donated to the federal government, they will need to be evaluated for eligibility as 

wilderness. 

All lands determined suitable for wilderness designation will be managed under the provisions of 

the Wilderness Act and National Park Service policies to maintain wilderness characteristics and 

values. Interim wilderness management will continue until designation by Congress. 

Approximately 4,716 acres of Saguaro National Park’s expansion lands have been found to 

possess wilderness characteristics and values and will be managed as such. These areas of the 

park have been found suitable to add to the park’s existing designated wilderness. 

March 2006 




347

APPENDIX G: LETTERS ON SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES
348

APPENDIXES
349

Appendix G; Letters on Special Concern Species
350

APPENDIXES Pima County COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS STATUS

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Large, adults have white head and tail. Height 28-38 inches; wingspan 66-96 inches. Dark with varying degrees of mottled brown plumage. Feet bare of feathers.

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma

Varies Large trees or cliffs near 

water (reservoirs, rivers, and streams) with abundant prey.

Some birds are nesting residents while a larger number winters along rivers and reservoirs. An estimated 200 to 300 birds winter in Arizona. Once endangered (32 FR 4001, 03-11-1967; 43 FR 6233, 02-14-78) because of reproductive failures from pesticide poisoning and loss of habitat, this species was down listed to threatened on August 11, 1995. Illegal shooting, disturbance, and loss of habitat continues to be a problem. Species has been proposed for delisting (64 FR 36454) but still receives full protection under the ESA.

Threatened

California Brown pelican

Pelecanus occidentalis californicus

Large dark gray-brown water bird with a pouch underneath long bill and webbed feet. Adults have a white head and neck, brownish black breast, and silver gray upper parts.

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma

Varies Coastal land and islands; 

species found around many Arizona lakes and rivers.

Subspecies is found on Pacific Coast and is endangered due to pesticides. It is an uncommon transient in Arizona on many Arizona lakes and rivers. Individuals wander up from Mexico in summer and fall. No breeding records in Arizona.

Endangered

Chiricahua leopard frog

Rana chiricahuensis Cream colored tubercules 

(spots) on a dark background on the rear of the thigh, dorsolateral folds that are interrupted and deflected medially, and a call given out of water distinguish this spotted frog from other leopard frogs.

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Santa Cruz, Yavapai

3300-8900 ft Streams, rivers, 

backwaters, ponds, and stock tanks that are mostly free from introduced fish, crayfish, and bullfrogs.

Require permanent or nearly permanent water sources. Populations north of the Gila River may be a closely-related, but distinct, undescribed species. A special rule allows take of frogs due to operation and maintenance of livestock tanks on State and private lands.

Threatened

Desert pupfish Cyprinodon 

macularius

Small (2 inches) smoothly rounded body shape with narrow vertical bars on the sides. Breeding males blue on head and sides with yellow on tail. Females and juveniles tan to olive colored back and silvery sides.

Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai

< 5,000 ft Shallow springs, small 

streams, and marshes. Tolerates saline and warm water.

Critical habitat includes Quitobaquito Springs, Pima County, portions of San Felipe Creek, Carrizo Wash, and Fish Creek Wash, Imperial County, California. Two subspeices are recognized: Desert Pupfish (C.m.macularis) and Quitobaquito Pupfish (C.m.eremus).

Endangered

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Page 1 of 5 Pima County
351

Appendix G; Letters on Special Concern Species

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS STATUS

Gila chub Gila intermedia Deep compressed body, flat 

head. Dark olive-gray color above, silver sides. Endemic to Gila River Basin.

Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai

2,000 - 5,500 ft Pools, springs, cienegas, 

and streams.

Found on multiple private lands, including the Nature Conservancy, the Audubon Society, and others. Also occurs on Federal and state lands and in Sonora, Mexico. Critical habitat occurs in Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz and Yavapai counties.

Endangered

Gila topminnow Poeciliopsis 

occidentalis occidentalis

Small (2 inches), guppy-like, live bearing, lacks dark spots on its fins. Breeding males are jet black with yellow fins.

Gila, Graham, La Paz, Maricopa, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai

< 4,500 ft Small streams, springs, 

and cienegas vegetated shallows.

Species historically occurred in backwaters of large rivers but is currently isolated to small streams and springs.

Endangered

Huachuca water umbel

Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva

Herbaceous, semi-aquatic perennial in the parsley family (Umbelliferae) with slender erect, hollow, leaves that grow from the nodes of creeping rhizomes. Flower: 3 to 10 flowered umbels arise from root nodes.

Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz

3500-6500 ft Cienegas, perennial low 

gradient streams, wetlands.

Species also occurs in adjacent Sonora, Mexico, west of the continental divide. Critical habitat in Cochise and Santa Cruz counties (64 FR 37441, July 12, 1999).

Endangered

Jaguar Panthera onca Largest species of cat native 

to Southwest. Muscular, with relatively short, massive limbs, and a deep-chested body. Usually cinnamon-buff in color with many black spots. Weights ranges from 40-135 kg (90-300 lbs).

Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pima

1,600 - >9,000 

ft

Found in Sonoran desertscrub up through subalpine conifer forest.

Also occurs in New Mexico. A Jaguar conservation team is being formed that is being led by Arizona and New Mexico state entities along with private organizations.

Endangered

Kearney blue star Amsonia 

kearneyana

A herbaceous perennial about 2 feet tall in the dogbane family (Apocynaceae). Thickened woody root and many pubescent (hairy) stems that rarely branch. Flowers: white terminal inflorescence in April and May.

Pima 3600-3800 ft West-facing drainages in 

the Baboquivari Mountains.

Plants grow in stable, partially shaded, coarse alluvium along a dry wash in the Baboquivari Mountains. Range is extremely limited. Protected by Arizona Native Plant Law.

Endangered

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Pima County
352

APPENDIXES

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS STATUS

Lesser long-nosed bat

Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae

Elongated muzzle, small leaf nose, and long tongue. Yellowish brown or gray above and cinnamon brown below. Tail minute and appears to be lacking. Easily disturbed.

Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Maricopa, Santa Cruz

< 6000 ft Desert scrub habitat with 

agave and columnar cacti present as food plants.

Day roosts in caves and abandoned tunnels. Forages at night on nectar, pollen, and fruit of paniculate agaves and columnar cacti. This species is migratory and is present in Arizona usually from April to September and south of the border the remainder of the year.

Endangered

Masked bobwhite Colinus virginianus 

ridgewayi

Males brick-red breast and black head and throat. Females are generally nondescript but resemble other races such as the Texas bobwhite.

Pima 1000-4000 ft Desert grasslands with 

diversity of dense native grasses, forbs, and brush.

Species is closely associated with Acacia angustissima. Formerly occurred in Altar and Santa Cruz valleys, as well as Sonora, Mexico. Presently only known from reintroduced populations on Buenos Aires NWR.

Endangered

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis 

lucida

Medium sized with dark eyes and no ear tufts. Brownish and heavily spotted with white or beige.

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai

4100-9000 ft Nests in canyons and 

dense forests with multilayered foliage structure.

Generally nest in older forests of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine/gambel oak type, in canyons, and use variety of habitats for foraging. Sites with cool microclimates appear to be of importance or are preferred. Critical habitat was finalized on August 31, 2004 (69 FR 53182). Critical habitat in Arizona occurs in Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai counties.

Threatened

Nichol Turk's head cactus

Echinocactushorizonthalonius var. nicholii

Blue-green to yellowishgreen, columnar, 18 inches tall, 8 inches in diameter. Spine clusters have 5 radial and 3 central spines; one downward short; 2 spines upward and red or vasally gray. Flower: pink fruit: woolly white.

Pima, Pinal 2400-4100 ft Sonoran desertscrub. Found in unshaded microsites in Sonoran 

desertscrub on dissected alluvial fans at the foot of limestone mountains and on inclined terraces and saddles on limestone mountain sides.

Endangered

Ocelot Leopardus (=Felis) 

pardalis

Medium-sized spotted cat whose tail is about 1/2 the length of head and body. Yellowish with black streaks and stripes running from front to back. Tail is spotted and face is less heavily streaked than the back and sides.

Cochise, Pima, Santa Cruz

< 8000 ft Humid tropical and subtropical forests, 

savannahs, and semi-arid thornscrub.

May persist in partly-cleared forests, second-growth woodland, and abandoned cultivated areas reverted to brush. Universal component is presence of dense cover. Unconfirmed reports of individuals in the southern part of the State continue to be received.

Endangered

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Pima County
353

Appendix G; Letters on Special Concern Species

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS STATUS

Pima pineapple cactus

Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina

Hemispherical stems 4-7 inches tall 3-4 inches diameter. Central spine 1 inch long straw colored hooked surrounded by 6-15 radial spines. Flower: yellow, salmon, or rarely white narrow floral tube..

Pima, Santa Cruz 2300-5000 ft Sonoran desertscrub or 

semi-desert grassland communities.

Occurs in alluvial valleys or on hillsides in rocky to sandy or silty soils. This species can be confused with juvenile barrel cactus (Ferocactus). However, the spines of the later are flattened, in contrast with the round cross-section of the Coryphanta spines. 80-90% of individuals on state or private land.

Endangered

Sonoran pronghorn Antilocapra 

americana sonoriensis

Buff on back and white below, hoofed with slightly curved black horns having a single prong. Smallest and palest of the pronghorn subspecies

Maricopa, Pima, Yuma

500 - 2,000 ft Broad intermountain 

alluvial valleys with creosote-bursage and palo verde-mixed cacti associations.

Typically, bajadas are used as fawning areas and sandy dune areas provide food seasonally. Historical range was probably larger than exists today. This subspecies also occurs in Mexico.

Endangered

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus

Small passerine (about 6 inches) grayish-green back and wings, whitish throat, light olive-gray breast and pale yellowish belly. Two wingbars visible. Eye-ring faint or absent.

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma

<8500 ft Cottonwood/willow and 

tamarisk vegetation communities along rivers and streams.

Migratory riparian-obligate species that occupies breeding habitat from late April to September. Distribution within its range is restricted to riparian corridors. Difficult to distinguish from other members of the Empidonax complex by sight alone. Training seminar required for those conducting flycatcher surveys. Critical habitat was finalized on October 19, 2005 (50 CFR 60886) and can be viewed at http://arizonaes.fws.gov. In Arizona there are critical habitat segments in Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapai counties.

Endangered

Acuna cactus Echinomastus 

erectocentrus var. acunensis

<12 inches high; spine clusters borne on tubercles, each with a groove on the upper surface. 2-3 central spines and 12 radial spines. Flowers pink to purple.

Pima, Pinal 1300-2000 ft Well drained knolls and 

gravel ridges in Sonoran desertscrub.

Immature plants distinctly different from mature plants. They are disc-shaped or spherical and have no central spines until they are about 1.5 inches. Radial spines are dirty white with maroon tips.

Candidate

Sonoyta mud turtle Kinosternon 

sonoriense longifemorale

Primarily a pond turtle, prefers mud or sandy bottoms. Body 3 1/2 to 6 1/2 inches. Head and neck mottled with contrasting light and dark markings. Found in Quitobaquito Springs.

Pima 1,100 ft Ponds and streams. Species also found in Rio Sonoyta, 

Sonora, Mexico.

Candidate

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Page 4 of 5 Pima County
354

APPENDIXES

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTS STATUS

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus 

americanus

Medium-sized bird with a slender, long-tailed profile, slightly down-curved bill, which is blue-black with yellow on the lower half of the bill. Plumage is grayishbrown above and white below, with rufous primary flight feathers.

Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, Yuma

< 6,500 ft Large blocks of riparain 

woodlands (cottonwood, willow, or tamarisk galleries).

Listing was found warranted, but precluded as a distinct vertebrate population segment in the western U.S. on July 25, 2001. This finding indicates that the Service has sufficient information to list the bird, but other, higher priority listing actions prevent the Service from addressing the listing of the cuckoo at this time.

Candidate

Gooddings onion Allium gooddingii Herbaceous perenial plant; 

broad, flat, rather blunt leaves; flowering stalk 14-17 inches tall, flattened, and narrowly winged toward apex; fruit is broader than long; seeds are short and thick.

Apache, Greenlee, Pima

> 7,500 ft Forested drainage 

bottoms and on moist north facing slopes of mixed conifer and spruce fir forests.

Conservation agreement between the Service and the Forest Service signed in February 1998. In New Mexico on the Lincoln and Gila National Forests.

Conservation 

Agreement

San Xavier talussnail

Sonorella eremita Land snail, less than one 

inch in diameter (about .75 inches), 4.5 whorls, round shell, white to pinkish tint.

Pima 3,850-3,920 ft Deep, limestone rockslide 

with outcrops of limestone and decomposed granite.

Conservation agreement signed by the Service, Arizona Game and Fish Department, El Paso Natural Gas Company, and Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in September 1998.

Conservation 

Agreement

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Page 5 of 5 Pima County
355

Appendix G; Letters on Special Concern Species
356

APPENDIXES
357

Appendix G; Letters on Special Concern Species

Please see later pages for definitions.
358

APPENDIXES
359

Appendix G; Letters on Special Concern Species
360

APPENDIXES
361

Appendix G; Letters on Special Concern Species
362

APPENDIXES
363 

APPENDIX H: LIST OF CLASSIFIED STRUCTURES IN SAGUARO 

NATIONAL PARK 

Preferred Structure 

Name 

Park 

Structure #

LCS ID National Register 

Status 

National 

Register Date 

Significance 

Level 

1 Amole Dam TMD08 58627 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

2 Cactus Forest Drive RMR500 58645 Determined Eligible -

Keeper 

5/18/2005 Local 

3 Cactus Forest Drive 

Retaining Wall 

RMF500A 56658 Determined Eligible -

Keeper 

5/18/2005 Local 

4 Cam-Boh Picnic Area 

Comfort Station 

CCC13 7434 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

5 Cam-Boh Picnic Area 

Fireplace 

CCC15 56613 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

6 Cam-Boh Picnic Area 

Ramada 

CCC12 58619 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

7 Chimenea Canyon 

Chimney 

RMF001 56657 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

8 Corral at Steel Tank RMF004 58608 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

9 Dobe Robinson 

Wildlife Water 

Supply Reservoir 

CCC27 58601 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

10 Dobe Robinson 

Wildlife Water 

Supply Windmill 

CCC26 58600 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

11 East Amole Dam #1 TMD09 58628 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

12 East Amole Dam #2 TMD10 58629 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

13 East Amole Dam #3 TMD11 58630 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

14 East Amole Dam #4 TMD12 58631 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

15 Ez-Kim-In-Zin 

Comfort Station 

CCC09 7429 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

16 Ez-Kim-In-Zin Picnic 

Area Fireplaces 

CCC24 56616 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

17 Ez-Kim-In-Zin Picnic 

Area Picnic Tables 

CCC23 58615 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

18 Ez-Kim-In-Zin Picnic 

Area Ramada 

CCC10 7428 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

19 Ez-Kim-In-Zin Picnic 

Area Ramada 

CCC11 58611 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

20 Garwood Dam RMD01 58605 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

21 Garwood Dam Road RMT13 56660 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 
APPENDIXES

364 

Preferred Structure 

Name 

Park 

Structure #

LCS ID National Register 

Status 

National 

Register Date 

Significance 

Level 

22 Gould Mine 

Outbuilding 

TMB05 7424 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

23 Javelina Dam #1 TMD14 58633 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

3/20/1995 Local 

24 Javelina Dam #2 TMD15 58634 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

3/20/1995 Local 

25 Javelina Dam #3 TMD16 58635 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

26 King Canyon Dam TMD07 58623 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

3/20/1995 Local 

27 King Canyon Mine 

Dam #1 

TMD19 56498 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

28 King Canyon Mine 

Dam #3 

TMD20 58639 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

29 King Canyon Road TMT06 56659 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

30 Lime Kiln Ruin #3 RK3 58643 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

31 Machinery Base at 

Garwood Dam 

RMF002 58606 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

32 Madrona Pack Base 

CAA Building 

RMB09 58647 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

33 Mam-A-Gah 

Comfort Station 

CCC01 7433 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

34 Mam-A-Gah Picnic 

Area Fireplaces 

CCC17 56614 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

35 Mam-A-Gah Picnic 

Area Picnic Tables 

CCC16 58618 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

36 Mam-A-Gah Picnic 

Area Ramada 

CCC02 7432 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

37 Manning Cabin RMB11 7435 EnteredDocumented 3/31/1975 Local 

38 Manning Camp Dam RMD02 58646 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

39 Mark's Dam TMD13 58632 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

40 North Lime Kiln Ruin RK1 7544 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

41 Porphyry Dam TMD06 58621 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

42 Red Hills Wildlife 

Water Supply 

Reservoir 

CCC29 58603 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

43 Red Hills Wildlife 

Water Supply 

Windmill 

CCC28 58602 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 
Appendix H: List of Classified Structures in Saguaro National Park 

365 

Preferred Structure 

Name 

Park 

Structure #

LCS ID National Register 

Status 

National 

Register Date 

Significance 

Level 

44 Rincon Dam #1 TMD17 58636 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

45 Rincon Dam #2 TMD18 58637 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

46 Serpentine Wall CCC25 58604 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

47 Signal Hill Comfort 

Station 

CCC08 7431 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

48 Signal Hill Dam TMD01 58622 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

49 Signal Hill Picnic 

Area Fireplaces 

CCC22 58617 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

50 Signal Hill Picnic 

Area Picnic Tables 

CCC21 58616 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

51 Signal Hill Picnic 

Area Ramada 

CCC07 7430 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

52 Signal Hill Picnic 

Area Ramada 

CCC05 58612 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

53 Signal Hill Picnic 

Ramada 

CCC06 58613 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

54 South Lime Kiln Ruin RK2 7545 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

55 Steel Tank, vicinity 

of Garwood Dam 

RMF003 58607 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

56 Sus Check Dam #1 TMD02 7427 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

57 Sus Check Dam #2 TMD03 58624 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

58 Sus Check Dam #3 TMD04 58625 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

59 Sus Check Dam #4 TMD05 58626 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

60 Sus Lime Kiln Ruin TK1 58642 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

61 Sus Lime Kiln Ruin 

#2 

TK2 58644 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

62 Sus Picnic Area 

Fireplaces 

CCC20 56615 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

63 Sus Picnic Area 

Picnic Tables 

CCC19 58614 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

64 Sus Picnic Area 

Women's Comfort 

Station 

CCC03 7425 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 

65 Trough at Steel Tank RMF005 58609 Determined Eligible -

SHPO 

12/9/1994 Local 
366 

APPENDIX I: AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY ASSOCIATED 

WITH THE PARK 

AK CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY 

COUNCIL 

Ms. Delia Carlyle, Chairperson 

Ak Chin Indian Community Council 

42507 West Peters and Nall Road 

Maricopa, Arizona (AZ) 85239-3940 

520-568-1000 

FORT MCDOWELL YAVAPAI NATION 

Mr. Raphael Bear, President 

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation 

Post Office Box 17779 

Fountain Hills, Arizona (AZ) 85269-7779 

480-837-5121 

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 

COUNCIL 

Mr. William Rhodes, Governor 

Gila River Indian Community Council 

Post Office Box 97 

Sacaton, Arizona (AZ) 85247-0097 

520-562-9500 

HOPI TRIBE 

Mr. Ben Nuvamsa, Chairperson 

Post Office Box 123 

Kykotsmovi, Arizona (AZ) 86039-0123 

928-734-2441 

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE 

Ms. Herminia Frias, Chairperson 

Pascua Yaqui Tribe, 

7474 South Camino de Oeste 

Tucson, Arizona (AZ) 85757 

520-883-5000 

SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN 

COMMUNITY 

Ms. Diane Enos, President 

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 

10005 East Osborn Road 

Scottsdale, Arizona (AZ) 85256-4019 

480-850-8000 

TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION 

Mr. Ned Norris, Jr., Chairperson, Tribal 

Council 

Tohono O’odham Nation 

Post Office Box 837 

Sells, Arizona (AZ) 85634- 0837 

520-383-2028 

PUEBLO OF ZUNI 

Mr. Norman Cooeyate, Governor 

Pueblo of Zuni 

Post Office Box 339 

Zuni, New Mexico (NM) 87327-0339 

505-782-7022 
367 

GLOSSARY 

Adaptive management — Adaptive 

management is a system of management 

practices based on clearly identified 

outcomes, monitoring to determine if 

management actions are meeting 

outcomes, and, if not, facilitating 

management changes that will best ensure 

that outcomes are met or to reevaluate the 

outcomes. 

Ecotone — a transitional zone between two 

communities containing the characteristic 

species of each 

Heterogeneous — consisting of dissimilar 

elements or parts 

Incongruous — lacking in harmony or 

incompatible 

Mesic — of, characterized by, or adapted to a 

moderately moist habitat 

Obligate — able to exist or survive only in a 

particular environment or by assuming a 

particular role 

Overstory — the uppermost layer of foliage 

that forms a forest canopy 

Pediment — a broad, gently sloping rock 

surface at the base of a steeper slope, often 

covered with alluvium, formed primarily 

by erosion 

Regolith — the layer of loose rock resting on 

bedrock, constituting the surface of most 

land; also called mantle rock 

Understory — an underlying layer of 

vegetation, especially the plants that grow 

beneath a forest's canopy 

Volant — flying or capable of flying 
368 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

Ackerly, Neal W. 

1979 “The Southern Desert Study Area.” In 

An Archaeological Survey of the ChollaSaguaro Transmission Line Corridor 

[Arizona]. Volume 1. Edited by Lynn 

S. Teague and Linda L. Mayro. Pages 

267-406. Tucson: Cultural Resource 

Management Section, Arizona State 

Museum, on the Campus of the 

University of Arizona, Archeological 

Series Number 135, with the Arizona 

Public Service Company. 

Ambrose, Skip and Christine Florian 

2006 Sound Levels in Saguaro National 

Park, Arizona, 2004-2005. Sandhill 

Company. Castle Valley, UT. 

Arizona Department of Commerce (ADOC) 

2002a Statewide Economic Study 

Demographic Analysis. July. 

2002b Statewide Economic Study: Final 

Report. July. 

Arizona Department of Economic Security 

(ADES) 

2003 “Arizona Projections by Age and Sex. 

Population Statistics Unit.” Available 

at http:// www.de.state.az.us/links/ 

economic/webpage/popweb/T2azweb

.html. Accessed on October 21. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 

1988 “Threatened Native Wildlife of 

Arizona.” Department Publication. 

Phoenix, Arizona. 

2006 Conservation and Management. 

Website: < http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/ 

conservation_management.shtml>. 

Arizona Office of Tourism 

2004 2003 Arizona Statistical Report. 

Available at: http://64.37.124.216/ 

documents/Research/2003_Statistical_

Report.pdf 

Bahr, Donald M. 

1971 “Who Were the Hohokam? The 

Evidence from Pima-Papago Myths.” 

Ethnohistory 18 (3, Summer 1971): 

245-266. 

1983a “Pima and Papago Medicine and 

Philosophy.” In Handbook of North 

American Indians, Volume 10: 

Southwest. Volume edited by Alfonso 

Ortiz and series edited by William C. 

Sturtevant. Pages 193-200. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution. 

1983b “Pima and Papago Social 

Organization.” In Handbook of North 

American Indians, Volume 10: 

Southwest. Volume edited by Alfonso 

Ortiz and series edited by William C. 

Sturtevant. Pages 178-192. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution. 

Bahr, Donald M., editor 

2001 O’odham Creation and Related Events: 

As Told to Ruth Benedict in 1927 in 

Prose, Oratory, and Song, by the Pimas 

William Blackwater, Thomas Vanyiko, 

Clara Ahiel, William Stevens, Oliver 

Wellington, and Kisto. Tucson: 

University of Arizona Press. 

Baldridge, Anne, Chris Baker, Miki Stuebe, 

Dan Niosi, and Wanda Gray Lafferty 

2004 “Environmental Assessment, 

Rehabilitate Cactus Forest Drive, 

Saguaro National Park, Arizona, 

November 2004.” Prepared for the 

National Park Service by EngineeringEnvironmental Management. Tucson, 

Arizona 

Bancroft, Hubert H. 

1889 History of Arizona and New Mexico. 

San Francisco: The History Company. 
Selected References 

369 

Beal, Tom 

2005 “Sweet Fruit of Tradition: Saguaro 

Harvest a Vital Tie to Past for 

O’odham Woman.” The (Tucson) 

Arizona Daily Star, June 18, 2005, 

Pages B1 and B3. 

Berryman, Judy, Dayle Cheever, and 

Christopher Baker 

2004 Cultural Landscape Assessment and 

Determination of Eligibility, Cactus 

Forest Drive, Rincon Mountain District, 

Saguaro National Park, Arizona. 

Prepared for NPS Denver Service 

Center by Engineering-Environmental 

Management: Denver, CO. 

Bolton, Herbert E. 

1932 The Padre on Horseback [Eusebio 

Francisco Kino]. San Francisco: The 

Sonora Press. 

Brennan, Jose Lewis 

1959 “Customs and Other References of the 

Papago.” Jose Lewis Brennan’s 

Account of the Papago edited by 

Bernard L. Fontana. Ethnohistory 6 (3, 

Summer 1959): 226-237. 

Brott, Emily 

2005 “The Living Desert: Our Most 

Valuable Lesson?” Terrain.org: A 

Journal of the Built and Natural 

Environment. No. 16. Accessed at 

<http://www.terrain.org/columns/16/

guest.htm>. 

2006 “Cienega Corridor, Vail, Arizona.” 

The Cultural Landscape Foundation’s 

website:< http://www.tclf.org/ 

landslide/2004/pdf/cienega_corridor.

pdf>. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) 

2000 Regional Economic Information 

System CD-ROM. 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

1986 “Deceptive Desolation: Prehistory of 

the Sonoran Desert in West Central 

Arizona” by Connie Stone. Phoenix: 

Arizona State Office. 

2002 ”Scoping Report: Ironwood Forest 

National Monument [Arizona], 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement” 

Tucson Field Office, 

2003 Approved Las Cienegas Resource 

Management Plan and Record of 

Decision. Tucson (AZ) Field Office. 

2005 Draft Preliminary Alternatives for 

Ironwood Forest National Monument 

Resource Management Plan. Tucson 

(AZ) Field Office. 

2006 Las Cienegas National Conservation 

Area. Website: <http://www.blm.gov/ 

az/nca/lascienegas/lascieneg.htm>. 

Canby, Thomas Y. 

1979 “The Search for the First Americans.” 

National Geographic 156 (September 

1979): 351. 

Castetter, Edward F. and Ruth M. Underhill 

1935 “The Ethnobiology of the Papago 

Indians.” University of New Mexico 

Bulletin Issue 275, October 15, 1935, 

Biological Series 4 (3): 1-84. 

City of Tucson, Department of Urban 

Planning and Design 

1995a Rincon/Southeast Subregional Plan. 

Tucson, AZ. 

1995b Tucson Mountains Subregional Plan. 

Tucson, AZ. 

2005 City of Tucson Land Use Plans Index 

Map. Information accessed on the 

internet at <http://www.tucsonaz.gov/ 

planning/maps/city/luplans.pdf>. 

2005 Houston Area Master Plan. Tucson, 

AZ. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

370 

City of Tucson, Planning Department 

2002 “Census 2000: The Basics, Focus on 

Tucson.” Available at: 

http://www.tucsonaz.gov/planning/da

ta/census/census2000basic/basicpubs/

funfacts2000.pdf. July. 

City of Tucson, Tucson Water Department 

2003 “Water for a Desert City — Water 

Resource Planning for the City of 

Tucson” by B. Johnson, R. Marra, T. 

Thomure, P. Chipello, and T. McLean. 

2003 Spring Conference of the 

Construction Management 

Association of America in Scottsdale, 

AZ. 

Clemensen, Adolph Berle 

1987 “Cattle, Copper, and Cactus: The 

History of Saguaro National 

Monument, Arizona. Historic 

Resource Study.” See National Park 

Service 1987a. 

Crosswhite, Frank S. 

1980 “The Annual Saguaro Harvest and 

Crop Cycle of the Papago with 

Reference to Ecology and 

Symbolism.” Desert Plants 2 (Spring 

1980): 3-61. 

Cordell, Linda S. 

1984 Prehistory of the Southwest. New York: 

Academic Press. 

Council on Environmental Quality 

1997 Environmental Justice Guidance 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act. Accessible at: 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/reso

urces/policies/ej/ej_guidance_nepa_ce

q1297.pdf 

Curtin, Leonora Scott Muse 

1984 By the Prophet of the Earth: 

Ethnobotany of the Pima. With a new 

foreword by Gary Paul Nabhan. 

Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 

First published in 1949: Santa Fe, 

New Mexico: San Vicente 

Foundation. 

David Evans and Associates 

2006 Saguaro National Park Transportation 

and Visitor Use Study.

Dixon, E. James 

1985 “The Origins of the First Americans.” 

Archaeology 38 (March-April 1985): 

26. 

1993 Quest for the Origins of the First 

Americans. Albuquerque: University 

of New Mexico Press. 

Dobyns, Henry F. 

1972 The Papago People. Phoenix, Arizona: 

The Indian Tribal Series. 

Dodge, Natt 

1957 Saguaro National Monument, Arizona. 

Washington, District of Columbia: 

Prepared for the National Park 

Service. 

Doyel, David E. 

1984 “From Foraging to Farming: An 

Overview of the Preclassic in the 

Tucson Basin.” The Kiva 49 (SpringSummer 1984): 147-165. 

Dutton, Bertha P. 

1983 American Indians of the Southwest. 

Albuquerque: University of New 

Mexico Press. 
Selected References 

371 

Ezell, Paul H. 

1963 “Is There a Hohokam-Pima Culture 

Continuum?” American Antiquity 29 

(1, July 1963): 61-66. 

1983 “History of the Pima.” In Handbook of 

North American Indians, Volume 10: 

Southwest. Volume edited by Alfonso 

Ortiz and series edited by William C. 

Sturtevant. Pages 149-160. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution. 

Fontana, Bernard L. 

1981 Of Earth and Little Rain: The Papago 

Indians. With photographs by John P. 

Schaefer. Flagstaff, Arizona: 

Northland Press. 

1983a “History of the Papago.” In Handbook 

of North American Indians, Volume 10: 

Southwest. Volume edited by Alfonso 

Ortiz and series edited by William C. 

Sturtevant. Pages 137-148. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution. 

1983b “Pima and Papago: An Introduction.” 

In Handbook of North American 

Indians, Volume 10: Southwest. 

Volume edited by Alfonso Ortiz and 

series edited by William C. Sturtevant. 

Pages 137-148. Washington, D.C.: 

Smithsonian Institution. 

1983c “The Papagos.” Arizona Highways 59 

(4, April 1983): 34-37, 40-42, 44-45. 

Galliano, Steven J., and Gary M. Loeffler 

1999 “Place Assessment: How People 

Define Ecosystems.” General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-462. 

Prepared for the USDI BLM, USDA 

Forest Service Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 

Gregonis, Linda M. and Karl J. Reinhard 

1979 The Hohokam Indians of the Tucson 

Basin. Tucson: University of Arizona 

Press. 

Gumerman, George J. and Emil W. Haury 

1983 “Prehistory: Hohokam.” In Handbook 

of North American Indians, Volume 9: 

Southwest. Volume edited by Alfonso 

Ortiz and series edited by William C. 

Sturtevant. Pages 75-90. Washington, 

D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. 

Hackenberg, Robert A. 

1983 “Pima and Papago Ecological 

Adaptations.” In Handbook of North 

American Indians, Volume 10: 

Southwest. Volume edited by Alfonso 

Ortiz and series edited by William C. 

Sturtevant. Pages 161-177. 

Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian 

Institution. 

Hadingham, Evan 

2004 “America’s First Immigrants.” 

Smithsonian 35 (8, November): 90-94, 

96, 98. 

Harp, Aaron J., Neil R. Rimbey, and Tim D. 

Darden 

2001 “Cohesion, Integration, and 

Attachment in Owyhee County 

Communities.” Paper presented at the 

annual meeting of the Society for 

Range Management, Kailua-Kona, 

Hawaii, 17-23 February. 

Haury, Emil W. 

1976 The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and 

Craftsmen — Excavations at 

Snaketown, 1964-1965. Tucson: 

University of Arizona Press. 

Hayden, Julian D. 

1970 “Of Hohokam Origins and Other 

Matters.” American Antiquity 35 (1, 

January 1970): 87-93. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

372 

Henderson, Diedtra 

2004 “What Did In Bison? Study Blames 

Climate. Using Ancient DNA, 

Scientists Find Huge Mammals Were 

Declining before Man Arrived.” The 

Denver (Colorado) Post, November 

26, 2004, page 5A. 

Huckell, Bruce B. 

1984 “The Paleo-Indian and Archaic 

Occupation of the Tucson Basin: An 

Overview.” The Kiva 49 (SpringSummer 1984): 133-145. 

Kessell, John L. 

1976 Friars, Soldiers, and Reformers: 

Hispanic Arizona and the Sonora 

Missions Frontier, 1767-1856. Tucson: 

University of Arizona Press. 

Kloor, Kevin 

2005 “Score One for the Desert.” Audubon, 

vol. 107, no. 3. 

Kroeber, Alfred L. 

1962 Roster of Civilizations and Culture. 

Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. 

Lister, Robert H. and Florence C. Lister 

1983 Those Who Came Before. Tucson: 

University of Arizona Press. 

Mattison, Ray H. 

1946 “Early Spanish and Mexican 

Settlements in Arizona.” New Mexico 

Historical Review 21 (October 1946): 

273-327. 

McGuire, Randall H. 

1982 “Ethnographic Studies.” In Hohokam 

and Patayan: Prehistory of 

Southwestern Arizona. Edited by 

Randall H. McGuire and Michael B. 

Schiffer. New York: Academic Press. 

Mithun, Marianne 

1999 The Languages of Native North 

America. New York and Cambridge, 

England, United Kingdom: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Mowry, Sylvester 

1973 Arizona and Sonora: The Geography, 

History, and Resources of the Silver 

Region of North America. New York: 

Arno Press, A New York Times 

Company. First published in 1864, 

New York: Harper and Brothers, 

Publishers. 

Muro, Mark 

2002 The Economics of Large-Scale 

Conservation: A Framework for 

Assessment in Pima County. Morrison 

Institute for Public Policy, Arizona 

State University. 

Nabhan, Gary Paul 

1986 A View of Saguaro National Monument 

and the Tucson, Basin. Tucson, 

Arizona: Southwest Parks and 

Monuments Association. 

National Geographic Society 

1996 Trails Illustrated Map: Saguaro 

National Park. Revised 2000. National 

Geographic Society.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior 

1975 “Manning Camp Study, Saguaro 

National Monument, December 

1975.” By Bill Orr and Jim Thompson. 

San Francisco: NPS Western Regional 

Office. 

1985 The Civilian Conservation Corps and 

the National Park Service, 1933-1942: 

An Administrative History. By John C. 

Paige. Washington, D.C. 

1987a “Cattle, Copper, and Cactus: The 

History of Saguaro National 

Monument, Arizona. Historic 

Resource Study.” By Adolph Berle 

Clemensen. Denver Service Center; 

Denver, CO. 
Selected References 

373 

1987b “Environmental Assessment, General 

Management Plan, Saguaro National 

Monument, Arizona, June 1987.” By 

Nancy Arkin, Robert Arnberger, 

Bonnie Campbell, Bill Paleck, Robert 

Steinholtz, Steve Stone, and Frank 

Williss. NPS Denver Service Center, 

Denver, CO. 

1988 Saguaro National Park General 

Management Plan. Saguaro National 

Park, Pima County, AZ. 

1991 “Statement for Management, Saguaro 

National Park.” Recommended by Bill 

Paleck, superintendent, on November 

18, 1991, and approved by B. J. Griffin, 

acting regional director, November 27, 

1991. .” Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

1994 “Archeological Survey of Saguaro 

National Park, [Arizona] 1994: The 

Saguaro Land Acquisition and Trails 

Inventory.” By Kevin D. Wellman. 

Tucson, Arizona: Western 

Archeological and Conservation 

Center, Publications in Anthropology 

65. 

1995 The Money Generation Model. Denver, 

CO: Office of Social Science, Socioeconomic Studies Division. 

1997 “Cultural Resources of the Tucson 

Mountain District, Saguaro National 

Park, [Arizona].” By Susan J. Wells and 

Stacie A. Reutter. Tucson, Arizona: 

Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center, Publications in 

Anthropology 69. 

1998a “Director’s Order Number 28: 

Cultural Resource Management.” 

Washington, D. C. 

1998b National Register Bulletin 38, 

Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties. By Patricia L. Parker and 

Thomas F. King. Washington, D> C.: 

National Register of Historic Places. 

Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro National 

Park. 

1999 “Environmental Assessment for Use 

and Management of the Saguaro 

National Park Expansion Areas, a 

General Management Plan 

Amendment, April 1999.” By Margi 

Brooks, Melanie Florez, Mark 

Holden, Greg Johnson, Natasha Kline, 

Stanley Lawhead, Bob Lineback, Paula 

Nasiatka, Robert Stinson, Meg 

Weesner, and Sue Wells. 

2000 “Strategic Plan for Saguaro National 

Park — October 1, 2000 to September 

30, 2005.” http://data2.itc.nps.gov/ 

parks/sagu/ppdocuments/ACFAFC.p

df (7/9/04) 

2001a “Archeological Survey of Newly 

Acquired Lands in Saguaro National 

Park [Arizona]: 1996, 1997, and 1998.” 

By Loy C. Neff, Stacie A. Reutter, and 

Dawn A. Frost. Tucson, Arizona: NPS 

Western Archeological and 

Conservation Center. Publications in 

Anthropology 75. 

2001b “Mysterious Rock Art.” The Saguaro 

Sentinel 2001. Page 8. By Tom Danton. 

Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro National 

Park. 

2001c “Saguaro National Park Business Plan 

2001.” By Susan Early and Jericho 

Lewis. Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

2002 “Scope of Work. Architectural 

Documentation and Condition 

Assessment of Lime Kilns at Saguaro 

National Park” by Kevin Harper. 

Phoenix: Southern Arizona Office. 

2003 “Saguaro National Park, Annual 

Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2003.” 

By Sarah Craighead, Robert Love, 

Tom Danton, Margaret Weesner, 

Susan Early, Greg Johnson, and Chuck 

Scott. Tucson, Arizona: Saguaro 

National Park. 

2004a A Socioeconomic Atlas for Saguaro 

National Park and Its Region. Copy 

available at park headquarters. 

2004b “Draft Saguaro National Park Fire 

Management Plan Environmental 

Impact Statement.” Tucson, AZ. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

374 

2004c Environmental Assessment: Rehabilitate 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive. Tucson, AZ. 

See Baldridge et al. 2004 

2004d Exotic Plant Management Plan 

Environmental Assessment. Tucson, 

AZ. 

2004e National Park Visitation Statistics. 

National Park Service, Public Use 

Statistics Office. 

2005a “Condition Assessment, Evaluation 

and Recommendations for Repair and 

Preservation, Manning Cabin at 

Manning Camp, Saguaro National 

Park, Tucson, Arizona, August 2005.” 

By Dave Evans and Victoria Jacobson. 

Santa Fe, New Mexico: NPS 

Intermountain Regional Office-Santa 

Fe, NM. 

2005b “Determination of Eligibility 

Notification, This Property Is Eligible. 

Cactus Forest Drive, Saguaro National 

Park, Pima County, Arizona, May 18, 

2005.” Washington, D. C. 

2005c General Management Plan Newsletter 

Three. Preliminary Alternatives. May. 

2005d “Museum Collection Facilities 

Strategy, Intermountain Region.” 

Dated June 16, 2005. 

2006a Air Resources Division. Saguaro 

National Park Air Quality Information 

website: <http://www2.nature.nps. 

gov/air/permits/aris/sagu/>. 

2006b “List of Classified Structures, Saguaro 

National Park.” Online at 

www.hscl.cr.nps.gov and accessed on 

February 17, 2006. Washington, D. C.: 

National Park Service. 

2006c MGM2, NPS Money Generation 

Model, “Definition of terms.” Available at: <http://web4.canr.msu.edu/ 

mgm2/>. Accessed July 12, 2006. 

2006d MGM2, NPS Money Generation 

Model, “Visitor Spending and Economic Impacts for National Park 

Units” Queried for Saguaro National 

Park. Available at: 

http://web4.canr.msu.edu/mgm2/ 

http://web4.msue.msu.edu/mgm2/. 

Accessed July 12, 2006. 

2006e NPS Management Policies 

2006f Saguaro National Park Visitation 

Report. Available at <www2.nature. 

nps.gov/Npstats/dspPark.cfm>. 

Accessed on April 13. 

2006g Saguaro National Park website: 

http://www.nps.gov/sagu/. 

O’Brien, Dennis 

2004 “Ancient Needles, a Key to Northern 

Migrations.” The Denver [Colorado] 

Post, Sunday, November 21, 2004, 

page 25A. Reprinted from The 

Baltimore [Maryland] Sun.

Pablo, Sally G. 

1983 “Contemporary Pima.” In Handbook 

of North American Indians, Volume 10: 

Southwest. Volume edited by Alfonso 

Ortiz and series edited by William C. 

Sturtevant. Pages 212-216. 

Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian 

Institution. 

Pima Association of Governments 

2003 “2030 Regional Transportation Plan, 

March 26, 2003.” Tucson, Arizona. 

Pima County 

2001 Pima County Comprehensive Land Use 

Plan Update. Tucson, AZ: Planning 

Division, Pima County Development 

and Services Dept. 

2006 “Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.” 

Website: <http://www.co.pima.az.us/ 

cmo/sdcp/reports.html> 

 
Selected References 

375 

Pima County, Department of Transportation 

2006 “Traffic Counts and Accident Statistics for Picture Rocks Road.” Available 

at <http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/ 

trafeng/accstat/segments.htm>. 

Accessed April 24. 

Pollack, Elliot D. 

2002 Arizona’s Tourism Industry Economic 

and Fiscal Impact 2000. February 8. 

Available at <http://www.azot.com/ 

research/data/Pollack%20Report%20

2002.pdf>. Accessed 18 April 2006. 

Russell, Frank 

1967 “Pima Indian Subsistence.” In The 

North American Indians: A 

Sourcebook. Edited by Roger C. Owen, 

James J. F. Deetz, and Anthony D. 

Fisher. Pages 443-452. New York: 

Macmillan Publishing Company. 

Russell, Frank and Jose Lewis Brennan 

1975 The Pima Indians. Tucson: University 

of Arizona Press. Re-edition with 

Introduction and Bibliography by 

Bernard L. Fontana. Originally 

published as “The Pima Indians” in 

The Annual Report of the Bureau of 

American Ethnology for 1904-1905, 

Annual Reports Series 26: 3-389. 

Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Sidner, R. 

1991 “Survey for the Endangered Lesser 

Long-Nosed Bat (Leptonycteris 

curasoae) on Saguaro National 

Monument.” May-September 1991. 

NPS in-house report. 

Sidner, R. and R. Davis. 

1994 “Bats of Saguaro National Monument, 

1992-1994.” NPS in-house report. 

Shelton, Napier 

1972 Saguaro National Monument, Arizona. 

First Revised Edition. Based on an 

Earlier Work [1957] by Natt Dodge. 

Washington, D. C.: National Park 

Service. 

1985 Saguaro National Monument, Arizona. 

Second Revised Edition. Based on an 

Earlier Work [1957] by Natt Dodge. 

Washington, D. C.: National Park 

Service. 

Sonoran Institute 

2002 “Executive Summary: Protection 

Measures for Certain Lands North of 

the Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning District in Pima County, Arizona” 

(“Missing Link Assessment”). Tucson, 

AZ. Accessed at 

<http://sonoran.org/programs/pdfs/ex

ecutive%20summary.pdf>. 

2006a “Cienega Corridor Conservation 

Council.” Sonoran Institute’s website. 

Information accessed at <http:// 

www.sonoran.org/programs/sonoran_

desert/si_sdep_cien_cou.html>. 

2006b “Diversity of Partners Protects 

Cienega Creek Watershed.” Case 

study on Sonoran Institute’s website. 

Information accessed at 

<http://sonoran.org/programs/pdfs/S

VPP%20case%20study.pdf>. 

Southwick Associates 

2003 “Economic Impact Analysis of 

Nonconsumptive Wildife-Related 

Recreation in Arizona.” Conducted 

for the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department by Southwick Associates 

in conjunction with the Responsive 

Management Project, Arizona 

Residents’ Attitudes toward Nongame 

Wildlife. May. 

http://www.gf.state.az.us/pdfs/w_c/ 

AZpercent20Countypercent20Impact

spercent20-percent20Southwick.pdf 
SELECTED REFERENCES

376 

Spencer, Robert F. and Jesse D. Jennings 

1977 The Native Americans. New York: 

Harper and Row, Publishers. 

Spotts, Peter N. 

2004 “First Americans May Have Crossed 

Atlantic 50,000 Years Ago.” The 

Christian Science Monitor, November 

18, 2004, pages 1-2. 

Stevens, Robert C. 

1964 “The Apache Menace in Sonora, 1831-

1849.” Arizona and the West 6 

(Autumn 1964): 211-226. 

Stynes, D. J., D. B. Probst, W. H. Chang, and 

Y. Sun 

2000 “Estimating Regional Economic 

Impacts of Park Visitor Spending: 

Money Generation Model Version 2 

(MGM2).” East Lansing, MI: 

Department of Parks, Recreation and 

Tourism Resources, Michigan State 

University. Available at 

http://www.prr.msu.edu/mgm2/. 

Accessed May 4, 2006. 

Stynes, D.J. and Y. Sun 

2003 “Economic Impacts of National Park 

Visitor Spending on Gateway 

Communities, Systemwide Estimates 

for 2001.” April. 

Underhill, Ruth M. 

1939 Social Organization of the Papago 

Indians. New York: Columbia 

University Press. 

1946 Papago Indian Religion. New York: 

Columbia University Press. 

1979 The Papago and Pima Indians of 

Arizona. Palmer Lake, Colorado: The 

Filter Press. First published in 1941 as 

The Papago Indians of Arizona and 

their Relatives the Pima. Washington, 

D. C. Prepared for the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. 

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of 

Commerce 

1997 “Current Population Reports, 

Population Projections: States, 1995-

2025.” Available at <www.census.gov/ 

prod/2/pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf>. 

Accessed April 20, 2006. 

2000a “Census 2000 Summary File 3.” 

2000b “Census 2000 Summary Tape File 1 

(SF 1) 100-Percent Data.” 

2003a “Census 2000 Special Reports, Stateto-State Migration Flows: 1995 to 

2000.” CENSR-8. By Marc J. Perry. 

Available at <http://www.census.gov/ 

prod/2003pubs/censr-8.pdf>. Issued 

August. 

2003b Census 2000 Summary File 3. “Annual 

Projections of the Total Resident 

Population as of July: Middle, Lowest, 

Highest, and Zero International 

Migration Series 1999 to 2100.” 

Available at <www.census.gov/ 

population/projections/nation/summa

ry/np-tl.txt. Accessed October 21>. 

2003c “Poverty in the United States: 2002. 

Poverty Thresholds in 2002 by Size of 

Family and Number of Related 

Children Under 18 Years.” Issued 

September. 

2006a “American Community Survey. 

General Demographic Characteristics: 

2004 for Pima County, Arizona and 

Tucson City, Arizona.” Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/A

DPTable?_bm=y&-context=adp&-

qr_name=ACS_20. July 14. 

2006b DP-1 Tables, “Profile of General 

Demographic Characteristics: 2000 for 

Arizona and Pima County, City of 

Tucson, Town of Marana, and Census 

Tracts 40.61 and 44.09.” Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

DTTable?_bmy&-context=dt&-

ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-mt>. 

April 3. 
Selected References 

377 

2006c GCT-PH1. Table, “Population, 

Housing Units, Area, and Density: 

2000 for United States, County by 

State.” Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

GCTTable?_bm=y&-state=gct&-

context=gct&-ds_name= DEC_ 

2000_SF1_U&-_box_head_nbr=GCTPH1&-mt_name=&-tree_id=4001&-

_caller=geoselect&-geo_id=&-

format=US-25&-_lang=en>. April 3. 

2006d “Profile of Selected Economic 

Characteristics: 2000 for Arizona, 

Pima County, and Selected Places and 

Census Tracts.” Available at 

<http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

QTTable?_bm=y&-state=qu&-

content>. April 19. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 

2002 “Soil Survey of Pima County, Arizona, 

Eastern Part.” 

United States Department of the Interior 

1983 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Archeology and 

Historic Preservation, Effective 

September 29, 1983, as Amended. 

Washington, D. C. 

1995a Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for Preserving, 

Rehabilitating, Restoring and 

Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995.

By Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. 

Grimmer. Washington, D. C. 

1995b Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties 

with Guidelines for the Treatment of 

Cultural Landscapes, Effective August 

11, 1995. Washington, D. C. 

2003 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Architectural and 

Engineering Documentation, Effective 

April 1, 2003. Washington, D. C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. 

Department of the Interior 

1993 “Notice of 90-day Finding on Petition 

to List the Cactus Ferruginous PygmyOwl as Endangered.” Federal Register

58(44):13045-13048. 

1995a “Lesser Long-nosed Bat Recovery Plan.” 

Albuquerque, NM. 

1995b “Recovery Plan for the Mexican 

Spotted Owl: Volume 1. 

“Albuquerque, NM. 

2001 “National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, 

and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”

Available at <http://fa.r9.fws.gov/ 

surveys/surveys.html>. Accessed 

February 25, 04. 

2006a Arizona Ecological Services Field 

Office. Website: 

<http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/> 

2006b Pima County Endangered, 

Threatened, and Candidate Species 

List. Website: 

<http://www.fws.gov/arizonaes/Docu

ments/CountyLists/Pima.pdf> 

2006 Pygmy-Owl, Cactus Ferruginous, 

Current status: delisted/original 

commercial data erroneous. 

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

Agriculture 

2002 “National Visitor Use Monitoring 

Results” by S. M. Kocis, D. B. K. 

English, S. J. Zarnoch, R. Arnold, and 

L. Warren. Region 3, Coronado 

National Forest. Southern Research 

Station. 

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 

Office of Policy and Planning 

2003 “Estimates of the Unauthorized 

Immigrant Population Residing in the 

United States: 1990 to 2000.” Available 

at <http://uscis.gov/graphics/ 

shared/aboutus/statistics/Ill_Report_1

211.pdf>. January. 
SELECTED REFERENCES

378 

van Willigen, John 

1986 Applied Anthropology: An 

Introduction. See section titled “Case 

Study: The Papago Community 

Development Program.” South 

Hadley, Massachusetts: Bergin and 

Harvey Publishers. Revised in 1993, 

Westport, Connecticut: Bergin and 

Harvey Publishers. 

Wagoner, Jay J. 

1952 “History of the Cattle Industry in 

Southern Arizona, 1540-1940.” 

University of Arizona Social Science 

Bulletin Number 20:1-132, also

published as University of Arizona 

Bulletin 23 (2, April 1952): 1-132. 

Originally a Master of Arts thesis, 

Tucson: Graduate College, University 

of Arizona. 

Walker, Henry P. and Don Bufkin 

1986 Historical Atlas of Arizona. Norman: 

University of Oklahoma Press. Second 

edition. First published in 1979. 

Winters, Karen Ann 

1997 “The Consequences of Location: 

External Threats to the Saguaro 

National Park [Arizona].” Tempe, 

Arizona: Master’s Thesis, Arizona 

State University. 

Wolf, S. A., and D. C. Dalton. 

2003 “Winter Bat Survey: Tucson Mountain 

District, Saguaro National Park.” NPS 

in-house report. 
379 

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS 

PREPARERS 

NPS Denver Service Center 

Mary McVeigh, Project Manager/Community 

Planner (2004–present) — Responsible for 

managing planning process, writing various 

sections of plan, and coordinating 

preparation of the document. B.A. in 

Technical Communications; 20 years with 

National Park Service. 

Elizabeth Meyer, Natural Resource Specialist — 

Responsible for sections related to natural 

resources and analysis B.S. in Environmental 

Engineering and secondary major in Natural 

Resources and Environmental Sciences; 1 

year with the National Park Service and 4 

years with the U.S. Navy specializing in 

planning and compliance. 

Kerri Cahill, Community Planner — Responsible 

for visitor use and recreation management 

sections and analysis; Ph.D. in natural 

resource recreation management; M.S.P. in 

natural resource planning; 3 years with the 

National Park Service . 

Lawrence Van Horn, Cultural Resource 

Specialist — Responsible for sections on 

cultural resources; Ph.D. in anthropology; 28 

years with the National Park Service. 

Linda MacIntyre, Community Planner — 

Responsible for sections and analysis for 

transportation; Master of Urban and 

Regional Planning, various positions in 

regional and transportation planning with 

state and local government for 15 years, 1.5 

years with the National Park Service. 

Ian Shanklin, Landscape Architect —

Responsible for sections on park operations; 

BLA; 8 years with the National Park Service 

and Bureau of Land Management 

Katherine (Sunny) Bush, Environmental 

Planner, URS Corporation. Responsible for 

sections and analysis for socioeconomics and 

environmental justice; Master of Science in 

Hazardous Materials Management; 15 years 

experience in environmental consulting with 

URS Corporation. 

Mary Magee, Natural Resource Specialist 

(retired) 

Saguaro National Park 

Sarah Craighead, Superintendent 

Matt Daniels, GIS Specialist 

Susan Early, Administrative Officer 

Melanie Florez, Chief of Interpretation, Rincon 

Mountain District 

Danielle Foster, Restoration Ecologist (former) 

Jay Grass, Outreach Coordinator 

Richard Hill, Chief of Interpretation, Tucson 

Mountain District 

Mark Holden, Biologist (former) 

Natasha Kline, Biologist 

Bob Love, Chief Ranger 

Kristy Lund, Fire Management Officer 

Jeff Nasiatka, Maintenance Supervisor 

Barney Riley, Facility Manager 

Pat Wands, Fire Program Assistant 

Meg Weesner, Chief, Science and Resource 

Management 

Sandy Wolf, Biologist 

Others 

Sue Wells, Supervisory Archeologist with 

Western Archeological and Conservation 

Center 

Kathy Davis, Superintendent, Montezuma 

Castle and Tuzigoot National Monument 

Vaughn Baker, Superintendent, Rocky 

Mountain National Park 

Rick Shireman, NPS Arizona State Coordinator 

Larry Norris, NPS Southwest Research 

Coordinator 

CONSULTANTS 

Karen Breslin, Public Affairs Specialist, NPS 

Intermountain Region 

Jan Burton, Landscape Architect, NPS Denver 

Service Center 

Greg Cody, Technical Specialist for Cultural 

Resources 

David Evans and Associates, Denver, CO — Ed 

Schumm and Stacy Tschuor 

Laurie Domler, NEPA/106 Compliance 

Specialist, 
PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

380 

Wayne Gardner (retired), Chief of Planning, 

NPS Intermountain Region 

Dave Kreger, Technical Specialist for Natural 

Resources 

Publication Services 

Linda Ray, Supervisory Visual Information 

Specialist, NPS Denver Service Center 

Christy Fischer, Writer-Editor, NPS Denver 

Service Center 

Jim Corbett, Visual Information Specialist, NPS 

Denver Service Center 

Damien Joseph, Visual Information Specialist 

(former), NPS Denver Service Center 
381 

INDEX 

adaptive management, 50, 55, 78, 91, 101, 104, 

108, 110, 119, 214, 224, 239, 240, 241, 242, 

243, 252, 261, 276 

air quality, 13, 34, 35, 36, 309 

American Indians, 16, 24, 100, 288 

Bajada Loop Drive, 50, 78, 91, 101, 110, 111, 

119, 164, 165, 170, 177, 191, 205, 206, 207, 

215, 218, 222, 224, 225, 231, 238, 239–243, 

246, 250, 261, 268, 273, 276, 277, 281 

bicycling, 22, 49, 65, 78, 91, 111, 118, 148, 149, 

151, 152, 163, 200, 201, 212, 214, 217, 220, 

221, 224, 231, 232, 236, 237, 246, 252, 254, 

256, 258, 260, 268–270, 272, 287 

biking, 65, 91, 95, 152, 166, 167, 273, 285 

Cactus Forest Loop Drive, 49, 50, 78, 91, 108, 

110, 111, 166, 170, 171, 187–190, 203, 216, 

219, 223, 232, 238, 245, 253, 256, 259 

campgrounds, 92, 113, 152, 187, 192, 226, 247, 

253, 255, 262, 274, 279 

camping, 65, 84, 92, 95, 107, 112, 113, 118, 146, 

148, 152, 159, 166, 171, 192, 193, 209, 226, 

227, 231, 237, 247, 262, 264, 268, 286 

carrying capacity, (see user capacity)

CCC camp, 49, 77, 78, 86, 91, 111, 232, 246, 

268 

Chimenea, 21, 22, 75, 83, 91, 93, 112, 113, 131, 

198, 202, 234, 235, 238, 270, 271, 274 

comprehensive trails plan, 19, 27, 35, 78, 83, 

91, 111, 170, 176, 184, 232–235, 245, 246, 

268–270, 277 

education, 17, 25, 49, 63, 84, 92, 93, 101, 102, 

113, 114, 121, 144, 149, 158, 168, 182, 192, 

198–200, 209, 212, 216, 226, 234–236, 245, 

247, 249, 262, 270–272, 276, 278, 279, 281, 

289 

endangered species, 8, 11, 14, 21, 23, 30, 101, 

127, 180, 220, 221, 257, 258, 288 (see also 

threatened and endangered species)

environmental justice, 40, 41, 42 

erosion, 10, 14, 21, 23, 24, 27, 30, 60, 95, 101, 

102, 131, 134, 135, 180, 190, 214, 215, 221–

223, 252, 258, 259, 286 

ethnographic resource(s), 16, 24, 31, 69, 99, 

100, 117, 140, 181, 195, 229, 265, 266 

fire, 10, 13, 22–24, 26, 27, 62, 67, 68, 75, 83, 84, 

92, 104, 112, 113, 118, 130, 134, 142, 143, 

152, 169, 171, 172, 176, 192, 193, 196, 210, 

211, 215, 226, 227, 230, 233, 238, 248, 253, 

262, 264, 266, 267, 269, 274, 279, 280 

flood/flooding, 10, 36, 37, 103 

floodplains, 14, 36, 127, 130 

Golden Gate Road, 36, 50, 77, 78, 86, 107, 110, 

116, 119, 121, 136, 164, 166, 170, 177, 205, 

207, 209, 211, 212, 216, 217, 219, 221, 224, 

231, 238, 239, 240–243, 245, 246, 249, 261, 

262, 268, 273, 275, 276, 281 

Golden Gate trail, 119, 239, 244 

hiking, 7, 65, 68, 78, 91, 118, 148, 151, 152, 159, 

163, 166, 167, 189, 192, 200, 226, 231, 236, 

237, 263, 272, 273, 285 

horseback riding, 7, 26, 65, 78, 148, 151, 152, 

159, 163, 231, 285 

interpretation, 17, 22, 24, 25, 33, 49, 83, 84, 92, 

107, 112, 144, 149, 150, 182, 199, 200, 201, 

209, 212, 220, 235, 236, 238, 245, 257, 271, 

272, 276, 289 

Kinney Road, 31, 78, 119, 148, 152, 163, 164, 

165, 170, 194, 195, 204–207, 228, 232, 234, 

239, 240, 241, 246, 265, 268, 270 

Madrona, 21, 22, 26, 28, 42, 49, 75, 83, 91–94, 

97, 107, 112, 113, 121, 136, 141, 150, 171, 

172, 189, 192, 195, 198, 202, 210–212, 215, 

216, 220, 222, 226, 229, 234, 235, 238, 245, 

248, 249, 250, 253, 254, 257, 259, 262, 266, 

270, 271, 274, 276, 278, 279, 281, 282, 287 

Manning Camp, 22, 23, 26, 27, 31, 42, 49, 75, 

83, 92, 107, 112, 113, 118, 121, 139, 142, 143, 

171, 172, 188, 189, 192, 193, 196, 210, 212, 

216, 220, 226, 227, 230, 233, 238, 248–250, 

253, 257, 262, 264, 266, 267, 269, 274, 279, 

281, 290 

National Environmental Policy Act, 2, 31, 33, 

40, 41, 95, 99, 104, 105, 106, 175, 233, 288 

National Historic Preservation Act, 11, 12, 31, 

69, 95, 99, 104, 107, 175, 181, 193, 227, 230, 

233, 264, 266, 267, 288, 289 

National Register of Historic Places (national 

register), 11, 15, 16, 24, 69, 77, 86, 99, 107, 

138, 139–143, 172, 181, 195, 229, 266, 290 

Native Americans, (see American Indians) 

orientation, 25, 63, 144, 149, 151, 163, 168, 182, 

198, 200, 209, 235, 236, 271, 272 

parking, 19, 22, 26, 28, 43, 50, 55, 56, 67, 78, 92, 

97, 101, 102, 111, 113, 116, 119, 121, 150, 

163–167, 169, 171, 184, 185, 191, 198, 205–
382 

209, 211, 214, 215, 218, 222, 224–226, 231, 

238—246, 249, 250, 253–255, 259–262, 270, 

274–276, 278, 281, 286 

partnership, 27, 49, 84, 92, 93, 113, 114, 121, 

187, 188, 190, 191, 199, 216, 219, 221, 223, 

234, 247, 249, 253, 256, 258, 260, 270, 278 

Picture Rocks Road, 25, 50, 70, 78, 86, 91, 94, 

97, 104, 107, 110, 119, 121, 136, 148, 157, 

163—166, 170, 184, 187, 188, 191, 198–207, 

209, 211, 214, 217, 224, 225, 231, 234–243, 

246, 249, 261, 268, 270–273, 275—278, 281, 

286, 287 

Pima County, 4, 23, 25, 27, 30, 41, 78, 91, 103, 

110, 133, 144, 151–161, 163, 165, 166, 175, 

177, 183, 184, 190, 191, 203–207, 210, 215, 

218, 220, 223, 224, 242, 253, 255, 257, 259, 

261, 292, 293 

pipeline right-of-way, 78, 91, 111, 246, 268, 

277 

Section 106, 31, 69, 107, 230, 266, 267, 288, 

289, 290 

Soils, 14, 30, 101, 116, 135, 180, 190, 221, 258 

threatened and endangered species, 8, 14, 21, 

23, 30, 180, 220, 221, 256, 257, 258, 288 

traffic, 22, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33, 35, 42, 50, 61, 70, 

78, 91, 94, 97, 102–104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 

116–119, 121, 136, 148, 152, 157, 163–166, 

170, 184, 185, 191, 194, 195, 197–209, 211, 

212, 214, 217, 218, 222, 224, 225, 231, 233–

247, 249, 252–255, 258, 261, 262, 267, 270–

278, 281, 286, 287 

trails, 19–27, 30, 32, 35, 37, 49, 50, 55, 63–68, 

70, 75, 77, 78, 83, 84, 86, 91–95, 97, 101, 103, 

104, 109, 111–114, 117, 118, 121, 148, 149, 

151, 152, 163, 165–167, 169, 170, 176, 182, 

184, 187, 190, 192–194, 197, 198, 201, 208, 

210–212, 214–228, 231–235, 237–239, 245–

249, 252, 254–264, 268–271, 273, 276–278, 

280, 281, 285–287, 289, 290 

user capacity, 55, 83, 94, 95, 102, 121, 234, 246, 

249, 270, 278, 281 

vegetation, 9, 23–25, 29, 34, 60, 62, 100, 101, 

104, 115, 128–130, 133, 135, 136, 176, 179, 

187, 202, 214–219, 222, 224, 227, 245, 250, 

252–255, 260, 264, 281 

vehicles, 27, 28, 37, 42, 62, 86, 107, 110, 147, 

157, 166, 167, 188, 190, 191, 209, 214, 216, 

217, 218, 222, 224, 225, 252, 255, 259–261, 

268, 273, 275, 286, 287 

viewsheds, 21, 149 

visitor experience, 2, 3, 14, 17–19, 22, 25–27, 

29, 30, 32, 33, 47, 50, 55, 58, 63, 78, 86, 91, 94, 

97, 99, 102, 105, 108, 110, 118, 119, 148, 151, 

152, 163, 165, 175, 178, 181–183, 197, 199, 

201–205, 212, 214, 218, 224, 231, 233–239, 

241, 242, 252, 255, 261, 269–275 

visitors with disabilities, 182, 268 

visual intrusions, 103, 233, 235, 267, 269, 270, 

271 

water quality, 15, 23, 34 

wetlands, 8, 12, 15, 36, 37, 102 

wildlife, 4, 9, 12, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27–30, 33, 37, 

61, 62, 65, 77, 84, 86, 101, 102, 104, 109, 110, 

115, 130–132, 139, 152, 161, 162, 164, 176, 

179, 181, 188, 200, 202, 217–219, 236, 245, 

250, 251, 254—256, 272, 276, 281, 282 

 
383 

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. 

NPS D-134 July 2007 This document was printed on recycled paper. 

U S. . DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

MARCH 3, 1849

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • DENVER SERVICE CENTER